09-25-2008, 02:54 AM
Here's what I don't get (or I do, but hear me out).
P&B say that this bailout is needed to "unfreeze the capital markets."
They claim that they need US to give the banks $700B so that THEY can have capital in order to start lending again.
Then the news media regale us with stories of how businesses engaged in doing productive work in the real economy can't get bridge loans for operating expenses, to meet payroll during slow times, etc.
OK, fine.
Why do we need the middle men?
Why not give loans directly from the Treasury to businesses so they can make investments in their businesses, create jobs, sell products, buy raw materials?
Why do we need to give the OUR money to the banks to loan back to us?
What's the difference? If government assistance is needed to lubricate the wheels of commerce, what difference does it make if they do it directly rather than indirectly, and without rewarding previous incompetents (or criminally negligent, take your pick)?
P&B say that this bailout is needed to "unfreeze the capital markets."
They claim that they need US to give the banks $700B so that THEY can have capital in order to start lending again.
Then the news media regale us with stories of how businesses engaged in doing productive work in the real economy can't get bridge loans for operating expenses, to meet payroll during slow times, etc.
OK, fine.
Why do we need the middle men?
Why not give loans directly from the Treasury to businesses so they can make investments in their businesses, create jobs, sell products, buy raw materials?
Why do we need to give the OUR money to the banks to loan back to us?
What's the difference? If government assistance is needed to lubricate the wheels of commerce, what difference does it make if they do it directly rather than indirectly, and without rewarding previous incompetents (or criminally negligent, take your pick)?