I’m a little tired of these candidates attempting to defend what is clearly massive government intervention and control with euphemisms.

If we are saying that unregulated free market forces caused this economic crisis (with respect to mortgages and credit derivatives and bank lending/borrowing), and free market forces can’t solve it, and the government needs to change course in order to fix it, then maybe the problem is fighting over ideologies instead of ideas.

You can’t redefine one theory to include some other theory when the going gets rough. Let’s have an honest discussion about we’re doing here.

The executives went to a lovely little spa.

This is part and parcel with the economic rescue the American People are now engaging in as the new owners of the primary sponsor of Manchester United.

Would “Crony Capitalism” be a term that has too many negative connotations?

Is massive ownership of houses and the housing industry “socialist”? I have labeled the bailout (or rescue, or whatever you want to call it) socialist because it is putting the Federal Government not only in charge, but the primary owner of the segment of our economy that has been driving the economy for the last 15 years or so.

McCain’s proposal from last night (which may or may not be different from what is already authorized) involves the Federal government outright purchasing $300 bln of troubled mortgages, which will end up resulting in the government owning a lot of those actual houses. This will make the Federal Government the largest realtor in the country.

Maybe a more appropriate term would be “socialize” an industry. It sure looks like the banking industry is being socialized bit by bit. Blackhedd is actually recommending that policy.

I’ll try to avoid simply labeling. But it smells more like socialism than any other policy I have seen come out of Washington.

Allllrightythen! I’ll take a swing at this.

First up, Reagan was not conservatism, he was one of many leaders of the conservative belief system.

Secondly, Rescuing our financial system was a sound business decision, how it was handled is where the rub comes in, a conservative leader would have followed to old conservative axiom that; A Prescription, without a diagnosis, is malpractice.
The President should have; Identified the problem, then convened a group of some very smart cats for solid council, then propose the proper remedy and treatment course, while simultaneously, demanding that the American people stand up and ask for the removal of those that inflicted the wound.

We do not mind filling the bucket back up after the holes are plugged, and the Shotgun is taken away from those that caused the damage!

Filling the bucket up and allowing the same lot to take another shot is ideological suicide.

“We are not confiscating property; we are buying property at prices that are too high if anything.”

Where do you think the money is coming from to buy those properties? I know I didn’t donate my tax dollars. If I didn’t pay my taxes voluntarily, I can guarantee you they’d be confiscated from me.

Fannie May didn’t directly confiscate any property either but they were able to totally screw up the housing market with government backing. Why do you think the government is going to do better if we give them another chance?

Grim

Do you consider the demands by government placed on commercial banks by the CRA and on Fannie and Freddie to make sub-prime loans to be socialism?

And do you consider all or any of the plans put forward below to be socialism? The last two are from conservatives/Republicans and McCain’s idea of bailing out negative-equity mortgage holders is probably related to one of them.

Hillary Clinton, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Glenn Hubbard or Martin Feldstein.

Do you think I am wrong to identify all of this with socialism?

Socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Securities are property or “goods.” Our government is acquiring ownership of portions of the financial institutions producing these goods. It is also administrating the distribution of these goods by interfering in the market distribution of the goods by setting the price of these goods.

Lastly, a more substantive point. What makes government action politically conservative or not is based on whether the action is in pursuit of justice.

That is why national defense is a legitimate function of government: if a foreign nation unjustly attacks the US, the government is obligated to defend the nation as a matter of just retribution.

That is why prohibiting abortion is a legitimate function of government: if a mother kills an unborn child, that is unjust and the government is obligated to prevent and punish the act.

That is why government regulation of the economy ought to be limited to enforcing laws punishing the injustices of deceit and fraud: if I buy product advertised as being microwaveable, and it is not, I was lied to and the government ought to punish the company.

Obviously, this summary is a barebones description (there are about a billion pages of history, philosophy, and theology about this subject), but the point is the current government interventions are not only contradicting the cause of justice by keeping people from getting what they deserve (with good intentions of helping everyone, of course), but in my view is beyond the proper scope of the authority of government in the marketplace.

As an added bonus, the government will do a sh**ty job of it.

