Posted on 09/22/2009 7:19:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Throughout the history of American commercial life, one cultural trait has tended to dominate: Americans are optimists, a people prone to seeing the glass as not merely half-full but rapidly expanding, and bearing liquid that might yet be turned into gold.
This exuberant optimism has proven beneficial, emboldening risk-taking that has achieved innovation and wealth. It has prompted entrepreneurs to invest borrowed money in untested ideas that sometimes yield breakthroughs. It has encouraged ordinary people to accept debt in the name of accelerated gain — more comfortable homes, higher education, late-model cars.
Yet in recent times this eagerness to augment the present by borrowing against a seemingly lucrative future has reached dangerous levels. Excessive optimism and its close relation — a reckless disregard of risk — are widely blamed for helping carry the United States into the worst financial panic since the Great Depression. Millions bought homes they could not afford, convinced that something good would happen before the bill came due. Financial institutions bet trillions in borrowed funds while leaving little in reserve, soothed by the collective assumption that real estate prices could never fall.
Last week, as President Obama stood near the New York Stock exchange to champion new regulations for the financial system, admonishing bankers not to “go back to the days of reckless behavior,” he effectively challenged a deep-seated notion of the American identity: that Americans are resilient enough to operate free of bureaucratic intrusion and niggling rules, unlike Europeans and their supposed Nanny State.
“It goes all the way back to George Washington,” said Robert Shiller, the Yale economist who warned of the Internet and real estate bubbles, and whose book, “Irrational Exuberance,” remains a seminal text on Americans’ tendency to believe in good times.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Just what we need - more analysis from a NYT journalist.
Forgive me while I hurl.
>> It has encouraged ordinary people to accept debt in the name of accelerated gain — more comfortable homes, higher education, late-model cars.
The problem arises when you hire ACORN to force-feed loans to EXTRAORDINARY people who are basically a drag on society and aren’t skilled or productive enough to pay it back.
At that point you’re pretty much screwed.
Goes back to the GREAT SOCIETY garbage foisted on the USA by the DEMS. Radicals starting to come in under LBJ in many govt depts and now here in masse.
No, no, Pinch. You confuse cause with effect. Kids aren’t successful because they have self-esteem; they have self-esteem because they’re successful. Likewise, Americans are no more inherently optimistic than any other nationality. We aren’t productive because we’re optimistic; we’re optimistic because we are (or were) productive.
Leave people alone, let them bear the risk of living their own lives, and they will be entrepreneurs.
I guess the NYT’s just wants us to shut up and do what our betters in the govt tell us to do.
As for myself, I choose to think for myself and won’t follow their lead.
We had effective regulation in the form of the Glass Steagall act that worked well for over 60 years. Dismantling Glass Steagall let Wall Street investment banks back into the world of commercial banking and it didn’t take long to turn the mortgage industry into a casino.
You're right. The Communists have won and are now running the government. Obama is destroying our national defenses as fast as he can.
Where's our congress people?
MIDDLE CLASS MUST NOT FAIL, PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmgwCmBmyKU
MIDDLE CLASS MUST NOT FAIL, PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0JLFHQiMs4
You should be hurling over what Wall Street has done to us. The NYT guy is right. I have a new index, RASDAQ, which may measure whether or not financial markets are properly regulated. Relative Amount of Stupid Dumb Americans Quotient.
parsy, who says you can’t really NOT believe Wall Street doesn’t need to be reined in.
They forget to mention risk premiums for lending, set by regulation, or in other words, legislatively jacking the system in favor of cheaper loans to government entities, like the GSEs so that all other areas of the economy can be starved for cash and we can get a housing bubble.
Maybe they did take undo risk, but it was not without constant baiting.
No. It goes back to the last time Wall Street screwed the country over really big time. We call that little Wall Street bo-bo, The Great Depression.
If you want to get sick, read these two accounts by Wall Street insiders:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90840958
parsy, who says WAKE UP!
“parsy, who says you can’t really NOT believe Wall Street doesn’t need to be reined in.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Parsy, who uses so many negatives in one sentence that nobody can be sure what he is trying to say.
A strict interpretation of a triple negative would be that you are saying Wall Street does NOT need to be reined in but I have a feeling that is not what you meant. This overuse of negatives is becoming more and more common and Ol’ Rip is becoming more and more irritated by people who refuse to be bothered to say what they really mean. Please try proofreading your posts and ask yourself if you are making your point clearly.
Sorry. What I was trying to say was, Wall Street needs to be reined in, and the guy certainly couldn’t disagree. I would diagram my previous statement, but I can’t figure out how not to not screw it up.
parsy, who is tied up in nots
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.