On Calming Down, Not Celebrating and Getting it Right

by: David Sirota

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 19:22


Throughout the day, I have received some email and seen some comments from people purporting to be "progressive" yet claiming that anyone who opposes the Paulson version of the bailout bill is thrilled to see the stock market decline today, and more generally, happy that America may go into a second Great Depression. These outbursts are likely spurred by fear, which is understandable, considering the Bush administration, congressional Democratic leadership and media are all insisting what Margaret Thatcher famously insisted: that There Is No Alternative to what's being proposed, and that if what's being proposed doesn't pass, we're all going to die.

I'm not going to be blogging tomorrow because of the Jewish holiday, but let me just respond to the comments, because they are, in effect, the same tactics the Right uses is likening progressives to terrorists. When you claim that opponents of this bailout want to see a Great Depression, you are questioning our patriotism, and that's unacceptable. Just because we disagree - or just because what principled opponents say doesn't comport with your election-year partisan desires - doesn't mean we don't love our country. We speak out BECAUSE we love our country. And let me reiterate what I have said all day: The House vote against the bailout bill SHOULD NOT SPUR CELEBRATION - it should spur us to demand a more responsible bill. Claiming that because opponents supported the House rejection of this bill means we are "celebrating" the stock market decline is a malicious and disgusting lie worthy of a right-wing hate site.  

David Sirota :: On Calming Down, Not Celebrating and Getting it Right
I urge everyone to take a deep breath, realize that part of your fear is being motivated by the same people who scared us into the Iraq War, understand that there are plenty of alternatives as outlined on this blog over the last week and a half, and consider the fact that while there is a serious credit problem, simply giving $700 billion to the people who created the problem has more of a chance of making the problem worse than solving it.

Those of us who oppose this plan oppose it not out of some desire to make common cause with right-wing Republicans, nor out of some sense of "purity" nor out of a desire to see the village burned to save it. We oppose it because we believe it will do irreparable harm to our country and potentially CREATE the Second Great Depression its backers purport to care about stopping. And the idea that because the market went down during the day it means voting down the House bill was a bad idea is so fascist and anti-democratic it's hard to comprehend. That line of thinking overtly suggests that legislators in a democracy should legislate solely in the interest of what market speculators - not their constituents - want on a given day.

Let me be clear: I have a modest retirement account that I've worked hard to save. I'm worried when I see what's happened to the market. But I also realize that while Wall Street says this is a new crisis, there's been a health care, wage, job and pension crisis that's been going on for the last decade - and so forgive me if I find it a bit ridiculous that while no one said we had to act quickly on those life-and-death crises, we are supposed to nonetheless see this banking sector problem as Armageddon that demands handing over 5% of our entire economy to one unelected political appointee (Henry Paulson). In that sense, all the alarmism - especially coming from such a discredited Washington crowd - rings a bit hollow.

I'm not saying there's not a credit problem - there is. But we cannot let the authoritarians use that credit problem as a rationale to trample our deliberative democracy in the name of helping their cronies. If we hand over $700 billion to one man - Henry Paulson - under insane deadline demands, we are quite literally subverting our democracy to the whims of authoritarian capitalism, flown under the banner of kleptocratic socialism. Those of us who hope Congress says "hell no" aren't rejoicing at our economic turmoil - we're the ones who have been predicting it, and who think the way to prevent things from getting worse are to actually do something other than giving money to the same people that got us to this awful point.


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Market suffered biggest drop ever.... (4.00 / 2)
...poised to do so tomorrow...

And you want me to celebrate?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Straw man, not the point (4.00 / 6)
No one's "celebrating". People just want a better bill that actually does what it purports to do--help the majority of Americans, not just the richest and most powerful. This whole trickle down nonsense is just that, nonsense. The people who are most responsible for this mess should not be bailed out, which is what this bill would do.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
We'll see how the poeple feel in a few weeks... (4.00 / 2)
...when it all collapses

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Thank you, Barney Little (4.00 / 3)
We've seen how your panicky brand of "thinking" has worked the last few times we were warned of imminent catastrophe if we didn't do exactly what they demanded right away.

No one on our side of the aisle is calling for doing nothing. We're just holding out for a much better and just as if not much more effective deal. THAT is how you react to a crisis.

Learn how to play chicken. It's not a bad skill to have.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Where is it written that it will collapse... (4.00 / 1)
... in a few weeks?  What exactly is going to happen?  How do you know?

