Why Washington (especially the media)
hates Wall Street. A friend writes to ask if I've "gone native". Exquisitely attuned as I am to the effect that severe recessions have on advertising revenue, and the balance sheets of people who fund money-losing magazines--well, no, I certainly haven't. I'd rather let Wall Street off scott free than sacrifice my job to "teach them a lesson".
Isn't this a libertarian blog? I thought I was reading a libertarian blog. But government intervention in order to protect my job sure doesn't sound like the invisible hand of the market.
I think it's that thinking that got us to where we are in the first place.
I work in finance and you can't even start to contemplate how many idiots work in the business and refuse to speak up when they know they should, for fear of rocking the boat.
Idiots who's only concern is making sure the next paycheck is there by being complacent to their supervisors, even when dead wrong.
There's a reason where in this mess, and I'd say a big part of it is from a mediocre workforce in financial institutions themselves.
Huh writes: "Idiots who's only concern is making sure the next paycheck is there by being complacent to their supervisors, even when dead wrong.
There's a reason where in this mess, and I'd say a big part of it is from a mediocre workforce in financial institutions themselves."
Go ahead, blame it on the peons and not on the shabby leadership. It's what the shabby leaders would want you to do.
Did you mean "whose only concern" and "we're in this mess," by the way?
Megan,
I know this is rather late in the day, but would you consider live-blogging the senate hearings?
thanks
You really like that feminist quote and your TiVO, eh? How many months go by before you change your "weekly" items?
I agree with "Confused," above. Are you a libertarian or do you just go with whatever ideas you think will piss the most people off?
You haven't gone naive; you ARE naive.
The phenomenon of hating New York is especially notable in the academic blogosphere, where even the libertarians are filled with rage at financiers, combined with a hope that the markets really will collapse, taking fractional reserve banking, or whatever, with them. (The leftists are even more stoked, obiously.)
I have to say, however, that I'm feeling a lot better about New York City. Lehman's business isn't going to be run out of London, Morgan and Goldman seem likely to scoop up local banks and their deposits and run them from New York, and I don't really think Merrill's investment banking will be done from Charlotte. And when the dollar falls, our apartment prices go up.
Whoops, originally posted this on the wrong thread.
I'm not sure what they're imagining when they say "even worse"
Uhhhh...how about the wholesale and permanent destruction of the US economy and our very way of life.
Which do you think would be worse Megan: A depression caused by not bailing out Wall St (and keeping alive our current system which is slowly turning us all into indebted paupers); or a depression caused by a shift away from the dollar causing massive hyper-inflation (a la Argentina) and social unrest the likes unseen in American history?
Oh yeah, I forgot; you're all for the latter if it means keeping your job today! Good for you!
Isn't this a libertarian blog?
It's not a libertarian blog. Megan favors a lightly regulated marketplace, but has no qualms about soaking the taxpayer when the system breaks.
Good thing she has socialism to fall back on in times of trouble!
Excuse me, but hasn't the 'right' been wrong about everything for that last 10 years?
Farid:
I think you read naive where she wrote native.
It is naive to think that the Washington establishment views this mess as anything other than a golden opportunity.
Found your blog the usual way--hopping about the 'net...
Your insights are spot-on. The "purists" would like a return to unalloyed Jeffersonian. Good luck with that.
Personally, I like having a line of credit, small as it is, to pay for things like car, casualty-losses, the occasional medical visit for the kids--you know, regular life.
Newt is nuts. BillyBoy Kristol doesn't like what he sees, and offers nada, zero, zip in alternatives.
Pence proves that Indiana may actually be another planet altogether.
And yes, the Democrats are a coven of craven creeps into whose collective mind the term "national interest" never crept.
So? Others may live the Depression again. I'll take functioning banks instead, thanks.
judson writes: "Excuse me, but hasn't the 'right' been wrong about everything for that last 10 years?"
