DFP
“The consensus bill does need to be passed to keep the country from panicking,” Romney, working on behalf of Republican John McCain, said of the $700-billion financial rescue plan being negotiated in Washington.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Where have all the cowboys gone?
VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Quick! Spend 700+ billion dollars bailing out Wall Street or people might panic and do something rash!
Rangeley on September 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I hate to break it to everyone, but NOT panicking is a very big deal.
Since the credit crunch of 1720 and the collapse of the South Seas company, (another gov’t monopoly that “could not fail” BTW) markets have depended on public confidence.
Markets are not built on goods, assets, or anything tangible. They are built on confidence in our institutions. There have been plenty of crashes that happened when the economics were not so bad, but the public perception forced a crash anyway.
I don’t know if this is best bailout plan we could get, but passing something that tries to keep people from panicking is a really BIG deal. We may be kicking the can down the road, but if the alternative is a complete collapse of credit and that means the bankruptcy of thousands of small employers, by all means, kick the can.
Please.
tlclark on September 29, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Romney,
You are wrong and a huge disappointment.
There are a trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting for a place to invest in.
These dollars could be used by enticements, to allow the common person to invest in these companies vis a vi a preferred stock mutual fund, similar to how Warren Buffet invested in Goldman Sachs.
I really thought Harvard educated people like you are truly smarter….. but, I guess I was wrong and that is my bad.
Mcguyver on September 29, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Agreed. I’m no fan of the bailout in principle, but what other alternative is there?
JetBoy on September 29, 2008 at 12:49 PM
By World financial market standards, $700-billion is getting to be chump change. If we can get this done spending only $700-billion, to get back to liquidity, that’s not too bad. It’s 14 times the net worth of Bill Gates. That’s a lot, but it’s not something that can’t be absorbed by the American economy.
RBMN on September 29, 2008 at 12:49 PM
This is such a strange statement, I’m sure you mean something other than how it reads.
Please revise/explain.
VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Well, RBMN, if you happen to have 700 billion dollars floating around and feel like making the investment, go for it. But I wouldn’t go around telling people that there several thousand dollar contribution through taxes is just “chump change.”
Rangeley on September 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Here’s the deal.
They are taking my money to bailout people, fatcats, banks, and politicians. It is illegal and immoral.
We will reap what we sow. We will pay the piper.
This bailout, especially if Osamabamabiden take over, will be worse than no bailout.
davidk on September 29, 2008 at 1:03 PM
He is 100% wrong.
I wonder why AP never puts up the Mises Articles:
The Rescue Package Will Delay the Recovery.
Tim Burton on September 29, 2008 at 1:03 PM
No it means exactly what I meant it to say. Perhaps you are misinterpreting “institutions” to mean “gov’t” but that’s not what I said.
Look, in days long past, I showed up at the market with my 8 bushels of wheat, you showed up with your 80lbs of fish. We made a deal. No trust or confidence necessary. All goods were in sight, could be inspected, verified etc.. It hasn’t been run that way since before the early modern period and nearly all transactions since then have been on paper. That means trust, that means confidence. All contract law is an attempt to mediate that trust, that confidence. Is this guy going to hold to his side of the deal? Does he actually have the goods/capital he claims to have? Will this guy ever pay me back plus interest or is he a flake? etc.
It’s risky, and the risk will never be taken out of it, and there will always be an element of trust… confidence in the other guy’s intentions.
Now, for better or worse – and I think we all think it’s worse – the gov’t has stuck it’s big fat nose in this, and long before the current day. That means that a large measure of that trust, that confidence, is no longer between vendor and buyer, loaner and borrower but also between the two parties and the third, often uninvited, party, Uncle Sam.
Should it be that way? Probably not, but that’s another conversation. Right now, facts on the ground, it’s true.
Now, how do we proceed to get that confidence back by ignoring the third person in bed with us?
Sorry, but I think we are just wedded to a gov’t bailout in some form.
tlclark on September 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Thanks for the link Tim Burton:
That is what I am saying.
Mitt Romney should get right on this, being a smart man, I’m sure he would know how to come up with a plan.
Mcguyver on September 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM
He is 100% right. Don’t listen to the liqudationists, assets prices needn’t be worthless if we can prevent the liquidity from tanking the economy.
phronesis on September 29, 2008 at 1:19 PM
the liquidity squeeze, that is.
phronesis on September 29, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Maybe he was only a slick salesman afterall, Mcguyver.
Rangeley on September 29, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Yes, I’m sure your and Mcguyver are both much smarter than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Henry Paulson. That’s why you guys are multi-millionaires with nothing to do but post on internet message boards. Congratulations on being smarter than everybody else.
If you don’t understand what’s going on, there is nothing wrong with admitting it.
joncoltonis on September 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Him being a slick salesman doesn’t mean he’s not a smart, guy, jon. He is simply not one who is known for sticking to principles.
Rangeley on September 29, 2008 at 1:34 PM
It may not make sense to you, but Romney knows how failing to act fast can cause the whole fragile mess to collapse. There were a few engineers at NASA that knew that one o-ring, that’s not flexible enough to expand properly, could bring down a whole space shuttle, but they were just “experts.” “Yada, yada, yada…whadda they know?”
RBMN on September 29, 2008 at 1:44 PM
It’s my understanding that space shuttles are NASA’s business. The economy should not be the government’s business (pun may be intended) and they are inherently inferior to the free market when it comes to management of the economy.
Rangeley on September 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM
What joncoltonis said.
wise_man on September 29, 2008 at 1:48 PM
True, but the government already stuck it’s nose into business and made this mess. Government has broken the financial system beyond what the free market can correct for. Hence the need for gvt intervention to fix the problem.
Dead Hand Control on September 29, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Or maybe I’m in college working toward my MBA and consulting at a per an hour pay rate that would piss off most Democrats.
By the way, they were discussing the article I linked. The author is the chief economist from M.F. Global and an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute. I would bet he knows more about the economics of this situation than Romney, Paulson, and Gingrich combined.
By the way, being a millionaire doesn’t mean you are smart, just ask Ms. Lohan, Ms. Hilton, Obama and Rangel.
Tim Burton on September 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM
When you convince me that Mitt made his money managing government funds then okay.
He made his money by “consulting” with companies who also happened to have been his dad’s supporters, then his supporters (kind of like his son going to work as a consultant for a friend, or Hillary being a consultant for a friend? Get it?).
He consulted private enterprise, p r i v a t e, that is how he made his money.
He is a smart guy, but there are people who are experts in this field…and it ain’t Cox, Franks, or Dodd that’s for sure (all multi-millionaires).
right2bright on September 29, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yes, credit markets depend on confidence. Many other markets do not. Labor markets, commodities, agriculture, all depend on tangible goods.
VolMagic on September 29, 2008 at 2:25 PM
If the government broke it, what makes you think they can fix it? Since when has the government fixed anything?
Tim Burton on September 29, 2008 at 3:11 PM