Wednesday, December 3, 2008

A Better Bailout

One of the news stories that came out while I was at my parents house was the new estimated cost of all the US Financial Bailout. It was estimated at 8.317 trillion dollars.


I looked at the U.S. Popclock Projection from the United States Census Bureau and it estimates that there are 305,801,765 people in the United States (as of the time that I am posting this). I would have been a lot happier if our government had decided to send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $27,197.36. It might not have solved the economic crisis, but I would be $27,197.36 richer, and frankly, it doesn't look like that money has done much good for our troubled financial system.

Actually, I lied. I would not rather see people receive the money directly. But I sure do wish it would have been spent better. The problem has come about due to sub-prime lending, a crashing housing market, record numbers of home foreclosures, the high gas prices of the last year, etc.. These have led to frozen credit markets. I guess I don't understand all of the reasons for the credit market drying up like it has. I can certainly understand that it has gotten smaller as the banks realized that they had made some bad loans, but there certainly are still some good loans to be made that are simply not being made now because of fear. Throwing this $8.317 trillion at the losers in our free-market system hasn't helped to any discernible level. Good risks are not being taken.

The money from the bailout is only a life line to keep certain companies, primarily financial companies, afloat. These companies make money on commerce and consumption of goods. Unfortunately, commerce and consumption of goods is drying up and I think it is accelerating. I really wish that our government had let these companies take their lumps and spent this money in other ways.

Government statistics put the number of unemployed in the United States at about 10.1 million. If the government had instead promised 10.1 million jobs at $50,000 annual salary for 5 years, the total price tag would have been $2.525 trillion. We could have people at work on improving infrastructure, picking up trash, digging ditches...whatever. I don't know exactly what every one of these 10.1 million people would do, but I bet work could be found that generally benefited the nation.

Now, I know that this sounds a lot like welfare and people would also say that we don't want to increase peoples dependency on the government. These are both valid arguments. I would counter that we have spent triple the amount of money on corporate welfare and have increased the financial system's dependency on government.

The government says that they will get most of this money back. This may be true, but I am fairly certain they won't get it all back.

I think there is more to be gained by putting people to work for 5 years. The government would immediately recoup some of the money in the form of taxes. In addition to this, unemployed people that suddenly became employed would greatly reduce the burden on social services. These formerly unemployed people would also increase the tax base for states, many of which are struggling with reduced tax revenue in the current recession. Furthermore, these workers would not be scared to spend their money. This would cause increased consumer demand and the supply side would respond by expanding. Hopefully, they would need new workers and could begin to hire some of the people that are in the limited-time government jobs and would begin to wean the country off of the temporary employment program. It would serve to prime the pump, so to speak, that is the United States economy.

A rising tide lifts all boats. I don't think that this is the context in which that phrase was meant to be used, but I think it is apt.

I am not saying that this is what should have been done. However, I think it would have done a lot more good for our economy than all these trillions of dollars that have been thrown at the problem.

I know that it is not practical or possible to get to a zero percent unemployment rate. I know, from listening to conservative talk radio, that nearly every unemployed person in the country is really just too lazy to work and that they enjoy collecting huge welfare and unemployment checks and spending my money. Still, I hold out hope that some people that don't work would enjoy having a job.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I agree the terms could be changed, but there is several positives that have arrised out of the financial system bailout that most people aren't even aware of! I've been doing some research, and there's more grants and lower APR's out there now than before. Bailout is for you too!