Bobos in Limbo
Jesse Walker | September 30, 2008, 2:53pm
In the aftermath of the bailout vote, David "National Greatness" Brooks
throws a tantrum:
let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.
House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame....If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.
So if you stand up for a principle, you're a nihilist; and if you
refrain from passing an enormous new intervention after a Wall Street crash, you're reenacting Smoot-Hawley. Welcome to the worldview of a man who prefers "the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed" to the dispersed expertise of traders in the market, a wise crowd screaming to us that some inflated prices need to come down and some bloated companies need to fail.
Brooks did get one thing right:
What's sad is that they still think it's 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism.
Forget Marx and Mondale. At the moment, the biggest threat to economic liberty comes from people like Hank Paulson, George Bush, and David Brooks.
ChrisH | September 30, 2008, 7:53pm | #
Fluffy,
Excellent point to raise. I would call that the Hair Of The Dog theory.
Let us stipulate that federal action is somehow needed. Then...
1) Why the rush?
2) Why these people?
3) What exactly IS the problem?
#1: Imagine Apollo 13 saying "Houston, we have a problem" and Houston responding by saying "hey guys, while we try and figure this out, why don't you just start flipping switches and shit and see if you can make it better, because, ya know, this IS an emergency".
The fact that this is presented as something that must be done "yesterday, at the latest", reveals they have no good argument, and therefore would like to avoid one, or that their analysis of the situation is that the New Stone Age is but days away if we don't act now. Since we're already past their "drop dead" date, their analysis isn't worth a bundle of sub-prime mortgages in DC.
As to the no-good-argument, this one worked so well with the Patriot Act ("nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong"), and the Iraq War ("smoking gun = mushroom cloud"), I think the administration had the people's... trust? or, unquestioning obedience. That's not factoring in the being suckered twice already and the president's single-digit approval ratings.
If we are truly headed toward catastrophe and only the right course of action can save us, shouldn't that be done with a lot of deliberation -- thinking through the side effects, comparing what we want to try with past history, etc.?
So, even if Something (Federal) Must Be Done, not in the time frame they're asking for.
#2: We posited that this is a problem BECAUSE of past government action, so clearly maintaining the previous course won't lead to a better outcome. In that case, the people at the levers of government power that should have been able to mitigate this, but didn't, seem uniquely UNQUALIFIED for implementing the solution (perhaps unqualified to do anything but teach junior college, but I digress...).
In fact on the grid of Old People + New Strategy, New People + New Strategy, and New People + Old Strategy, it seems like the best first thing to try is the last: before we start trying something new, let's just assume that the current staff, having displayed a lack of competence, are, well, incompetent. Maybe competent people can fix the problem with existing tools.
That LAST thing you want to do is take people who have FAILED on a well-documented course, and give them the chance to experiment wildly.
So, this "rescue attempt" might have some credibility if started out saying that a team of bankruptcy judges, or Nobel prize winners, or... anyone not associated with Wall Street or the White House would be the "deciders" in the case.
#3: If you can't explain what's wrong and how your solution is going to fix it, what are the chances of your being able to fix it? Perhaps I'm inordinately dense, having "faith" in the free market and all, but I HAVE been paying attention and I haven't heard a credible explanation yet.
What I've heard is that credit markets are "clogged" and "frozen". I don't know what this means. My credit card still works. Stupid re-finance banners bounce around in Yahoo. I know that this isn't the same market, but what is it and how does it effect me and how are the proposed actions supposed to fix things?
I read one business section article saying how this would effect major companies, for instance, McDonald's is now putting in specialty coffee sections and how would they get the money to renovate their stores?
McDonald's? Coffee? Really?
And I'm sorry to skewer straw men here, but I haven't seen any arguments BETTER than this!
So, Fluffy, good hypothetical, but: not now, not them, and not this.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