I'm not an economist, I don't own much stock, and I don't own a home.  I have merely read snippets of the conversation regarding the financial crisis so you can go ahead and call me naive, etc.  

What I will say is that right now all I've heard from those who supported the Paulson Bill are vague threats that "the economy" will "be ruined" and people will loose their homes and we will all live like hobos and it will be the end of the world, so please enlighten me.  What's the big deal here?  I really want to know.  The more specific your argument, the more likely you'll be to persuade me.

At this point I'm in agreement with David Sirota here, we need to not be hasty and take it up the keister from Wall St.  Let's take this opportunity to create a responsible system with accountability.


[ Parent ]
I am an economist... (4.00 / 1)
It's collapsing already... there is no access to loans, the money supply has dried up... what does that mean?  Well, in simple terms, no access to money means no economy.  Businesses can't invest in new equipment or new employees... which means that the companies that supply these businesses lose business, and it spirals downwards...  it's so bad that some businesses might not be able to make payroll next week...  that means layoffs, job cuts, which means people buy less, which means that businesses make more cuts, and it goes on and on and on...

The current crisis is a mirror to what happened in 1929... back then, there was severe deflation and no access to money or capital.  It's the first time we've had a financial crisis like that SINCE the depression...  Almost all of our recessions since the great depression have been inflationary, not deflationary...  Deflation is absolutely DEATH for the economy... worse yet, our deflationary economy won't bring about lower prices 'cos of the current energy situation and falling value of the dollar... so, we will fell inflation, but the economy will be experiencing deflation (if you can believe it!) So, we get the worst of both worlds!

Will we be selling apples on the street corners?  No, probably not... we have better regulatory mechanisms in place than in 1929... however, 15% unemployment is not out of the question...

The reason it becomes a crisis is that once the downward spiral begins, it goes down very, very fast!  Very fast!  And once the damage is done, it's really too late to fix it.

There is no logical reason why congress would push an unpopular bill so close to the election if there wasn't a real reason for it...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
What would Naomi Klein say? (0.00 / 0)
When she wrote The Shock Doctrine, was her point that, when shocks occur, there should be no response by government? That the shocks were of little consequence?

Considering how motivated Congress must have been to avoid a situation where, in your words "in simple terms, no access to money means no economy. ", you'd think they would have done a lot better than they did.

I do get the impression with many people who are against this particular bill that they're not too worried. Speaking for myself, I don't have any doubt at all that 15% unemployment could quickly develop. But my response is "How much more of this are we supposed to take?" In other words, if our alternative is a nasty economic downturn, because on the one hand, the populace refused to be cowed by the dire warnings, but on the other hand, the people in charge of working for a bailout that's not repugnant somehow couldn't be bothered to get the "not repugnant" part right, I'd rather suffer the 15% unemployment.

Oh, and BTW, I'm unemployed, and I have about 2 weeks of benefits left.

It'll be interesting to see if, should 15%+ unemployment develop, whether Congress is as quick to extend unemployment benefits as they are to bail out Wall Street. It's very hard for me to trust a Congress that aided and abetted Bush in his destruction of this country, with hardly even a peep about impeachment. Since I can't trust Congress to do the decent thing when Constitutional principles were at stake, why should I expect them to the right thing with either $700 billion dollars, or making sure that unemployed Americans have enough to eat?

Trust, like respect, should be earned. Say, do you think the public's reaction to the bailout has anything to do with the low approval ratings of Congress? And how do you thing the conduct of the members of Congress who worked on the bailout bill will be reflected in the upcoming approval ratings? Positively, or negatively?

I'll give you only one guess.


DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
the only reason i'm not celebrating (0.00 / 0)
is that the next bill might be worse than this one, given who bothered to oppose this and who didn't.

[ Parent ]
E.g. FISA (0.00 / 0)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Oh, I see (4.00 / 1)
Well, considering that this bill failed because of all the GOP crazies warning about rampant socialism, ACORN and something that happened during the Carter administration, I don't think that there's any celebration in order quite yet. A momentary sigh of relief, yes, but no cheers. This isn't over, and it could even get worse (e.g. FISA).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Actually it suffered a relatively small drop (0.00 / 0)
And personally I should celebrate as with a relatively small account that means I get to buy low.  Any crisis is an opportunity.

And being relatively young I would be one of the people having to actually deal with the debt so I am celebrating that as well.

Not to mention the fact that the bill would cause a recession.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
largest in history = relatively small? (4.00 / 2)
What, did you just hop over from the non reality-based blogs?  Talk about GOP up-is-down-ism.

