In the last few days, virtually all mainstream financial media outlets have taken up the banner for the passage of the deeply flawed bailout bill. A bit late in the game, BreakingViews, which is insightful but hardly extreme in any of its positions, argues that the Paulson plan directs capital to where it will not do much good at a time when funding is scarce, thus exacerbating an economic contraction. Welcome Japan.
From Martin Hutchinson at BreakingViews (free subscription available):
Treasury secretary Hank Paulson’s plan uses money borrowed by the US government to buy value-impaired debt left over from the credit bubble. In a period of freely available credit, that might not matter. Good investments would get funded and, since additional money is available, some bad investments would, too. Diverting some money into unproductive uses should affect mainly those bad investments, with only modestly negative economic effects.When money is tight, however, as it is likely to be for some time, withdrawing $700bn from the funding pool to support failed, past investments has a more serious effect on the economy, because capital flows are restricted by market illiquidity and investor trepidation. If that reduces asset prices, it exposes more loans to losses. If it prevents good investments by crowding them out of any chance of getting funding, it reduces economic activity. Either way, it makes the economy less efficient.
Herbert Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation of 1931-32, which made loans to politically connected companies, didn’t do much to alleviate the Great Depression. An equivalent amount of welfare handed out through the “Veterans’ Bonus”, which Hoover opposed, might have boosted consumption and stabilised the economy more quickly.
Japan’s 1990s infrastructure spending spree also diverted capital from more productive uses, helping to cause consumption to stagnate and the downturn to extend for 13 years. Paulson’s plan differs from both these examples in some ways, but is similar in that it may divert capital from its most productive uses. The danger is that the rescue plan could have similar consequences.
Anonymous 
Posts
Roosevelt’s actions certainly helped. The unimployment rate went from ~35% to 15% in about 3 years. It is absolutely absurd to watch the credit markets freeze and do nothing. Laissez Faire economics failed in 1929 and many other times through the centuries.
It is obvious to most that when you arteries are clogged, the blood doesn’t flow. When you have blocked arteries it is an emergency, and to avoid a heart attack it is critical to get the blood flowing, which implies the use of a stent or open heart surgery. A complete blockage will result in a heart attack or worse. Time is critical, and the required correction is an emergency.
Analogous to your vascular system, the financial markets are the arteries of the economy. Analogous to your arteries, when the financial markets are frozen, the monetary supply does not flow. This creates an emergency situation where it is imperative that we restore the monetary flow.
In today’s environment it is critical that we on an emergency basis thaw the financial markets thereby enabling the required monetary flow. There is not a lot of time to react. Waiting too long will create a severe recession or a depression.
Sorry, but it appears that your premises are incorrect!!!!!