Oh No, Not Another Bailout!

By engaging in bailout after bailout, government bureaucrats subsidize failed but well-connected losers by effectively confiscating the necessary resources from productive and successful members of the economy. Ron Paul explains why such bailouts are a bad idea and why we should allow the natural incentives and regulations of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy.

The Bailout Surge

by Ron Paul

[Last] week the bailout of the Big Three automakers was under heavy consideration in Congress’s lame duck session. I have always opposed government bailouts of private organizations. Back in 1979 Congress had hearings about bailing out Chrysler and I was on record pointing out that these types of policies are foolish and very damaging to the long term economic health of our country. They still are.

There was also renewed pressure [last] week to bailout homeowners and send another round of stimulus checks to “Main Street” to balance out all the handouts to big business. It seems that eventually the entire economy is going to be blanketed over with Federal Reserve notes. Most in Washington are completely oblivious as to why this model of money creation and spending is so dangerous.

We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation. The government has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources. In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed – the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is beyond me.

With each bailout we hear rhetoric that this is the mother of all bailouts. This will fix the problem once and for all, and that this is absolutely necessary to avert disaster. This sense of panic squeezes astonishing amounts of dollars out of reluctant but hopeful legislators, who hate the position they are being put in, but are relieved that it will be the last time. It is never the last time, and again and again we are faced with the same scenarios and the same fears. We are already in the bailout business for such a staggering amount that admitting it was wrong in the first place would be too embarrassing. So the commitment to this course of action is only irrationally escalated, in the hopes that somehow, someway eventually it will work and those in power won’t have to admit they were wrong.

It won’t work. It can’t work. We need to cut our losses and get back on course. There is too much at stake for too many people to continue down this road. The bailouts thus far to AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and TARP funds amount to around $1.5 trillion. Considering our GDP is $14 trillion, and our Federal budget is already $3 trillion, this additional amount will significantly eat into our future lifestyles. That amounts to an extra $5,000 that every person in the country needs to somehow produce just to keep up. It is obvious to most Americans that we need to reject corporate cronyism, and allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians.


  • Will

    Chrysler made terrible cars in the 70’s and then failed. Then what does the US government do? They bail them out in order for them to make more crappy cars. So since GM, Ford and Chrysler produced junk cars in the 80’s and 90’s and still have that reputation they can’t sell that many cars. But they will get a bail out to make more…..junk cars.

    What I am saying here is that a business needs to have that risk of failure, otherwise they will never innovate and engineer quality products. I’m sure Japan wouldn’t bail out Toyota or Honda.

    • At least the people at Honda are innovating, I see commercials for their hydrogen car. BMW has them too.

      We need to get away from oil and although these to auto makers still play the oil game they do have something else.

      • Will

        To GM’s credit however, they had a successful car called the EV1. People who had that car loved it. It was plugged in, got them back and forth to work, used no fossil fuel and could open up a can of whoop ass on most muscle cars.

        Unfortunately they were dismantled and crushed thus brought us back into the stone age. I can’t be sure of what conspiracy theory is right but whatever it was, GM had made a deal with the devil and put foreign car companies to the top of alternative fuel innovation.

  • Mike P.

    Everytime I read an article from this man, I wonder why popular consensus couldn’t make him a presidential contender. On the national political stage, he is the last Republican to support to true conservative values, not the illusion of conservative values that most “conservative” Republicans put up. Dr. Paul keep doing what your doing, you are the voice to the realignment of the Republican Party back to true paleoconservatism. If we Republicans hope to win back a majority of the House in 2010, we need to realign ourselves. We need to come together and unite on the issues. We need to take true conservative stands on the issues, and we sure as hell have to publicize it. We need a Contract with America 2 and the new conservative movement needs a leader and a voice. That leader should be Dr. Ron Paul.

