|
Oh, I know the obvious answer, and it's probably the really accurate one: Fed money (meaning, our taxes) is going to bail out the very very rich because it can, and because that's what the powerful do -- they bail out their friends. Those who are the big-time investors in Bear Stearns, including pension funds and so on, will be "protected," and will be used as propaganda to drum up support for this welfare for the uber-wealthy. I know all that.
But when the excuse becomes "The government has to prop them up because the alternative is total loss of confidence in the stock market, and if the stock market fails, then the whole economy is wiped out in a twinkling of an eye," isn't that pretty much, well, bullshit?
How much, really, does "the economy" depend on the stock market? Yes, again, I understand that there are corporations that are nothing but investment companies and their functioning depends on making profits through the buying and selling of stocks, but is that really the economy?
And please, I'm not being facetious here. I understand -- or at least I think I understand -- the fundamentals of corporate capitalism. I understand that individuals who have more cash than they need to survive invest that excess cash in various ventures to help them out and then are repaid from the profits of said venture. But once the stock is out there, and once the corporation has put the income from the sale of the stock into the company's operations, does the market really affect it?
But also, what good does it do if the feds prop up a company that was poorly run and collapsed of its own mistakes? How does this "restore confidence" in the market? Does it restore confidence in error-prone decision makers? What in goodness' name would we put our confidence in after the Enron and WorldCom and Tyco and Global Crossing and CountryWide and Bear Stearns debacles? These are not enterprises that failed because of natural disasters or something else outside their control. They all failed because of HUMAN GREED. Is THAT what we're supposed to maintain confidence in? (I suppose the answer to that rhetorical question is actually "yes." Sad.)
Who is really being bailed out here? The stockholders, yes, but didn't they "invest" in Bear Stearns with some understanding that there were risks involved? And didn't they, when they saw the problems developing a year or two ago, have an opportunity to get out and cut their losses? Why should they, rather than the people who were swindled out of their life savings and suckered into sub-prime mortgages they couldn't pay, be bailed out with our money?
I'm tired of bailing out the rich. I'm tired of bailing out people who wouldn't need to be bailed out if they weren't gambling with the full knowledge that they were taking no risks -- that if they lost, *we* would bail them out. If you know there's no risk, well, there's no risk! It's a sure thing!
I need to shut up, or I'll have a stroke.
Oh, and a belated thank you to whoever it was that gave me the Valentine heart. I was out of town and out of internet range for a while due to a death in the family and am just now, a month later, getting back into circulation.
Tansy Gold, mouthy as usual
|