October 2008 Archives

Hey! Aren't these the guys that 1) endorsed Bush in 2000, and then, for an encore, 2) endorsed the invasion of Iraq? Let's hope their judgment is better this time around (but I'm not holding my breath):

John Samples makes the case the Paulson Paul is really only an attempt to delay solving the problem, to kick the can (the "problem") down the road, and why 100 time out 100 times, this just makes the problem worse.

Basically, the political elites are desperately trying to prop the economy up just long enough to get passed the next election cycle, even if the consequences of kicking the can down the road means we'll being facing a crisis even worse than what we're facing today.

And then, of course, they're trying to hedge their bets, i.e., the political elites feel also that they are in a damned if they do and damned if they don't:

As the U.S. government struggles to agree on a sweeping bailout plan that would send a lifeline to Wall Street, captains of other foundering industries are hoping their own distress signals will trigger a wider range of rescue efforts.

Automakers are about to get a huge loan on the cheap [$25,000,000,000.00] and they have a request in for more. Even home builders, the corporate beneficiaries of the easy-money era, feel they deserve a helping hand. Can the nation's hard-luck airlines be far behind? (Corporate America's widening bailout mindset).

So why is this a triumph for economic liberal values? (By economic liberal values, I mean interventionism, protectionism, etc., as opposed to social liberalism, where libertarians are in 100% agreement).