Hank’s $700 Billion Shopping Spree

Posted by J.P. Arendt | Economy, Government, J.P. Arendt, News | Monday 22 September 2008 10:41 am
Left to right: Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke
Left to right: Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke

On Monday, September 15, 2008, Henry (“Hank”) Paulson, the Treasury Secretary (bald guy you’ve seen on TV talking about the economy), announced that although he felt it was necessary to bailout Bear Stearns and outright take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the government was getting out of the business of takeovers and bailouts.  He announced that the government would not come to the aid of Lehman Brothers as they filed for bankruptcy and that no government money would be given to AIG – that it “has got nothing to do with any bridge loan from the government. What’s going on in New York is a private sector effort.”  Mr. Paulson nobly went on to state, “I never once considered that it was appropriate to put taxpayer money on the line in resolving Lehman Brothers.”  Perhaps one of the most admirable statements that Paulson made was, “We’re very vigilant, but we do not take, and I don’t take, lightly ever putting the taxpayer on the line to support an institution.”

Transcript here: Paulson Transcript

After hearing this speech I was somewhat pacified, I thought that Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush had determined that there had been enough government intervention and that the United States would resume its free market activities.  I went to bed relatively pleased on Tuesday night.

As I walked into the office on Wednesday morning I saw that I was the first one to arrive and picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal outside.  As I unrolled it in my office I soon realized that I had been misled, the headline in bold lettering on the top of the front page read, “U.S. Plans Rescue of AIG to Halt Crisis; Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up.”  Paulson had lied about the federal government not providing a bridge loan to AIG, which had become clear.  The U.S. Government is to lend AIG $85 billion to be repaid within 24 months.  But that is not all, the U.S. Government also assumed an 80% stake in AIG – meaning the company is now owned and operated by the United States of America.  This after the government had already nationalized Fannie and Freddie.  The U.S. Government has officially begun nationalizing what were previously private companies – the first step toward socialism.

If it were to end there then I would hope that there would be widespread outrage among the public, but nothing worthy of panicking over, just some disgruntled seekers of liberty.  Unfortunately it doesn’t end there . . . it doesn’t even come close to ending there.  Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, and apparently most of the legislative branch are now pushing hard for a $700 billion general bailout package.  In this package the government would essentially buy assets for much more than they are worth from struggling financial institutions and other companies.  In return, the government would receive shares in each company that took part in any transaction and the government would hope that the assets would appreciate in value and be sold at a later date.

Read story here: WSJ Article

In addition to this, Henry Paulson has taken it upon himself to advise that the legislative branch and the president give him absolute control of the $700 billion to be distributed as he sees fit without any interference from the courts or any other branch of government.

Read story here: Bloomberg Article

Hank Paulson essentially wants to have a $700 billion account to go around buying assets and companies for the U.S. Government on his own authority with no checks or balances.  The problems with this are glaring.

The scary part of all of this is that everybody in the media and in the legislative branch seem perfectly content with everything that is being suggested.  Let us consider the magnitude of $700 billion for a minute.  The value of Microsoft, General Electric, and Toyota combined is less than $700 billion.  The U.S. Government could purchase almost every major financial institution for $700 billion.  To put it another way, it is about $2400 per person in the United States – young or old, rich or poor – almost $10,000 for a family of four.

Perhaps most important is the question, “Where does all of this money come from?”  Well, the same ways the government gets all of its money, by taxing citizens and by creating inflation (see inflation article on riseofreason.com).  Whether or not you agree with this plan, you will end up paying for it, every American will, rich or poor.

For those of you that believe this measure will help “Main Street” America and that spending our tax dollars is worth it, consider this: everybody in the United States will be responsible for paying for this, no matter how rich or poor you are, but it will only seriously benefit the very wealthy.  The government will be buying assets that are held by the wealthiest people in America via large financial institutions.  These people’s stocks, bonds, and other assets will be propped up to values that are nowhere near what the market would pay and the entire country will have to pay the tab.  If you are trying to help the average American, this is not the way.

Hammer and Sickle

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.  That is the definition of socialism.  This is where we are headed.  Socialism is the exact ideal that is supported by all of these bailouts.  Socialism will destroy America if we continue on this path.

You may think that the government will keep its word and sell off these assets for more than they bought them for and sell off AIG and all of the other companies it has bought and will buy after the market “stabilizes”.  You may think that.  Given what the government has told you, it would be nothing less than reasonable to think that.  But if you have lived long enough or studied hard enough the actions of government and the history of such blatant interferences with the free market you will know that the reversal of such acts is damn near impossible.  Take my word, Fannie, Freddie, and AIG will be government owned for as long as we are alive, and so will any other companies that the government nationalizes after this day.  Fannie and Freddie own between 60% and 70% of the liens on residential properties in the United States and AIG is the largest insurer in the nation.  The government has taken large steps to gain more power and have a better hold on every person’s life in this nation.  Perhaps I am early to sound the alarm of impending socialism, but if this nation continues on the path she is on today we will all be dreaming of yesteryear.