  • Mike

    Billions after billions…I won’t even start saying how much each American would get if we just gave it to the people in tax cuts – all these billions…But this way, it’s spent on bankers’ salaries (in the banks that should be bankrupt by now), taking it away from other Americans. They don’t even want to share the measly $25B with automakers…I’m in principle against any bailouts, but if it came to that, let’s bailout everyone, not just GS connected to Paulson…such a hypocrisy-systemic risk…right!!! Financial companies are systemic risk, everyone else is not :))) I just want to vomit from these statements. Bernanke and Paulson should sit in jail!!!

  • Steve

    Why don’t they just give the bailout money to the American people this will solved a big problem, banks can get money from homes being pay off or recieved mortgage payments from the people and people will spend at business this will help. I think this is enough of helping banks and business lets give something back to the American people.

    • nancy storer

      Ron Paul is one of the courageous few who understand this mess and speaks out to help the ignorant, greedy Americans who voted for Obama understand. The problem is so many people have been on government handouts and entitlements for so long that the only thing they want to hear is more freebies for themselves. It is a poverty/handout mentality that has a vote equal to that of an independent hardworking person. That handout mentality is called a bailout when it is extended to Wall Street. Of course everyone else lines up at the trough like pigs being fattened for the slaughter. The Constitution and the totally cynical Patriots Act are where our focus should be. All this is just a smokescreen for the gutting of America starting with our money and capitalist system via inflation thru handouts and government control/ownership via the bailouts. The majority of Americans have no clue and no interest in getting one. They just stand in line with their mouths open, like babies, saying feed me. The proponents of the New World Order are getting their way and unless a revolution of the mind occurs in America, we will all be their passive slaves. I don’t deserve that and neither does the rest of America. Ron Paul–lead on. You can count on me.

      • I just had a bumper sticker made (I figure it’s how most ignorant Americans form opinions on global issues), which reads:


        Maybe if we started communicating with the ignorant via the means by which they get info, we could do a better job of changing their views. They’re obviously easy to influence, so why not start taking advantage in a simple way?

        • nancy storer

          Hi–I had a bumper sticker made for the election that was popular in my county–

          OBAMA BIN LYIN
          Still will be appropriate.

        • Good sticker… our government chooses how much of our own hard earned money we get to keep.

  • Marcus

    After seeing you doing the satanic hand sign in both photographs and live footage, I am totally disillusioned. If you’re a fake you deserve an oscar for your acting skills. What’s going on Ron?

  • Helm

    Thanks, once again, for a succinct explanation of why we should not be doing these bailouts! Providing money to companies clinging to failed business models shrinks the pool of capital that would otherwise be available for new technology and bold, private sector ingenuity.

  • Lupe

    We cannot say we were not told.
    We cannot say we have no leader.
    If Ron Paul will lead, I will follow.
    It’s time to have a revolution.

    • He is our leader, irrelevant of who the power elite put into office… we make our own choice.

      He is a leader and I will follow.

  • Zach

    These government bailouts are nothing short of madness. Since when are we a socialist country? Bad business, irresponsible consumers/homeowners, and bad banks are meant to fail. Sure there would be some bad economic implications, however, think of the long term. This is similar to a serious sports injury; the injury can be treated with a brace or cortisone shot which may treat the symptoms temporarily, but without a corrective surgical procedure, the injury may come back at a later date with disastrous consequences.

  • Allan

    Again, Ron is right. I hope we somehow make it through. While the American people are left helplessly watching their country’s power players fan the flames of disaster policy-making, Ron Paul is single-handedly trying his best to help make sense of this debacle. I truly hope that Ron will get through to those crony bastards.

  • Shadi

    I agree with Ron Paul and all of you but it’s a tuff decission to make, even for the government. I don’t think the government should bail out these businesses either but what about the million of employees that suffer from these corporate failures? I want to hear about Congressman Paul’s solution for the millions of people that would be unemployed if these companies go under. I think there needs to be a bail out but how the money is spent needs to be highly regulated. The bail out should benefit the economy and the citizens. That means no more executive multi million dollar salaries and no more private jets. These execs get rewarded for running companies into the ground. They need to be black listed.

