Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: OBAMA-DEBT-chart-2-TOTAL-US-CREDIT-MARKET-DEBT-AS-OF-GDP-May-17-2016.jpg (74KB, 598x598px) Image search:
[Google]
74KB, 598x598px
>dude lets borrow money and repackage it and re-repackage it and re-re-repackage in an array of extremely complex financial products we barely even understand but the math supposedly works out, then lets leverage it 30x-50x and spread and integrate it into everything until we lose track and charge fees for every step
Was the financialization starting in the early 80's a mistake? How does the common person benefit? Is it doomed to fail, it seems like it would've during the 2008 crisis but the government came to the rescue.
>>
File: 6a00d8341c562c53ef01bb08887e9b970d-pi.jpg (127KB, 700x933px) Image search:
[Google]
127KB, 700x933px
>>3177502
You wot m8
>>
>>3177502
>government spending is the fault of those damn wall street financiers!
All "social democrat" faggots should be turned into fertilizer
>>
>>3177502
>Titling it "Obama Debt" when the ratio peaked right after GWB then fell during Obama.
What did the /pol/ack mean by this?
>>
>>3177894
and who was the president right after Bush?
>>
>>3177502
Is this really that bad? If we take GDP to be annual income and national debt to be personal/home loans, loans standing at 350% isn't bad. If I earn $100,000 p/a and decide to buy a house worth $350,000 I think most people would consider it as being conservative.
>>
>>3177931
Eonomic growth or shrinkage under a new president's first few months is mostly independent of said president's policies except in a speculative sense. The debt was growing while America was still operating under Bush's economy and before Obama could put his changes into effect.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2