Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Does It Take a Panic to Stop a Panic?
The Wall Street bailout and the perils of bipartisanship
"Without immediate action by Congress," President Bush warned last week, "America could slip into a financial panic." Instead Bush wanted a political panic. The only way to avert "a long and painful recession" in which "millions of Americans could lose their jobs," he said, was to send the Treasury Department on an unprecedented Wall Street buying spree.
But Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was premature in thinking the administration's scaremongering had produced "a bipartisan consensus for an urgent legislative solution." A bailout bill that reached Congress on Monday, just 10 days after Paulson first proposed using taxpayer money to relieve financial institutions of their bad investments, was narrowly defeated in the House. Still, the specter of blind bipartisanship, which may yet prevail, should give pause to anyone who hopes electing a Republican president will curb the excesses of a Democratic Congress.
The issue has hurt John McCain in more obvious ways as well. The Wall Street bailout focused voters' attention on the economy, an area where, rightly or wrongly, they trust Barack Obama more.
McCain looked like a grandstanding doofus when, trying to gain a political advantage, he melodramatically "set politics aside" and rushed to Washington, where he vainly sought to broker a bailout deal. After saying Friday night's presidential debate would have to be postponed, for the good of the country, until an agreement had been reached, he discovered the country could spare him for a few hours after all and flew to Mississippi, where he achieved the bipartisanship that had eluded him in Washington.
"We are going to have to intervene; there's no doubt about that," said Obama. "We have to move swiftly." McCain sounded even more panicky, saying there's "no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis." Unless Congress does something to "fix the greatest fiscal crisis...in our time," he said, we will see "failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes."
McCain added that "the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington." Right after letting the Treasury Department spend $1 trillion on the crappiest assets it can find. (Rounding the number up seems reasonable given the arbitrariness of the official $700 billion estimate. "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury Department spokeswoman told Forbes. "We just wanted to choose a really large number.")
Neither candidate wondered whether government officials spending other people's money can realistically be expected to do a better job of valuing mortgage-backed securities than myriad investors with their own money on the line. Neither worried that government ownership of so many securities, including stock in financial institutions, would create conflicts of interest and encourage politically motivated market manipulation.
Neither said it was dangerous to rescue Wall Street firms from their own mistakes instead of letting the market punish them, or unfair to make taxpayers pick up the tab. Neither mentioned the problem of moral hazard, where the expectation of a bailout leads people to take risks they otherwise would avoid. Most fundamentally, neither questioned the premise that Congress had to choose between a recklessly rushed "solution" and economic catastrophe.
More than 100 economists signed a September 23 open letter warning Congress "not to rush," saying "a subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense" is morally and economically problematic. "Fundamentally weakening [credit] markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted," they said. Three days later, 44 economists led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said the bailout plan "poses a significant threat to taxpayers while failing to address fundamental problems."
Instead of heeding these warnings, Obama and McCain listened to the likes of White House spokesman Tony Fratto, who said failing to approve the bailout by the end of last week was "unthinkable." "We have to get something done," one of the candidates insisted on Sunday. "The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option," the other declared.
Who said what? Does it matter?
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
|10.1.08 @ 7:33AM|#
The amazing thing to me is how powerful Bush still is, despite being unpopular, at the end of his term, and the other party controlling Congress. Everyone is dancing to Bush's tune. He's leading and McCain/Obama/Pelosi are following.
|10.1.08 @ 7:43AM|#
Max, Bush isn't powerful the money people behind Bush are
powerful and they are blackmailing Washington politicians to get
what they want.
Yesterday, Rep Brad Sherman (CA) spoke on CNBC and stated that
foreign banks will be one of the benefactors of this plan. (it's
very hard to find any coverag of this interview!)
Our Banking Cartel (Federal Reserve) do not want to pay for their
business mistakes. McBama & Co. have sold their souls to the
highest bidder. Either that or they know we have already lost our
freedom and they figure they may as well benefit.
United States of America the land of the indentured servant.
David W.|10.1.08 @ 8:36AM|#
Time to beef up antitrust law. Cartels is right and it turns out that bigness does equal badness. You are seeing it right now loyal HitnRunners!
|10.1.08 @ 8:42AM|#
By the way, where's Phil Gramm when you need him?
We've gone from a "mental recession" to a mental Great
Depression.
|10.1.08 @ 8:45AM|#
DavidW, the FDIC seems intent on creating a banking oligopoly. The big banks get sweetheart merger deals; outsiders (e.g. private equity) are not invited to the party.
|10.1.08 @ 8:57AM|#
I'm getting rather pissed off at CNN and others describing this
as the congress "failing" to pass a "rescue" bill. The way I see
it, the house successfully defended the people from the
second-biggest robbery attempt in history.
-jcr
|10.1.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Max, Bush isn't powerful the money people behind Bush are
powerful
No. Pelosi and Reid are weaker than Near Beer. They are fucking
pathetic.
adrian|10.1.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Again government will be responsible for creating monopolies. Soon we will only have 2 or 3 major banks in the US which the government helped to create. You can be sure they are now too big too fail and will require constant government support.
