Previous entry: 
Next entry:
The banking "crisis"
Remember how the $600 toilet seat helped us finally understand defense spending waste in a concrete way?
The auto company CEOs who flew to Washington in private planes to beg for handouts... the obscene bonuses for the same Wall Street masters of the universe whose greed got us into this mess...these are the convenient handles that we, the great unwashed, must grasp if we are ever going to comprehend the bewildering abstractions that swirl around us and snake their wispy tentacles into our pockets.
The problem with this banking paradox is that it isn't making sense to us taxpayers. If they're doing so well, why do they need our help? Even if they do need help, why should they get it before we do? And what happened to that first $600 billion of TARP money? It was supposed to grease the skids. They aren't skidding yet.
Somebody's got, as Ricky Ricardo said, some 'splainin' to do. Or some better 'splainin', anyway, because it seems like the only constant in all this backing and filling is that we, the public, keep getting ripped off. When we ask why, nobody has any answers.
The 'Splainer in Chief, for all his rhetorical abilities, could be doing a better job at laying it out. And the Loyal Opposition, rather than just sniping and obfuscating, could be displaying a little more statesmanship by presenting a credible alternative.
We should be holding their feet to the--oh, that's right. This isn't an election year. No wonder they aren't sweating it.
CHAN LOWE
Comments
I do wish I could get someone to 'splain it to me :-). I just read an article today that said vast numbers of economists think the bad banks should be allowed to fail. Meanwhile, they keep telling us that the problem is no one is lending. My tiny little brain wants to know: Why not take all that bailout money and put it in CDs at the banks which weren't having problems and weren't being run by morons? Let the banks run by actual bankers instead of speculators use those vast deposits to do some of that lending we want to see happening, and pay us interest while they are at it. Let the banks run by morons fail, and good riddance to them. I guess I just don't understand high finance :-).
Posted by: Tom | April 21, 2009 6:50 PM
The real problem is that the Federal Reserve, by lowering interest rates too much and pushing too much money into the economy, has caused the financial crisis. We are not going to solve a problem caused by too much credit by increasing credit. We actually need higher interest rates and a decrease in borrowing in order to allow the economy to get back on track.
Why not take all that bailout money and put it in CDs...
The big problem is that the bailout money does not exist. The government simply created that money out of nothing. Besides having little effect in improving the economy, that huge amount of money created out of thin air will have the effect of diluting the value of the money you already have. In effect, we will suffer massive inflation and a lower standard of living.
I am certain our government officials will shift the blame elsewhere. We would be much better off with government letting the chips fall where they may.
I just read an article today that said vast numbers of economists think the bad banks should be allowed to fail.
I don't know whether it is vast numbers of economists, but certainly the ones who actually understand economics want the bad banks to fail.
Posted by: Lolly | April 21, 2009 7:25 PM
Tom, this new administration feels only the smart and successful business should fail while the ones incapeable of success should be helped by the successful.
Posted by: Pointman870 | April 23, 2009 7:56 AM
He should have bailed out all of us, first.
Posted by: rev. marvin e. purser jr. | April 27, 2009 6:40 AM