Statement on Congressional Approval of Bailout
This is the first time in the history of the
It was incredibly irresponsible for President Bush to tell the American people on national television that the country could be facing another Great Depression. By contrast, when we actually were in the Great Depression, President Roosevelt said that, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
It was even more irresponsible for him to seize on the decline in the stock market five days later as evidence that his bailout was needed for the economy. President Bush must surely understand, as all economists know, that the daily swings in the stock market are driven by mass psychology and have almost nothing to do with the underlying strength in the economy.
The scare tactics of President Bush, Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke created sufficient panic, so that by the time of the vote, much of the public believed that the defeat of the bailout may actually have had serious consequences for the economy. Millions of people have changed their behavior because of this fear, with many pulling money out of bank and money market accounts, and in other ways adjusting their financial plans.
This effort to promote panic is especially striking since the country's dire economic situation is almost entirely the result of the Bush Administration's policy failures. First and foremost, the decision of Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke (and previously Alan Greenspan) to ignore the housing bubble, allowed for the growth of an $8 trillion bubble, which is now collapsing.
It is the collapse of this bubble, which has already destroyed more than $4 trillion in housing wealth, and is likely to destroy another $4 trillion over the next year, that is at the root of the economy's problems. While competent economists were warning of the bubble and the dire consequences of its collapse, the top officials in the Bush administration were celebrating the rise in homeownership rates.
The Bush administration made the crisis even worse by deregulating Wall Street. This led to the huge over-leveraging of financial institutions, which has vastly complicated the country's economic policies. It is especially disturbing that Secretary Paulson personally profited from these policies, earning hundreds of millions in compensation from Goldman Sachs during his years there as its CEO.
The collapse of the housing bubble, while falling short of the magnitude of the Great Depression, is likely to lead to the worst recession since World War II. Repairing the damage caused by this bubble will be a long and difficult process. Cleaning up the damage to the political system from President Bush's unprecedented fear campaign may prove to be even more difficult.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University




The bailout is empirically necessary.
By Arizmendi, Benjamin at Oct 04, 2008 10:05 AM
I am not happy about the bailout but I thin it is very important that people don\'t dismiss this unprecedented congressional action as a false panic, somehow manufactured by Wall Street elites and endorsed by the evil president.
It is true that investment and commercial banks colluded to create a bonanza of profits from a mortgage bubble. It is also true that politicians and regulators looked the other way while the bubble was inflating. The abusive behavior could have been avoided and it wasn\'t, so we are all justified in being upset.
But it is imperative that people understand how grave the situation really is at this point. Our financial system is broken, and this is absolutely not a debatable fact. Regardless of whether it\'s a good thing or not, our entire society runs on credit. And I\'m not talking just about Walmart shoppers or 0% car loan consumers. Small, medium and large businesses depend on credit to function on an every day basis. They can\'t make payroll without access to the debt markets. Everything ranging from credit cards to commercial paper has dried up because financial intermediaries do indeed have toxic assets that are impairing their ability to lend.
We can\'t just watch our financial institutions fail. If they fail, we all fail. And this is starting to happen on a global basis. The global banking system has no borders and systemic failure of US institutions would compromise economic activity everywhere. If you think poor countries have it bad right now I can assure you that conditions will get substantially worse unless developed countries and their central banks actively participate in the bailout of their financial intermediaries.
The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury were running out of tricks to inject fiat capital into the system. Real money has to be put the use here, and that money needs to come from taxpayers.
This is not a typical situation where lies are being manufactured to benefit the corporate elite. There is a real, empirical situation out there with respect to our credit markets and if government doesn\'t act quickly we could very easily and quickly find ourselves in a global depression. And as much as I hate to say this, I\'m glad that someone like Hank Paulson is at the helm to address this crisis. Academics and politicians are generally not aware of what needs to be done to clean up the mess caused by Wall Street swindlers; we need a swindler to plan and execute the operation.
Reply this comment
Re: The bailout is empirically necessary.
By Davis, Jerry at Oct 04, 2008 12:33 PM
Reply this comment
By Davis, Jerry at Oct 03, 2008 21:53 PM
I agree that Bush wanted to instil fear to, once again, enrich the criminal financial class. I do need to ask a question though. You see, nobody I know changed thier mind about the bailout. They all continued to oppose it and contact their representatives to tell them so. Although it did become harder to get a staffer to answer the phone later in the week. As most, I did see the mainstream media go into full propaganda mode, never discussing the details of the bill, never mentioning nor interviewing the many economist who argued against it.
So, the question I have is, did the precentage of the population supporting the bail-out bil actually change? Are there any reliable polls showing any change in public opinion?
Yes, on CSPAN I did hear members state that there was a decrease in the percentage opposing the bill, but to me it seemed like just another of the lame excuses congressmen used to justify voting for the bill?
Thanks,
Reply this comment
Re:
By Ariel, Tal at Oct 04, 2008 09:32 AM
Reply this comment