When the Wolf’s at the Door
On Wednesday President Bush warned Americans about the impending economic crisis and said that if Congress refused to act then the country would go into a recession. Let's just take a few moments to ask some questions.
1. How is Congress to blame for the fact that the banks gave a bunch of money to people who couldn't pay it back? This is purely the result of bad decisions by investors and speculators. Many people were hoping to make loads of money on these deals, instead they lost their ass and took the whole country with them. And now they are holding a gun to the head of the American people saying, "You think it's bad now, if you don't give me more money right away it's going to get really ugly."
2. What happened to "free-market" economics? The big banks and fiscal conservatives champion this one all the time, when it is in their best interest to do so. Now that they're loosing money they're crying "Momma!" I don't know why people are suddenly objecting to America becoming a socialist country now, it has been a socialist country for the rich for most of its history.
3. What is this really going to cost? It always costs more than they say it's going to. So $700 billion is just the first estimate. We're talking most likely somewhere in the trillions. The taxpayers have already been shelling out $100 billion a year on Iraq since 2003, does anybody remember what that was supposed to cost?
4. How do you stop a recession (or for that matter, depression)? This is the kicker, because nobody knows the answer to this question. All of the economic data going back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution shows cycles of boom and bust. For all of its bluster, economics is still a relatively new field of study. Maybe after a few more hundreds of years we'll be able to say for certain, but who knows? The guys at the Treasury Department are espousing a theory of what to do, they have no idea whether if it will actually do any good whatsoever.
5. What is the actual value of these bad investments? I would argue that the money people are afraid of loosing never existed in the first place. These "bad investments" we keep hearing about were mortgages clumped together and sold and re-sold and traded and used as credit between the big banks in dozens different ways. There still isn't anybody who can come to the table right now and explain what these financial instruments are actually worth. Their value still lies off in the future where only time will tell whether or not people will pay their mortgages or go into foreclosure (which is related to the overall future of the economy).
6. Where is the U.S. economy headed these days anyway? Is it destined to be the richest country in the world for all of eternity or is the global economy changing things? There is the possibility that there are much broader causes for the general problems in the U.S. economy, and that the housing crisis is just the most visible part. All of the margins that have put the United States in the lead over the years are beginning to fall off. There really is no guarantee that dumping all of this money into the banks will fix things. It may actually just give the people who have squandered our wealth over the years the last penny in our pockets.
7. Is unlimited economic growth a feasible goal? The current pace of "economic development" has still left billions of people poor and irreversibly destroyed much of the earth's natural economy, the environment. What many people still seem to miss is that infinite growth of anything in a finite space will destroy everthing in its environment in the process of following it's growth curve (i.e. "There ain't room enough in this town for the both of us!").
8. What about all of the other countries? If this is really going to effect the global economy, how come no other countries are stepping in to pledge their support? For example, China has loads of cash, why aren't they pumping money into the global economy? I think that the other countries either expect the U.S. to fix everything or they view trying to intervene themselves a waste of money. Either way, it looks like the States are on their own this time.
Okay, so say it is in the best interest of all Americans and "for the economy" if we give the crybabies their $700 billion pacifier. Who better to tell the American people that this needs to be done than George W. Bush, the most devisive and inept president in the history of the country, and during his last "lame-duck" months in office no-less. I mean, come on, this is the same guy who said that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were buds. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know the national debt has exponentially increased during his last seven-and-a-half years in office. I can say for sure is that he has been the most expensive president to ever sit in the oval office. Everyone has forgotten by now, but the last time the economy was looking even close to as unstable was when he first came to office (I refuse to say he was "elected"). Come on, think, remember Enron? Maybe this should become a battle cry like "Remember the Alamo!" Anybody who still listens to a thing this guy says is a total doofus. As others before me have pointed out, he is the ipitome of the boy who cried wolf.
So if there is anywhere where I could put the blame for the economic mess in the U.S., it is on George W. Bush. If he had not destroyed his credibility a hundred different ways over the years then he may well have been able to use his executive powers and influence to change the course of things for the better. One thing is for sure, the wolf is at the door, and he's getting dinner tonight. Some sheep will be sacrificed on the altar to the God of money and in the end the poor will be worse off.