Yes, but John McCain was a POW. He's also a former prisoner of war. He was in Vietnam, you know. And Sarah Palin chuckles endearingly as she slaughters animals from the sky.
So don't ask why. Vote GOP!
There's a reason where in this mess, and I'd say a big part of it is from a mediocre workforce in financial institutions themselves.
Well, thank heavens we have the stalwart and brilliant members of the public employee unions on hand to fix things! Surely, nobody in government could be described as complacent or mediocre.
"Self interest trumps all." Always has, always will. It's the American way.
The next time a Beltway lefty expresses desire to use the financial crisis as a launch pad for New Deal III or Great Society II, or whatever, ask him/her this question--"With what money?"
The national debt is north of $5 trillion, and rising. The budget deficit is huge, and growing, even without taking into account the recent bailouts. The inflation rate is north of 5% and rising. The entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid, are projected to cost enormous amounts of money over the next 40 years. The dollar is circling the drain. Commodity prices are going up as investors seek safe harbors for their money.
So, where is all the money for the New New Deal going to come from? Spending cuts? Hah. Politicians won't cut spending until they have absolutely no choice. Tax increases? Not likely. Does anyone think the middle class can bear a big tax increase? Increase the money supply?
dad29:
Unfortunately, Jefferson seems to have been mortgaged to the hilt.
Claudius writes: "The next time a Beltway lefty expresses desire to use the financial crisis as a launch pad for New Deal III or Great Society II, or whatever, ask him/her this question--"With what money?""
The next time a Beltway wingnut wants to start a dumbass war for no good reason let's ask the same question.
Eventual cost of the Iraq War - $2 trillion and rising.
The number of cons who seem to care about that - 1. Ron Paul.
There's always money to throw away on the genocidal pipedreams of wingnuts, but providing health care to kids and the elderly - that's an extravagance we can't afford!
Ye gods.
It is naive to think that the Washington^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Wall Street establishment views this mess as anything other than a golden opportunity.
Fixed.
(Paulson, who's more a Wall Street guy than a Washington guy, resists this because he fears it may limit CEOs' willingness to sell their bum loans to Treasury. What he doesn't realize is that once Congress grasps that these CEOs would literally rather see their companies fail than take a pay cut, it will answer as one: "All right, then. Fail away.")
Wouldn't the board of directors fire that CEO immediately, or have we all agreed to stop pretending that anyone takes fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders seriously?
Mike:
You're cynical. Are you sure you're cynical enough? There is far more than enough nest feathering and golden parachuting and revolving doors to go around.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html
Sorry, Megan, I'd rather see you out of a job than shovel money into the pockets of the rich. Not that I think this handout plan is going to save any middle class jobs -- I think you've got that wrong.
I just sent this note to my congressional representative and senators, I encourage everyone reading this to do the same.:
NO WELFARE FOR WALL STREET!!!
We’ve been told, over and over again, that the U.S. cannot afford universal health care, or free university education, or full Social Security benefits for Boomer 65-year-olds.
But Congress thinks we can pay for a trillion dollar war and, now, billions in welfare for rich Wall Streeters.
NO! Let them fail! If bankruptcy is good enough for struggling homeowners, it’s good enough for Goldman Sachs.
The rich should bear the consequences of their greedy choices.
I WILL be paying attention to the vote in Congress. I pledge NOT to ever vote for any senator or congressmember who votes for this handout to the richest, greediest among us.
NO WELFARE FOR WALL STREET!!!
Wow, jerks are on fire today here... Dear "Dems to Win", I realize that Obama's political future may depend on a meltdown in the next six weeks, but not only Megan may lose her job - you may well lose yours or, if you are a business owner, you may well go bankrupt.
And if you're only a college student, get used to the idea of living exclusively on food stamps for several years...
Oh, that's all a lot of fun in the long view. But something tells me that the wealthy bankers and boardroom jockeys will still be quite well off in the aftermath. They'll lose perhaps 95 percent of their net wealth, and such losses will trickle down as smaller companies go bust. Then the middle class folks and those with even less will lose 95 percent of their net wealth along with their stable incomes.
