What would convince you the risk of inaction is real and dangerous?

[jpgray]

I'm not claiming any exclusive knowledge of what risk we face. I certainly don't pretend that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid or on the wrong side of some class war. Why? Because I really don't know with any certainty what the risks are. People who post as if they are utterly certain about this complicated mess disgust me. Trumpeting pleasing narratives and empty truisms with deplorable condescension is about the worst way to talk about this, whatever your position. Such posters that seek to win a personality war rather than discover the actual facts of this matter provide almost no insight about what's actually happening, and aren't advancing the debate one iota.

I accept that people disbelieve anything substantial is at risk here. The complete spectrum of expert opinion exists out there, from radically dire warnings to confident dismissal of inactivity's risk. So the question:

What would convince you that there is some risk? I won't challenge or "trap" anyone here, I'm just curious.

[lapfog_1]

1. I don't think that anything will convince anyone here

that something was needed until it's way too late to avoid.

[Amimnoch]

2. When Ron Paul says it's needed.

When Ron Paul (the only republican that I actually somewhat like) says that a bailout is a good idea, I will definitely believe it is a necessary evil.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. ...

:silly:

[JVS]

6. Gee, that's the exact kind of thing that makes me think EPIC FAIL!

[asthmaticeog]

8. When a crypto-anarchist psycho says something, you'll agree.

Duly noted.

[JVS]

9. "As soon as you say that the world is round, then every kid knows that the world has corners"

--Wolf Biermann

Maybe it's that kind of logic.

[summer borealis]

11. When Paul and Kucinich together tell me

They were on the same side today.

Oh, and thank you, Jason Altmire

[Amimnoch]

16. OOOOOhhh, thank you!

I was finding myself feeling kind of filthy for using a Republicans name (even though anyone with a lick of sense knows he's not todays typical repug..) Dennis is a MUCH better choice of reason!

[ddeclue]

3. Nothing...

I refuse to give into fear.

[mwb970]

24. Find a place inside to laugh.... /nt

[gateley]

5. What has bothered me -- even before this -- is that people on both sides

claim to know exactly how the stock market will react, how the people will be affected, etc., and compare it to The Great Depression.

My frustration is that we've never been in this place before, where we are so interdependent on other countries, on other banking systems, where many of our jobs have been moved overseas, where another country (China) owns the mortgage on our house.

We're in unchartered waters, IMO, and the rules we've followed and played by previously may not apply any more. So how people can say this or that will or won't happen seems odd to me - how can they KNOW?

If there is no action, and the markets continue to dive, the credit market stays locked up, companies have to shut their doors, people lose their jobs, I believe there will be a risk in continuing to take no action.

How about you -- what do you think?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Scientific peer-reviewed evidence.

What would it take to convince you that panicking and running around like a chicken with its head cut off is a real and dangerous risk?

[jpgray]

12. Scientific peer-reviewed evidence.

:P But seriously--inaction has a potential impact as well, of course. What impact would that be? You are troubled by the clamor for action without decisive evidence, as anyone naturally should be. The price of wrongheaded, panicked action could be severe.

On the other side, if it turns out that this was the crucial time to act (again the jury is very much out), what is the price of inaction? Might it be equally severe?

The obvious disparity is that action commits a great deal of resources when it may be unnecessary; inaction preserves those resources at the risk of missing a limited opportunity to reverse a crisis. So the latter is objectively "safer" while the evidence is unclear, but events may yet prove it to be the most dangerous course.

It's a serious dilemma (quite unlike Oct 2002, where no real risk was in evidence whatsoever). Moreover the plan for action is not at all widely regarded as the best available. What sort of signs could we see during a period of inaction as evidence that action is necessary? That's my question.

[Romulox]

18. Economics is NOT a scientific discipline. Just fyi. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Exactly.

Nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about, especially economists.

So I give the same amount of weight to the "bailout" crowd as I do with the "no bailout" crowd.

And I'm against rushed, panicky solutions to any problem on principle.

You didn't see this "ZOMG, we need to do XYZ or else there'll be a Great Depression" crap when it was middle class homeowners suffering.

[summer borealis]

10. No more Milk Duds

[EFerrari]

13. My mom called to say our family business is on hold

because there is no credit.

She's not a wimp. I believe here. Small business is screwn right now.

[gravity]

14. There is nothing you can do

Even if the shit does hit the fan, they would just say it was inevitable anyways.

[Nay]

15. When 1. The top 5 swinging dicks of each of these failed financial

institutions voluntarily step down permanently from their positions and, for the good of the country, allow the govt/independent board/etc to run the business so the country can recover from their predations. I'd prefer they commit sepukku, but I won't get that lucky.

2. serious consideration of and public debate about the Swedish bailout experience, the Canadian bailout experience, etc., which are recent and relevant

3. the immediate resignation of Paulson, Bush and/or Cheney as the officials who presided over this clusterfuck

4. when these same assholes above get on Fox News and tell all the knuckledraggers that they, as leaders in the Pub party, have been wrong lo these many years about their whole conservative philosophy, and it has now ended in tragedy. I will expect them to take back all they said about how "throwing money at a problem" doesn't work; socialism is actually good, because now they are asking for it for themselves; and that no, they will no longer tell everyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps/take personal responsibility/let the markets decide, etc., because they themselves can no longer do this.


This would get the public starting to believe that this was serious. Right now, all we have is the word of a bunch of blatant liars who have spent the last 20 years asset-stripping everything they come across. When these types of people cry wolf, no one believes them -- we figure they're after our last dime before they go off to their private islands.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Bo Knows!!!

If Bo rose from the grave and sang it to a Bo Didley Beat, I'd believe it!

Seriously, if Paulson was ready to kick in $250 million of his own loot into the bailout as a show of good faith, because he knew that otherwise his loot would become worthless, then I'd believe that heretofore lying sack of crap.

[depakid]

19. This poster lays it out nicely

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4125505&mesg_id=4125505

You can compound the problem he describes exponentially across every sector of the economy. Both here and abroad.

In addition see: Libor/OIS spreads blow out

"Financial institutions do not want to lend to each other amid doubts over counterparty risk," said BNP Paribas strategists.

"There are increasing signs that the banks prefer to hoard cash, preventing liquidity from being recycled in the broader market.

Overall, financial markets remain under more stress than at any time since the start of the crisis in August 2007."
The three-month euro Libor rate hit its highest ever at 5.22250 percent. The premium for borrowing those funds over anticipated central bank policy rates as measured by Overnight Index Swaps, the Libor/OIS spread, also hit a record, around 113 basis points.

ACTIVITY CEASES

Reflecting banks' bent to park cash in the safest haven possible rather than do business with each other, the ECB said banks deposited a record 28.059 billion euros with the central bank on Friday.

Interbank dollar funding remained scarce too as markets reacted cautiously to the news the U.S. Congress will this week vote on an amended version of the $700 billion stabilisation plan put forward by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Dollars for 'tomorrow/next day' delivery, straddling the crucial quarter end for accounting purposes, were indicated as high as 5.75 percent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7836493

[mdmc]

20. seeing my CEO selling pencils on the curb

:)

[mike_c]

22. on the contrary, I'm convinced that there are indeed substantial risks...

...and much at stake. I expect considerable pain. I still unequivocally oppose the bailout for several reasons, some specific to THIS bailout bill, some reasons more general in nature, having to do with the need for FUNDAMENTAL changes in our economic system rather than patchwork band-aid bailouts of an unsustainable system.

[Two Americas]

23. I am convinced

I am also convinced that this bailout is the epitome of "inaction" if by action we mean serious efforts that will actually solve the problems and resolve the crisis.

If by "action" you mean "do more of the same that caused the crisis" then, yes, I favor avoiding that sort of "action." I strongly believe that of we can hold fast, that within hours we will have alternative action that will stabilize the market, unfreeze credit and do it is such a way that the interests of the public are protected and we start down the road to really solving this problem. Cave in on this, give into the fears, knuckle under to the extortion,and we may well be condemning future generations to something much worse than a depression AND make the current crisis worse.

Pelosi could right now start fighting for a strong bill that protected the working people first, and she would have the vast majority of Democrats and the general public behind her and it would pass. It mat even peel millions of working class people away from the Republican party. She need not cave to the administration.The Republicans opposing the administration's plan will oppose any plan. They can be safely ignored. Let them reject our plan.

We have as good a chance, I believe a better chance, to pass a bill that is in alignment with the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party as we do to pass the administration's bail out plan. Either would be "action." Either could pass.

No serious person is expressing "confident dismissal of inactivity's risk."

That is a straw man argument.

Those of us resisting the fear campaign and bullying are not therefore dismissing all dangers, nor are we advocating doing nothing.

Thank you for your efforts at raising the tenor of the discussion, and for being fair and open-minded about this (with the one minor exception of that straw man argument I objected to lol)

[jpgray]

25. Thanks for the thoughtful post

I think it's too easy to fall into two exclusive, radicalized camps on this issue--there is probably a great undercurrent of unspoken agreement that is wholly supplanted by all the contentious threads and personality wars on this issue. I'm not exempt from that at all, as anyone following my posts on the subject could easily prove. :P

What gets us all radicalized on both sides, I'd argue, is assuming intent. We assume we know exactly where a poster is coming from based on even the briefest and most general of posts. Even the most implicit tenor of being for or against allows us to place a poster on some radical side of the debate, to which he or she likely doesn't even belong. This makes the discussion go too often like this:

Person 1: I'm terrified about this bailout not passing.
Person 2: So you believe all the chicken littles claiming the sky is falling? Did you believe there were WMDs in Iraq too?

Person 1: I'm glad the bailout failed. It's wrongheaded and may make things worse.
Person 2: So you want a new depression? You want to fuck over the middle class?

Person 1 in both cases is saying nothing like what he or she is accused of saying by Person 2. Person 2 refuses in both cases to recognize a middle ground. Any argument that doesn't agree with Person 2's position is thrown all the way in with the most extreme form of the dissenting position. This strangles debate, as there is some middle ground in recognizing this bailout is wrongheaded, -and- that inaction carries with it significant risk.

In other words, Person 1 and Person 2 could agree on almost everything in both examples, but won't see it due to Person 2's knee-jerk caricatures of Person 1's position.

:P Hope that made some kind of sense.

[Two Americas]

26. very good

The problem here is that both positions are right. Something must be done, and this thing proposed is unacceptable. The "something must be done" folks are using that to promote this thing. The "this thing is not acceptable" folks - what is it that we are saying? What are you hearing? Does it sound like we are saying that "nothing should be done?"

Do the "something must be done" people really mean that? Or do they mean to say that this thing must be done, this proposal?

I believe that almost everyone thinks that something must be done. Almost everyone thinks that the something we should do should not be bailing out Wall Street.

Why can we not talk about doing something, and doing something that directly helps the people, rather than directly helping Wall Street? Perhaps all will not agree. So be it. But can it be fairly heard?

The political right - and too many people here and in the Democratic party leadership - say that helping Wall Street does help the people; that the people are dependent upon capital, rather than capital being dependent on the people.

Traditionally the Democratic party, the Labor movement, and the political left have said that helping the people is the shortest and most effective path to broad prosperity; that capital is produced by the labor of the people, and not the other way around.

This is not a matter of mere theory, but rather these are guidelines for practical action that have real world application, and we see one or the other being applied every day.

Honorable and sincere people can take the first view. It is not my view, but I don't object to people holding and expressing that view. I hold the second view. I don't expect everyone to agree with that, I would not try to force that on people, and would not try to silence those with the other view.

What I object to is the dishonesty, the disguising and camouflaging of people's views, so that the first view can be presented as though it were the second, or so that no one can figure out what people's views really are, or be able to even tell that any such views exist, or that they have any relevance to reality.

I would only ask that the second view be heard. That is all.

To say that there should not be two camps has the practical affect of disappearing and silencing one of the two camps. This is the equivalent of one army in the field being attacked by another, but being told that they must not see the attacking army as the enemy, cannot defend themselves, and the being told that this is justified with these arguments: "we can't see this as black and white, because there are shades of gray. We shouldn't be in polarized camps. Not everyone in that opposing army is bad. Both armies have some good points."

The right wingers, on behalf of their wealthy and powerful clients, are the ones who have caused the polarized warring camps, who initiated class warfare, who have forced us all to take up opposition or be defeated and destroyed. They well know that either capital or labor gets first consideration, either people or profits. We didn't create, nor did we want things to be structured this way. But that is the nature of the battle.

You cannot ask the army that is being attacked to surrender for the sake of peace, you cannot put the burden of responsibility for the warfare on those who did not start it, did not want it, and who are fighting for their very survival.

That is my view. I don't demand that you agree. I do ask this: can that point of view be fairly heard by everyone? Or is it to be preemptively excluded, and then attacked as illegitimate and irrelevant when it is expressed?

[RainDog]

28. beautifully said. my view, exactly

thanks so much.

[RainDog]

27. If the 5% of the wealthy in this nation agreed to a 90% tax rate over, say, a million dollars.