  • floyd

    where is my bailout. I have been a struggling American since I was born and no one ever bailed me out…. Where is our money ??????
    Where is ours They had money for years……. I have worked since 16 yrs old and cant even afford a vacation ever much less make sure my kids get through school which is a whole other problem….

    • YES! Where is your bail out? YOU DON’T NEED ONE! Because you’re a REAL American! You get off your tail, and get to work every day without someone babysitting you, and you pay your taxes and take care of YOURSELF. 95% of Americans would be doing just fine if Government wasn’t blowing so much of our money on things that don’t effect us at all.

      If we were left to our own devices, we’d be just fine. Let us keep the money we work for, and leave us alone, THAT is what American Government was intended to provide.

      • Right, actually I think we’d probably be doing better if the government didn’t intervene.

      • I hear you guys loud and clear…. but it was ment to let everyone know that you cant get much more American than me….
        I have been working hard all my life and no healtcare, no reirement, no future and NO bailout….
        I filed bankruptcty….. If you dont understand the terms and agreements of credit or loans DONT sign them until you have someone there to explain it… To many people in America live on credit…While the officals and government and few others suck up all money and leave us in debt….THen they cry when they are finally losing a boat or mansion… GET OFF YOUR ASS

    • Matthew Stone

      Yikes “YOU DON’T NEED ONE! Because you’re a REAL American!”, you are obviously the ‘free market’ why do you need a bailout?

      If you are the free market why aren’t you saying ‘Dude, im buying this effing country!’ You are smart, bought gold, have no credit cards, and work a minimum wage job? Work it! You have the insight, commit!

      “OMG, singapore is fantastic”

      I only wrote that for effect.






      • Aaron Davis

        Matt, I think you’re staying up too late to think clearly. The “REAL American” comment wasn’t meant to be interpreted as something akin to Bob Segar singing “like a rock” for Chevy, but it IS rhetorical, but not related to free market econ. What I meant is that American’s (in the Founding Fathers’ eyes) are self reliant.

        Being self reliant doesn’t guarantee wealth beyond your wildest dreams, nor even the security of a retirement of some kind, (nor health care for that matter), but it DOES guarantee that you have the OPPORTUNITY to exercise your freedom to the extent that your intellect, determination, and success strategy will allow, and that whatever happens, you can’t blame it on anyone else (nor can anyone else steal your thunder if you DO reinvent the wheel and retire fat and gold plated). With Gov’t sucking close to 40% of my income, I can’t say that my lack of a yacht in the harbor is 100% my fault, I’ve had help to NOT get rich if you know what I mean.

        We’re just bitching, basically.

  • Gene

    Good Article.

    I would however like to point out that along with stopping this insanity of giving money away, we must also look at protecting smaller companies that enter an areana that as of now appears monopolized. The large compamies that are failing are so big and control so much that on the outside it seems logical to protect the smaller entities that are being hurt by them.

    We can control the shear size of future companies by allowing competition once again in our market places.

    As far as helping these companies, why don’t we provide them financing they need to come out of Chapter 11 instead of giving money away that we don’t have.


  • Feel free to write me directly to discuss this more at [email protected]


  • At what point do American Citizens put their foot down (hard) and say ENOUGH!!! You are not allowed to squander my money to those who already have far more than I, you are not allowed to force me to invest in programs like SSI when you state quite bluntly that SSI will likely not exist by the time I’m old enough to receive it, you are not allowed to send my tax dollars to fund erroneously conceived and horribly executed wars against countries without the means to threaten our borders, and you are not allowed to redistribute my wealth to those who would rather wait with open hands for “Federal generosity” instead of standing up and going to work.


    So at what point do we just deny them the tax money they’re looking for? I mean, how long do we let them blatantly disregard our wishes, and continue to steal from us? This desperate feeling reminds me of the outrage that caused this country to declare independence from England.

