Opinion
Bailout plan an appropriately sophomoric end to Bush era
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by James Sonneman:
- Madison cannot fix Gaza conflict (January 29, 2009)
- Minnesota faces unenviable dilemma in Senate recount (January 16, 2009)
- Fraternities not entirely to blame for UW's drinking debacle (December 3, 2008)
- Election serves up some real 'change' (November 5, 2008)
- Republican guest will distort Islam (October 15, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
George W. Bush’s presidency has been a disaster. This is not breaking news. Continuing a nearly eight-year tradition, the administration’s economic stimulus proposal represents mediocrity at best and utters failure at worst. Sadly, this turd-sandwich of a plan is now our only option of stemming the most far-reaching financial disaster since the 1929 stock market crash.
Critics of any sort of bailout have dubbed it the dirtiest of words: socialism. Indeed, when Washington is throwing around gaudy numbers like $700 billion to artificially restore needed confidence in the economy, socialism is probably the case. Perhaps they are right and nothing should be done — if only to settle the debate on whether Keynesian economics prolonged the Great Depression. Most would agree that the stakes are too high to find out.
Liberals, on the other hand, are complaining that the Bush plan is simply a government handout to zealous investors who arguably had the biggest role in creating this mess. In theory, this is false. The government is not passing out welfare checks to the rich on Wall Street. Rather, it is buying up the most worthless assets on their books — assets no sane private individual would consider purchasing — for what will certainly be market value and without much hope of a return on the people’s investment. The idea is to pump capital, and hence confidence, back into the struggling financial sector. Whether it will work is beyond me.
Our current financial situation has precedents, and economists are becoming frustrated in their efforts to point this out to Washington. The International Monetary Fund recently released a study detailing the response to 42 banking crises in the past 30 years. The New York Times ran a story Sept. 28 detailing how the Scandinavians successfully handled theirs in the early 1990s. Proposals to keep the impact of a banking crisis to a minimum have ranged from letting the crisis run its course, buying toxic assets, providing credit, plainly giving the banks money or injecting stock into the failing institution. The Bush doctrine of buying toxic assets has proven to be more expensive and less reliable than plans used in other democratic countries — such as those in Scandinavia — which emphasized the method of injecting stock. This tactic importantly gives taxpayers at least a semblance of gain by obtaining actual equity in the troubled bank.
Those who think such a proposal would be ineffective and invite big government into the boardrooms of American banks — and would rather spend taxpayer money on junk mortgage-backed securities — should be encouraged to examine the empirical evidence.
America is not alone in this panic. Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and the Netherlands are all coming to terms with their own credit collapse. All seem to be emphasizing the method of acquiring equity in return for essential recapitalization. Recently, Fortis was partially nationalized by the Benelux countries; Luxembourg, Belgium and France did the same for Dexia.
Of course, the United States experienced its own banking crisis — the Savings and Loans crisis — in the late 1980s and recovered at a cost of $160 billion to bail out overextended bankers. A bailout of the S&L and Bush type only encourages risky behavior by creating what experts call a ‘moral hazard’ — dubbed by the Wall Street Journal as “the distortions introduced by the prospect of having to pay for your sins.” By bailing out financial firms without making them hurt will simply encourage future generations of our noble elite to live like kings for the better part of a decade while having taxpayers split the bill.
Politically, this proposal was a brilliant move by Bush, Paulson and Bernake to pour even more money into Wall Street while leaving the American taxpayer to deal with the repercussions. The truth is that a terrible precedent was set when no one in Washington ever considered alternative ways to solve the crisis.
James Sonneman (sonneman@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science and history.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Obama totally disappointed me by falling for the bailout plan. What the hell was he thinking?! I’m not voting for him! No way!
Bob Barr gets my vote this time. We don’t just need a whole set of rules. We need a whole new ballgame!
Economic theories work terrificly in a vaccum, but fail miserably in real-life. The solution to this problem will be found in common sense principals, rather than idealized theories.
Hey everyone, at least you didn’t have your social security privatized… yet.
“Rather, it is buying up the most worthless assets on their books — assets no sane private individual would consider purchasing — for what will certainly be market value and without much hope of a return on the people’s investment. “
I am sorry for this typo getting past me. I meant to say that the assets will NOT be purchased for market value. Ron Paul so kindly pointed out during Bernake’s questioning that price-fixing will be inevitable.
-James Sonneman
Bush actually tried to do something to prevent the disaster - Dems in Congress stopped him:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html
Bush has about zero to do with this bailout, besides saying people should vote for it. Get over yourself.
What gets to me is that Obama, Mr. Change-we-can-believe-in, actually voted for the bailout! No way!
Bob Barr in November!
Seems to a lot of people against the bailout ONLY because Bush supports it. Bush Derangement Syndrome is a terrible thing.