Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

"A Bailout We Don't Need"

By       Message alan17b0     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Interesting 1   Inspiring 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Author 3865
- Advertisement -

What appears below is an article by James Galbraith, a named chair economics

professor at the University of Texas, and a worthy son of a great father.  It appeared

- Advertisement -

originally in the Washington Post, but has been recopied to several hundred sites

on the Web, so I hope that I don't get into trouble by giving it again here.

NB: Those who have read my Article on "The Bailout and the Liberal Response" may

suspect that I stole my ideas from Galbraith<g>.  I swear on a stack of Bibles;  Not So!

- Advertisement -


   A Bailout We Don't Need

   By James K. Galbraith
   Thursday, September 25, 2008; A19

   Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch,
   Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared
   or morphed into regular banks, a question arises.

   Is this bailout still necessary?

   The point of the bailout is to buy assets that are illiquid but not
   worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time.
   They're called "loans."

   With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear
   the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not
   eliminate the pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and
   go take inventory? If a bank is solvent, money market funds would flow
   in, eliminating the need to insure those separately. If it isn't, the
   FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.
   Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance
   Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency
   and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators.
   Keep $200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize
   banks by buying preferred shares if necessary -- as Warren Buffett did
   this week with Goldman Sachs. Review the situation in three months,
   when Congress comes back. Hedge funds should be left on their own. You
   can't save everyone, and those investors aren't poor.

- Advertisement -
   With this solution, the systemic financial threat should go away. Does
   that mean the economy would quickly recover? No. Sadly, it does not.
   Two vast economic problems will confront the next president
   immediately. First, the underlying housing crisis: There are too many
   houses out there, too many vacant or unsold, too many homeowners
   underwater. Credit will not start to flow, as some suggest, simply
   because the crisis is contained. There have to be borrowers, and there
   has to be collateral. There won't be enough.

   In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and the
   pull of strong national economic growth. The present slump is national,
   and it can't be cured that way. But it could be resolved in three
   years, rather than 10, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would
   rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions and decide when vacant,
   degraded properties should be demolished. Set it up like a draft board
   in each community, under federal guidelines, and get to work.

   The second great crisis is in state and local government. Just Tuesday,
   New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public
   spending cuts. The scenario is playing out everywhere: Schools, fire
   departments, police stations, parks, libraries and water projects are
   getting the ax, while essential maintenance gets deferred and important
   capital projects don't get built. This is pernicious when unemployment
   is rising and when we have all the real resources we need to preserve
   services and expand public investment. It's also unnecessary.
   What to do? Reenact Richard Nixon's great idea: federal revenue
   sharing. States and localities should get the funds to plug their
   revenue gaps and maintain real public spending, per capita, for the
   next three to five years. Also, enact the National Infrastructure Bank,
   making bond revenue available in a revolving fund for capital
   improvements. There is work to do. There are people to do it. Bring
   them together. What could be easier or more sensible?

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Must Read 2   Interesting 1   Inspiring 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Alan McConnell is a retired mathematician, who urges you to take a look at our D.C. area activity. Visit: .

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Bailout and the Liberal Response

Letter to Congressman Van Hollen for Single Payer Health Care

The Care and Maintenance of Yard Signs

"A Bailout We Don't Need"

High Regard?

What Ho, Liberals!