    I’m prepared to just stop giving money to the Fed, and be labeled a criminal, but is this something we should do TOGETHER? What if 10,000,000 people just decided to boycott the US Government? Would they put all 10 MILLION of us in jail for tax evasion? We’re not evading, we’re just not allowing our money to be used in a way which we did not consent to…

    The NEW british are coming, and they’re not wearing white wigs, they wear American flags pinned on their $4,000 Italian suits, and they are the candidates of our own choosing. Therein lies the problem… it’s not the politicians, they’ll always be the same, it’s the people electing them that are ignorant and indifferent.

    • I don’t think we know the way anymore… we’re all angry but where do we turn? Our corrupt politicians? Our ignorant, though patriotic, military? Police?

      The People? The majority of which suffer from cognitive dissonance?

      • Aaron Davis

        There are those who have responded directly to my with information about how to attempt to justify not paying taxes. Most of these “schemes” rely on creative interpretations of the wording of the tax code, and a very narrow interpretation of what the Constitution has to say about direct taxation and excise taxes. This type of rationale is futile. You cannot negotiate tax code with those who wrote it, you will lose.

        If you participate in government as a voter, or drive down public streets to work each day, or enjoy the benefit of security in your home thanks to local, state, and federal security forces (from NORAD, to the county sheriff), you should pay taxes. I have no problem with this in 2008.

        What I’m talking about is different. I am talking about blatant defiance, en masse, of the way that our tax dollars are being spent. Legislators are no longer listening, collusion abounds in DC, glaring conflicts of interest are rationalized and dismissed at the expense of Liberty (see Clinton as Secretary of Defense), and there seems to be no end in site and no legal recourse. With no alternative (I agree Transfer Point, we have few real options), we have to shut down the machine by unplugging it’s power supply, money. Consider it a “re-boot” of the Fed Gov.

        Once we have their attention, they’ll sue us, and we’ll counter sue. Picture this… a class action lawsuit of The People (all 10 MILLION of us) vs. the Federal Government for the unconstitutional appropriation of public funds for use in wars not declared by Congress, the enforcement and operational costs of the Patriot Act, the violation of civil and human rights of every American tax payer (not to mention those held without due process in Gitmo and elsewhere) and the BAILOUTS for auto, financial/credit, and home mortgage industries. I’m sure those more intelligent than I could do a fine job of lengthening and perhaps more sharply focusing the list of reasons to sue the government. Whatever the outcome, and regardless of the prison term length, the Fed would be forced to again acknowledge the American PEOPLE as the righteous rulers of this country, as the Founders intended.

        Unlike the loop-hole reasons to not pay taxes, I believe we CAN actually prove the unconstitutionality of the patriot act, undeclared war, bailouts for private companies and the requirement of contribution into a retirement plan that has no future and will do nothing for us (“us” being those under 35 years old, of which I am a member). It’s just theft, and why are we allowing our government to bend or sometimes violently shatter the rules upon which it is founded? Would the Founding Fathers tolerate such insubordinance to The Constitution and disregard of the rights of the people?

        If conscientious objection garners not a wiggle on the senate or house floor, and when the Judicial branch quickly dismisses any suit brought by an individual citizen against the government for these most blatant violations of the Constitution, what other choice do we have?

        We are being robbed, quite literally, and there is nothing fair, reasonable, or American about it. If I were to actually pull the trigger on my decision to stop paying taxes, my court case would put the constitutionality of recent Federal policy on trial, it would not debate the tax code with those who wrote it.

        I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter, and look forward to your reply, my fellow Americans.

        • Matthew Stone

          Umm. Sooo seriously you believe in not paying taxes?

          How about this for a conversation (and for gods sakes dont mention the fed, you beat that to death) what are your thoughs on the other HUGE PART OF THE DEFICIT?

