The new bailout plan was announced at 11 am:
Make of it what you will. The market isn't the economy–it's a measure of future corporate profits. Evidently, the public is skeptical that the new plan is good for corporate profitability.
But maybe the market was spooked by remarks like this one from Geithner:
“I want to be candid: this comprehensive strategy will cost money, involve risk, and take time,”
he said. “We will have to adapt it as conditions change. We will have
to try things we’ve never tried before. We will make mistakes. We will go through periods in which things get worse and progress is uneven or interrupted.”
he said. “We will have to adapt it as conditions change. We will have
to try things we’ve never tried before. We will make mistakes. We will go through periods in which things get worse and progress is uneven or interrupted.”
Or this one from Arlen Specter:
I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.
Good politics requires action, constant proof that the politician is working tirelessly.
Good economics requires quiet consistency so people can plan for the future.
The times we live in are the greatest example in my lifetime of the tension between these two goals.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 15 comments }
The dominant narrative is that Herbert Hoover sat back and did nothing. It does seem strange that the people who inherit crises tend to be fiddlers and tinkerers, rather than people with long term focus.
I like those last three lines, Russ. Sad, but true.
BoscoH – I have to agree with you there. That's what my history text said when I was going to college. It never presented the real story of what Hoover did.
From "Yes, Minister" – the political syllogism:
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.
A new oxymoron for the ages: "stimulus legislation."
Personally, I find it hard to believe the market didn't already have passage of the bill priced in. I mean, was there ever really a question of whether or not it would pass?
Never mind my previous post. I actually misunderstood the topic.
Is it just me, or was Geithner's performance eerily reminiscent of FDR's speeches trying to convince the American people to accept the New Deal programs? The language, specifically in the quote above, could have been lifted verbatim from some of FDR's speeches as I recall them.
Since we know how FDR's New Deal ended my next question is this: where will the war begin and how big will it have to be to drag us out of this mess?
RickC – we're tapped out. At least back in 1941 America didn't owe any debts. No WW3 will save America.
Mezzanine,
You're probably right. I think I mis-spoke when I indicated war would save the economy for them. But that doesn't mean they won't try once the U.S. is about to implode. They will be looking to direct or misdirect the anger and violence outward in an attempt at self-preservation.
Mezzanine,
I mis-spoke. I didn't mean to suggest war would actually pull us out of the mess. What I wanted to say was that they will look to it as a way of directing the anger and resentment outward when the whole thing begins imploding.
Americans are naturally cutting back on expenses right now, saving whatever they can. They do so because the future is uncertain. People are losing jobs, businesses are going under, etc. Buckling down and saving is the rational response to these kinds of signals. Yet the government, inexplicably, is prescribing exactly the opposite response. It is no wonder everyone is scared and confused. Common sense is being turned on its head.
Sorry for the double post.
"The country cannot afford not to take action. "
I agree 100%. But the country is not the government. It is the people of this country that need to take action. But as everyone else here keeps saying, when governemnt keeps taking action, people don't know what to do, can't plan for the future.
In addition to Alen Spectator's inane quotes above, I heard Smarmey Frank say to an interviewer the old classic politician's cop-out. "Well its the publics fault for not regulating us (congress) closer. If we are screwing up and you don't stop us it's your fault."
I heard virtually the same cop-out during the debates on the passage of the Graham-Rudman-Hollins deficit reduction bill of 1987. The bill was in effect an official admission that unless limited by law the scum in Congress were going to continue to go the pork route. The big problem and the bill's failure was that the pigs were watching the pigs.
Then go back to the Savings and Loan crisis and you had Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii saying of the Keating 5, "Well what they did couldn't be wrong because if it were, we are all guilty."
Drain the damn cesspool, fill it in, and sod over it. It's the only answer.