Exactly! and with all those physics and math phds in finance Im sure we can make sure that loan to a middle aged unemployed man mathematically seem rigorous and there is no way that a bailout will ever be required.
Well if those math and physics phd's approach the problem like economists, I'm sure they'll make it such that after year or more without being employed, they'll be classified as no longer looking or in need of a job and thus can be safely excluded from any economic equations.
Won't be too long now before iShares gets the go ahead for a new ETF: EP2PM, where everyone from retail investors to central banks all over the world can buy shares in emerging market p2p securities, we need everyone all over the world to be able to afford the $2k iPhones that will come out in the next 3 years.
While I share your sentiments with regards to the plight of individuals left behind, I can't go with you on bailouts. That's socializing the losses while privatizing the profits, and it leads to crony capitalism and dyspeptic behemoths like the chaebols.
The analogues in the USA are the too-big-to-fail financial institutions that almost wrecked us in 2007-2008, yet who remain as untouchable as the chaebols. Few of our congressional representatives actually believe in capitalism for the financial industry.
Im sure your familiar with how banks get the money they loan out to people (Hint it has nothing to do with deposits). There is nothing capitalist about that system to begin with...
Of course not! But im saying even without bailouts the banking system already is a collusion with government. Private banks take loans of money from the central bank at very low rates then add 2+% on top and provide those loans to consumers.
Not exactly, the reality will sound even more annoying to you: banks don't need even need to get a central bank loan for most dollars they loan to customers. Only a fraction needs to be covered by central bank money.
