I am not an economist, but...
"WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed a vast bailout of financial institutions in the United States, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from the private firms.
President Bush discussed the government’s financial bailout proposal during a news conference at the White House on Saturday.
The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1221995806-oemRW6bsTHizIidQLW80Sw
There's something* wrong here.
I could be persuaded that paying $700 billion to prop up unsuccessful financial firms is necessary if (as pundits are saying) the alternative is the collapse of the American economy.
But if we're going to be paying that much taxpayer money, we should be taxing the f*ck out of financial corporations in good years to pay for bailing them out in bad years. Joseph knew that much financial policy back in Genesis.
And/or we should put in place bulletproof regulations to make sure no company ever gets big enough to be "too big to fail" ever again.
Either method seems to amount to a strong dose of socialism, government control of the economy, etc.
Is there a free-market alternative that doesn't court panic and Depression?
------------
*There's another thing wrong here, in that more authority is being requested by an administration that has shown utter recklessness, carelessness, incompetence, and disregard for the law in the past. Maybe Bush et al. can't finish ruining the economy in a few months, but I've got no confidence at all in his ability to fix it.
President Bush discussed the government’s financial bailout proposal during a news conference at the White House on Saturday.
The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1221995806-oemRW6bsTHizIidQLW80Sw
There's something* wrong here.
I could be persuaded that paying $700 billion to prop up unsuccessful financial firms is necessary if (as pundits are saying) the alternative is the collapse of the American economy.
But if we're going to be paying that much taxpayer money, we should be taxing the f*ck out of financial corporations in good years to pay for bailing them out in bad years. Joseph knew that much financial policy back in Genesis.
And/or we should put in place bulletproof regulations to make sure no company ever gets big enough to be "too big to fail" ever again.
Either method seems to amount to a strong dose of socialism, government control of the economy, etc.
Is there a free-market alternative that doesn't court panic and Depression?
------------
*There's another thing wrong here, in that more authority is being requested by an administration that has shown utter recklessness, carelessness, incompetence, and disregard for the law in the past. Maybe Bush et al. can't finish ruining the economy in a few months, but I've got no confidence at all in his ability to fix it.