Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Billionaire Bailout Bonanza!! Wall Street and Banking Industry "Biggest Winners"

We do not like to be prophets of doom. If, however, the report from the Associated Press the other day accurately reflects what is going to happen, we're already far advanced down the slippery slope to a financial meltdown. What's proposed could make what's happened to date look like a minor inconvenience.

In "Who wins, who loses under proposed bailout plan? Financial industry a big winner in bailout proposal, but not so troubled homeowners" by Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer the media paint a rosy picture of the very institutions that got us into this mess in the first place being the "biggest winners" in the Cheat-the-Taxpayer Sweepstakes.

There are "benefits," however. As the article states, "There are other winners, too, if the bailout works as intended: anyone soon trying to borrow money - for cars, student loans, even to open new credit card accounts."

Perfect. After massive money creation to finance extremely speculative ventures (securitized sub-prime mortgages), all we need is more money creation for consumption purchases, while putting a stranglehold on money and credit for productive purposes. We don't need more government or consumer credit. We need credit to make owners out of people who currently own nothing. That means capital credit that purchases something that generates its own repayment, not consumer credit that reduces future consumption income to meet current wants and needs.

The United States already has the highest burden of consumer debt in its history, exclusive of the subprime mortgage fiasco . . . so the bailout promises to make it even bigger! In response, the Federal Reserve refuses to create money for productive purposes, preferring to create it solely to monetize government debt and bail out speculators and gamblers . . . against its own rules, which restrict it to monetizing only loans for qualified industrial, commercial, and agricultural projects, not government deficits.

Does any of this make sense? If not, take a look at the Homeowners' Equity Corporation proposal and Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen. The only thing you have to lose is your existing burden of debt, and the $2,300 or so additional burden the Billionaire Bailout Bonanza as currently proposed wants to put on you.

Donations to CESJ are tax deductible in the United States under IRC § 501(c)(3):





4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I did not really understand reducing future consumption income to meet current wants and needs. Could you rephrase or explain that for me, please?

Michael D. Greaney said...

Of course. When people borrow today to meet current consumption needs, they acquire a debt. This debt, obviously, was used to meet today's needs, but must be paid back out of tomorrow's income.

The only way to pay today's debt, then, is to reduce tomorrow's consumption, and use tomorrow's income to pay off what you spent today.

This means that, instead of spending tomorrow's income on tomorrow's consumption, you must use tomorrow's income for today's consumption. This reduces tomorrow's ability to consume by the amount you borrowed today.

An economist would say that you're reducing tomorrow's "effective demand" (disposable income) to meet today's wants and needs, because, having already committed the money by incurring a debt for today's needs, you can't spend it again for tomorrow's needs. In accounting terms, you'd be "double counting." You've "accrued" an expense, and have to pay it when the cash comes in ... which means you no longer have the cash.

Did I explain it okay? I'm always happy to drone on further, as you can see from the length of some of the posts ...

Anonymous said...

Did I explain it okay?
Yes. Thank you. Reducing is diminishing in this context, "consumption income" are dividends and/or wages destined for consumption.

Anonymous said...

Reducing is diminishing, consumption income is income spent on consumption.