Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

MikeBobulinski (< 20)

Not quite at a loss for words...rant ahead...

Recs

30

May 27, 2010 – Comments (18)

After reading some of Alstry's posts, one from topsecret09, and a few others I found myself typing up a bit of a rant as a response to one of them.  Instead of polluting their BLOGs with my rant, I decided to just take the rant and drop it into my BLOG. Since I am not as prolific at TMF as the folks I have been reading, I imagine this rant will see very little traffic, but at least I got it off my chest.

As the Joker says, "Here....we....go...":

What amazes me is the fact that the billions upon billions of dollars we have given to the street to bail out businesses deemed "too big to fail" could have been used as a pool of money to finance the payrolls of some serious job creating efforts.

How about putting some of that money to work on green energy projects like wind farms, solar farms, etc?  Building those out requires quite a work force, and the end result would/could be a reduction in our reliance on fossil fuels.

How about putting some of that money to work on reworking our transportation infrastructure?  Mass transit systems?  Roadways?  Any number of projects that create a variety of jobs that in the end benefits everyone involved.

How about putting some of that money to work in our education systems?  Rebuilding schools?  Payroll for new teachers?  Improving our abilities to educate our youth so our aging population doesn't get run into the ground by undereducated youngsters.  There are endless possibilities here that could employ any number of folks from janitors to administrators.

How about putting some of that money back into the hands of the tax payers in general?  If you are going to give billions of our dollars to banks that are clearly stealing from the government and the taxpayers to begin with, why not let capitalism work on them?  Give the money to the tax payers.  Let the banks work to earn the deposits from the taxpayers.  Then the banks get an appropriate amount of money based on the efforts they put in to earning those deposits.

There are so many different ways that the government could go to resolve the unemployment problem and thus help the economy, but no.  They give it away under the guise of a threatened bank generated economic collapse.  News flash, the consumer based economy that the US has become is going to end up failing if there are no more consumers because they have no money, can't get any money (credit) or have no hope of a future involving a job that pays them money.

I find it hard to believe that with so many smart people in our country and around the world, that someone hasn't come up with a better plan than just giving it away to big banks so they can stay afloat.  If I ran a business and did so poorly, and ended up failing, what are the odds that Uncle Sam would come to my rescue?  Pretty much none.  I would be told that is the way of it in a capitalist nation.  Sink or swim, it is up to how you run your business.  Guess I should go become a banker...

Sorry for the long rant, but this entire bail out the too big to fail banks thing drives me nuts...  

Rant complete.  Fool on. 

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 27, 2010 at 10:27 PM, ChrisGraley (31.45) wrote:

And what a  very excellent rant it was!

Report this comment
#2) On May 27, 2010 at 10:43 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

If the government and bankers are willing to allow the Social Security dependent helpless eldery suffer by lying about the CPI...and we collectively say nothing.....

do you really think they give a damn about anything you mention above?

And since we say nothing...do we morally have a right to question our role as nothing more than sheep?

Report this comment
#3) On May 27, 2010 at 10:48 PM, dwot (99.50) wrote:

The entire process of giving tax dollars for things that tax dollars never should have been used for in the first place gets to me.

 

Report this comment
#4) On May 27, 2010 at 10:53 PM, MikeMark (30.28) wrote:

Ding, ding, ding!

You've hit on something. It'll take some reading to really understand it, but when you said that the bailouts "could have been used as a pool of money to finance the payrolls of some serious job creating efforts," the picture is there. The deeper question I think you are asking is why? Why doesn't the government seem to want to actually help?

For part of the answer, I recommend reading a few important books. For the rest of the answer I recommend mises.org.

Finding that answer will lead you down some unexpected pathways.

Good luck.

-MikeMark

Report this comment
#5) On May 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

It is actually more fundemental.....

If government and bankers have an unrestricted right to lend each other money....why do they even need to tax in the first place?

Furthermore...if bankers can simply get money for free and lend it to the government at a higher rate.....it becomes in the Feds interest to let the government borrow masively so the member banks can generate essentially unlimited income.

The morality of money and what it stood for has broken down.....it has essentially become something the Fed can arbitrarily create and destroy to control whatever ends it desires.

It must be nice to be a banker and make millions per year for losing billions.......and we question the Greeks for rioting?

Sorry Mike...I am done ranting :)

Report this comment
#6) On May 27, 2010 at 11:06 PM, MikeBobulinski (< 20) wrote:

Wow!  Turn my back for a second or to, and I have feedback.  

ChrisGraley, thanks for the plug.

dwot, always good to see you.  

MikeMark, thank you for adding to my reading list....as alstry is fond of saying, "in the digital age, knowledge is..."  

Which brings me to alstry, honored.  I mean that.  Am honored that you popped in and shared my rant.  Afterall, your private property blog got me started...and a few others folks blogs capped it off...causing me to at least raise my own voice, even if it is only a small peep in the noise that surrounds it.

Who knows, like the who from Horton Hears a Who, my little peep might become the yawp that causes us to be heard.  Then again, it might not. 

Report this comment
#7) On May 27, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Option1307 (30.51) wrote:

What? You don't like giving your cash out to worthless causes and blackholes like GM, AIG, and every other crap company out here? What's wrong with you, are you not American!?!

Nice rant:)

Report this comment
#8) On May 28, 2010 at 8:50 AM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

FED  and Treasury are the foundation for this racket. And FED is comprised of bankers. No surprise there. But how did we let them beconme so powerful?

Report this comment
#9) On May 28, 2010 at 11:46 AM, binve (< 20) wrote:

all I can say is, right on man!

Report this comment
#10) On May 28, 2010 at 11:56 AM, catoismymotor (72.81) wrote:

+ 1 Rec with a megaphone and tee shirt gun for Mike! Well said.

Report this comment
#11) On May 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, carcassgrinder (45.56) wrote:

well put....and allows one to easily extrapolate that the 'bail-out' was indeed...a hustle/crime...on a grand scale.

Report this comment
#12) On May 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM, buildgreen (< 20) wrote:

somebody’s got to be the contrarian. So here it is. -1rec  in good spirit.

 To all fools:

If I was willing to spend more time at this I would love to record the claims of you all at the date, then reference them back to you 1 yr later, 1.5 yr later and so on against the actual facts happening. Not as an in your face gesture but as a tool for reflection and perhaps help develop a little humility. You may be right and then deserve praise. But you probably won’t be.

Report this comment
#13) On May 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM, carcassgrinder (45.56) wrote:

Buildgreen....

feel free to track our sentiments and their future validity....I've found that most on here are pretty comfortabl ein their opinions and are well aware that they may be way off track.

That is actually one of the things I love most about Alstry....he's not afraid to set a doom-date...miss it...then keep blogging without missing a beat.  That's truly beleiving in your stance....and all part of being a Fool. 

Report this comment
#14) On May 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM, PeteysTired (< 20) wrote:

Nice rant my only problem is with the following:

There are so many different ways that the government could go to resolve the unemployment problem and thus help the economy, but no.

I think this is a fallacy, but I want to know why do you believe that the gov't can fix the economy?  Do you think this hasn't been tried in other countries....to do it the right way?

 

Report this comment
#15) On May 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, MikeBobulinski (< 20) wrote:

@PeteysTired

The statement you have singled out could easily be a fallacy in a stand alone fashion, but you have removed it from its context.

I have no doubt that the government is doing everything it feels is in its power to do.  I have no doubt that the government has the ability to "fix" the economy.

My issue is with the continuing promise of resolution to the unemployment issue by the numerous statements that jobs will be created...that the TARP moneys will in the end result in improved job opportunities...that the numerous bailouts will fix things.

Sure a bank failure of significant magnitude would rock the global economy.  That has already been proven.  But there are also instances of major business failures that ended up as mere blips on the radar and that economies continued on.

There is no doubt that the bailouts of these major banking institutions have in some way slowed down the economic panic/downturn.  But what I have yet to see is anything resembling a turn around for the consumer that the US economy relies on.

Millions of jobs lost.  Everyone gets excited when the continuing claims number or the jobs lost number decreases.  What I fail to see is anyone out there taking a careful look at why that might be.  Everyone assumes it is because the economy is improving (which it is...very, very, very slowly), but the reality of the matter is that companies can only cut so deep before they run out of folks to let go.  At some point, those numbers were bound to bottom out and start to stay flat.  If not, then you would see major increases in businesses going under or becoming a going concern...oh wait, we have started seeing that...tons of business closures in the small business world (another area that our government promised to help).

So, can the government fix the economy?  Sure, but I think there is a better way to do it than simply throwing billions of dollars down the banking black hole.  Simple logic...why rent a house and continue to pay money to someone else so they can own it, when you can perhaps "buy" a house and pay money to a bank with a future date of ownership out there.  Right now the government is renting our future by giving money to the banks.  Make the banks earn that money by having the government create jobs with it...giving the money to the taxpayer/consumer and letting the banks fend for themselves to earn that money back from consumers.

Great...you got me going again...

Rant part 2 complete...there's more in there, but I am tired of typing.

Fool on... 

Report this comment
#16) On May 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM, MikeBobulinski (< 20) wrote:

@buildgreen

Contrarian?  That is what makes this country and the blogosphere a great place.  You are certainly welcome to be a contrarian.  I don't mind at all.  I also welcome having someone smarter than I point out my mistakes or how I may change my tune over time.  I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.  Changing times often demand changes in mindsets and opinions.

I, for one, firmly believe that things will turn around.  Hell, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.  To obey the orders of the President of the United States...

That means I support the government, but that does not mean I am required to do so blindly and without opinion.

My stance on things has not changed over time so dramatically that I feel like a hypocrite.  It is simply that I have become more knowledgeable over time and now see things from a slightly different perspective than I used to.

I imagine that if I were to become unemployed, my views would change even more dramatically.

But as stated by another Fool, I am comfortable in my views enough so to post them here.  If I wasn't I would not leave them here for the entire world to have access to.  It is the internet afterall...once it is out there...it is out there forever.

Fool on. 

Report this comment
#17) On June 03, 2010 at 10:59 AM, dickseacup (68.18) wrote:

Prior to the conquest of government by Keynesian sycophants, nobody expected the government to do the things you are suggesting. I will grant that the 'bailouts' and 'TARP' and "too big to fail" should never have happened.You fail to provide any justification whatsoever for the government spending under your plan, however. It simply isn't the government's business.

In the 1920 depression, it was not the role of government to engineer a business recovery. It was the responsibility of businessmen to identify prospects for profits and then put capital, resources and labor to work on generating those profits. It wasn't the role of government to give people jobs. It was the the responsibility of the individual to find a job. It wasn't the role of the government to "prime the pump" through deficit spending.

In the 1920 depression, the Federal Government realized the thing to do was reduce public expenditures, which it did by cutting spending and paying down government debt. It realized that the thing to do was to reduce the size of the Federal payroll, which it did by cutting the number of civilian employees as well as shrinking the size of the Army and Navy. It realized the thing to do was to get out of the way of business and the people, which it did. It did not try to direct economic activity, because nobody in the 1920s thought that was the proper role of government. Quite the contrary. It realized the thing to do was to stop taking away citizens' income in the form of taxes, so it reduced taxes, although not greatly, but enough to have an impact.

The 1920 depression was not-so-sharp and was over by 1921. Not because the government did anything to end it, or to boost economic activity or to provide employment, or a safety net or anything but get the hell out of the way.  It was short and sweet because the government got out of the way of the productive elements of the country...people and businesses.

Compare this with the depression of 1929 when Keynesian theory held sway. Compare it also with the crash of 1938, when Roosevelt was spending us deeper into a hole, with no real gain. Compare this with the recession of the 1970s, the 1990s, the 2000 crash of the market and our current depression.

Government never creates, it only destroys.  More government means more destruction. The best thing the government could have done was nothing. The "too big to fail" banks would have failed and the markets, jacked up as they are with overwhelming government meddling, would have reallocated resources far more quickly and efficiently than the bumbling idiots in Washington, D. C. are doing. In the end, all of this stimulus spending and government legislating are nothing more than pissing in the wind. The market will have its way, and the United States will suffer greatly for the perversions, economic and freedom-wise, that are being foisted upon her citizens. This too shall come to pass, but it isn't going to pass easily. 

YMMV.

Report this comment
#18) On June 03, 2010 at 5:41 PM, MikeBobulinski (< 20) wrote:

@dickseacup 

Nicely written and nicely said.  I can't say I disagree.  Unfortunately, it is too late for what you have written to have any meaning.  Today's government is already up to its eyeballs in "fixing" things.  My point was simply pointing out that it would have been nice to see them point their pens and funds towards a plan that would put that money in the hands of the citizens (as you put it) and to leave business to itself.  Granted, I did not cite historical examples nor make my argument nearly as eloquently as you did, but I believe the point is darn close to the same.

If your post were a stand alone BLOG, I'd rec it for the shear fact that it is an excellent history lesson and one that our government would surely have benefited from had they been clued in earlier than now.

Time will tell. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement