Ought conservatives oppose government bailouts?

Well, a couple of things. First of all, it’s really going to be up to the Dems if this thing flies or not, as they control the purse strings now (though, in actuality it’s going to be up to both parties since the balance is so close). So, if any such ‘strings’ are attached it should be the Dems attaching them (assuming they think it’s a good idea…which I doubt). Secondly, I doubt you would be able to do it anyway. Thirdly, it’s not really an issue as most CEO’s aren’t looking to bail but to stabilize their companies in the short term so they can get back on their feet…and get rid of all those toxic house notes they are holding onto.

Sure…it helped. But creating these regulations in the first place (as well as Fannie and Freddie) is the root cause of this situation. There is plenty of blame to spread around on this one…it’s not nearly as simple as people are making it out to be on this board from what little I understand of it.

As for transparency, I have no problem with that. Certainly AIG is over a barrel and I’m guessing you’ll get your wish there in any case. WRT regulations…I’d rather see the baby thrown out with the bath water as far as the current system, but I doubt that is going to happen. So, assuming we’ll have essentially the same fucked up system we currently have then some regulations would probably be in order so that this doesn’t happen again (though there is a bit of closing the barn door after the cow gets out to it all at this point).

-XT

Well, if you take a look at it a different way, it’s what makes the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Most Repubs in leadership positions grew up in homes where for the most part, their parents were well-off, at least in the upper middle-class. Many really never truly had to struggle and when they did, or failed, parents carried them forward or bailed them out… e.g. Dubya, McCain etc… They were not particularly smart, nor did they feel they had to be. All they had to do was try a bit and stay the heck out of trouble to position themselves with Daddies wealth for whatever was next in the World.

From childhood, most were expected to be in leadership positions of some kind, and family paved their way by hook or crook. Things came easy to them, and when and if they failed, well they only had to make the call home to be BAILED OUT.

In like manner, they operate and run our financial, economic, and political systems.

Stop the presses. The government and private interests are intermingling? Someone send a telegram to Hearst!

Clearly, the dominance of our financial markets by far left liberals and socialists is the single most salient cause of our troubles.

Why, yes, I used to take a lot of drugs. Why do you ask?

As a conservative I can reasonably state with no hypocrisy that it is absolutely consistent and proper that in free markets profits should be privatized and losses socialized.
Don’t question it. Just accept it.

Why?

(Ooops, sorry. Force of habit…)

There truly is no contradiction between regulation and free markets. Free markets require regulation to run efficiently.

Other industries form something called a “public trust.” That is, what they do is considered important or vital to society at large. For the privilege of being allowed to make tons of money doing business in “a public trust” a company has the responsibility not to fuck it up and to be subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny and regulation in order to ensure they don’t.

Life insurance is a classic example. If you want to take money from people in order to insure their lives you have to be able to prove to the government that you have the ability to pay their beneficiaries when they die. Also, you’re not allowed to do things that might fuck up your ability to do so. You have to be willing to subject yourself to the government’s standards and rules that make sure you won’t, and cooperate actively when they seek to verify this.

In spite of all this, a certain number of chuckleheads will still manage to fuck up and won’t be able to make good on their promises. Because of this, you need to be willing to take a portion of your profits and put them into a fund or funds that will make good on them anyway.

That’s the price of being in a public trust.

Being a financial service company like a bank, an insurance company, or a brokerage firm, or all three is also a public trust.

Now, we have two things going on in the current crisis. Personally, I don’t think any politicians are too blame. Private industry did this all by itself without any help.

The first thing that happened is that the financial services companies (including the rating agencies, especially those fuckers) broke the public trust. They did so by irresponsibly creating, disseminating and owning extremely risky securities in huge amounts simply because it was extremely profitable to do so. When these blew up they damaged themselves as well the public in innumerable ways. They didn’t do it on purpose, but they should have known better.

This made a bunch of the financial services companies sick. Bear Sterns died of this illness. Lehman Bros became gravely ill (but they were still sick from 1998, anyway.)

Lehman bros. did not die from this sickness, they were murdered. AIG did not die. They were murdered. Merrill was not dying, that was attempted homicide. Neither Goldman nor Morgan Stanley had more than mild indigestion yet there was attempted murder in the 1st degree against them, too.

The killers were short sellers. Oddly though, it’s not the short sellers fault. Think of them as sharks in the ocean. We may not like them or some off the things they do, but they serve a valuable purpose. Short sellers reveal weakness. They keep the markets efficient. They are not inherently bad guys.

The bad guys are the ratings companies. These companies accept money to rate the soundness of other companies and financial instruments. They fucked up big time with the CDOs slapping a triple A rating on just about anything because it was asset-backed.

They admitted that they fucked up, and that they were incompetant, and to fix it what they decided to do was not even try to do their job. They would just let the markets decide. If something went down they figured that would mean that there was something wrong with it and they should downgrade it.

Getting back to our shark metaphor, this was basically the same thing as loading a boat full of fish guts, driving the boat to a family beach where all kinds of nice people are swimming, and dumping the guts in the water.

The sharks came, as is their nature. They’re doing what they do, not their fault.

The shorts could now attack a company, knock it’s price down, force a downgrade which meant the company needed to produce more capitol as collaterol for its existing debt. This would make the stock go down further which would attract more shorts, etc etc, creating a death spiral.

The shorts could now create weakness rather than just exploit.

Something has to be done or the entire global financial system unwinds. It was very close. This was unprecedented.

Creating this scenario is a chain of stupidity, bad luck, greed, and more stupidity going back decades.

The government literally stepped in at the last minute. It could have been a disaster that would have made the great depression look like a cakewalk and it could have been global in scale.

In the very best case, it is still going to horrendous damage that will be felt for decades and will forever change the nature of financial services and securities markets.

They absolutely had to step in and bail it out and regulate it back to stability. I hope they can. Once that is done, absolutely, the players involved need to pick up the tab over the coming years and not stick the taxpayers, even if they are not directly responsible or are blameless. That’s the price of doing business in the public trust.

Comrade Scylla’s indictment is astute. I move his nomination to Commissar and appointment as the People’s Prosecutor for running dog jackals of the Ruling Class.

Not so fast. I want to see how he plans to follow through on the “the players involved need to pick up the tab over the coming years and not stick the taxpayers” part.

What’s the difference between CDOs and WMDs?

CDOs are real.

You want me to plan the bail out and recovery?
I’ll be sure and let you know the moment I figure it out.

No, not at all. Just the payback. Use all the goons you need.

Right. I thought the commentary on the ‘Does Obama understand Economics?’ thread was starting to go into the weeds. This looks a little worse. I didn’t think that was possible.

Once a government decides to move to a system of fiat money and fractional-reserve banking, the genie is out of the bottle. By definition, those two things together allow for

  1. The government (Fed) to the printing presses on or off, at its own will and

  2. The government (Fed) to dictate how much money banks can ‘print’, by off dictating capital reserve requirements

You have created a circular definition where the Fed controls liquidity. Hence, if a liquidity crises exists, there is no other option than having the Fed turn on/off the taps it created via it’s own tap-creating exercise.

It’s an unfortunate game of Whack-A-Mole that the government must play, by introducing more regulation into a free-market system because of the introduction of it’s own intrusion. Got that? Good.

There is another way, but it involves going back on the gold standard. Countries that have hit absolute rock-bottom due to the debasement of their currency, such as Argentina, have moved close to that point by adopting currency boards that peg their notes 1-to-1 to some external store of value, such as the dollar. And they must hold 100% dollars in reserve (which is the antidote to a fractional-reserve system, as discussed above) to back their currency.

Actually, Argentina did that a few years ago. I haven’t checked back in with them in a while to see if they migrated off the currency board.

Despite my reasonably hard-core libertarian principles, I actually think the Fed has done an OK job throughout this. As described above, they really don’t have a choice. They’ve stepped in when it looks like a true liquidity crisis has been the issue (Bear Stearns, AIG) and stepped back when poor management was the clear issue (Lehman).

Terrible typing and editing in my post above. Sorry. To edit…

  1. The government (Fed) to turn the printing presses on or off, at its own will and

  2. The government (Fed) to dictate how much money banks can ‘print’, by dictating capital reserve requirements

True, I had assumed that Commissar Scylla was proposing People’s justice, i.e., straight to The Wall. However, I’m reminded that we have discussed, in another thread, the possibility of suspended sentences. But before we can reach the precise sentencing, we need to be assured of conviction, we need a People’s Prosecutor with dogged persistence and adamant perseverence.

I can assure the Politburo that the candidate is abundantly qualified.

I’m a conservative, and I do oppose them. It’s unjustifiable in principle and unsustainable in practice.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

Speaking from the conservative wing of the extreme left, I’m really bugged about the whole “Olly, Olly, All-in-free” aspect of this. but how is accountability even possible? The money’s gone, its gone to the place the candle flame goes when you blow it out. Whata we gonna do, dangle them by the ankles and shake 'em till all the money falls out of their pockets? Make them return their trophy wives? The money was credit, it never existed, but it’s still gone!

But what totally sticks in my craw is that everybody saw this coming from way, way off. I’ve been reading about this impending catastrophe for three-four years now. Its like getting creamed by a freight train going three miles per hour!

Now, I had the good sense to move my holdings from derivative financial instruments to hookers and blow, but not everybody was so smart. I can readily understand resentment, even pique! It may not be entirely fair to blame conservative politicians and conservative policy for the Turkish enema we are about to recieve. On the other hand, what the heck.

Well, one of the reasons I’m confused about the economy is the wide range of opinions. Scylla sez that the bailout staved off a global financial collapse, while this guy says that “*f there is no bailout, the economy may go into a recession, but then it will begin expanding again, and the reckless financial institutions that caused the recession will be punished with losses or bankruptcy. That’s more or less what happened in the sharp recession of 1920-21.”

I don’t know enough about Scylla, the quoted guy (apart from him being an apparent full-blown believer in libertarian economics), or economics to make a judgment about who to listen to, and both of them cannot be right.

I think a lot of people are in the same boat as myself. Thus I wouldn’t be surprised if some conservatives (to bring it back to the OP) DID approve of the bailouts just because they weren’t sure what to think, or opposed them on principle, even if they were wrong about the effects.

Yeah, me too. But then I thought about great-grammy telling me about what it was like during the depression and decided that maybe this bailout isn’t the worst thing that could happen. Right now I’m peeved and trying to figure out where the money all went.