Money for Nothing

So you’ve probably heard about the way Democrats and
Republicans are coming together in a heart-rending show of unity, joining hands
and singing “Kumbaya” as they put aside their differences and patriotically
hand over, no strings attached, $800,000,000,000—or about $2500 on behalf of
every single man, woman and child in these here United States of America—to the
exact same people who got us in this financial disaster. 

Hold on…what? 

No strings attached? Seriously? 

Yeah. Seriously. 

Check it out. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson says
things are so critical that we must act immediately, without delay, this very
second. He simply must be handed close to
A TRILLION DOLLARS

But one of the conditions of him accepting this money—I have
a hard time believing this is true, even as I type it, and yet it is—is a
clause which specifically says
he can do whatever he wants with the money and
there will be absolutely no oversight
. [Check out Section 8—aptly named, at
least.]

 Wrap your head around that for a moment. Then go and pick up
the pieces whence they scattered after it exploded and see if you can’t put ‘em
all back together in approximately the right order.

 “So, it’s like this, folks: we’re terrible at our jobs. I
mean, seriously, terrible. TERRIBLE. Let me put it to you this way: we’re so horrible
at our jobs, if we were actors, we’d make
Steve Gutenberg look like Marlon
freakin’ Brando
. If we were athletes, we’d make Stephen Hawking look like
Michael freakin’ Jordan. If we were musicians, we’d make Biz Markie look like Dmitri наркоман
Shostakovich.

 “Put simply, we suck at a
level of suckitude rarely witnessed on this planet.

 “Oh, and also? We’re greedy.
I mean, you cannot even begin to comprehend just how greedy we are. You can't do it, my friends. You can't. 

"How greedy
are we, you ask? Well, we ran these mammoth companies into the ground. But we
didn’t care. See, we got ours—millions and millions and millions per year.
Yeah, sure, investors are likely to lose pretty much everything, and thousands
of employees—the ones who didn’t make millions—are likely to be out of jobs.
Oh, and because the companies were so big and we sucked so bad, we very nearly
pushed the world to the bring of the first global
depression in eighty years.

 “But if you try to put any
limits on how much our executives can get compensated? If, for instance, you
say that none of them can make more than, say, $2,000,000 a year? Well, then,
in that case, we’re not going to take your money. We’d rather the entire globe
was plunged into a depression, and that the United States government went
bankrupt.”

 That’s a paraphrase, of
course.

 So. Faced with this level of
rapacity, what would a rational person do? Play chicken with the fate of the
world? Or give in to such blatant
extortion?

 As far as I can tell, if
this goes through, Paulson would be able—legally—to do whatever he wanted with
the money. As far as I can tell, he could buy, I dunno,
Bermuda for $800
billion. And there’s nothing anyone could do to stop him. Because that’s what
he’s demanding: complete and total
autonomy with no accountability to anyone
ever.

 How insane is that? We got
in this mess because we didn’t have the proper safeguards in place. This
maroon’s solution: give him the largest handout in the history of money…and
make sure there are no
safeguards. 

 Obviously, fire this idiot,
post-haste. And get someone competent—such as someone who’s been warning for
years that this was headed our way—to fix what these bastards broke. They gambled with, it now turns out, our money. Privatize the profits, socialize the loss.

Well, screw that.  It’s very nearly time to
break out the
pitchforks and torches

Advertisements

About the other scott peterson

Writer of comics and books and stuff.
This entry was posted in Banking. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Money for Nothing

  1. KathyR says:

    True.
    Is that really “freakin'” in Russian?

  2. Theresa says:

    Ugh. I think I’m going to be sick.
    Love your new tagline, btw. A true classic.

  3. shannon says:

    Where do I get my pitchfork and torch?

  4. scott says:

    Is that really “freakin'” in Russian?
    I believe it’s actually “freak” in Russian, or at least it is according to the online translator I used. Although when run back through the translator the other way you get “addict.” As my Russian is extremely rusty (as in, I don’t speak it at all), I can neither confirm nor deny either way.
    But I read it online. So it must be true.
    Right?

  5. J says:

    But what about the наркоман liquidity issue? What would happen if no one could buy or sell their home because there are no banks to offer affordable loans? In the past (1970s, midwestern inner cities after white flight and then bank flight) inability to to get home purchase, improvement or equity loans resulted in home insurance policies becoming more valuable than the homes themselves. Homeowners would set their own homes on fire to collect insurance money on homes that they couldn’t sell, refinance or improve due to lack of funds. From what little I understand about this period of history, the inner city liquidity crisis of the 1970s lead to The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but not to any effective recovery. With the current crisis, it seems that we all may be “redlined.” But there are other problems too. What if no one could buy or start a business because there were no reasonable business loans available? If small businesses can’t afford to access capital, then class mobility within the entire country will suffer. The rich who own large businesses will make more money while middle and lower class small business and micro business owners may be forced out of their businesses because they won’t be able to sustain growth due to lack of funds. But perhaps the biggest problem of all is the cash management issue. If banks fail, would everyday citizens could be reduced to using check cashing venues and money orders to conduct normal cash management functions. This is very, very bad . . . like hiring a vampire to babysit.
    This bailout is supposed to be a means of bribing horrible, inefficient, large banks and thrifts to continue performing their intended, and unfortunately crucial, functions. It is not to reward them for being bone-headed at the expense of the little guy. That much, I think, needs to be understood. However, what the bailout doesn’t address is our reliance on large banks in the first place. If you look at the FDIC’s website, about 5 banks have 80%+ marketshare in any given market . . . and these are the same banks over and over and over again. In the 1960s we were smart enough to spread of our eggs out over hundreds of local small baskets. Now, we effectively have all of our eggs in 5-10 precariously balanced large baskets! I believe this might be the real issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s