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 5)
It's not even remotely close to being the largest drop in history - only percentages make sense. "The largest one-day percentage drop since 1914 occurred on "Black Monday", October 19, 1987, when the average fell 22.61%."  

[ Parent ]
Actually, Percentage-Wise It's Not (4.00 / 7)
From First Read:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

The Dow finished down 777.68 points, or almost 7%. It is the largest one-day drop in points in the history of Wall St. In 1987, on Black Monday, the market dropped 20%.

So, about 1/3 of Black Monday can certainly be called "relatively small".

You don't have to call it that, of course.  But you should at least not hoot at those who do.  It's a legitimate difference of perspective.

What really counts is what happens next and how we move forward.  And above, the real economy--as in millions of people having lost their homes--is what matters most.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Heh, happened right after I graduated from college, jobless (4.00 / 1)
Ironically, I ended up finding a decent job--on Wall St., for the biggest of the BSD firms. Which, of course, no longer exists, at least in independant form.

We'll get through this. The interim will be ugly, but this is not the end of the world as we know it. And I don't feel fine. Just not panicky. The longer we hold out for a better plan, the better for all. Well, assuming it doesn't go the path of FISA. Which is not unlikely, sadly.

Ok, maybe I really should panic. ;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
from the title (0.00 / 0)
and the first graf of Davied's piece:

The House vote against the bailout bill SHOULD NOT SPUR CELEBRATION

I think you've completely missed the point.


[ Parent ]
from the title (0.00 / 0)
and the first graf of Davied's piece:

The House vote against the bailout bill SHOULD NOT SPUR CELEBRATION

I think you've completely missed the point.


[ Parent ]
I probably have more to lose than many of the people (0.00 / 0)
posting on this blog and dailykos; and with one foot retired, that makes my savings even more critical.  Yet, I would rather lose my money in attempting to do the greater good than to hand it over willingly to the mean crooks who are scaring me.  The only way to deal with playground bullies is to stand and fight.  Giving them what they want only invites more terror.  

I am glad that the american people finally turned off American Idol and spoke out against this boondoggle.  I'll support Bernie Sanders plan or the bill of someone else that I trust, which explicitly excludes Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, SChumer, Bush, Paulson, Bernacke, Greenspend, Clintons, McCain and Obama.  I want my country back.  I have three handsome and fantastic grandsons who are entitled to a fucking future.  

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama took in $22.5 million, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with $21.5 million. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was close behind with $19.6 million.

Money rained down also on the top members of Congress who are steering the legislation. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a candidate for president during the primaries, received $6 million. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), received $720,000 this year.

The No. 2-ranking Democrat on Frank's House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, collected $755,000, and ranking Republican Spencer Bachus of Alabama took in $704,000.

"If you trace the movement of Wall Street money through Washington, it pretty well tells the story behind this and any other piece of legislation," LA Times




They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Shanah Tovah, David! (0.00 / 0)
Ok, I have to admit, I had to look this up:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizo...
However, "a spiritual new year" sure sounds like a nice idea. All the best for it, David.  

It was Stoller's comments, not yours (4.00 / 1)
You made it clear this was an opportunity to get it right.  Stoller was just enjoying the political victory, no alternatives offered.

sometimes the only way to get alternatives (0.00 / 0)
is to clear the palate.

[ Parent ]
If the transparency and equity requirements not in bill (4.00 / 1)
Then we MUST oppose - I think...

Is that wishy-washy enough?

At any rate - I fully, absolutely, completely, agree with this post, except for one thing.

Economists I trust say there is a crisis and that something must be done.

I say - write a bill that addresses the crisis - the capitalization issue - in a way that honors the needs of the people, and - pragmatically, addresses the real need for capitalization.

After all, the "democrats", such as they are, are already on the hook - they have voted, 2/3rd's, for this bill.  That means that aspiring Republicans ALREADY have the ammunition to gear up the ads.

We might as well get a GOOD bill out of this then, right?

I'm afraid that, instead of going for a good bill, as Atrios says, the Dems will act like Charlie Brown again, and give even MORE away on this bill.

Not to mention, again, it's political suicide, seeing what the country says.

David, it really is AMAZING - I don't think it's ever been more clear - the difference between the corporate class that runs the DEMS, the REPS, and the press - and the regular working man - than I see now.

Here it is, laid out, perfectly.


Well put (0.00 / 0)
From someone more or less on the other side of this issue.

I'm just hoping that you're right and I'm wrong (in my assumption that the global markets are going to take a steep, extended dive.)

And a Happy Rosh Hashanah to you and yours


Rescue yes, bailout no (0.00 / 0)
I'm hoping the global markets don't go into a steep, extended dive too. But I also am very skeptical that this bailout bill would have done anything to stop a dive. If the government spends our tax dollars on the wrong thing, then it could be counterproductive and make it more likely that we'd end up in a Depression.

We need a real rescue plan, developed by economists who know something about the economy, not a bailout of the people who got us into this mess. Let's develop one.


[ Parent ]
This post simplies and mischaracterizes what people have been saying (4.00 / 6)
I didn't see anyone arguing - as David suggests - that those who were celebrating the defeat of the bill wanted another depression.  Rather, what I argued was that many who celebrated the bill's defeat appeared far too sanguine about the possible negative consequences, even  in light of vivid, contemporaneous evidence of a substantial downturn in the market.

Perhaps we can all agree not to be so dismissive of other people's points of view.
 


Up is down with Sirota (4.00 / 1)
All I see are name calling (supporter of corporate fatcats, yada, yada) for those who are concerned about the economy and the effect of doing nothing.

[ Parent ]
To "get it right", is it possible for an adhoc, bipartisan citizen's group to take the lead? (4.00 / 1)
Probably, it would be completely ignored by Congress, but if enough real economists can be drafted to give their 'testimony' to a blue-ribbon commission of respected Republicans and Democrats (who actually care about us little people, and can look at Wall Street and banks without any cronyism coloring their vision), maybe enough Americans would follow the proceedings to at least force Congress to take a glance.

Besides problems concerning the lack of legitimacy, there'd be problems of
1) throwing this together quickly
2) getting the committee Republicans and Democrats to really work together honorably
3) finding committee members who have the respect of their respective partisans (some sort of voting process seems out of the question, if you want this group up in a couple of days)

Basically, this committee would do everything that Congress should have been doing, but didn't, including having all discussions be open. I suppose if you got testimony from a bank employee whose bank is on it's last legs, it'd be fine to conceal the exact bank and employee's identity. Some other exceptions may apply.

Because of the time constraints, and because half the country has broadband, I suppose the way to go is to have the committee meetings completely online. Not the most efficient way.....

Perhaps the fastest way to pick the representatives, is to allow partisan, political blogs to pick them. Heck, maybe you could be a Democratic representative, from the OpenLeft tributary.

I know that blogs and blog fans are looking to extend their influence over the political process, beyond blogging about favorable candidates and getting money sent in their direction. This might be just the way to do it. Plus, making some of the horse-trading viewable to the public might make for a fascinating draw, both for current blog fans, but more importantly, for the unwashed masses who are not yet politically involved. (Or just became politically involved, for the first time, in the last couple of weeks when $700 billion caught their eye. :-) )

I could even see a successful, parallel blog/government raising money for it's constituent blog tributaries by selling political-reality-TV rights. That could lead to a positive feedback loop, viz., interesting open blog/government reality TV show -> more Americans getting interested and involved in politics -> higher blog readership & funding of better candidates -> better government in Washington -> more and better participants in the parallel blog/government process -> (more) interesting open blog/government reality TV show.

Which is where the feedback loop started.

I think politics is too important to be left to the bozos in Washington, and the people who have lots of cash to fund their re-elections and lucrative, post government jobs. Why not "show 'em" (i.e., Congress) how it should be done?

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


also (4.00 / 2)
please explain how we will get it right.

I presume you would want a bill that "got it right" to actually be enacted into law, no?

Doesn't this mean the president has to sign it? Or am I missing something?

What is your evidence that Bush will pass the good progressive bill you seek? Because ALL of the evidence points in the other direction. And I'm not just referring to Bush's history, the uber-anti-progressive history of his administration, and common sense. I'm also referring to the fact that this bill emerged from negotiations with the adminstration.

In other words, you are banking on Bush's goodwill and the hope that he will sign your magic progressive bill.

You need to admit that there is literally ZERO chance of the bill you seek being passed until Obama takes office in January 2009.

The question then becomes: is it OK to have nothing until January 2009?


Answer: no one knows (0.00 / 0)
Some economists think no action means disaster. Others think this bailout would make disaster more likely. Some think we can muddle through with the current federal bailouts of banks. But no one knows because there is so little good information about what is really happening. Buried behind this financial shell game was lots of fraud. The system that developed is so complicated that it is difficult for anyone to know how things will play out.

