The Case For Nihilism
I asked a buddy of mine who is fluent in four sports and bets what he thinks about this mess, figuring he probably intuitively gets Wall Street, high finance and economics as well as anyone else. He just shrugged and said, “It’s like being on an airplane. There’s nothing I can do about it, and what I think doesn’t make any difference. What bothers me is I don’t think the pilots know what they are doing any better than I do.”
Here’s a harsh does of Riehlality from someone else who admits he only knows one or two things, and doesn’t much like what he sees. Riehl, Let it burn:
While no one should want a major meltdown of the American and world economies, there is a common sense rationale for simply allowing it to burn. I see people going on about a trillion dollars in value lost. But in any real sense, that value wasn’t really there … We’re cashed out - and everyone is still worrying about politically or financially cashing in.
Alternate view from NYT’s David Brooks, disgusted, with a pox on both their houses and a special case of crabs for the GOP. Revolt of the Nihilists:
In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.
This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation, and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.
George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.
He thinks the Repubs will pay. Either that, or Americans who are tired of scare tactics and think this bailout stinks will quietly give them a vote of confidence. Anyway, maybe it’s time to give nihilism a chance.
Malkin: Carnage in the markets! Carnage in the markets! Oops, never mind.
Don’t look now, but stocks are down a whopping 1 percent in Germany and are flat in Britain and France. U.S. markets are poised to open higher. Most Asian stock markets are holding up well too. The Shanghai Composite closed down just 0.2 percent; the Hang Seng closed up 0.8 percent; Bombay’s BSE 30 closed finished the day up 2.1 percent.
via Drudge: Calm Returns.
It would be a good joke, if doing nothing fails to produce a crisis. My take. The gods who govern politics and finance are toying with the petty mortals who presume to meddle in their affairs. If the morons on Wall Street and those who do business with them are so easily panicked by the predictable burps and constipation of politics on Capitol Hill, then screw them. If there is actually any indication of a conscious effort to instill panic in the nation and DC and shake that $$$ loose, prosecute them. So credit gets so tight that no one can borrow, and businesses fail. If in fact we’re looking at a crisis that threatens all our livelihoods, and the government wants to engage in socialism, maybe any bailout should be aimed at the retail rather than the wholesale end of the equation: If you employ anyone who actually does something useful and non-finance-related, the U.S. government will provide low-interest $$$ to help you make payroll and maintain production. The banks and Wall Street will hate the competition and pretty soon figure out a way to get back into that game.
Like I said, my understanding of this is in the paleolithic.
Krugman: Ok, we are a banana republic. Sounds like a guy who’s never actually been to one.
NYT: Best defense is a good offense. NYT is saying that about McCain, but it actually applies better to NYT’s own coverage and the Obamists. McCain says, OK, if this thing failed, let’s go back and see what might work. Sounds like, if nothing else, a practical, experienced pol. But McCain can’t win with NYT, which exalts Obama’s stand-off efforts to take credit for something on which he has done nothing, and carries Dem water blaming McCain for actually trying to get the thing passed.
Democrats had said all along that by inserting himself into negotiations, Mr. McCain had brought presidential politics to a delicate situation and could wind up hurting more than helping. After the House vote, his aides bristled at the suggestion that his involvement had in fact been a drawback, saying he had been instrumental in getting House Republicans a seat at the negotiating table and helping bring in more of their votes.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin said Mr. McCain had made “dozens of calls” on the bill, some to House Republicans who opposed it.
Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure. But where Mr. McCain had accused Mr. Obama of taking a hands-off approach to the financial crisis, Democratic advisers said they believed that Mr. McCain now had a role in the legislation’s failure.
As aides to both campaigns pointed fingers, Mr. Obama sought to stay above the fray and maintain a steady demeanor that advisers maintain has set him apart throughout the financial turmoil.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:09 am on Tuesday, September 30, 2008
2 Responses to “The Case For Nihilism”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Mr. Obama sought to stay above the fray and maintain a steady demeanor …”
What about his daily calls, over the span of two weeks, to Sec Paulson? Attempts to set up mutual Twitter links?
Cheers
October 1st, 2008 at 12:02 am
Dow goes up 485 on Tuesday. Maybe Congress should adjourn sine die.