Sen. Graham even said, "You should not get caught up on a word [nationalization]." Not get caught up on a word??? I'll not get caught up on a word or concept when its meaning is wholly unimportant to me. For example, "Nebraska." On the contrary, nationalization of almost anything is anathema to my personal political beliefs (although I've written in favor--albeit hesitantly--of the original TARP plan), so I think I'll take my sweet time to consider what the word implies--especially a word that entails a big step backwards in the present and apparently future deterioration of the capitalist system. But thanks for making a solid effort to disguise your treachery.
Sen. Graham does make the valid point that what we're doing now--pouring so much money into banks that the banks themselves are worth less than the amount we've invested--is abject stupidity. Thus, I propose three potential courses of action: continue doing what we're doing now (abject stupidity), follow the "Swedish model" (even Tim Geithner thinks that "governments are terrible managers of bad assets"), or get a grip on reality and stop funding massive bailout plans for banks and companies that don't seem to know how to invest or even maintain day-to-day operations without hemorrhaging cash.
Yes, there will be pain at first, but our economy will readjust and resurge. We have organizations like the FDIC and processes like bankruptcy that guarantee the people's money (to a large extent) and will help soften the economic blow of a crash and speed reorganization. The backbone of our country is not fancy investments, but the drive and ingenuity of our people.
Of course, there's no way we'll ever reduce or eliminate already-appropriated government money, so you can be sure that my proposal won't win the day. As Reagan said, "the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan." Until next time, Välkommen till Sverige!
Posts
