OT: Emergency Buy Out

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 16:52 -0700, Eric Cope wrote:
> If you could point out the free market, I would appreciate it. A free
> market has two required market forces, profit AND loss. When the
> government removes the chance of loss (like with Fannie, Freddie,
> FDIC, etc), people and corporations are not only permitted, but
> encouraged to participate in foolish economic agreements. We do not
> enjoy a free market. We are enduring within a perverse bastardized
> socialist system.
> 
> Oh, and by the way... the only depression we have ever suffered is due
> to government interference. 
> 
> And, if we have artificially overhyped our economy with tax-based
> systems, then yes, we need a recession to bring us back to reality.
> It was the housing bubble that knocked some sense into people
> regarding real estate. They would have learned their lesson if we
> didn't bail them out...
> 
> Economics is not about generating warm fuzzies for everyone. Its about
> doing whats right for everyone. That does not include giving anything
> to anyone.
----
"Oh, and by the way... the only depression we have ever suffered is due to government interference."

It's a good thing you aren't resorting to simplistic blame for
historical events.

I think it was revealed today that Hank Paulson dragged along his
previous compatriot, Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs to the Federal
Reserve meeting regarding the bailout of AIG insurance wherein it
becomes suspect because this is somewhat unprecedented. Paulson because
of his previous employment at Goldman Sachs knew that Goldman Sachs was
a major trading partner of AIG and that the failure of AIG would cause
substantial if not irreparable harm to Goldman Sachs. It's clear that
the conflicts of interest throughout are really, really ugly.

But again, all of the blame, finger pointing and decrying the lack of
true free market practice merely distracts from the question that I
asked...

If Congress elects to provide no aid other than to federally
insured/underwritings and you accept the premise that without providing
more capital to the market place and businesses continue laying off
people, investment portfolios continue to devalue...

are you willing to accept a recession, possibly a deep recession or even
a wide scale depression so that taxpayers do not 'bail out' private
interests?

I think that is a very key question and merely tossing blame doesn't get
anywhere near the answer...at some point, you have to stand up and be
counted.

Craig