Many people believed that the U.S. government, and European governments, should help out financial institutions in trouble. The major reason, as expressed by those who held it, for this belief was that it was generally assumed that if the crisis in the financial markets would increase, these companies would take the entire economy with them.
People such as myself, who are critical whenever the government says it should act in the economy and spend more, could nevertheless support the bailout bill (and other similar bills in Europe). Not because they believed that the government could (or even should) prevent the economy from falling into a recession, but to make sure that the recession would not come suddenly, in a split second, and thereby creating tremendous panic, which would make the situation even worse.
In other words, the main reason many normally fiscal conservatives supported the bailout plan was that it would, we thought, prevent a severe crisis, similar to the Great Depression in the 1930s. However, the idea was never that the government should do whatever it would take to prevent the economy from having a tough time in the months and year ahead. Unemployment would almost certainly go up, and people would suffer financially. Preventing that was not the intention; it was controling the damage.
And that’s exactly why most of us cannot support what Paul Krugman proposes in his latest column for the New York Times. In this column, published today, Krugman makes the case for more government spending in a wide array of areas, such as unemployment benefits. Krugman’s reasoning is the opposite of the above: he does not merely want to control the damage, he wants to prevent possible damage.
What he overlooks in his column, however, is that recessions and moderate crisis are the economy’s way of correcting itself. Every now and then the market has to get rid of weak elements, and keep the strong ones. This economic crisis is no different: instead, the best Krugman can hope to accomplish is yet another artificial boom, which will then strike hard a few years later… unless the government will then be willing to invest even more billions, no, trillions, to prevent it. This will drive up the deficit even more, and create a situation in which even the government will not be able to control the damage years, perhaps a few decades from now; the children of those voting for grand plans now, will then be forced to suffer for the irresponsible spending of their parents (and grandparents) and their unwillingness to deal with any sort of crisis.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others’ comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others’ words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter’s own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. “Obama is a Muslim”) or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.