The recovery bill is not the taking control of the money supply, but rather it more closely resembles central economic planning. The purpose of the bailout is to purchase assets that have been deemed to have fallen to too low a value, thus raising their value. This is a form of price fixing, but in a backdoor way. It is also government ownership of private property. Retorting that some property will still be private is little consolation when the government may at will, without regard to the rule of law, simply take whatever property it desires onto its balance sheets in the name of saving the economy.

The bailout is bad, failed economic policy. That is enough reason to oppose it. However, it is also a dangerous increase in the size and scope of government that legitimizes government intrusion into the private market in ways that ought to be prohibited at all costs. It is not the duty of the government to determine that the market has set prices too low and to then undertake to prop those prices up by spending tax payer dollars to buy products. It is the government’s duty to protect liberty and property, not to destroy one citizen’s property for the sake of another’s.

Neil, you said, “No conservative I know wishes to end government ownership of any property at all, or even the government’s providing of appropriate services to the people.”

Well I would like to see the government cease to own a good amount of property and return it to private ownership. And as far as “appropriate services,” that phrase is so amorphous as to allow anyone to have their own definition.

And my concern about the bailout is along a line different from any you mentioned. In stepping into the commercial paper market as a buyer and seller hasn’t the Fed abandoned its role as impartial regulator and given itself a much larger and conflicted role as a market competitor who also is able to change the groundrules by which everyone has to play? This is the threat to the free markets that I see.

You are wrong that this is not socialism. They are taking control, too much control. They are setting precedent that will forever be used to justify taking more and more control, that will ultimately cause more and more market failures. They are using redistribution to effect this control. They steal from the producer and give to the takers. For each and every new market failure caused by the governments socialistic objectives, whether to prop up stock prices, keep people in their homes, changing our energy system to one that uses unreliable expensive sources or simply taxing carbon dioxide producing activities, the government will call upon itself to create it’s own new mandate to solve the problem they caused. An ever spiraling downward trend to total socialism. Do not also forget that they want to tag on the social right to health insurance.

All I know as a home owner that paid his bills and some how made ends meet I have just lost my only hedge agents inflation,the housing market will never be the same.The do goodies in are government have screwed the hard work man again, it is not fair.

I’ve always said it is not the money driving my opposition. It’s the unprecedented power given to the government which has no expiration date and can be invoked repeatedly in the future for whatever reason the federal government deems necessary. In addition, none of the problems that caused this mess in the first place are being fixed. Instead, Congress is holding hearings. Congress will continue to hold hearings until they believe we have forgotten all about the government interference into the markets that allowed this to happen.

Government control over the financial market to this extent can trickle down to every facet of our economy and especially the producers. While it may temporarily aid them, what happens to the long term?

Sorry, I know you are all trying to make your own peace with what happened. So am I and have to some extent but the future is still a big ? not only for me but appparently many others.

In addition to that, I’m not an economist, so my understanding may be so limited that it looks like socialism and smells like socialism but might be something totally different to people who know more than I do.

That’s how the Alaska economy works and you all like Sarah Palin, don’t you?

For much of Alaska’s history the biggest actor in residential housing has been the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, a quasi-governmental corporation. It either owns, built, or financed much of the housing here. It is also a major profit center. Only the $40+Billion Permanent Fund puts more money into the State’s Treasury.

There are ways to do it if you can put your ideology in your back pocket and just look for practical solutions.

Socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Socialists seek to confiscate control over the driving force of the economy: the production of goods that people wish to buy and sell. However, I would argue that banks, brokers, and insurers are not part of

Okay… I would argue that they are.

You don’t think that Banks, Brokers, and Insurers are a part of the production of distrubtion and goods?

You don’t think that loan officers produce goods?

You don’t think that they drive the economy?

If they don’t drive the economy then why is there failure causing the economy to collapse and people to lay off workers and produce fewer goods.

Sorry. I am not oppossed to the bailout, but it is socialist in nature.

The problem in the first place? Why must we keep trying the same thing over and over again hoping it will somehow work this time?

Govt continually “fixing”, “rescuing”, or “bailing out” a failing system is never going to work. We’re just going to be in this same situation in 10 years with this plan.