          May your roads and cops be railed upon, while you rail upon your distant govt.

  • Carlos

    I swear this man (Ron Paul) should be president, but he isn’t because EVERYTHING! in “politics” is FIXED.

  • Jane

    When my children spend their money unwisely and ask for more I don’t hand it over to them and HOPE that they will do better the next time. NO! They don’t get any more money until they EARN it and show that me that they have a plan for it. It’s just common sense people! If someone borrows a tool of yours and either doesn’t return it or returns it broken and takes no responsibility for it, do you lend that same person more tools? C’mon. This is kindergarten. Bailing out is only prolonging the inevitable and actually making it worse in the long run. I’m a lower middle class person, so I don’t look forward to the strife ahead, but we have to go through it to get out of it. Period.

  • Paula Cassin

    Makes sense to me, but can someone help me understand the point that “We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation.”

    Or point me to some good resources on this? I’d like to fully understand this – is it possible that gov’t COULD spend less on an undertaking than they actually made in service charges? If so, that would be a profit that they could use elsewhere…

    What about investments? Now the govt’s a shareholder (!) in various financial companies. While I know these are UNSOUND investments, what if they did invest in SOUND companies? Would that be considered producing more with their funds if the companies made a profit.

    I need more ammunition so that I can properly argue with my liberal friends with less economic education than I. Thanx

    • To clarify, I think what Dr. Paul means is that the role of Gov’t should have nothing to do with manufacturing, producing, buying, or selling anything other than those things necessary for fulfilling it’s actual job duties as outlined in The Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Government has a right, nor an obligation to subsidize any private industry where funds from one tax payer are going to support the financial future of another tax payer. This is federalization of private industry, and is a form of socialism/communism.

      Your liberal friends will likely disagree with you on this most basic point, because we see time and again how they (well, Republicans do it too, it’s not isolated to Democrats) disregard the Constitution, and don’t give it the respect as the USA’s blueprint for successful government. They do so with the best of intentions, they think of the families of the auto workers, and all of the subsidiary industries around the auto industry that would fail, but they DON’T think of the middle-class family in West Covina, CA who’s got 2 kids of his own, who doesn’t work in the auto industry, and really can’t afford to bail anyone else out.

      Dr. Paul’s point is simple. Find a Federal program that functions really well… and you won’t be able to. There’s no competition for the Fed. They can grind along as slow as they like without consequence. Now we’re going to hand over our last remaining financial opportunity (real estate) to an entity that’s notorious for over-complicating, and procrastinating literally EVERYTHING it touches?

      • Matthew Stone

        So for conversation’s sake, this comment:

        “Dr. Paul’s point is simple. Find a Federal program that functions really well… and you won’t be able to.”

        Seriously, what free markets (which is what we have seen unleahsed) have totally been intelligent… Not PEOPLE that you admire, which I admire that fact,(Paul, Schiff, You, etc…) but a FREE MARKET, where have they been right as of late? For any amount of time?

        And FYI Dr. Paul called for decades of ‘social unrest’ back in the early 80’s. Whups.

        So. Where is the free market that you and Mr. Paul perceive ‘functions really well’ over the past decades?

        – Matt

        • Aaron Davis

          Hi Matt,

          I understood your question immediately: “Seriously, what free markets (which is what we have seen unleahsed) have totally been intelligent…

          Keyword: “totally”. Matt, for the sake of debate (and I appreciate the effort and enjoy this sort of thing), you are trying to apply absolutist logic to a very complicated issue that can’t be measured in black and white. There is not, nor will there probably ever be a truly “Free Market Economy” in this country, or any other. I agree with you so much, that I’d instead challenge you to find ANY truly free market national economy (in the world) without a single government applied restriction, tax, tariff, etc. – then we can discuss how it’s doing. It’s a philosophy to strive for. It’s like a Christian trying to live without sinning. It’s impossible, but we should try.

