The Bailout Is An Outrage

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2007
The Bailout Is An Outrage
173
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 1:36pm

This trillion dollar plus bailout of the people who not only created the economic meltdown, but profited from it, is a travesty. All of our tax money will be used to ensure that the gamblers and speculators in our economy will feel no pain. With this economic legislation the underlying assumption is and has always been that what is good for the owners of mega-business is always good for the rest of us. Americans need to seriously consider this bailout. Do we really want to commit all of our treasure to a bailout of the speculators? The follow-up question to that is, if we commit a trillion dollars to rescue the speculators of our aristocratic class, will there be any money left to invest in public works programs or New Deal style job creation programs? Shifting all this public money away from the middle class - the class that actually fuels the economy the most- and into the hands of the wealthy is another major experiment in trickle down futility. Make no mistake, this bailout is a momentous decision that will have a huge impact on our lives. Consider it carefully. I'm not saying there is really anything we can do about it because our political class will ram this rotten bailout through, but it's useful to remember these moments so you can measure their consequences later and know exactly what ideology enabled them and who the proponents of that ideology are. 


Greenwald has some excellent commentary on these events:



David Herszenhorn,New York Times, today, "Congressional Leaders Stunned by Warnings":


It was a room full of people who rarely hold their tongues. But as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first.


Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill, and they were gathered around a conference table in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.


"When you listened to him describe it you gulped," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.


As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program "Good Morning America," the congressional leaders were told "that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally."


Mr. Schumer added, "History was sort of hanging over it, like this was a moment."


When Mr. Schumer described the meeting as "somber," Mr. Dodd cut in. "Somber doesn't begin to justify the words," he said. "We have never heard language like this."


"What you heard last evening," he added, "is one of those rare moments, certainly rare in my experience here, is Democrats and Republicans deciding we need to work together quickly."


Leave aside for the moment whether this gargantuan nationalization/bailout is "necessary" in some utilitarian sense. One doesn't have to be an economics expert in order for several facts to be crystal clear:



First, the fact that Democrats are on board with this scheme means absolutely nothing. When it comes to things the Bush administration wants, Congressional Democrats don't say "no" to anything. They say "yes" to everything. That's what they're for.


They say "yes" regardless of whether they understand what they're endorsing. They say "yes" regardless of whether they've been told even the most basic facts about what they're being told to endorse. They say "yes" anytime doing so is politically less risky than saying "no," which is essentially always and is certainly the case here. They say "yes" whenever the political establishment -- meaning establishment media outlets and the corporate class that funds them -- wants them to say "yes," which is the case here. And they say "yes" with particular speed and eagerness when told to do so by the Serious Trans-Partisan Republican Experts like Hank Paulson and Ben Bernake (or Mike McConnell and Robert Gates and, before them, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell).


So nothing could be less reassuring or more meaningless than the fact that the Democratic leadership has announced that what they heard scared them so much that they are certain all of this is necessary -- whatever "all this" might be. It may be "necessary" or may not be, but the fact that Congressional Democrats are saying this is irrelevant, since they would not have done anything else -- they're incapable of doing anything else -- other than giving their stamp of approval when they're told to.


Second, whatever else is true, the events of the last week are the most momentous events of the Bush era in terms of defining what kind of country we are and how we function -- and before this week, the last eight years have been quite momentous, so that is saying a lot. Again, regardless of whether this nationalization/bailout scheme is "necessary" or makes utilitarian sense, it is a crime of the highest order -- not a "crime" in the legal sense but in a more meaningful sense.


What is more intrinsically corrupt than allowing people to engage in high-reward/no-risk capitalism -- where they reaped tens of millions of dollars and more every year while their reckless gambles were paying off only to then have the Government shift their losses to the citizenry at large once their schemes collapsed? We've retroactively created a win-only system where the wealthiest corporations and their shareholders are free to gamble for as long as they win and then force others who have no upside to pay for their losses. Watching Wall St. erupt with an orgy of celebration on Friday after it became clear the Government (i.e., you) would pay for their disaster was literally nauseating, as the very people who wreaked this havoc are now being rewarded.


More amazingly, they're free to walk away without having to disgorge their gains; at worst, they're just "forced" to walk away without any further stake in the gamble. How can these bailouts not at least be categorically conditioned on the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from those who are responsible? The mere fact that shareholders might lose their stake doesn't resolve that concern; why should those who so fantastically profited from these schemes they couldn't support walk away with their gains? This is "redistribution of wealth" and "government takeover of industry" on the grandest scale imaginable -- the buzzphrases that have been thrown around for decades to represent all that is evil and bad in the world. That's all this is; it's not an "investment" by the Government in any real sense but just a magical transfer of losses away from those who are responsible for these losses to those who aren't.