Long live the free-market and liberty in these United States of America.

4 Comments »

  1. Comment by Donald — September 22, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

    It goes back to that (now) infamous quote of Paulson, “If you’ve got a squirt gun in your pocket, you probably will have to take it out. If you have a bazooka in your pocket and people know it, you probably won’t have to take it out. By having something that is unspecified, it will increase confidence, and by increasing confidence it will greatly reduce the likelihood it will ever be used.” I still remember when I actually believed those words (this was said in reference to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

    Like you mentioned, the sad thing is people are cheering this bailout. Bazooka or no bazooka, Hank Paulson is the strongest and most powerful person in the world right now, which is quite alarming considering he wasn’t even an elected official. The free market, by all means is officially dying in the United States. Bailout after bailout, precedent after precedent, if only FDR was cryogenically frozen we could reawaken him and let him admire at the mess that he has made (speaking of precedent).

    Hank Paulson sure does have his bazooka out, except the only thing in his sights is the American taxpayer.

  2. Comment by scottydew3 — September 23, 2008 @ 7:27 am

    I just saw a statistic that 2/3 people believe the Republican party is to blame for our economic downturn. If i recall, weren’t the democrats the ones which liberalized the loaning process? Its also interesting that the people outlining this new plan are the big wigs of the Federal Reserve. These guys are really starting to show their true colors.

  3. Comment by scottydew3 — September 23, 2008 @ 7:54 am

    In regards to the Great Depression…

    “The recession only became a crisis when these failures spread to New York and in particular to this building, then the headquarters of the Bank of United States. The failure of this bank had far reaching effects and need never have happened…Only a few blocks away is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was here that the Bank of United States could have been saved. Indeed, the Federal Reserve System had been set up 17 years earlier precisely to prevent the worst consequences of bank failures…It was all a question of reassuring the public that they could get their money. The Federal Reserve System was there to ensure that this happened by supplying cash to the banks…Why didn’t this system prevent The Great Depression after 1929? Because from 1929 to 1930 after the stock market crashed, the Federal Reserve system allowed the quantity of money to decline slowly thereby throttling the monetary structure…If the Federal Reserve had stepped in, bought government securities on a large scale, provided the cash, the depositors would have found that they could’ve got their money and they would have stopped asking for it…Despite excellent advice from New York, the system refused to buy government bonds, something which would have provided cash to the commercial banks with which they could have met more easily the insisted demands of their depositors. Instead, believe it or not, the system stood idly by while banks crashed on all sides. As the head of one of the banks put it, the reserve system had to keep its powder dry for a real emergency.”

    -Milton Friedman

    Now i’m just confused

  4. Comment by J.P. Arendt — September 23, 2008 @ 9:40 am

    I’m glad you brought that up, Scotty. Milton is absolutely right in his analysis in my estimation. The Fed should have certainly stepped in and purchased government securities from these banks in the Great Depression as to add liquidity to their balance sheets. The same is true for today.

    HOWEVER, what our government and the fed have been doing IS NOT this type of activity. What Milton was describing is the typical way that the Federal Reserve increases or reduces the quantity of money in the economy, thus providing or extracting liquidity and increasing or decreasing interest rates (see my blog on inflation). The Fed has a duty as defined by their governance to attempt to prevent the failure of banks by going through the said motions. Unfortunately, the government has lately been going far beyond this scope and actually intervening in the business of the market. The government and the Fed have moved to taking equity stakes and acting as a direct lender to private institutions. Nowhere will you find Milton Friedman or any other free market economist advising of such activity, it is blatant nationalization of private property and the first step of socialism. I’d like to add that the Fed actually did not heed Milton’s advice and add to the quantity of money last Tuesday as they decided to keep the Fed Funds rate flat at 2%. They have, however, made serious efforts to add to the money supply over the last year. This is fine under the right circumstances. Unfortunately, when they go beyond what is necessary and lower the rates too far (as they did after 9/11) it leads to malinvestment, which I believe is what created such widespread speculation of real estate inspired by the wide availability of cheap money. Perhaps that is for a different blog.

    Ultimately, what Milton is saying is that the Federal Reserve should increase the quantity of money and guarantee individual accounts (FDIC insurance does this and the banks pay a premium for it, I think this could be accomplished by the free market but that is for another day) in situations like these in order to provide the banks with fair liquidity to prevent dramatic collapse. These measures are simply the purchase and sale of government securities between banks and the Fed. No value is added or lost, securities are simply converted into their cash value. However, in the situation we are in today, the government is making direct investments into private organizations.

    Milton’s my man and he is right here, but this quote from his book shouldn’t be misinterpreted.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment