Appealing to fear?

Well that would certainly be the Bush administration’s way. I was awake last night at 2am watching Bush’s statement to the American people.

It was his usual trick, trying to strong-arm the Congress into making a hasty decision without adequate debate or allowing oversight. “No time”, he cried, as his tiny, beady little eyes narrowed even further.

Paulson has been just bad. For almost a week he’s been trying to scare the politicians into accepting his plan – a plan that does a great job in propping up a failed system, but does little to help the home-owners who have been carved up and sold down the river by this crisis.

Perhaps they know something we don’t…

In any case, Paulson can’t get away with this:

” Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Chuck.

I heard that quote on MSNBC, yesterday, and couldn’t believe my ears.

I’d have more faith that the Treasury secretary was being fair and acting in the public interest when he decides to help his chums at Goldman Sachs if the processes were transparent and accountable.

It is in situations exactly like these that unelected appointments to political office cannot be relied upon as the best method to decide the people who formulate policy (leaving aside for a moment the question of whether these powers should be concentrated in the hands of a single person).

This is a huge weakness of the Presidential system, so whether or not the ‘expert’ analysis is correct there is no means to ensure its reliability. And since market stability is based on reliability whatever Paulson says cannot rebuild confidence, it will only postpone the inevitable by forestalling the reform of the institution and/or constitution (though this could mean greater democratisation or not – my money would be on not).

Is this market failure accidental or deliberate? It doesn’t really matter, but it was certainly logical once the interests of government, military and corporations progressively began to be bundled together from 9/11 onwards – what matters is what we can do about it.

192 economists oppose the Paulson plan.

Ben

The greatest risk to US tax payers is getting ripped off with yet more corporate welfare. All that will do is increase the expectation of yet more bail outs in future. The banks took the risks so they must now face the consequences. A few traders looking for different employment would not be a bad thing pour encouge les autre.