Of course it's mega news. And most people seem to agree that the thought of the government taking action is a good thing. But what really stuns me is why everyone is still fixated on this revamped "Paulson Plan." Just why exactly is Paulson the best superman to be architect of this plan? (It's a given that human nature requires a hero-leader to focus on.)
As probably everyone who follows current events by visiting or subscribing to the progressive sites on the Web already knows, there is no shortage of opinions among illustrious economists and financial wizards as to what steps should be taken.
So why is Congress still debating this ONE plan already acclaimed to be faulty? Why isn't there a search to find the better plan, rather than a rush to patch up Paulson's plan?
The market has already shown its willingness to wait for a decision before deciding whether to plunge, sink or float. So why the big rush? Is it just that superman hangup? Are we so depressed spiritually that we cannot bear the thought of our first-tapped superman failing? Do we have to put General Petraeus on the job?
Two particular alternative bailout plans should be immediately looked at by Congress and the TV-fed public. A widely circulated essay by Joseph Stiglitz, the most cited economist of all time, (Muse on that in the afterlife, Milton.) is titled, "Here's a Better Bailout Plan." I wonder how many Congresspeople have read it? The ones working for their constituents probably have, and I'm sure there are a good number of basically decent Congresspeople still left. Maybe Americans should contact the others.
The second one I would draw your attention to is James K. Galbraith's A Bailout We Don't Need. He takes a more deconstructionist approach, but the guy has a real brain for this sort of stuff. Plus, his dad was one of the revered economists, so why can't James be our superman?
Do we pay and elect these people to engage in linear thinking only? Sheesh.
