Bailout Hut
Most politicians and people in the media seem to think that the financial bailout is absolutely necessary to prevent our nation's (and the world's) financial collapse. But most ordinary citizens don't think this is true, and see the bailout of a massive expropriation of responsible people's wealth to be transfered to rich sociopaths and irresponsible idiots.
So the politicians and media look at this discrepancy, and argue, "What's wrong with the ordinary people? Why are they too stupid to see how important this is?"
But the problem is not lack of intelligence. It's lack of trust. It's not that the people are incapable of following the reasoning of the politicians and media. It's that they simply don't believe the politicians and media are telling the truth. It's not enough to present a convincing sounding argument when the person you're talking to knows you're a silver-tongued liar capable of fabricating a convincing sounding argument out of nothing.
Imagine you know a drug-addicted loser who's incapable of holding down a job and survives by surfing friend's couches, "borrowing" money he has no intention of paying back, and petty theft. Then this guy asks you to invest in some scheme that he absolutely insists will pay off for you. If you're not an idiot, you'll tell him to bugger off. You wouldn't even want to listen to him explain why the investment is such a good idea. You know he'll say anything to get your money, you have no way of verifying what he says, and you figure it's far more likely that he'll just spend the money on drugs than it is that he's both being truthful and has accurately assessed the investment opportunity.
This is what is happening with the bailout. It doesn't matter what the government/media says about why this bailout is necessary. People look at the situation and say, "So some CEO got paid $50 million to destroy $50 billion dollars of wealth, and you want to give him a bunch of my money? And he happens to be a close personal friend of yours who has paid you massive bribes donations?" And the government and media say, "But it's really important. Sure, every time we've done anything in recent memory we've been either massively corrupt or massively incompetent (usually both), but this time we're doing the right thing. Trust us!"
It is not the people's fault for being too stupid or too untrusting. It's the government and media's fault for being so untrustworthy. The people are right to be skeptical.
Contrast this to the Manhattan Project. There, the government essentially said, "We need a bunch of your money. We can't tell you what we're using it for, but it's really important." And the people said, "Okay. We believe that you're using this money to win the war, and that's what we want too, so we'll make the sacrifices you say are important."
The difference is that in the 40s, the government really was trying to do what was best for the country by winning the war, and the media really wanted them to. But now, people see politicians (in both parties) as caring more about enriching themselves and their friends, clinging to power, and scoring partisan political points than they do about good governance. And they see the media as caring more about enriching themselves and their friends, clinging to power, and scoring partisan political points than they do about informing the people about the truth and ensuring good governance.
When Nancy Pelosi says the bailout is absolutely vital to our nation's financial survival, but then sacrifices the opportunity to pass it so that she can call Republicans doody-heads, what are people supposed to think? And when many Republicans agree that it's absolutely vital to our nation's financial survival, but then vote against it because Nancy Pelosi called them doody-heads, what are people supposed to think? I can see only two rational conclusions from this behavior: Either our elected leaders are such small-minded petulant corrupt power-mad sociopaths that they care more about their own temper tantrums than they do about our nation's survival, or they're lying to us about how important and necessary this bailout is. Either way, why should we listen to them?
Note that this analysis is independent of whether the bailout is actually a good idea or a bad idea.
So the politicians and media look at this discrepancy, and argue, "What's wrong with the ordinary people? Why are they too stupid to see how important this is?"
But the problem is not lack of intelligence. It's lack of trust. It's not that the people are incapable of following the reasoning of the politicians and media. It's that they simply don't believe the politicians and media are telling the truth. It's not enough to present a convincing sounding argument when the person you're talking to knows you're a silver-tongued liar capable of fabricating a convincing sounding argument out of nothing.
Imagine you know a drug-addicted loser who's incapable of holding down a job and survives by surfing friend's couches, "borrowing" money he has no intention of paying back, and petty theft. Then this guy asks you to invest in some scheme that he absolutely insists will pay off for you. If you're not an idiot, you'll tell him to bugger off. You wouldn't even want to listen to him explain why the investment is such a good idea. You know he'll say anything to get your money, you have no way of verifying what he says, and you figure it's far more likely that he'll just spend the money on drugs than it is that he's both being truthful and has accurately assessed the investment opportunity.
This is what is happening with the bailout. It doesn't matter what the government/media says about why this bailout is necessary. People look at the situation and say, "So some CEO got paid $50 million to destroy $50 billion dollars of wealth, and you want to give him a bunch of my money? And he happens to be a close personal friend of yours who has paid you massive bribes donations?" And the government and media say, "But it's really important. Sure, every time we've done anything in recent memory we've been either massively corrupt or massively incompetent (usually both), but this time we're doing the right thing. Trust us!"
It is not the people's fault for being too stupid or too untrusting. It's the government and media's fault for being so untrustworthy. The people are right to be skeptical.
Contrast this to the Manhattan Project. There, the government essentially said, "We need a bunch of your money. We can't tell you what we're using it for, but it's really important." And the people said, "Okay. We believe that you're using this money to win the war, and that's what we want too, so we'll make the sacrifices you say are important."
The difference is that in the 40s, the government really was trying to do what was best for the country by winning the war, and the media really wanted them to. But now, people see politicians (in both parties) as caring more about enriching themselves and their friends, clinging to power, and scoring partisan political points than they do about good governance. And they see the media as caring more about enriching themselves and their friends, clinging to power, and scoring partisan political points than they do about informing the people about the truth and ensuring good governance.
When Nancy Pelosi says the bailout is absolutely vital to our nation's financial survival, but then sacrifices the opportunity to pass it so that she can call Republicans doody-heads, what are people supposed to think? And when many Republicans agree that it's absolutely vital to our nation's financial survival, but then vote against it because Nancy Pelosi called them doody-heads, what are people supposed to think? I can see only two rational conclusions from this behavior: Either our elected leaders are such small-minded petulant corrupt power-mad sociopaths that they care more about their own temper tantrums than they do about our nation's survival, or they're lying to us about how important and necessary this bailout is. Either way, why should we listen to them?
Note that this analysis is independent of whether the bailout is actually a good idea or a bad idea.