I want to have an opinion in this $700 billion bailout, but I’m hesitant. I’m so uninformed. I haven’t studied economics, though I am highly distrustful of economists. I admire those in Congress who are brave enough not to support this bailout. If the economy worsens over the next month, they could very well be getting kicked out of office on this single vote alone…
Given my naivete about economics, I’d tentatively fall on the anti-bailout side. First, this is trickle-down economics and corporate welfare. If this were a $700 billion jobs and public works bill, I’d be all for it. Then again, I’m a huge fan of Franklin Roosevelt’s economic policies (though not his racist policies, but that’s another story). Ari J. Officer and Lawrence H. Officer at Time Magazine make a good argument for letting the risk-taking financial institutions fail. Monday we saw a huge drop in the stock-market, but Tuesday it shot back up. Estimated financial loss on Monday: $1 trillion. Estimated gain on Tuesday: $500 billion. I hardly think these rich folks are hurting that much.
My primary concern is that if something isn’t done, jobs will be lost. The rich will still remain rich, for the most part, because they’ll simply fire the middle class workers.
But then again, I don’t like the speed with which this bailout is being pushed for. I want slow, reflective governance. Certainly, there are moments where action is needed, but I don’t think it’s useful to call this a crisis. I think it’s only a crisis because we have called it a crisis.
Of course, I’m also speaking from a very privileged location. I’m safe economically for the next four years, as this flow chart at PhD Comics makes clear.
Tentative Solution: A $700 billion bailout coupled with a $1.5 trillion tax increase on those making more than $1 million a year and a $500 billion jobs and public works bill. Then again, I’m no economist.