Mike, how can the board fire the CEO? Who will they replace him with? There aren't many people with the requisite credentials willing to work for less than $400,000.
I'd rather let Wall Street off scott free than sacrifice my job to "teach them a lesson".
I'm exactly opposite. I work for a homebuilder, and I'd rather lose my job than bailout these SOBs. Call me crazy, but I actually believe that principles don't mean anything unless you stand by them in good times and bad.
"I'd rather lose my job than bailout these SOBs"
Easier said than done. We are so used with the idea that a job is available next door if we quit, even if the salary is lower, that we forget that, in depressions, losing a job means losing any perspective of employment for a very long period.
Current unemployment rates are still very low in historical terms, and it has been almost 3 decades since the greatest unemployment crisis in most people's memory - and 80 years since the worst employment meltdown in US history.
Christina writes: "I'm exactly opposite. I work for a homebuilder, and I'd rather lose my job than bailout these SOBs. Call me crazy, but I actually believe that principles don't mean anything unless you stand by them in good times and bad. "
I agree.
I applaud the example set by workers in India who performed the following act of purification:
"Corporate India is in shock after a mob of sacked workers bludgeoned to death the chief executive who had dismissed them from a factory in a suburb of Delhi.
Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, an Italian-headquartered manufacturer of car parts, died of severe head wounds on Monday afternoon after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said.
The incident, in Greater Noida, just outside the Indian capital, followed a long-running dispute between the factory's management and workers who had demanded better pay and permanent contracts. "
We need this sort of thing to become fashionable in this country. Never mind bailouts - give the bastards some severe head injuries instead.
"I'd rather let Wall Street off scott free than sacrifice my job to "teach them a lesson"."
In other words, you're susceptible to economic blackmail. Good to know...
First off the question of the inevitability of this thing is huge. If we are going to hit rock bottom and any cushion we get is small potatoes then we should be roasting marshmallows out of the pyre. But if we can coast this thing to a steady halt then we should. I don't have enough of the specific data to give a good guess (how much debt is in the system, who has capital, overall red and black accounting of CURRENT NOT FUTURE books, etc.) everything I have is limited to my time constraints. So I don't know which way the pendulum is swinging.
"I'd rather lose my job than bailout these SOBs."
I think people who openly admit that their political positions are motivated by hatred and spite, rather than enlightened self-interest, should not be allowed to vote.
y81 writes: "I think people who openly admit that their political positions are motivated by hatred and spite, rather than enlightened self-interest, should not be allowed to vote."
"Enlightened self-interest" is what all two-time Bush voters claim led to their votes.
And since what they gave us has been a goddamned disaster from start to finish, I suggest that they should all be driven into the desert with leaky canteens before they're allowed to vote again. Obviously their "enlightenment" was toxic and weak.
ML&J: I'll keep your views in mind! Thanks!
Some observations:
1. This makes any possibilities of paying for another war (e.g.Iran) pretty nigh impossible.
So that is good news.
2. Panics, blood in the streets, is usually a good signal to buy equities.
3. MLJ is probably a calm, friendly and rational person in a social setting.
4. Ron Paul should have run as an Independent. One can imagine the major media falling all over him for his views right about now.
Nah, y, you'll be too busy voting for McCain and thinking you're striking a blow for smaller government.
::million-decibel snicker::
creech guesses: "MLJ is probably a calm, friendly and rational person in a social setting."
Of course I am. I'm calm and rational here, too. As for friendly, I can be that, too - just not with enemies of decency and reason. You know, like Al Qaeda members and diehard Bush supporters.
I guess the big question is:
Do you believe economics is a zero-sum game?
If you do, why should anyone trust you in any matter? If no one can prosper except at the expense of others, then just what is it you are trying to sell me, and why again should I buy it?
