economists weighing in

scroll down to the bottom

Unless you're a sucker for statistical evaluation of NBA prospects (which I sometimes am, though I don't use that system exactly), you can skip the bulk of that.

Basically the point is this: STOP COMPARING THIS TO THE DEPRESSION!. It's not even close. The factors involved that created, then extended, the greatest global economic catastrophe in history are not in play (excessive protectionism, restriction of the money supply etc). There are indeed various problems that can be weighed as major, perhaps even exceeding problems during the Depression (such as real estate).

The second point is that the debate over whether to do a bailout or not really requires better reasoning. The reason most people (commoners) are opposed to it is that the money has been described repeatedly as a bailout of Wall Street...which is not really true, is drastically over-simplifying the issue, and really doesn't sell well on Main St America. For myself I disagree because it is a fascist system, not a 'socialist' one where profits still exist but risks are distributed in order to feed large government operations (usually a military...hmmm...).

I haven't agreed with most of the moves being made, but I can understand why they are being made in what is otherwise a free market system. Because the crunch of available credit is a problem that did exist and did go on during the Depression. People would be well-served to note that the restriction of money/credit occurred after the Stock Crash, and especially once FDR took office..ie, he didn't help fix the problem much with his fiddling around. So if these moves are being made in order to free up or inject necessary capital to keep the economy from beginning to freeze up (like an engine without oil), then I'd guess I am okay with it. That's not where the money is being directed however. And where the money is in play, quasi-government agencies should be brought more fully into government control then broken off and sold to these private enterprises that are still afloat (the way WaMu went to JPM from FDIC control). Again, it doesn't quite sound like this is the plan so I am against it on economic grounds. They can and maybe should spend some money, but not the money they're proposing to spend. It sounds like the Senate bill is a slight improvement but only because it also addresses unrelated problems like tax reform (which was necessary only what, 5-6 years ago?)