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 9:06AM|#
Government is responsible for creating cartels by simple non-enforcement of the antitrust laws. The Fed's bearing is a red herring. Time for some antitrust lawsuits and deconsolidation orders.
|10.1.08 @ 9:11AM|#
This situation is much worse than if the government just took over the banks outright. This way it tries to make it look legit to those that favor a free market, and then they will get all huffy and think that they deserve the money they make off of it, and so will those that don't follow these things closely. Alternately, it will still be hailed as a situation where there isn't enough government oversight by those on the left.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 9:15AM|#
So, when is this "recession" going to begin? I have been hearing
any-day-now/we-are-already-in-on on this board all year.
Almost forgot, HAPPY NEW FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR!
tarran|10.1.08 @ 9:17AM|#
Dave W.
I am continually amazed at your ability to look at any issue and
completely and utterly fail to grasp it. You are like George
Castanza, a man who would bat 1000 if he would say the opposite of
what he believes.
Government is responsible for creating cartels by simple non-enforcement of the antitrust laws.
Absent an enforcing mechanism to prevent new competitors from
entering the field, cartels cannot significantly alter market
prices. In other words, the only way a cartel exists is if it does
not behave like a cartel.
If a cartel tries to raise prices or limit production guess what
happens? The first cartel member who betrays the cartel gains a
significant profit. That is why cartels are always crying to
governemnt to bail them out or to protect them from ruinous
competition.
BTW, how does the government protect them from this ruinous
competition? Well, they can pass laws that favor the established
players, or they can prosecute the upstart using antitrust
law.
The vast majority of anti-trust prosecutions are due to a
politically connected poor performer suing his more consumer
friendly competitor.
The "wisdom" you keep trying to drop on us Hit N Runners is really
the ravings of a simpleton. Give it up.
|10.1.08 @ 9:20AM|#
tarran, Dave's brain only processes two things: HFCS and anti-trust. Cut him some slack and buy him a Boylan's Cherry Cola, made with cane sugar.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 9:26AM|#
So, when does the whole economic system go into a black hole with people sleeping in their cars (outside fo Atlanta), looting in the streets and Polar Bears keeling over from foreclosure notices and AGW?
JMR|10.1.08 @ 9:38AM|#
I'm still thankful that the US government threw literally millions of our tax dollars into investigating those dangerous privately-issued gold & silver backed currencies for so-many years, despite scant-at-best evidence of any criminality. Otherwise, there could have been an economic catastrophe and no-doubt a bailout!! (Oops!)
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Thank goodness the Defense Appropriations got passed and signed before today. Nice that atleast one enumerated power was paid some mind this year.
|10.1.08 @ 9:57AM|#
He's leading and McCain/Obama/Pelosi are
following.
In the country of the blind . . . ?
Mostly, though, its because McCain/Obama/Pelosi/Reid want this to
be the Bush bailout bill for one and only one reason - they don't
want to take responsibility for unpopular legislation, regardless
of its merits.
|10.1.08 @ 10:05AM|#
"The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable
option,"
I beg to differ.
Invisible Finger|10.1.08 @ 10:12AM|#
If you can afford to buy a politician, you've got enough money and don't need a loan.
|10.1.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Ahhh, bipatisanship. I find that getting robbed and beaten by
two is actually more painful than a lone mugger.
I'm funny that way.
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Pay for the bailout with a new capital gains tax of however big it needs to be.
|10.1.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Pay for the bailout with a new capital gains tax of however
big it needs to be.
Because nothing helps capital markets function the way they should
like a big fucking tax.
|10.1.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Stimulate the economy sufficiently to overcome any financial
meltdown by repealing the capital gains tax.
Hey, this is fun!
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Those who benefit, as a class, need to be footing the bill, as a class. If you are going to socialize the losses, at least do it fairly. Who knows -- if it were made clear that the bailout was to be paid for with a capital gains tax, it might turn out that they need less money than they think right now!
|10.1.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Along with my proposed repeal of the capital gains tax, I'd also like to suggest that these trying times require a flat tax for individuals and corporations.
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 11:06AM|#
No wonder your site has so many days devoted to monkeys. I dub you "Hear No Evil." VemSter is "See No Evil." Smacky is "Speak No Evil" because she doesn't post as much as she should.
|10.1.08 @ 11:12AM|#
There's that Pro Liberatte fellow again. Who is he, and why does
he type so poorly?
I wish I were in Congress, because I'd take advantage of this
crisis to propose a major rollback of the regulatory state. On top
of my tax reduction proposals. The economy would zoom into
overdrive, and this Era of Americans Being Full of Stupid could
end. For you, Dave, my comprehensive bill would be called the
USAMONKEY Act.
|10.1.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Pro LiberLatte-
He probably drinks his frothy caffeinated candy drinks with his
pinky gracefully arched above the cup.
