Is the Bush Bailout the Shock Doctrine in action?

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brian White
Is the Bush Bailout the Shock Doctrine in action?


Brian White

Here is a disaster of their own making and they are trying to take advantage of it to rob the american taxpayer.
Or is that just my take on it?
So what if the financial elite falls?
Hopefully they will take their crooked republican friends with them.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I've been following this much of the day on CNN, and tonight I listened to Bush explain the rationale for the bailout. I'm skeptical, but it's not just Bush saying that dire consequences will follow if the proposal fails. I hope members of Congress will not fall in line so quickly like they did over Iraq - several members of Congress are determined to 'get it right' before giving their approval. I think overnight and extending into next week the Bush speech will be dissected and evaluated - for examples, will banks really fall without this measure, are 401(k)s really at risk without this measure, will unemployment suddenly mushroom without this measure? And all the other threats that Bush made - such as mortgages becoming impossible to get, auto loans impossible to get, credit suddenly beyond reach of but a few? - will these stand up under scrutiny?

If this is a massive boondoggle (like the Iraq war) as some have hinted, I shudder to think of the consequences for American society as a whole.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

It's not a "bailout", because that would imply that it was being done to float the boat - a Wall Street boat which necessarily must sink. It's a giveaway!

This is a rrrrreally good article by American Michael Hudson.

[url=]Thinking the Unthinkable: A Debt Write Down, and Jubilee Year Clean Slate[/url]


Here’s why the government giveaway logic is fallacious: It’s a giveaway, not a bailout. A bailout is designed to keep the boat afloat. But the existing Wall Street boat crafted by the investment bankers seeking to unload their junk must sink. The question as it sinks is simply who will be able to grab the lifeboats, and who drowns.

There is a reason why the banks won’t lend: Housing and commercial real estate already are so heavily mortgaged that there is no rental value available (over and above operating expenses, current taxes and debt service) to pledge to the banks. It still costs more to buy a house than to rent it. No increase in the amount of credit, short of hyper-inflation can cure this. No lowering of interest rate, will lead banks to risk making a bad new loan – that is, a loan that probably will go bad and end up with the bank taking a loss after the borrower walks away or defaults.

Does Congress know what it is being told to do? Suppose that “taxpayers” are to squeeze money out of the “toxic” junk mortgages they buy from the investors that have bought these bad loans. The only way to do so would be for real estate prices to be raised to even higher levels. This means an even higher proportion of take-home pay by prospective homeowners.

Mr. Paulson realizes this. That’s why he’s directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inflate real estate prices all the more. At least, by the existing mortgage-holders to get paid off by existing debtors selling to the proverbial “greater fool.” The hope in Mr. Paulson’s plan is that there are enough “greater fools” with enough money to borrow from yet more foolish new mortgage lenders. Only Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Agency are willing to make such foolish loans, and that is only because they are being directed to act in a foolish way by Mr. Paulson.

Here’s the problem with following Mr. Paulson’s orders and lending yet more: Every major real estate advisor on record has forecast a . . .

Lead goblets, or Cacus? He forgot to also mention wealthy Romans not wanting to pay their share of taxes in support of empire. Same with elitist Mongols chased out of China after the Khans. Forbidden history.

Topic locked