The SOBs who caused this mess are in Washington and and on Wall Street. Even the Congresscritters have their walking-away money.
Ms. McArdle would rather sacrifice America's freedom for generations of debt peonage.
Here's the problem: The administration is in a horrible position to be negotiating a bail-out in Congress. Whatever passes the conference committee will have to have all sorts of Dem goodies attached to it: regulations for exec pay, relief for mortgagees -- who knows, perhaps even card check or a permanent oil drilling moratorium.
Letting the administration dangle might actually force them to come up with some other stop-gap with less taxpayer funding at stake. Their congressional majority means that the Dems get to set the agenda, and the administration has no option but to take whatever that entails.
This is a pretty bad point in the election cycle for a bail-out to be cobbled together by the Washington pols. I sense that the Dems reckon the situation can be made into a lose-lose proposition for the GOP by way of the White House.
My biggest misgivings about the bail-out concern the amount of politicization of private business decisions that will result. The current model will make the financial sector into a political football for some time to come. That much seems entirely predictable.
"I'd rather let Wall Street off scott free than sacrifice my job to "teach them a lesson".
I'm exactly opposite. I work for a homebuilder, and I'd rather lose my job than bailout these SOBs. Call me crazy, but I actually believe that principles don't mean anything unless you stand by them in good times and bad. "
I think at the core of libertarianism is a sort of utilitarian maxim that it is only rational to make decisions based on self interest. It is therefore not virtuous to stand by one's principles in situations where the outcome of that ethical orthodoxy would be disadvantageous to the individual.
Of course, if your imperative is schadenfreude and the promotion of your personal view of ethics, it is totally in your interest to punish those who you consider to be at fault for the current financial situation. Just be aware that no matter how much you attempt to punish them, unless you are also a multi-millionaire, they will end up with a personal wealth which is several orders of magnitude greater than your own.
MarkG writes: "I sense that the Dems reckon the situation can be made into a lose-lose proposition for the GOP by way of the White House."
The GOP has that much coming and more.
Is there any argument left at all that the GOP somehow deserves anything less than a massive testicular crushing on Election Day? The more of these felonious, worthless cretins that get tossed out in November the better.
By the way, where are all the cons that were posting here just a few months ago about how frigging great the economy was? I'm not seeing them here today. Did they all get sent back to prison for violating the stay-away-from-playgrounds terms of their parole?
Come out, conservaive triumphalists! Come on out and tell us some more about how con policies have made the Great American Dream greater than ever!
Don't you guys want to take your well-earned bows? You prescient DUDES!
Or do I have to scroll through the archives and post some of the vapid drivel I was reading here from you GENIUSES?
Mike, how can the board fire the CEO? Who will they replace him with? There aren't many people with the requisite credentials willing to work for less than $400,000.
A $400,000 top limit was a stupid, off-the-cuff McCain comment, not a serious suggestion. (Triply redundant, I know.)
But given what people with the "requisite credentials" have managed to accomplish, maybe expanding the hiring pool is a good idea.
"1. This makes any possibilities of paying for another war (e.g.Iran) pretty nigh impossible.
So that is good news."
Right. Just like we couldn't afford WWII during the Great Depression. Maybe if Obama is elected he'll actually invade Pakistan like he has threatened, and we can get the stimulative effects of a big war -- one with conscription and a 5 million+ man Army, instead of the puny 500k Army we've been working since Clinton spent the 'peace dividend' in the late 90s (Bush's first move after 9/11, when he could get anything he wanted authorized by Congress, should have been to double the size of the Army).
Lefties like ML&J will get some needed discipline and calisthenics, the domestic labor market will tighten up with a few million men out of the job market, domestic manufacturing will rev up the assembly lines to make weapons, etc. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas will get a needed enema at the same time.
Fair enough. Let's let William "Cool Cash" Jefferson take the lead, followed closely by Charlie "Who's My Accountant?" Rangel. Oh, and a number of the FanFred beneficiaries should also get the old heave-ho.
