4 ms·

My question though is, what is the alternative?

by nanijoe 18y ago

SwellJoe 18y ago
A bit of honesty, maybe? The bill is duplicitous from the get go. It's entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes"! If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would. Some honest discussion, some real consequences for the people that caused this meltdown (and it was caused, it was not an accident), and some oversight in how a bailout proceeds. Perhaps we, as the folks footing the bill, would also like to know what the total is actually going to be before agreeing to it. My understanding of the bill (admittedly weak) is that it is a blank check for Paulson to distribute amongst his friends in the finance industry, with no oversight and no transparency about how it's going to be used. The fact that a bailout is being presented as "OMG! We have to do this now, imagine the consequences if we don't!" it has a strikingly similar ring to the "We have to invade Iraq now!" pose of a few years ago. I don't trust salesguys that insist I need to buy now, and I really don't trust politicians when they use the same tactic, especially when they're arguments are based on lies and misdirection. Yes, something must be done. Accountability would be a great start. Bringing some trust back into our finance industry would be a good way forward. A bailout? I dunno. Maybe there are other ways forward that directly help the people hurt rather than the millionaires and billionaires that caused it.
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  Why must something be done? I don't understand. Surely if all the banks failed that would be a great opportunity for people to start new banks with extra incentive to prove their honesty and trustworthiness, for instance. It can't be the case that banks will collapse and everyone goes "Oh shit money is now worthless, I'm shutting down my business, firing everyone and going to find a soup kitchen". Can it? Really?
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Why must something be done? Good question. And one I think ought to be asked. It's a standard tactic of both sides to frame a debate such that any result is one they'd be happy with. This appears to be a classic case of that. Both sides want a bailout, and so they've framed the debate as "What kind of bailout do we want?" rather than "Do we need a bailout, or can this problem be solved in other ways?" Interestingly, a huge percentage of Americans (even a few who understand what's going on) don't want a bailout, at all.
    - jodrellblank 18y ago
      At the core of my problem is the Hacker News philosophy that a spirited go-getter can create value for people out of nothing. Yet the oft mentioned depression of the early 1900s showed people queueing for handout foods. Farmers would still work because people still need to eat. People would still trade with farmers because they need to eat and farmers need work doing. People would trade with builders and mechanics and plumbers and cooks and delivery people and oil companies because they want things that those people have, and in exchange they have skills that other people want. This is business, this is life, has been for hundreds of years. So how can that also coexist with unemployed people relying on handouts? What went missing to turn the ongoing network of trades into a fallen pile of cards? Why are some economies sparkling and growing and others filled with peasants eeking a miserable existance? Is credit somehow the missing link I'm not getting? If so, why doesn't printing more money fix Zimbabwe? If it's not credit, what else can vanish? America isn't suddenly out of education, is it? Is it trust? Is there really any kind of meaningful answer to this that doesn't involve pointing at the whole world and saying "that, that's it. Everything that is, that's the answer"?
      - SwellJoe 18y ago
        If so, why doesn't printing more money fix Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe has deep problems unrelated to money supply. If you build a successful business in Zimbabwe Mugabe's thugs will kill you and steal it (or allow you to escape the country with the clothes on your back, if you're lucky). In a culture where everyone has to either be a part of the gang that runs the place, or pay for the privilege of mere existence, business cannot grow. The incentives are simply wrong for business to exist. There is no incentive to work hard, build something new, take risks on new ideas, or provide a service (to anyone other than the thugs in charge). If you had no hope of becoming successful would you start a new business? Would you bother working every day to maintain an existing one? Everyone who has the capacity to build products, grow food, and provide knowledge services, has either fled the country or been killed or imprisoned by the government. Of course the economy of Zimbabwe is a shithole. So, I don't have any answers to any of your other question. I'm by no means an expert on the subject. But the causes of the economic failure of Zimbabwe seems pretty obvious to me. And, the more the US looked like Zimbabwe, politically speaking, the more our economy would look like the economy of Zimbabwe. Luckily, we have a long way to fall to be in quite the same kind of mess as Zimbabwe. But, I do think a bailout without serious oversight and some accountability for the people that caused the problem, would be a big step in the wrong direction.
agotterer 18y ago
There is no good alternative. The bail out is a band aid. It will keep markets and consumers "happy" and blinded for a short period of time. If that bill passed you would have saw the stock market go up today. Thus restoring temporary faith in the market and economic system. Then we will have to fix the underlying problem or you will see it fall right back to where it was and keep falling. I'm not in favor of footing the bill for mistakes these financial institutions made. But if we don't help them out it will continue to trickle and things will get worse. But we may help them out and things may get worse anyways. We are in some big trouble and its not even close to over.
BrandonM 18y ago
Here's a letter that I sent my congressman. I'm interested to hear opinions on my ideas for a bailout alternative: I was greatly disappointed to see your vote of "Aye" for the bill entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes". The bill, of course, includes the provision for the "bailout" of the financial sector. My first problem lies in the title of the bill. As a friend of mine said, "If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would." Have you read George Orwell's 1984, sir? I would not like to imply that we are in such a situation, but to allow a bill to pass which is so clearly titled in an obfuscating way is a mistake, one that is insulting to the American people. My second problem lies in the bailout itself. Instead of punishing those companies that mismanaged their finances, we are instead calling for the entire country to pay for their mistakes. A massive tide of bankruptcies would have 3 major effects: 1. People employed by such companies would lose their jobs. These people are largely white-collar workers who should have some savings put away and should be able to find another job without much trouble. Surely it is better for these individuals to be out of work than for the entire country to be handed a debt that was created by the private sector. 2. It will be harder to get low-rate credit. In a nation that is addicted to such credit, I consider this to be a good thing in general, as it will encourage saving (or filing bankruptcy and starting over without a penchant for overspending). This still poses a minor problem, which I will address below. 3. Some people will lose their retirement investments. This, of course, is a bad thing. Based on points (2) and (3), I think that $700B+ would be better allocated to: 1. Subsidize home mortgage interest rates and/or offer tax credits for people in low tax brackets. This will allow lower- and middle-class individuals to still be able to purchase homes and spaces for small businesses in spite of the inevitable credit crunch. 2. Create a program for individuals meeting certain criteria (age, total assets) that uses government funds to restore some of their lost investments. This will bring some relief to those who depended on the ill-run companies for their retirement. I believe that my ideas are better than a bailout because instead of punishing the entire country for the mistakes of a few, it offers relief to the uninvolved parties who will be hit the hardest, while allowing those responsible for this mess to receive the brunt of the punishment. If, instead, the government proceeds with the bailout, the government is subsidizing the risk of high-risk business practices, which causes companies to take irrational risks and unfairly rake in short-term profits, profits which are later paid for by tax payers who bail the company out when it inevitably goes under. I plead with you to consider the fair course of action in this case, the one which does not punish everyone for the mismanagement of a few. And if the bailout package is allowed to go through, at least ensure that the bill is correctly titled.

