I recently read an article on The New Republic, and what was pointed out to me was an obvious discrepancy between the government's treatment of main street and wall street. Think about your political positions, especially with respect to government funds. Then try and explain to yourself how the government can justify the manner in which it uses its funds. Why will it open its rather large purse to save the rich and powerful (a troubled Bear Stearns) but piously ignores the same difficult plight with respect to your average Joe?
We all have our particular political positions, but I think that whatever positions we hold should be consistent. We can't say on the one hand that we'll support a politics that bails out rich firms like Bear Stearns as they run into trouble and turn around and quickly zip up the purse when ordinary citizens come running. It's simply inconsistent.
3 comments:
Hey Ben; it's your favorite cousin.
Quite frankly, I'm not great at keeping up with these blog pages; but Micah does a great job. He also has his own blog page: micahandrews.blogspot.com and his email now is micahandrews@bellsouth.net.
Hope all is well with you. That's about all I can do to "let you have it" right now.
But who owns Bear Stearns? And who suffers if Bear Stearns collapses? And how much did Bear Stearns' owners lose on their investments? And what effect will a dead Bear Stearns have on the economy?
Inconsistencies are bad, but we cannot properly diagnose them without context.
Welcome to blogging!
I might have to agree with ole richie. Yes, the inconsistencies exist, but at the same time, out economic status at this point in time is looking glum. With Bear Stearns on the verge of filing bankruptcy and being the 5th largest investment company, it could have tipped the bucket into what some already call an economic recession. It was a must, with extenuating circumstances, right?
Post a Comment