To restore trust, we need a trusted president to reassure the public and tackle this problem in a responsible way. But since President Obama hasn't been elected yet and the current bozo-in-chief has demonstrated that he is completely untrustworthy, we are in a bind.


[ Parent ]
Imho you're misrepresenting the division (0.00 / 0)
As I see it, MOST economists think no action means disaster. Only some think the Paulson/Dodd bill would have mad the situation worse. But much more would welcome a better plan, if it comes soon. Only a minority is willing to take the risk to wait for next year.

Also, I want to remind you, economics is a complex, mostly inexact, science, sure. But some basics have empiracally be found to be true in most cases. Like that the markets welcome action (not important which action in the first place), and punish inaction. And today, economists take a much stronger interest in the psychology of the players. The "rational" player in the market is a thory of the last century. New studies show that humans regularly act irrationally in economic decisions. Now, what if the waiting for actions becomes too long for investors' nerves, and everybody pulls his money out of the market in a fear about huge losses ahead? See, you don't need a huge bank crash to happen, a relatively small incident that makes people panic momentarilly may be enough to get us straight into bad old 1929. That's the big risk, and it is very real imho.  


[ Parent ]
And so your suggestion (4.00 / 1)
is to pass a bill that might do more harm then good, simply to do something in the hopes that it might, maybe, perhaps has a small chance of working? The fact is there are very few people who know what they're talking about supporting this bill. You'll see some liberal economists cited as being "for it", like a Krugman, or a DeLong, but they're not "for it", they hate it, they just think it's better than the noxious pile of shit that came before it. If the stuff that came out today on the conference call about the tranching, and the executive compensation charade doesn't give anyway pause as to what exactly was being sold to the public, I don't know what would. It's like card player who continues to patronize a crooked table. This administration has no credibility, and the Democratic leadership doesn't have much either. The doom scenarios are supposed to be more convincing this time around because we can actually see the damage being done on the stock exchanges, in the banking sector, but a great deal of that damage would not have been prevented, and will not be halted by a bailout of any kind. It's the wrong medicine for the wrong disease.  

[ Parent ]
Last I checked markets don't care if progressives are investors (4.00 / 1)
Progressives got hit as hard as anyone else today.  No progressive enjoys experiencing market melt downs. But, a bigger issue was at hand than just the market.  We should have realized by now that the market is NOT the economy.
Let's come up with a plan that helps everyone. A plan that has sufficient protection of the taxpayer's money and provides relief to homeowners.  Obama came up with a good six point set of principles.  I am pained that our Representatives chose to compromise those principles just to say that they took action.  

If we can't pass a comprehensive bill in time, pass a small stop gap that will get us pass election day.  Robert Reich proposed that we pass a bill that allows simple interest free loans to distressed banks.  This will not be controversial as the loans will be secured against default.  We can do that and leave the debate for a comprehensive bill until after the election.


Seriously... (0.00 / 0)
Why should banks get interest-free loans while students and small-business owners and first-time-homebuyers and single-parent-households pay interest?  I think any argument that may have been based on banks having greater credit-worthiness has by now expired...

[ Parent ]
Correction... (0.00 / 0)
Now, I don't claim to be anything close to an economic whiz, but isn't the drop in the market what's known as a "correction?"  Once the balance sheets reflect values that aren't unreasonably inflated, won't buyers, recognizing stocks as the bargains they are, flood the market?  Hasn't Bush pushed to stave off the correction before, resulting in benefit to stockholders while the status quo stagnated?

Now, I can't say I've ever been a strong supporter of the free market because of its being based on exploitation, but on the other hand, I certainly see no cause to ride to the rescue of those who have been reinforcing said exploitative model.

Haven't the Republicans consistently pushed for the freedom to fail, and would we now deny them that?

I respect that there are those who, for whatever reason, trusted that their luck would hold out and that the intevitable crash would not occur so long as their money was in the market.  I have some sympathy for the extremity in which they find themselves, but I also have difficulty making sense of their behavior.

More sinister, it appears that, unless large-scale structural changes to the market occur, we are due for a rise of the next round of robber-barons in the next decade.  That is, "the market will recover" on its own if nothing is done.

Really, though, I don't believe we should hold grudges against those who have exploited us in the past.  I think they should be given the same cost-free housing as everyone else.  If they want to work to raise themselves, that's fine, but the market, which seems to be a scam to syphon work-value away from producers, could be abolished and I don't expect I'd cry for it.

As I say, the economy is something about which I haven't done a great deal of study, so set me straight if I'm off-base.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search