God bless those who voted against this monstrosity. The Fed’s own interventionism elicited this meltdown. Conservatives could win control of both houses and cure meltdowns with free market solutions and small government.

1. Cut spending dramatically to constitutional levels.
2. Cut taxes dramatically (only after you do previous item).
3. Reject bailouts.
4. Pass Honest Money Act to institute free market competition with Fed’s fiat currency.
   http://constitutionalconservative.com/index.php/2008040498/honest-money-act.html

Peace.

Has there ever been a bailout that worked?

If I were arguing with someone who said that the occupation of Iraq was doomed to failure because there is no historical precedent of an occupation ending well, I’m sure that I would point out Germany and Japan as counter-examples and point out that, no, there ARE cases of occupations working out.

I am wondering if there is an example of a bailout working out.

I suppose I’d define “working out” as “the companies that needed bailing out took the money, remade themselves properly, and there is no chance that they’ll need a bailout in the foreseeable future.”

I can’t think of any.

If there are not, in fact, any… can we go back to comparing the bailout to socialism?

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE EVEN IF YOU ARE PRO OBAMA….PLEASE BE WISE AND EDUCATE YOURSELF ON OBAMA……………PLEASE, THIS IS AMERICA AND WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY!! OBAMA SUPPORTERS, PLEASE DON’T GET OFFENDED AND NOT READ THIS…PLEASE, PLEASE I KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY AND FAMILY SO PLEASE READ THIS….EVERY WORD OF THIS CAN BE VERIFIED! EVEN IF YOU HAVE “MADE UP YOUR MIND” TO VOTE FOR OBAMA, SIMPLY TAKING TIME TO READ THIS WILL HELP YOU TO MAKE A MORE EDUCATED DECISION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW ESPECIALLY PEOPLE IN “SWING STATES”.

REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA:

1. Obama’s lack of experience….only been in senate since 2005. McCain has been in senate for almost 26 years.

2. Obama’s lack of military service/understanding. Obama has never served/fought for our country. McCain has not only fought for our country, but he was held as a prisoner of war and refused to reveal America’s tactics/strategies/secrets!! He even refused to leave his fellow prisoner of war soldiers behind when the enemy offered him to be released!!!

3. Obama has been associated with terrorists as his friends…For example, William Ayers (a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground) bombed several buildings including the Pentagon and it killed civilians and police officers. Ayers said in 2001 that he has no regrets and wishes he could have done more! Obama and Ayers both served on two non profit boards and they worked very closely together. AYERS EVEN HOSTED A POLITICAL EVENT AT HIS HOME FOR OBAMA. Obama acknowledged he is a friend of Ayer but defends himself saying he was only 8 when the Pentagon was bombed…BUT he can’t explain why he is still friends with Ayers. AMERICA….PLEASE REMEMBER 9/11 AND TELL ME WHY WOULD WE BE SUCH FOOLS TO TAKE A CHANCE??? PLEASE THINK OF OUR FUTURE, YOUR CHILDRENS FUTURE, AND YOUR GRANDCHILDRENS FUTURE.

4. Obama and his campaign are currently being investigated for illegal funding being provided by foreign countries that HATE America. The FEC (Federal Election Commission) is currently investigating these funds. More than half of the $454 million raised by Obama has come in small increments of $200 or less….campaigns are not required to report small donations. Two fictional donors using the names “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” gave Obama more than $11,000 in increments of $10 and $25 (according to newsweek). Roughly 11,500 donors who gave a total of $34 million to the Obama campaign are from foreign countries who are not allowed to contribute to the U.S. elections. These countries include countries that we are in war in and have a likely involvement in war in the near future. Obama has even been ENDORSED by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan. Even radical terrorists have praised him. “We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election, ” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying. He has backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens even though this will HELP FUTURE terrorists move freely in the U.S. THINK ABOUT IT….WHY WOULD FOREIGN COUNTRIES THAT HATE US WANT US TO ELECT OBAMA???? HE HAS ALREADY BEEN LINKED WITH A TERRORIST….THIS IS JUST ANOTHER REASON TO NOT TAKE A CHANCE WITH OBAMA.