My question though is, what is the alternative?

by nanijoe 18y ago

My question though is, what is the alternative?

A bit of honesty, maybe? The bill is duplicitous from the get go. It's entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes"! If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would. Some honest discussion, some real consequences for the people that caused this meltdown (and it was caused, it was not an accident), and some oversight in how a bailout proceeds. Perhaps we, as the folks footing the bill, would also like to know what the total is actually going to be before agreeing to it. My understanding of the bill (admittedly weak) is that it is a blank check for Paulson to distribute amongst his friends in the finance industry, with no oversight and no transparency about how it's going to be used. The fact that a bailout is being presented as "OMG! We have to do this now, imagine the consequences if we don't!" it has a strikingly similar ring to the "We have to invade Iraq now!" pose of a few years ago. I don't trust salesguys that insist I need to buy now, and I really don't trust politicians when they use the same tactic, especially when they're arguments are based on lies and misdirection. Yes, something must be done. Accountability would be a great start. Bringing some trust back into our finance industry would be a good way forward. A bailout? I dunno. Maybe there are other ways forward that directly help the people hurt rather than the millionaires and billionaires that caused it.

jodrellblank 18y ago
Why must something be done? I don't understand. Surely if all the banks failed that would be a great opportunity for people to start new banks with extra incentive to prove their honesty and trustworthiness, for instance. It can't be the case that banks will collapse and everyone goes "Oh shit money is now worthless, I'm shutting down my business, firing everyone and going to find a soup kitchen". Can it? Really?
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Why must something be done? Good question. And one I think ought to be asked. It's a standard tactic of both sides to frame a debate such that any result is one they'd be happy with. This appears to be a classic case of that. Both sides want a bailout, and so they've framed the debate as "What kind of bailout do we want?" rather than "Do we need a bailout, or can this problem be solved in other ways?" Interestingly, a huge percentage of Americans (even a few who understand what's going on) don't want a bailout, at all.
  - jodrellblank 18y ago
    At the core of my problem is the Hacker News philosophy that a spirited go-getter can create value for people out of nothing. Yet the oft mentioned depression of the early 1900s showed people queueing for handout foods. Farmers would still work because people still need to eat. People would still trade with farmers because they need to eat and farmers need work doing. People would trade with builders and mechanics and plumbers and cooks and delivery people and oil companies because they want things that those people have, and in exchange they have skills that other people want. This is business, this is life, has been for hundreds of years. So how can that also coexist with unemployed people relying on handouts? What went missing to turn the ongoing network of trades into a fallen pile of cards? Why are some economies sparkling and growing and others filled with peasants eeking a miserable existance? Is credit somehow the missing link I'm not getting? If so, why doesn't printing more money fix Zimbabwe? If it's not credit, what else can vanish? America isn't suddenly out of education, is it? Is it trust? Is there really any kind of meaningful answer to this that doesn't involve pointing at the whole world and saying "that, that's it. Everything that is, that's the answer"?
    - SwellJoe 18y ago
      If so, why doesn't printing more money fix Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe has deep problems unrelated to money supply. If you build a successful business in Zimbabwe Mugabe's thugs will kill you and steal it (or allow you to escape the country with the clothes on your back, if you're lucky). In a culture where everyone has to either be a part of the gang that runs the place, or pay for the privilege of mere existence, business cannot grow. The incentives are simply wrong for business to exist. There is no incentive to work hard, build something new, take risks on new ideas, or provide a service (to anyone other than the thugs in charge). If you had no hope of becoming successful would you start a new business? Would you bother working every