Ladies and gentleman, Thomas Friedman:
This [democracy?] is dangerous. We have House members, many of whom I suspect can't balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don't understand [what?], swamped them with phone calls. I appreciate the popular anger against Wall Street, but you can't deal with this crisis this way.
Right, that's not piss, it's rain….
Earth to Tommy, the House could and did deal with the crisis in just this way. That is an established historical fact. And the House was right to reject the Plan and its progeny. Why? It was right to vote down the House bill because the original Plan on which it was based was a piece of crap meant to defraud Americans. It was irrational and immoral. It insulted the intelligence of those to whom it was addressed. The House bill was, it must be said, a modest improvement over the Plan — a better piece of crap, but a piece of crap nonetheless. The Senate bill, on the other hand, had additional 'improvements' — bribes of one sort or another. But, like its predecessors, the Senate version failed to address the problems which caused the crisis and lacked a credible answer to the question: Paulson's Plan or this legislation based on it will work because?
Finally, the opposition to the Plan and these bills is not about resentment, as you suggest. It is about providing for the future by dealing with scoundrels and their intrigues in the present. It is about creating a sane and just response to the crisis.
But, what do I know? I am just one dense peasant among millions of similar creatures.
Update (10.2.2008)
An economist-peasant who differs with Friedman on the bailout.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment