I’m always interested in financial news, so this week has been a real treat for me. It’s the same kind of fascination I had when the tidal wave killed about a quarter of a million people in Asia. I can’t get enough of it. So here’s my take.
Hank Paulson is a hero. He stepped in, took control of a panicked market and restored order. He looked financial Armageddon in the eye and didn’t blink. His bold actions restored confidence and by using the US treasury’s good credit to bail out Wall Street, prevented a catastrophe that would have inevitably brought the gears of commerce to a stop. As taxpayers we can complain about having to fix things, but the alternative would be far more expensive. And in the end, if the government plays its cards right, the taxpayers could even make a profit on this deal.
Hank Paulson is a shill for the robber barons on Wall Street. He uses scare tactics and threats of financial Armageddon to strong arm his way into controlling billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out his investment banker buddies. As taxpayers we can’t trust him to look out for our interests when he demands sweeping powers and blank checks with no oversight. In the end, he’ll buy up worthless debt at big premiums and stick us taxpayers with the bill.
I’m trying to figure out which of these views is closer to the truth. As a conservative with a natural distrust of government I lean toward the latter. On the other hand, when the market is frozen and there are no buyers, prices plunge far below the true value of the securities, so if anyone could buy them it would be a smart move. I don’t know the answers, but I hope the geniuses in Congress do. What does everyone else think?
In other news this week, Megan has been practicing a new eardrum rupturing shriek. We’re going to start putting her on the back porch during dinner because nobody can tolerate it.
We’re building a pinewood derby car for the big race at church on Friday. We made a pink porcupine shape with purple painted bolts sticking out all over it for quills. There’s no weight limit, and I’m afraid it’s still too light to really compete. I hate the no weight limit rule, as I think it takes most of the competition out of it. It’s more of a weigh-in than a race. Our car’s name is Porky Pine. Tune in next week for photos.
5 comments:
My gut says bailout=bad. I don't understand the concept of not letting the consequence just BE and letting the economy correct itself. Would it be difficult and awful and scary? Yes. But it would kick some butts into gear and get people thinking like they did in the 40s, which it seems few have done SINCE the 40s. So, the little bit of Republican in me says "Government Stay Out!" but I can't deny that the whole thing is like a house of cards that is precariously situated and these measures are just more toothpicks holding it up. How long can we keep adding toothpicks? Will it eventually crumble? Or with the toothpicks really work? I don't know, but it's scary. I already don't like spending money but not it's triplefold.
And I'm ticked that a bunch of irresponsible morons got us IN this position and that now we're paying for THEIR irresponsibility. Grrrrrrrr. This is true in so many ways. For instance, despite our excellent credit score and the fact that we're good with our money, it's very difficult to get legitimate loans (like mortgages). Why? Because of the previous-mentioned morons.
What do you think, Jared? Should we take our money out of banks? Another run on the banks? I wonder about that one . . .
I think it would be great to let markets correct themselves without government intervention. However, government meddling is what started this whole mess. In the '90s Congress thought it would be smart to encourage people who were credit risks to own homes. They mandated that banks lend money to these people. Then they encouraged Freddy and Fannie to increase their lending and leverage and regulators looked the other way as they got completely out of control.
So, since government got us into this mess, it's only fair that they get us out. I see the wisdom in the bailout, because without it commerce could literally stop. What would happen if there was no money for businesses to make payroll? It could happen.
But I don't believe in giving anybody so much power as Paulson and Bush are asking. And I really hope we learn a lesson about government meddling in markets.
Okay, thoroughly enjoying these posts and comments. It's so good to read other conservative thoughts. I have been bombarded by liberalism all around me lately. Thank you. It's also just good conversation. I have to say I agree with both of you so far. Troubled times...no matter what, it's a mess.
It's interesting, too, that the one of the biggest "takers" of the whole pot is now the man that is trying to look like a hero in this whole thing: Senator Chris Dodd with his "wingman" Barney Frank, of all people. Why does the American public as a whole choose to be ignorant?
Post a Comment