Poisoned Bottles

It’s so hard to understand how the subprime mortgage crisis has triggered a financial crisis of global proportions.

If you have 10 bottles of water, and one bottle had poison in it, and you didn’t know which one, you probably wouldn’t drink out of any of the 10 bottles; that’s basically what we’ve got there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30wwln-Q4-t.html?ex=1364616000&en=4a90532dc796992e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Bush Want to Give You $800

So Bush wants to give US$145 billion back to the taxpayers, but a) doesn't want to reduce spending or increase taxes on other taxpayers to compensate and b) wants Americans to spend it rather than save it.Is this reasonable, or absurd? If I get money back from the gummint, it's going straight into my savings account, economic stimulus be damned. I haven't reduced my spending in the last several years, so I see no reason I should increase it just because I get some back from the government. Actually, I should probably give it back to help pay down the national debt, huh? Or would that be economically silly?

Bush proposes to have the Leviathan cut every taxpaper a check for $800--$1,600 big ones for our family. If someone give me moolay, I gracious accept it. But in terms of public policy I do think it's economically silly. Unlike my rich uncle, the government has this one advantage. It can print the money it wants to give away. So, what you will get in further inflation, a further erosion of the dollar, and as the dollar delines relative to the goods that dollar it can buy, there will be every incentive to not save but spend. This in turn will impact capital formation and eventually unemployment. Policy makers should be careful what they wish for. A policy of promoting spending for the sake of spending has as much value as a Ponzi scheme-- shifting money from one person to another to no ultimate economic end.

But I wonder why both parties are clamoring to embrace this ill-advised policy? Could it be that there is an election this year?