We aren't gaining much clarity on our nascent bailout economy with the garbled mess coming from our talking heads and their big-media filters.
Perhaps they want to keep the air thick with dust to better angle for a bailout of their own.
The latest example of this muddle comes from Charles Krauthammer of the Washington post. His article in Friday's Post discussed how we have tossed aside market incentives in our economy for political considerations and backroom deals:
"We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile, we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce."
The Post headlined his article like this:
...and that is what most of the article is about.
But Krauthammer included this unfortunate passage near the end of his missive:
"The ruling Democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good. Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under "History, ash heap of.""
The part I have a problem with it "Rescue this economy to..."
Is he saying that all this bailing will cause the economy to recover? How is that going to work, really? Criticizing in advance the usurpation of the usurpers while also granting their first premise is like sticking one finger in the dyke while swinging a hammer with the other hand.
Looks like we needs some one-handed pundits, just as Gov. Steve Beshear warms up his own private airplane headed to Capitol Hill.
Meanwhile, Krauthammer's unclear conclusion gave the Louisville Courier Journal an opportunity to continue the confusion with this headline on the same column:
Those who doubt the wisdom of our present course must be clearer in opposition to reasoning for the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer-financed bailouts.
3 comments:
Granted, the economy needs to be rescued. But give it back to the failed system that brought us to this point? That's like saying, "Now that we've got the foxes out of the hen house, let them go back."
Too, there's a need for more diversity in the economic system. Complete centralized control is unacceptable. There needs to be a combination of decentralization and centralization.
The fact that there are no longer small companies making a variety of different fueled cars instead of three making only fossil fueled internal combustion engines is an example centralization run amuck.
Our founders recognized that men are not angels and so need government control. In Federalist Paper 51, Alexander Hamilton and/or James Madison wrote:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Having regulatory agencies that fail to do their job as occurred under the Bush administration is an example of the failure of government to control itself. The foxes were allowed to guard the hen house.
The term "greater social good" should be more specifically defined as "proportionally distributed." There needs to be a better application of applying numbers in defining "the greater social good," or "proportionally distributed."
Hamilton and/or Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 54: "…numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation…"
How do you suppose the government is going to "rescue" the economy?
If admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, wouldn't it be a good idea for the government to admit we're at least in a recession if not a depression and start really working on the problem instead of taking care of Wall Street while ignoring Main Street? The 'Let them eat cake' strategy has been tried before -- remember how it worked out?
First, recognize this Great Depression II has been delivered to you by the Republicans who held congress for a dozen years and during that time also had the White House. And recognize that a 2 seat senate majority isn't enough to get past the problem in the White House.
Then stop with the garbage about Glass Steagall's repeal and recognize it was passed with the vote of every Republican and by a veto proof majority -- who cares if Clinton signed it?
Then do away with the criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act of Carter and learn that nearly $3 of every $4 lent was by an institution not covered by the CRA.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loans-subprime-banks-2228728-law-lenders
"Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?
A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.
There's just one problem: It isn't true."
It's time to stop being the problem and start being part of the solution. Krauthammer is no hero here, he's an apologist for the right wing failures who sell 'trickle down' and don't recognize the true economic engine is 'trickle up,' that's profit, earned,not leveraged.
Oh, and by the by, if the government is not going to help Main Street, there should be NO bailout for the culprits of Wall Street. Let THEM eat cake.
Post a Comment