Meanwhile, cars and trucks hum along the road outside, people gripe and gas up on their way to work and play. The dire predictions may yet come to pass, but the current situation looks little different from that of yesteryear.
By the way, where are all the cons that were posting here just a few months ago about how frigging great the economy was?
Irrelevant, and wrong besides. The economy is in positive territory, but not great.
But this is not "economics." This is liquidity.
Big difference.
"Meanwhile, cars and trucks hum along the road outside, people gripe and gas up on their way to work and play. The dire predictions may yet come to pass, but the current situation looks little different from that of yesteryear."
This is true. The problems in the financial sector have, for the most part, stayed there. The point of the efforts of Paulson and Bernanke is to keep them there and to ameliorate them. Had the feds let the money market collapse last week, it would have been a different story, as Megan has pointed out in other threads. Without short-term financing the economy would contract in short order: a lot of companies wouldn't be able to finance their inventory or make payroll, etc.
""I'd rather let Wall Street off scott free than sacrifice my job to "teach them a lesson". ""
If we are as close to a depression level economic upheaval as the bailout proponents claim, $700 Billion simply won't be enough to avert most of the damage. Recapitalized financial firms will want to hold reserves to survive the inevitable recession, and will sit on their taxpayer provided equity rather than lending it out.
If we are a bit further away from disaster, and in a situation where a few hundred billion will actually help, then we have time to come up with a more transparent and politically viable rescue plan than writing a blank check to a Treasury secretary who will be cleaning out his desk before 120 days are out.
Either way, any politician who votes for the bailout will be sorry come Autumn 2010, when the negative consequences to the taxpayer have become obvious and the perceived benefits forgotten. This plan is either going to go down in the public mind as a bailout to Wall Street (if Paulson gets his way) or a bailout to Wall Street AND Real Estate speculators (If Frank and Dodd get theirs). In the midst of what's likely to be a deep recession, that's going to be political poison for whoever swallows the blue pill on offer with this "plan".
Fred writes: "Lefties like ML&J will get some needed discipline and calisthenics, the domestic labor market will tighten up with a few million men out of the job market, domestic manufacturing will rev up the assembly lines to make weapons, etc. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas will get a needed enema at the same time."
But Fred will be fine because there's always a job for a prison guard... even one with his history of "performance issues."
MarkG writes: "Meanwhile, cars and trucks hum along the road outside, people gripe and gas up on their way to work and play. The dire predictions may yet come to pass, but the current situation looks little different from that of yesteryear."
Talk about a human ostrich!
Trillion dollar bailouts? Nothing happening here, folks. A two-time Bush voter has told you so, and they're always right, just like their Great Leader.
Medals of Freedom for everyone! You're doing a heckuva job, MarkG.
It appears we are addicted to debt as much as we are addicted to oil.
Need to make payroll? Go into debt. It's only "short-term financing." (Wasn't that one of Tony Soprano's businesses?) Want to expand your operation? Go get some debt. Want that fancy new flat-screen TV? Nothing could be easier, just sign up for some credit card debt. Can't pay the credit card off before the next glaciation? Get a home equity loan.
Debt, debt, debt. How can the economy be "in positive territory" when every month, every week, every day, every hour, every minute, every second we run up more debt? How can needing a $1 trillion budget deficit (if this $700 billion plan passes) to cover expenses be called "positive territory?" If we are in such positive territory, where is the $700 billion surplus that's going to cover it? Don't tell me "it's in the future" because that's just more debt and betting on the continued growth of the economy- which would be like betting on the continued rise of home values. Oops.
In fairness, liberalrob, most non-consumer transactions (and many consumer ones) are conducted on a credit basis for convenience sake. You don't get cash handed to you once an hour, you get two paychecks a month--voila! Credit and debt!
You don't have to be spending wildly beyond your means to need a little short-term smoothing.
Fred reminds us that the great Republican jobs program is starting a bunch of wars. There are so many positive aspects to recommend this plan:
-Gives the unemployed something to do (go fight)
-Stimulates the economy via "defense" spending and war profiteering
-Reduces surplus population both domestically and abroad
-Which also reduces resource competition
-And (assuming we win) gathers more resources into our control
-Intimidates our enemies
-Intimidates our allies (what few we have)
-Allows suppression of dissent (because that's treason, in time of war)
-And promotes patriotism among the (remaining) citizenry, as we defend ourselves until we have no more enemies left to fight.
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Sign me up! (Not for the military, of course, heh, that's just for the little people.)
You don't have to be spending wildly beyond your means to need a little short-term smoothing.
Posted by Rob Lyman | September 23, 2008 6:28 PM
The first one's always free.
Hey, I just need a little short-term smoothing so I can get that big TV. Oh no, the "check engine" light came on and now I need a little more short-term smoothing to get that fixed. And now I went to the dentist, and he said I need a root canal which my insurance only pays 50% of. And my electric bill is due, and the Saudis jacked up the price of gas, and I have to buy that birthday gift for Dad, and I just need a little sort-term smoothing to get me past that.
That's how you run up $30k of credit card debt and not even realize it.
Now translate that to a national level. I'm a huge promoter of fiscal conservatism! I hate earmarks, I hate deficits, I want to cut taxes! But I also want to support faith-based initiatives (which are not all self-funding), and some Saudi religious nut attacked us, and Argentina is having another fiscal crisis, and I'd like to do something for those poor AIDS victims in Africa, and I'd like to send astronauts to Mars, and Saddam's evil and oppresses his people, and all I need is a little short-term smoothing to get the country past all that. (And go back as far as you like with that one. Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, on and on. We really need to do this, we'll just pay for it later.)
Oh, come one, you're being obtuse. If the choice is debt to repair the car until payday or lose your job, debt is the right choice. If the choice is debt to buy a TV, that's stupid. And if you find yourself rolling over the payday loan on payday, you've probably made a serious mistake. But there's a difference between debt for consumption and debt for capital investment, and a difference between smoothing and unsustainable borrowing.
Nor is short-term smoothing debt insane for governments; think war bonds. The big problem is massive promises to pay in the future for which there is no present financial benefit. Instead of paying Tuesday for a hamburger today, Medicare has agreed to pay Tuesday for a vote today. That's not financially wise.
"Fred reminds us that the great Republican jobs program is starting a bunch of wars"
It's the great Democratic jobs plan -- WWII under FDR, Korea under Truman, Vietnam under LBJ. All big, guns & butter wars fought with conscripted Armies. Republican wars like Iraq are small potatoes by comparison. Hence, their relatively smaller economic effects.
I have to say, however, that I'm feeling a lot better about New York City. Lehman's business isn't going to be run out of London, Morgan and Goldman seem likely to scoop up local banks and their deposits and run them from New York, and I don't really think Merrill's investment banking will be done from Charlotte. And when the dollar falls, our apartment prices go up.
I normally find myself in agreement with the person that posted this, but this seems pretty narrow and shortsighted, to the point of being outright dumb. Sort of like the Michigan auto industry circa 1965 saying 'they would never run the auto industry out of Japan or build cars in Alabama' - how that work out?
And NYC has been bankrupt in living memory, so I *really* would be reluctant to get too triumphant.
Yeah, well, Kolohe, my mood changes hourly. And it went down a lot this afternoon when my money market fund checks didn't clear. Still, I think the odds for the NYC economy are a little better than when Ms. McArdle posted a gloomy piece about New York City's prospects a week or two ago. Now, if we can just have a bailout package that works--hopefully a really complicated one that generates a lot of work for lawyers--I'll be happy.
Fred quotes and writes: ""Fred reminds us that the great Republican jobs program is starting a bunch of wars"
It's the great Democratic jobs plan -- WWII under FDR, Korea under Truman, Vietnam under LBJ."
