This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
The growing crisis
Published on September 30, 2008 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The 7oo billion $ suggested by the President of the US and his Treasury Secretary has been rejected by Congress and as I predicted in an earlier blog, the conservative Republicans voted against the bailout on the ground that state intervention in the economy would be a betrayal of the very creed of Burkeian conservatism represented in the strand of Reaganomics.

There is no doubt that a bail out package will eventually be passed as the US economy cannot survive for long in the present state of crisis. The cascading effect of banks tumbling into burnout can only be averted if liquidity and confidence is injected into the financial system and Paulson's remedy is from an economic point of view just right. But then there is the political point of view always important in an election year: The chances of John Maccain that for msometime seemed bright have now dimmed and that is important.

The financial crisis is spreading misery across the US and homelessness has dramatically increased. Even wellheeled professionals have now started mothballing their possessions and have moved into parking lots with their children and in some cases even their pets. It is time to bailout those really affected by the crisis.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 02, 2008

A Depression is an actual possibility if nothing happens, most economists agree on that. A Zimbabwe-like inflation crisis? Nobody actually believes that, save you.

Actually, no.  Most do not. And most (for a great variety of reasons) are against the bailout.  The AP just ran a story on it that I read.  The economists ran the gamut on political persuasion, but all had one thing in common.  They thought the bail out bad.

I may be overly optimistic.  I prefer to think of myself as not running for cover as the chicken littles tell the sky is falling.  It may be more than an acorn, but it is not the heavens.

on Oct 02, 2008

But the whole point of state interventionism - Keynes's philosophy - was to prevent another catastrophic crash. And this is what we are facing today.

And a great many economists, and most from the very esteemed Chicago school, do not buy Keynes.  Nor do I.

on Oct 03, 2008

And a great many economists, and most from the very esteemed Chicago school, do not buy Keynes. Nor do I.

And many people still thinks Obama is a muslim, what's your point? Wether you believe in Keynes's theories, it is still the determinant factor in modern economies.

on Oct 03, 2008

And many people still thinks Obama is a muslim, what's your point? Wether you believe in Keynes's theories, it is still the determinant factor in modern economies.

Eh no, and that is my point.  It is one of 2 predominant schools of thought (the other being Moneterists), and at present the least regarded of the 2.  I was only giving you my perspective to show why I differ from your interpretation, and why I still think Keynes is a smart man, but not when it comes to determinant economic theory.

on Oct 04, 2008

Mixing economics with politics in the prsent situation is the worst kind of  situation to be in. Chicago school holds that reducing money supply is a sure enough stategy to control stagflation.     The present crisis demands injection of money in amarket that      is short on liqudity and confidence.Bush and Paulson hvae set aside their onservative economic vies and have hit upon a solution and much as one dislikes Bush there is much to admire in his package. I think the solution may not be bold enough to stave off the drift into recession, but a bold first step. 

on Oct 06, 2008

If every single person in America was on the verge of bankruptcy because of stupid behavior, then it would probably happen, since letting everybody bankrupt would crash the economy. YES, these people have to learn a lesson. YES, the taxpayers are going to pay for the mistakes of others. YES, it's a socialist-like action.
Where do you get your propaganda from?

The symptoms of the crisis were evident as early as September 2007 when the Feds cut the prime rate.

The taxpayer cannot be made to pay for the sins of the corporate fat cats: having said that, I must add that there is no alternative.

on Oct 06, 2008

Chicago school holds that reducing money supply is a sure enough stategy to control stagflation.

That is simplistic and false.  The problem today is NOT mixing Economics and politics.  It is essentail (and what is lacking especially with this bailout package).

The Chicago school (in a nut shell) believes in minimal intervention, and then through manipulation of the interest rates.  It is not meant to be a sledge hammer, but a surgeon's scalpel.

The problem is that for the last 20 years, Keynes has been running wild in government(and why not?  A politician loves to think he is doing something good - regardless of empirical evidence), and has brought us to this mess.  So we are going to fix it with more government meddling?  ONly in a pigs eye.

having said that, I must add that there is no alternative.

Yes there is.  There always are alternatives.  But they are political suicide (perhaps if Bush was looking for a right solution and not a legacy, he could have done it).  We saw what Keynes philosophy got us.  But since Moneterist philosophy is not conducive to the current political campaign, it will not happen.

2 Pages1 2