And all of this was both foreseeable as well as foreseen -- see the 2002 grave warnings from Warren Buffett on pages 14-15 of his shareholders letter (.pdf), among many other things -- and it's also happened before, when the Federal Government bailed out the S&L industry that (with John McCain's help) was able to gamble recklessly and then force the country to protect them from their losses. The people who did this have no fear of anything -- they lack the kind of healthy fear that impede reckless behavior -- because they know how our Government works and that they control it and thus believe that their capacity to suffer is limited in the extreme. And they're right about that.


What's most vital to underscore is that the beneficiaries of these extraordinary Government schemes aren't just the coincidental recipients of largesse out of some incredible good luck. The people on whose behalf these schemes are being implemented -- the true beneficiaries -- are the very same people who have been running and owning our Government -- both parties -- for decades, which is why they have been able to do what they've been doing without interference. They were able to gamble without limit because they control the Government, and now they're having others bear the brunt of their collapse for the same reason -- because the Government is largely run for their benefit.


If there is any "pitchfork moment" -- an episode that understandably would send people into the streets in mass outrage -- it would be this, or at least should be. Nobody really even seems to know how much of these losses "the Government" -- meaning working people who had no part in the profits from these transactions -- is undertaking virtually overnight but it's at least a trillion dollars, an amount so vast it's hard to comprehend, let alone analyze in terms of consequences. The transactions are way too complex even for the most sophisticated financial analysts to understand, let alone value. Whatever else is true, generations of Americans are almost certainly going to be severely burdened in untold ways by the events of the last week -- ones that have been carried out largely without any debate and mostly in secret.


Third, what's probably most amazing of all is the contrast between how gargantuan all of this is and the complete absence of debate or disagreement over what's taking place. It's not just that, as usual, Democrats and Republicans are embracing the same core premises ("this is regrettable but necessary"). It's that there's almost no real discussion of what happened, who is responsible, and what the consequences are. It's basically as though the elite class is getting together and discussing this all in whispers, coordinating their views, and releasing just enough information to keep the stupid masses content and calm.


Can anyone point to any discussion of what the implications are for having the Federal Government seize control of the largest and most powerful insurance company in the country, as well as virtually the entire mortgage industry and other key swaths of financial services? Haven't we heard all these years that national health care was an extremely risky and dangerous undertaking because of what happens when the Federal Government gets too involved in an industry? What happened in the last month dwarfs all of that by magnitudes.


The Treasury Secretary is dictating to these companies how they should be run and who should run them. The Federal Government now controls what were -- up until last month -- vast private assets. These are extreme -- truly radical -- changes to how our society functions. Does anyone have any disagreement with any of it or is anyone alarmed by what the consequences are -- not the economic consequences but the consequences of so radically changing how things function so fundamentally and so quickly?


Other countries are debating it. The headline in the largest Brazilian newspaper this week was: "Capitalist Socialism??" and articles all week have questioned -- with alarm -- whether what the U.S. Government did has just radically and permanently altered the world economic system and ushered in some perverse form of "socialism" where industries are nationalized and massive debt imposed on workers in order to protect the wealthiest. If Latin America is shocked at the degree of nationalization and government-mandate transfer of wealth, that is a pretty compelling reflection of how extreme -- unprecedented -- it all is.


But there's virtually no discussion of that in America's dominant media outlets. All one hears is that everything that is happening is necessary to save us all from economic doom. And what's most amazing about that is that the Natural, Unchallenged Consensus That Nobody Questions can shift drastically in a matter of days and still nobody questions anything. This is what Atrios observed as I was writing this post:
It's fascinating to watch how easily consensus is manufactured. A few days ago elite opinion seemed to be cheering Paulson's "no bailout" line, and now they're cheering a trillion bucks thrown down the crapper. All the Very Serious People will spend their days coming up with their pony plans, oblivious to the fact that the pony plan is not an option. The Bush administration's plan is the option.

The way it works is that Bush officials decree how things will be, and then everyone -- from Congressional Democrats to the Serious Pundits -- jump uncritically and obediently on board, even if they were on board with the complete opposite approach just days earlier, and then all real dissent vanishes. That's how the country in general works. As Atrios says: "We've seen this game played before."



I don't pretend to know anywhere near enough -- in terms of either raw information or expertise -- in order to opine on the Latest Plan. But what I do know is that an injustice so grave and extreme that it defies words is taking place; that the greatest beneficiaries are those who are most culpable; and that the same hopelessly broken and deeply rotted institutions and elite class that gave rise to all of this are the very ones that are -- yet again -- being blindly entrusted to solve this. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/20/bailout/index.html


    




Edited 9/20/2008 2:55 pm ET by glitter_girl_5000

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:26pm

An American Obamabot, planted by the evil overlords of NBC, who are in the employ of (and in the tank for) Obama.

Take us to your leader. ;o)



But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:39pm
.....there are others out there who do better represent my pov than Obama. If I were so inclined, it is my right to write their name in.


Yes, yes...I know....you'd prefer Eleanor Roosevelt, or Nefertiti, or Linda Carter....but here's the thing: no one - LEAST of all ME - has ever questioned your RIGHT to vote for any of those fine individuals. Whenever you have to address that, you always resort to arguing a strawman - excuse me, strawperson - that no one's ever argued with you: the RIGHT to vote for whomever you wish. Not only that, I've also never said I suspect you'd vote for McCain....only that your self-centered desire to have your own micro-demographic catered to and flattered in exchange for your vote (and the parallel threat to withhold it, like some sort of electoral Lysistrata) is likely to LEAD TO the election of the very people for whom you claim you'd never vote (Palin/McCain).

Oh, and? I've never once told you - or anyone else - to "shut up." I HAVE pointed out that I think it is terminally boneheaded to spend more time criticizing the candidate(s) for whom you already know you plan to vote than the OTHER PARTY'S much worse candidate. And the amazing thing is, after that, you have the jaw-dropping obliviousness to come here on this board and complain about "circular firing squads" in the Democratic party.

we can do nothing and risk losing everything.


Please prove to me that waiting a few weeks to get a better idea of what's really at stake here - and perhaps formulate a better-considered plan than the non-response we had to the freaking patriot act, and I'll agree with you. I've never said that I'm "willing to risk losing everything." I've never even said that I don't think this is a significant crisis - perhaps a generational one. But I feel that because so much is on the table, it becomes even MORE important than usual to not simply go along like sheep with the first (farkin' awful) no-strings bailout plan which comes down the pike from an administration with a history both of having ready-made plans already in the drawer and ready to go on a moment's notice (almost as if they were just WAITING for such a crisis! - eerie!), and b) a nearly-unbroken record of utterly DISASTROUS and selfish decisions.





But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
- Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 2nd. ed., 1841


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2007
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:41pm

I'm from Alpha Centauri.


Yep, that explains it. That's why you're attracting so much attention from the tin foil hat brigade.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2005
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:43pm

That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family.

*****
Really? Most file because of illness?

And the purpose is to humiliate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:56pm
Exactly right...if we're footing the bill, all of those benefits should be renegotiated and based on performance.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 10:00pm
McCain's "deregulation" was an effort to make banking more convenient for people...it was the Dems (and admittedly some Republicans) who were so wrapped up in providing "affordable housing" to "the poor" that they paved the way for the "crisis" we're facing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2007
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 10:00pm

Really? Most file because of illness?


Uh yeah, from what I've read catastrophic illness is one of the primary causes, if not the leading cause, of people going bankrupt.



And the purpose is to humiliate?


I'd say it has that affect. I'm not sure

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 10:01pm

Since you toss out 'micro-demographic,' funny thing is you are the one who raised my voting inclinations tonight.


On waiting a few weeks... think we could have waited 'a few weeks' on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? Bear Stearns? AIG? The market dropped 350 or so today. Suggest that ecomomic plan won't pass, and you might see the financial worth of the world tumble into tangible commodities.


I'm not willing to play that game with people's employment and their lives.


So yes, yes on assisting homeowners. Yes on CEO provisions. Need other provisions? Toss 'em out and see if you can get them. But pass


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 10:47pm

That’s very untrue O.D.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 11:01pm

Heard an interesting interview on NPR this noon, they were interviewing some writer for the Financial Times or some such publication.


The guest was suggesting how our financial based economy has proven a bad model, and that we need to return to innovation a la the 1990s. He suggested setting up law that offered incentives to create and to manufacture here...


by the way, he also claimed to have been one who argued in favour of the financial economy, and feels a lesson has been learned.


I liked some of the ideas tossed about; for instance rewards and such for targeted needs. One example given: better electric car batteries.


Hopefully we will hear more talk of such things as time goes on.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

Pages