Yes, because FDR started WW2.
This is Fred's version of history. He really believes it, too, because George Lincoln Rockwell was his daddy.
"Yes, because FDR started WW2."
He may not have started it, but he was chomping at the bit to get us into it. He probably jumped for joy out of his wheelchair when Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbor, after FDR strangled their economy with the oil blockade.
Fred again: "He probably jumped for joy out of his wheelchair when Japan finally attacked Pearl Harbor, after FDR strangled their economy with the oil blockade."
That's my Fred! A staunch fan of the original Axis.
Fred's ideal world would be indistinguishable from Pat Buchanan's or Charles Lindbergh's. Let's just say those uppity Negroes and Jews would be sort of hard to spot.
Fred's World - the Iraq War is a just one. WW2? A strategic and moral error of vast proportions.
"And NYC has been bankrupt in living memory, so I *really* would be reluctant to get too triumphant. "
This, of course, will be one of the huge chunks of fallout from the crisis. Specifically, New York City and State are both about to be reminded of how dependent their public revenues are on financial services industry bonus payments. Both are bound to face a major financial crisis during the next fiscal year. A crisis that may contaminate the entire munibond market.
Pension fund managers are also about to start explaining to governors, mayors and school boards and CEOs that, due to the recent market declines, and some unwise investments in MBSs, their organization pension funds are seriously underfunded. Just as revenues are in decline, a major operating expense is going to balloon.
Add to this possibly millions of financially conservative suburban homeowners who discover that the comfortable nest egg of home equity they thought they had built up has vanished in a declining real estate market. Just when they need to tap into it because of a job loss in a serious downturn is forcing them to sell.
And that's probably the _best_ case scenario.
And if the Paulson bailout takes place, or anything like it, all of these people are going to want an explanation for why Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Wachovia were the first in line when Uncle Sam was passing out mountains of cash, and why no cash is available to help them (except credit card debt at obscene interest rates from the very companies that got the bailouts...)
Don't be shocked when most of them assume the worst.
I love simpletons like MoeLarry, who blame everything on Bush.
Not me. I don't think Bush the evil genius had the time in his busy schedule to engineer this financial meltdown, with the whole eating Paletinian children and pushing old ladies out of windows thing.
I'm really shocked at soi disant libertarians and conservatives who have forgotten the one principle that gives their ideology cohesion: the government that can give you everything, can take away everything.
What this bail-out represents - an alliance between the state and finance at the expense of the taxpayer - is really closer to true fascism than any of the socially conservative gestures of the Republicans since the Reagan administration.
When Megan says she would rather keep her job, I can't help but think of all the contempt that the right has heaped on welfare recipients and other beneficiaries of public largess, and their unctuous proclamations about the value of work. That we would soak taxpayers to give the wealthiest more money to lend to the middle class, so as not to break the cycle of debt, seems like the most pathetic, debasing, and servile posture I can imagine. It's no wonder that people like Hugo Chavez are laughing at the US now.
Wow, I'm accused of being overcome with schadenfreude, and being a simpleton who doesn't understand enlightened self-interest, and I'm told I shouldn't vote!
And all because I don't believe the government should reward people who can't even run their own businesses. I believed that 10 years ago, and I believe it now. It's not spite or hatred, it's a desire for the country to get away from this state-sponsored crony capitalism, and back to an actual free market.
When there is doomsday talk of credit freezing and everyone being potentially out on the streets, what are we really seeing? Interest rates rising. Yes, the end of cheap money. Is that really a calamity? Yeah, people are going to have to save some money for once. Maybe make sure that they have the cash to cover their expenditures for a while. Somebody call the Senate!
I'll get riled up when bombs are dropped on real assets. When my car blows up and my house is burned to the ground. Being poor for a while isn't the end of the world. I've lived on next-to-nothing before, with no credit. It's not great, but I'll survive, as will everyone else. Sorry to disappoint.