As for this: Those who benefit, as a class, need to be footing
the bill, as a class. I say, we can eliminate a lot of
unnecessary intermediate steps, and just let them take the losses
on their ill-considered bets directly.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Socialize/losses/fairly
One of these words does not belong with the other two and should
never appear in the same sentence together.
I knew I left someone out of my filter.
|10.1.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Those who benefit, as a class, need to be footing the bill,
as a class.
Even assuming the bailout bill passes in its current form, the
class of those benefiting more or less directly from it is much,
much smaller than those who pay cap gains tax.
|10.1.08 @ 11:29AM|#
There's that Pro Liberatte fellow again.
I'm just waiting for Pro Liberace to put in an appearance.
|10.1.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Under the Pro Libertate/Pro Liberatte Plan, America will again
become an economic juggernaut--both in size and in
growth--terrorizing the world with our lofty success. And I
guarantee widespread flying cars and fusion generators as well as
Mars Disney by 2020. I wish I were in Congress.
R C,
That would be his brother George.
|10.1.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Whoa, Citizen Nothing, nice preemption. Tell me, do you know about George due to Bugs Bunny? That's the only reason I know that one.
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 11:42AM|#
I am not pro-bailout. But, if its gonna happen (and it is), then
it should be funded by a capital gains tax.
As far as RCD's point about direct bene's of the inevitable bailout
not being exactly coextensive with the payors of a cap gains tax,
my responses (in descending order of importance): (i) don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good; (ii) the tax can be structured to
increase the coextensivity; and (iii) trickle down.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha on that last one. * pauses, wipes
brow* hahahahahaha!
Citizen Nothing|10.1.08 @ 11:45AM|#
The DVD collection -- volume 6 -- of classic Warner Bros.
cartoons comes out in a couple of weeks.
That gives me home.
Guy Montag|10.1.08 @ 11:48AM|#
The DVD collection -- volume 6 -- of classic Warner Bros.
cartoons comes out in a couple of weeks.
That gives me home.
Will it includ "Bugs Nips the Nips" or is that one still
banned?
Citizen Nothing|10.1.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Still waiting for the "censored" shorts, Guy.
I've never even seen "Snow Black."
(And I call myself a Warners fan, yeah, yeah, whatever.)
Citizen Nothing|10.1.08 @ 11:54AM|#
On the other hand, for cartoon buffs I can highly recommend the
classic Popeye series, now out in three DVD volumes.
I was never a Popeye fan, but the early Max and Dave Fleisher
shorts are amazingly inventive, and, dare I say it,
eye-popping.
I was surprised to see how many of their gags were later recycled
in the Warner 'tunes.
Citizen Nothing|10.1.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Sorry for the thread-jack.
Now back to the REAL cartoon figures in Congress...
|10.1.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Wait a second.
I own stocks.
I pay capital gains tax.
However, my investments in that sector and those companies was
fairly minimal.
Yet Dave W. wants me to pay for the bailout with a tax
increase?
That's the second stupidest thing I've read all morning.
Dave W.|10.1.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Yet Dave W. wants me to pay for the bailout with a tax
increase?
1. I said I would prefer no bailout. Moving back to reality . .
.
2. Actually, if they put me in charge, I would sell you into
slavery to pay for it. The cap gains tax is only a second best
solution because slavery got such a bad rap in the 1800s and they
made these pesky Amendments.
3. If your stock ownership is small, then your share of paying for
the bailout is small, under a pay with cap gains tax plan.
Invisible Finger|10.1.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Dave W. wants to pay for capital losses by taxing capital
gains.
Yes, Dave W. might be the stupidest person to ever live.
nonPaulogist|10.1.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Dave W. is Ignoramus Maximus
Tarran was spot-on the money.
This "rescue" bill stinks so much, it should be ruled a violation
of the clean air act.
David W.|10.1.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Dave W. wants to pay for past capital losses by taxing future
capital gains.
And ppl think I am stupid. *sheesh*
Contextant|10.1.08 @ 11:24PM|#
This political cartoon says it all:
If Congress Knew How to Run A Business
|10.9.08 @ 5:12PM|#
The bailout in socializing private risk is only the first step. We've now created systemic risk through all of the new financial institutions and mechanisms (e.g., hedge funds) that has to be regulated. We'll need to social private gains after Obama is elected, probably by requiring significant capitalization through margins. This will limit the speculative bubbles that have arisen over the last 20 years as we've deregulated the financial markets. Sorry, the party is over (finally...)
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Jacob Sullum
- Salvia and Salivation, Jacob Sullum, November 24, 2009
- The Salvia Ban Wagon, Jacob Sullum, November 19, 2009
- Menu Mandate’s Missing Math, Jacob Sullum, November 18, 2009
Related Articles (Economics, Campaigns/Elections, Barack Obama, John McCain, Capital Markets)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Treating Wall Street Like the Mafia, Anthony Randazzo, November 20, 2009
- Worse Than Taxes, John Stossel, November 19, 2009
- Globalization With a Human Face, Shikha Dalmia, November 18, 2009
- Where’s That Inflation?, Veronique de Rugy, November 17, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245