          The home loan fiasco was the result of greedy and speculative home buyers, Gov’t endorsed and backed Fannie and Freddie, white collar criminals, and the lenders who sold those bundled loans to wallstreet.

          The auto industry is an example of what happens when you don’t continue to compete, and choose to lean on gov’t imposed tariffs placed on Japanese imports in order to remain competitively priced with them.

          Don’t blame these financial failures on the Free Market, because both of these scenarios are not examples of Free Markets at work.

          This is a market that’s not being allowed to correct itself! There is nothing free about it. Poor decisions have consequences, and if this truth were allowed to play itself out, smarter buyers, sellers, employers, and employees would be able to carry on the “economic torch” so to speak. A free market enforces that unintelligent, speculative, or just flat out criminal business practices receive the consequences they unfortunately (for some) deserve, and rewards intelligent, conservative (as opposed to risky) and lawful buyers and sellers who are working to deliver quality products (be it cars or loans) to keep the demand for their products high.

          Here’s an interesting excerpt from the most-liberal NPR.com, discussing what you were referring to as a free market failing. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92540620

          “Fannie and Freddie have kept their profiles high because of their odd situation: They’re not government agencies, but they’re not regular corporations either. As government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, they’re often thought to have guarantees of federal support. It lets them get discounts when they borrow money.

          To maintain that advantage and others, they hire well-placed politicos for big salaries.
          In 2006, Fannie farmed out almost a million dollars in contributions, while Freddie forked over more than $600,000. That same year, the nation’s biggest lender, Countrywide, gave $250,000.”

          Does this sound like Free Market philosophy in action to you, Matt? A free market is one without governmental influence, or advantage given or taken away. As much as some try to claim that we’re suffering the results of deregulation gone bad, we must first look at how the deregulation (in this case) is the EXCEPTION, and not the general rule. What’s deregulated about the auto industry? Take a look at the additional taxes paid if you buy an imported car, then compare that to George Bush handing out tax breaks for buying big American SUV’s! It’s insane, truly insane to expect a suffering industry to survive on give-aways and gimmicks in order to stay in business.

          • Matthew Stone

            Non sequitur then. Fantastic reply Aaron 🙂 Freaking fantastic. Not solely fantastic cause I am sold, but fantastic cause you stepped up and replied 😀

            I spotted the ronpaul website cause I have a good friend, coworker and a great guy that I always argue with. He is an RP loyalist. Im a hippie ex-forester who likes to cut trees down.

            I don’t want to bore the peeps, but in deference I will proffer my secondary personal email and hope it gets lost in time 🙂 [email protected]

            And for thought, is RP behavioral economics or practical economics? Chicken or the egg in your opinon? Now my statement:

            I think that is where RP fails. He does well in (recently) practical (dude pare your debt) but totally fails in behavioral economics. Argue!

            – Matt

          • Matthew Stone

            Yikes. Well-said, but now apply that to the largely unregulated commodities market in the past year? Holycrap. Unlike stocks, there is a life span on commodities. You can’t just say ‘oh man, things will be bad now but a year we will be ok’. Wheat bought @$8 fails, oil bought has to be paid for or pressured to sell (contango), treasuries are wicked low. Everyone abandoned the last ‘long term’ so fast.

            I seriously do not worry about the velocity of money (which as an aside check out the fed transcripts during the decisions Volckers mega-inflation of 81-82, they literally based M2/M3 decisions on phone surveys) the lack of info is a hoot compared to now. As weird as it may sound, I worry more about velocity of information, and as thus the perceived complacency or intelligence. OR the disappearance of the unwillingness to argue.

            Finally, I do not believe I ‘know’ a thing (i’m wayyy too young). Coming from a super-counter-culture environment (again, of my generation) I am somewhat disappointed at the seeming one-track mind of commentary. Dude, support someone, but keep them smart and on their toes, otherwise they will fail too.

            I guess that last sentence is really why im being a punk.