5. Obama recieved a 100% Liberal rating from the National Journal which makes him the most left-wing Senator in Washington!! More liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.

6. Everyone has heard about Obama and his relation with his American-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This reverend has said, “Not God Bless America….God Damn America”. He is a racist and an outspoken one at that. Once this got out in public, Obama chose to distance himself from him BUT ONLY after he had been going to that church where that Rev. spoke for “all his life” (according to Obama himself)…. He can not say that he did not know how Rev. Wright preached and what he represented. If Obama did not agree with him then he would have left that church a LONG time ago.

7. Obama wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax and let the Bush tax cuts expire….which will give almost EVERY American an automatic tax increase. He has also called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs….which Americans will have to pay for….how do you expect taxes to decrease and how to you expect the ECONOMY to be lifted up again if Americans have less money and more taxes???

8. He is the MOST PRO-ABORTION candidate in history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect LIVE BORN CHILDREN. He was the ONLY Illinois senator to speak out against the bill. I HAVE TO ASK…IS THIS ANOTHER ONE OF HIS PLANS TO ELIMINATE AMERICANS??

9. He opposes gun rights!!! He has a long history of trying to eliminate citizens access to guns. Originally, he backed Washington’s total ban on private handguns(but it was overturned). He has been rated a “F” by the NRA on gun positions and they say he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

10. Obama is pushing to have felons register to vote to increase his chances of winning. Obama has co-sponsored a Senate measure that would allow all ex-felons to vote. Ok, you say…they are Americans, shouldn’t they have that right? Maybe, that is an opinion that could be debated. BUT, there are 2 points I would like to make on this issue. First of all, the fact that Obama thinks having more felons register and vote will increase his chance to win says ALOT about to what extent his campaign will go to in order to get him elected AND that they automatically assume felons will support him. AND THE BIGGEST POINT made on this issue is the fact that people in our MILITARY are having a hard time getting to vote. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan might be distracted and forget to register or fill out absentee ballots. Those at sea have to plan ahead to make sure their absentee ballots get in on time. The Federal Voting Assistance Program is currently attempting to make it easier for overseas voting, but that doesn’t seem to be a priority for Obama’s campaign….. Why? Maybe because a majority of our military support McCain…our military has seen the troubles of the world first hand, and they of all know what we are fighting for and if they support McCain we should too. NO ONE can debate the fact that the people who fight for our country deserve the right to vote and have it count!!

11. PLEASE ABOVE ALL REMEMBER WE ARE AMERICANS AND OUR COUNTRY HAS ALWAYS BEEN BASED ON FREEDOM AND RELIGION…RELIGION OF CHOICE DUE TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY…BUT MOSTLY CONSITING OF CHRISTIANS. OBAMA HAS SUPPORTED AMERICA WHEN THEY ARE TUNNING INTO HIM AND WHAT HE IS SAYING, BUT HE HAS BEEN QUOTED WHEN HE DIDN’T KNOW OTHERS COULD HEAR….TO HIM, WE AMERICANS ARE SIMPLY “BITTER” AND HE HAS MOCKED US SAYING “THEY CLING TO THEIR GUNS AND THEIR RELIGION”. YES, WE ARE AMERICANS!!! WE NEED TO STAND UP AND SAY THAT!! YES, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS (THANKS TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!) AND YES, YES, YES, YES….WE CLING TO “OUR” RELIGION. I’M GLAD HE RECOGNIZES THAT!!
    **LET ME STRESS AGAIN…OBAMA STATED “WE AMERICANS” WHICH IS EXCLUDING HIMSELF AS AN AMERICAN; HE ALSO STATED “THEY cling to THEIR guns and THEIR religion”…..which is also another statement EXCLUDING HIMSELF AS AN AMERICAN. IF HE IS NOT WITH US, THEN HE IS AGAINST US!!!

PEOPLE OF AMERICA, FROM ONE AMERICAN TO ANOTHER, I TRULY HOPE YOU HAVE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE. I KNOW OUR ECONOMY IS GOING THROUGH TOUGH TIMES, BUT THIS IS NOT THE CHANGE WE NEED. OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH ROUGH TIMES AND HAS ALWAYS BOUNCED BACK, BUT IF WE MAKE THE WRONG DECISION IT COULD BE A VERY DANGEROUS ONE…AND WE DON’T WANT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE. WE DON’T NEED TO PUT OUR GREAT COUNTRY, FAMILY, AND FRIENDS IN POTIENTIAL DANGER AND WE DON’T NEED TO LET SOMEONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT JOKE ABOUT OUR RELIGION….THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. I KNOW ALOT OF PEOPLE BLAME BUSH FOR THE CURRENT SITUATION AND WANT A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE TO HELP PROMOTE A CHANGE, BUT PEOPLE PLEASE REMEMBER THAT MCCAIN HAS A HISTORY OF STANDING UP TO HIS OWN REPUBLICAN PARTY WHEN NECESSARY. PLEASE DON’T EXCLUDE MCCAIN JUST BECAUSE OF THE PARTY HE IS REPRESENTING.
*PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW…ESPECIALLY PEOPLE IN “SWING STATES”****************

At the turn of the last century JP Morgan, acting very much like our Treasury and Federal Reserve today, organized the bailout of several brokerage firms in order to save the New York Stock Exchange. Unfortunately, today’s worldwide financial markets have reached such an enormous size that the bold actions of a single individual are no longer capable of righting the ship of finance. Only governments (please note, I use the plural here) have the capability to pool the amounts necessary to stop worldwide panics such as we have today.

With this in mind, are we going to say that behavior, which in 1907 was labeled as “capitalistic” because it was performed by an individual, be forbidden in 2008 because it is performed by governments, and thereby is labeled as “socialistic”? For me, this attitude calls to mind Lincoln’s saying that, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” It would seem that neither should be how we apply our theories of market capitalism.

Now whether the current bailout is the best money could buy? That is another question entirely. One thing we can do to ensure that the enormous powers given the Treasury Secretary are best used to preserve and foster market capitalism is to elect John McCain. Should one of Obama’s acolytes gain this post, we truly will have a socialist solution.

I agree with just about everything in the post (that happens once in a while), especially about the promiscuous slinging of the term “socialist”, but your characterization of the bailout as “supply side” is way off.

What we are doing now is a supply-side intervention. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve trying to preserve the ability of the producers in this economy to get the credit they need to produce, to hire, and to grow this economy.

That implies a definition of “supply-side” intervention so amorphous, that it encompasses almost anything that acknowledges market reality, and in the long term results in increased supply/capacity; or is a synonym for monetary intervention as opposed to fiscal/Keynsian intervention.

Supply side intervention targets the inclination to produce and sell (both consumer and investment goods and services) at any given level of demand. What the bailout is doing is monetary intervention to prevent a collapse in the money supply, thus preventing a collapse in demand, i.e. ability and inclination to purchase by both businesses and end consumers at any given level of supply. While demand intervention affects supply in the long run, and vice versa, the terms refer to the immediate intervention itself.

While I very reluctantly support the bailout, as the least bad solution that’s politically attainable, I think many of the criticisms are valid. What’s ridiculous though is suggesting the bailout is “socialist”, and people who misuse that term need to recognize your point about owning and operating (vs. regulating) the means of production. That’s far more important than my quibble about the term “supply side”, but since your tags included “Linguistic Pedantry” I figured I could indulge myself.

Companies not being able to make payroll is a reduction in demand for labor (and in turn reducing their unpaid former employees’ abilty to purchase the stuff they normally buy). As I said changes in demand and supply have ripple effects on each other, e.g. reduced supply of whatever the laid off workers were producing, but the underlying cause here is reduced demand.

Consider it empirically. A fall in overall supply results in lower output at higher prices. A fall in overall demand also results in lower output but instead with lower prices. Prices of commodities with relatively fixed supplies (e.g. oil) are most sensitive to changes in overall demand, and they’ve been falling.

Demand intervention got a bad name in the 70′s, when it’s misuse with supply problems led to stagflation. When the problem is demand like now, it’s entirely appropriate to use demand tactics.

It is Fabian Socialism.