After the House voted no on the bailout plan, and blame was passed around both sides of the aisle. New York Times Op-Ed columnist and economic professor Paul Krugman wrote on his blog:Ok, we are a banana republic
House votes no. Rex Nutting has the best line: House to Wall Street: Drop Dead. He also correctly places the blame and/or credit with House Republicans. For reasons I’ve already explained, I don’t think the Dem leadership was in a position to craft a bill that would have achieved overwhelming Democratic support, so make or break was whether enough GOPers would sign on. They didn’t.
I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it — though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election.
For now, I’m just going to quote myself:
So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.
As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes._____________
With the Dow falling 777 points, this is not just about Wall St., but about Main St. It will effect retirement plans and student loans as well as credit lines that become available on "Main St." (Wolak)
7 comments:
I was looking online for more information on the bail-out plan and what it was actually going to do, before it failed, and I came across this article on BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7631321.stm
It has a great graph on how the economic plan was going to work, and more information on why it failed, like how many politicians felt it would help many greedy bankers.
Also, this article has many links to other great articles BBC has on the economic crisis here and in Europe, under key stories on the right hand side. Another resource is halfway down the screen there is a way to download and read the whole bill.
Blogging at 4:22 am? Maybe that is the secret to Mr Wolak's energy
I think that it was a bad decision for the House not to pass the bill because not only were they ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive without it, but they had no further plan to aid the economy. I would not usually say this but i am in support of Obama's plan right now because it gives immediate aid to the businesses and famalies that need help now. His plan calls for more immediate steps to heal the nation's ailing economy, proposing a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures at some banks and a two-year tax break for businesses that create new jobs. Obama said that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage. I think that this is the proper plan at the moment because it provides relief and that is exactly what the economy and our citizens need.
A couple of weeks after the bailout plan was passed, it is clear that it is not having an immediate effect on the financial markets. As some analysts have pointed out, the seemingly endless deluge of "radical" government action has been repeated into monotony; essentially meaning nothing to the average consumer and inducing more panic into the stock market.
It seems to me like this economic problem has been built up over the past half-century, as Americans have increasingly turned away from the frugality of the 50's and embraced consumerism fed by the easy credit of the Cold War era and massive governmental spending. However, this is unsustainable behavior; the average consumer's buying power is severely hampered by debt payments, and consequently, unable to get credit.
More than anything, it seems to be our own fault for mindlessly following the latest trends, and no government "bailout" will be successful without fundamental changes in the way Americans live their lives.
Penis
From The Times on-line on Oct. 13:
US economist Paul Krugman, a prolific New York Times columnist and fierce critic of Washington’s economic policies, won the Nobel Economics Prize today.
The Princeton University professor was rewarded for his "analysis of trade patterns," the Nobel jury said.
Krugman, 55, has formulated a new theory that determines the effects of free trade and globalisation, as well as the driving forces behind worldwide urbanisation, the citation said.
Unlike traditional trade theory, which assumes that differences between countries explains why some nations export agricultural products while others export industrial goods, Krugman’s "theory clarifies why worldwide trade is in fact dominated by countries which not only have similar conditions, but also trade in similar products," it added.
Post a Comment