Skip to main content

$8.5 Trillion and counting....

... in money authorized for various bail-outs. Visit the original post at A Secondhand Conjecture to read the subtotals.



I like the question that Tommywonk asked--back a few days ago when the authorization stood at only 7.8 Trillion (the good old days:

Doesn't this money have to come from somewhere? Is the government just printing money? How does this enormous expansion of lending and investment affect the value of the dollar?


Indeed.

Generally speaking, pumping fiat money into an economy overheats it, producing inflation. Yet the clear spectre haunting our various economic obergruppenfuehrers is deflation.

I begin to suspect that they are in the same position as an addict attempting to use speed to counteract the effects of the barbiturates she just ingested. If she can keep the balance between the upper and the downer just right, she'll pass herself off as something approaching functional ... until the urine test.

We haven't gotten our minds around the enormity of the whole Great Meltdown scam yet.

Here's my chief evidence: LiberalGeek (who, along with Tommywonk, is a leading contender for Delaware's Brightest Blogger) has a recent post at DelawareLiberal suggesting that the best way to bail-out the Big Three without actually handing them $30 Billion in cash is for the Feds to take over their healthcare responsibilities. This would thus backdoor into universal healthcare with the labor unions signed up for the ride. (This is an idea that scares me, because I can see somebody actually running with it.) But LG misses the two key points: the $30 Billion ain't real money (which healthcare actually requires, no matter how you organize the system), and in terms of real money Uncle Sam is just about flat busted broke.

The grim reality for President-elect Obama is this: most of his room to maneuver on anything but the Great Meltdown has been pre-limited by the fact that we're out of money, and you can't keep faking it forever. So while there may be a few cosmetic moves toward healthcare reform, Federal single-payer or even a Federal version of the Massachusetts plan is not going to be coming about in the next two years, no matter who thinks there is suddenly a consensus for it.

On domestic issues, look for President Obama to concentrate on the parts of his agenda that don't really cost money, like expanding hate crimes legislation, eliminating restrictions on gay adoption, or increasing regulatory controls (but not necessarily increasing the regulators to enforce them).

On foreign affairs, prepare to see some major floundering. This is not and indictment of Obama--we were due for some major floundering thanks to the past eight years no matter who inherited the office. Our ungainly over-extension both in the so-called war on terror and the Iraq boondoogle (call me back in two years and still tell me we won the war) have allowed the rest of the world to notice that the Emperor, while still half-dressed, is showing his ass. Right now, we can't really do squat besides piss and moan at Russia; we've allowed China to strategically out-invest us in Africa; we've missed the boat on the current India-Pakistan contretemps; and if this administration actually appoints somebody to the State Department who understands Latin American politics, it will be the first one to do so since Reagan propped up torturers and murderers in Honduras. (Understanding doesn't always equate with moral action.)

$8.5 Trillion: change that's going to knock us all on our ass.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Now I'm depressed.

However, I think you might be wrong when it comes to Obama's agenda. I think it's going to be BIG. I think it has to be BIG, and I think fixing Healthcare and fixing the economy go hand in hand. Tweaking the status quo won't help anyone. The news on bail-outs, job loss, housing, etc. gets worse every day. Slight shifts in policy will only be sucked into the economic vortex and will accomplish nothing other than buying us a few weeks time.
Pandora
Lay aside for the moment that I don't like a lot of Obama's plans, I will agree with you that the man thinks big. So instead of approaching this as a cynical libertarian, let me approach this as if I were a cynical liberal (worth a shot as a thought experiment, anyway):

I don't think the economy can be "fixed," I think it has to be transformed. I think that's inherently why the bail-outs are not working and will not work, because what we are seeing is the result of trying to postpone a major paradigmatic shift in both the global and American economies. On some level I think Obama realizes this, but I don't think anybody gets the magnitude of the shift because it is something you cannot see by looking backwards, and Obama's team is still looking backwards for his model.

If, however, I am right about that, and you have to transform rather than fix the economy, it also makes no systemic sense to "fix" healthcare in terms that make sense in the current economy but will be almost instantly an anachronism in the economy on the other side.

I'm not depressed in a systemic sense, as I truly believe the old paradigm of liberal/conservative or Keynes/Friedman with respect to the economy is about to be left in the dust. I think the circumstances will constrict or open the choices available to Obama, and that the only real mistake anybody can make is thinking too small.

By the way, I do plan to return to health care (and to answer a comment you left in another thread) and to do one of my very rare posts on university education and why it costs so much by the weekend at the latest.
Anonymous said…
Okay, we agree that whatever happens has to be big/transformational. And I agree, we must look forward - to something that hasn't been done before. We're about to roll the dice. I simply don't see any other way.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...