day to maintain an existing one? Everyone who has the capacity to build products, grow food, and provide knowledge services, has either fled the country or been killed or imprisoned by the government. Of course the economy of Zimbabwe is a shithole. So, I don't have any answers to any of your other question. I'm by no means an expert on the subject. But the causes of the economic failure of Zimbabwe seems pretty obvious to me. And, the more the US looked like Zimbabwe, politically speaking, the more our economy would look like the economy of Zimbabwe. Luckily, we have a long way to fall to be in quite the same kind of mess as Zimbabwe. But, I do think a bailout without serious oversight and some accountability for the people that caused the problem, would be a big step in the wrong direction.

agotterer 18y ago

There is no good alternative. The bail out is a band aid. It will keep markets and consumers "happy" and blinded for a short period of time. If that bill passed you would have saw the stock market go up today. Thus restoring temporary faith in the market and economic system. Then we will have to fix the underlying problem or you will see it fall right back to where it was and keep falling. I'm not in favor of footing the bill for mistakes these financial institutions made. But if we don't help them out it will continue to trickle and things will get worse. But we may help them out and things may get worse anyways. We are in some big trouble and its not even close to over.

BrandonM 18y ago

Here's a letter that I sent my congressman. I'm interested to hear opinions on my ideas for a bailout alternative: I was greatly disappointed to see your vote of "Aye" for the bill entitled "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes". The bill, of course, includes the provision for the "bailout" of the financial sector. My first problem lies in the title of the bill. As a friend of mine said, "If that kind of doublespeak don't get yer hackles up, I can't imagine what would." Have you read George Orwell's 1984, sir? I would not like to imply that we are in such a situation, but to allow a bill to pass which is so clearly titled in an obfuscating way is a mistake, one that is insulting to the American people. My second problem lies in the bailout itself. Instead of punishing those companies that mismanaged their finances, we are instead calling for the entire country to pay for their mistakes. A massive tide of bankruptcies would have 3 major effects: 1. People employed by such companies would lose their jobs. These people are largely white-collar workers who should have some savings put away and should be able to find another job without much trouble. Surely it is better for these individuals to be out of work than for the entire country to be handed a debt that was created by the private sector. 2. It will be harder to get low-rate credit. In a nation that is addicted to such credit, I consider this to be a good thing in general, as it will encourage saving (or filing bankruptcy and starting over without a penchant for overspending). This still poses a minor problem, which I will address below. 3. Some people will lose their retirement investments. This, of course, is a bad thing. Based on points (2) and (3), I think that $700B+ would be better allocated to: 1. Subsidize home mortgage interest rates and/or offer tax credits for people in low tax brackets. This will allow lower- and middle-class individuals to still be able to purchase homes and spaces for small businesses in spite of the inevitable credit crunch. 2. Create a program for individuals meeting certain criteria (age, total assets) that uses government funds to restore some of their lost investments. This will bring some relief to those who depended on the ill-run companies for their retirement. I believe that my ideas are better than a bailout because instead of punishing the entire country for the mistakes of a few, it offers relief to the uninvolved parties who will be hit the hardest, while allowing those responsible for this mess to receive the brunt of the punishment. If, instead, the government proceeds with the bailout, the government is subsidizing the risk of high-risk business practices, which causes companies to take irrational risks and unfairly rake in short-term profits, profits which are later paid for by tax payers who bail the company out when it inevitably goes under. I plead with you to consider the fair course of action in this case, the one which does not punish everyone for the mismanagement of a few. And if the bailout package is allowed to go through, at least ensure that the bill is correctly titled.