          • Matthew Stone

            Errr… Man my first amendment rights got blocked with my other email, and I don’t mean any harm 🙁 Sad.

            So, if it was the Fed that caused huge issues, why are Credit Cards going to be the next shoe to drop? Oh, wait, it was banks forcing us to spend?

            Crap, no, maybe it was the fed allowing banks to force us to spend! Yes! Stupid fed!

            Anyway, lots of talk about housing bubble being totally NOT a free-market deal cause of the fed. Free market apparently gets influenced? Or is greedy? Man or if free markets were greedy then, why whould I trust them ever? Totally say ‘Cause teach them to fail and they will learn’, man Orchids, Paintings…

            – Matt

      • Matthew Stone

        And somewhat seriously, how is it possible we have websites highlighting failure, yet we don’t believe failure is ocurring?


        Ouch. Did the other peeps maybe not be able to pay their internet connection?



        • Aaron Davis

          I couldn’t agree with you more here Matthew. WE (those who subscribe here, and prescribe to Libertarian ideals) believe that the system (the current one) has failed, it’s just not being allowed to grind to a screeching halt.

          No, instead, our two party system (which is really just one party I like to call the Corporate Party) is going to take our 10 TRILLION in debt, and infuse that with another 2 TRILLION in financial “stimulus”, because what better cure for debt than MORE DEBT!?!?!

  • Matt E.

    I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see a politician that “gets it right”. The insanities of the governments actions betray a much more serious problem… namely that the general public has lost respect for the principles and virtues of economic freedom, competition, and the proper role of the govt in the economy.

    The problem isn’t that the government fails to “fix” the economy… the problem is that the people are looking to the government to solve these “problems” in the first place. It is also bitter irony that as the government’s bailouts, cronyism, and patronizing attitude towards the market fail, people backlash against the libertarian principles which have allowed our economy to survive in spite of the government’s bumbling.

    Our future is not so much threatened by the failure of giant corporations, the free market can right itself from this easily… nor is the threat the overreaction of the government, which makes recession inevitable but can still be overcome by the hard workers and investors of America… the primary long-term threat is instead this scapegoating of economic problems on the feet of libertarian ideals that are already in the process of being eroded and disrespected in the media, schools, and the court of public opinion.

    Steel yourselves liberty-lovers, the real battle is for the hearts and minds of Americans.

  • God help us! Apparently the auto companies are not well connected enough. They seem to be the only ones whom Washington does not want to bailout. The whole thing is MADNESS!


  • once again, Ron is right…bailout after bailout- it’s like giving the patient a band-aid when he’s bleeding to death- it rewards economic losers, and companies that should die are kept on life-support.

    If we are going to use “bail-out” money, why not give it back to American taxpayers?- those that acutally produce wealth in the economy instead of multi-national corporations that ship jobs oversees? This would actually stimulate the economy.

    • Matthew Stone

      So if the patient is bleeding to death, you just step back and let them die? That is a totally incorrect analogy in my opinion.

    • Michael

      Why not give money to the taxpayer? Because we’ll end up buying an Xbox 360 and flat screen. We have to change our mindset of what’s important before the people can fix anything economically.

      • Matthew Stone

        OK, so my issue is the silliness of inappropriate similes:

        “it’s like giving the patient a band-aid when he’s bleeding to death- it rewards economic losers, and companies that should die are kept on life-support.”

        Having been an EMT, that would have been so rad, since when did giving someone a band-aid ever help keep a terminal peep on life support? Come on. Google ‘crepitus’ if you want to educate yourself and not simply parrot others’ similes.

        – Matt

      • Matthew Stone

        And, I hate this comparison, but to wit here is another reason why it’s just not that similar:

        “it’s like giving (your daughter) a band-aid when she’s bleeding to death- it rewards economic losers (like her), and (she) should die (instead of being) kept on life-support.”

        Amazing the differences when you draft anthropomorphism into behavioral economics?

        – Matt