I agree that we are not currently printing more money, but there is speculation out there that increasing the amount of available currency will be necessary to keep a national bankruptcy from occurring.

On your second point about this being a consumer-driven recession, while I agree, there was an element of corporate involvement and government involvement due to the requirements laid out to give housing loans to people who could not afford them. Corporations and individuals alike were spending money that did not exist, though individuals were doing it more readily.

Back to the article… Giving banks money to try and stimulate the economy is not a bad idea on its face the terms of the injections need to be made more clear and there needs to be some sort of guarantee that the banks will actually use the money to create credit and not hold onto it (like they did during the first round).

I think you make some good points. I’m not advocating for the printing of money or bailouts. I just thought it was interesting to explore the situation objectively (or at least my attempt at objectively). There is plenty of blame to go around, from corporations to consumers to government, and I don’t think there will be an easy solution.

It’s not always as simple as “go listen to what the economists are saying” when there are so many economic schools of thought. I am of the opinion that there isn’t one inherently right approach to economics (or politics, as you mentioned), there are merely different principles and ways of thinking that must be balanced. This is why dialogue on the topic is so crucial. Thanks! : )

Printing money (putting currency into circulation) is not what the government is doing. Economics 101 tells us that often leads to inflation, that’s not exactly what’s happening here. This is a good money podcast that might help get some facts straight.

The corporations aren’t exactly the bad guys here. There are a few bad apples but the point is that this is a consumer-driven recession… not corporation driven. This is the first time that’s happened. People were buying and spending money they didn’t have. I don’t see how you lump that in with the government’s decisions.

I guess I can’t say much more to an argument that concludes with duck tales. Go have a listen to what economists are saying and we can pick up where we left off. ;)

We are in extreme debt, because we have not been efficient, and we have spent needlessly more often than not. How, then, is printing more money (i.e., getting it out of thin air) going to help? It is going to cause greater inflation, which is going to reverberate throughout many different industries and economic sectors.

Government’s function is to uphold laws (primarily those of the Constitution, first and foremost) and, when absolutely necessary, create new ones. The government is not a good banker or economist or even money shuffler. See any socialist or Communist regime for proof. Heck, even see any public service and how inefficient it is in comparison to private charities and foundations. We are nationalizing a number of sectors and encouraging corporate welfare, and it is not going to lead to a comfortable, enlightened lifestyle. Looking to the government (and might I say religion, too) to be one’s daddy and save us from financial turmoil, when the government has made poor decisions for us in the past (again, sub-prime loans), is a bad idea.

For fun, check out the Duck Tales’ lesson on inflation. Highly relevant!