Right now Congress is debating new regulations for financial institutions, and there are conservatives out there who think the very idea is wrong-headed.
I'm going to take the moderate approach. I also think it's the traditional conservative stance.
The conservative approach to the economy is largely "hands off." Businessmen know how to run their businesses far better than politicians. When people who know nothing about the private sector start making rules, they can bog businesses — and the economy — down by making innovation and growth more expensive than it would otherwise be. If the government will get out of the way, the free market will take care of itself.
Under one condition, that is.
Traditionally, conservatives recognized that free markets — and democracy — only work when coupled with morality. Humans will always sin, but there have been ages when common decency was a bit more common. And there have been times when greed surpassed good sense.
For example, monopolies are not inherently evil. But the 19th century monopolies became problems when they realized they could do whatever they wanted and then did just that.
In modern America we've reached a point, hopefully temporarily, when corporate officers see their good, the good of the company, the good of the shareholders, and the good of the customers as four distinct things. And they see their own good as the primary concern.
While we can't ignore the government's role in the collapse of the financial market, we shouldn't exaggerate it either. A whole lot of people did some awfully stupid and selfish things, assuming that they wouldn't be the ones left holding the bag. They've shown us that they cannot police themselves, so we're going to have to do it for them.
But that doesn't mean we should let the left do whatever crosses their beady little minds. Before we accept new regulations, we should consider a few things:
1) Was lack of enforcement of existing rules a factor in the collapse?
Government, but the left more than the right, loves to make new rules when the old ones were never enforced properly. This only adds burdens without creating any actual security.
2) Power corrupts.
There are stupid, greedy, and power hungry people in government, too. And there are good people who are simply overzealous. And there are people who don't have a clue what they're doing. New regulation should be added slowly and carefully with as much oversight on the regulators as the regulatees.
3) Less is more.
We have to have rules, but it's all too easy to overburden the private sector economy. Life is risk, and we'll never remove all the chance of another stupidity fueled collapse. Trying to do so will only prevent our economy from getting back up to full speed. But wasn't the "speed" part of the problem? Yes, but everybody's been burned pretty darn good; I think we can err to the side of liberty. In general, I think it's always preferable to err a little to the side of liberty.
4) Think out of the box.
Is "regulation" the only way to go? Is there a way to raise the costs of failure in such a way as to discourage insane gambling? Without adding to the cost of business? For instance, what if a corporate bankruptcy required the CEO and directors to forfeit 50% of their personal assets? Might jail time be appropriate for future failures of the magnitude we've recently seen? Replace golden parachutes with orange jumpsuits and see what happens.
All talk of regulation isn't bad. I applaud the GOP for working with the Democrats to make better regulation rather than just sitting in the corner so they "can't be blamed" for whatever insanity the Dems come up with. If we're careful, we might just all live through this.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama's Stimulus Offensive
Providing further evidence that "postpartisan," much like "bipartisan," means "agreeing with me," President Obama tried to rally his Democratic allies by deriding their GOP colleagues.
He apparently thinks that any and all spending qualifies as stimulus. Tax cuts, not so much.
Saying, “If you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction,” he expressed his belief that the Bush tax cuts are the source of all their budgetary woes as opposed to unbridled spending.
Meanwhile the nonpartisan (as Democrats frequently assert) Congressional Budget Office says, "the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, ... as would other similar proposals."
At the same time, this bill is losing the support of the American people. Folks just don't want to spend that kind of money on the stuff they're proposing.
We should tell our Senators that if they'll cut $500 billion of pork out of this bill, they can have it. That would leave them with ~$200 billion of stimulus and ~$200 billion of pork for their friends -- that should be more than enough.
He apparently thinks that any and all spending qualifies as stimulus. Tax cuts, not so much.
Saying, “If you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction,” he expressed his belief that the Bush tax cuts are the source of all their budgetary woes as opposed to unbridled spending.
Meanwhile the nonpartisan (as Democrats frequently assert) Congressional Budget Office says, "the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, ... as would other similar proposals."
At the same time, this bill is losing the support of the American people. Folks just don't want to spend that kind of money on the stuff they're proposing.
We should tell our Senators that if they'll cut $500 billion of pork out of this bill, they can have it. That would leave them with ~$200 billion of stimulus and ~$200 billion of pork for their friends -- that should be more than enough.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
More Stimulating Conversation
President Obama has said of the Senate stimulus package, "Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the essential."
This is essential?!
$800 million for Amtrack
$100 million to teach children about green construction
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$1 billion for Head Start
$14 million for travel expenses for a goverment board
$75 million for smoking cessation programs
Much of the nearly $1 trillion, of which less than 25% can really be called "stimulus," would not even be spent in the next year.
Some liberal groups have run ads attacking the GOP for not supporting Mr. Obama's stimulus plan; the other side should counter with the same.
They should ask the American tax payers if they want to saddle their children with over $10,000 per family for spending programs like those mentioned above.
Even if these are worthwhile programs, they're not stimulus. They should go through the normal budgeting process. (Of course, the cynics would say this is Congress' normal budgeting process.)
The problem with this whole situation is this notion that government can spend our way back into prosperity. Did this not start with out of control spending?
Where is the government planning to get all of this money? They have only three options:
They can borrow money, further reducing the available credit. Or they can print money. Or they can raise taxes (of course, eventually they'll do that either way).
The first option would only exacerbate the credit problem. The second and third would be death blows to an already sick economy.
The only solution to this mess is to add capital to the economy by real tax cuts -- not just a few hundred dollars for low to middle income families but real cuts for the people (and corporations) who can create real jobs. Only by removing "impediments to work, saving, investment and production" can the government save our economy.
This is essential?!
$800 million for Amtrack
$100 million to teach children about green construction
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$1 billion for Head Start
$14 million for travel expenses for a goverment board
$75 million for smoking cessation programs
Much of the nearly $1 trillion, of which less than 25% can really be called "stimulus," would not even be spent in the next year.
Some liberal groups have run ads attacking the GOP for not supporting Mr. Obama's stimulus plan; the other side should counter with the same.
They should ask the American tax payers if they want to saddle their children with over $10,000 per family for spending programs like those mentioned above.
Even if these are worthwhile programs, they're not stimulus. They should go through the normal budgeting process. (Of course, the cynics would say this is Congress' normal budgeting process.)
The problem with this whole situation is this notion that government can spend our way back into prosperity. Did this not start with out of control spending?
Where is the government planning to get all of this money? They have only three options:
They can borrow money, further reducing the available credit. Or they can print money. Or they can raise taxes (of course, eventually they'll do that either way).
The first option would only exacerbate the credit problem. The second and third would be death blows to an already sick economy.
The only solution to this mess is to add capital to the economy by real tax cuts -- not just a few hundred dollars for low to middle income families but real cuts for the people (and corporations) who can create real jobs. Only by removing "impediments to work, saving, investment and production" can the government save our economy.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Post-Partisan Stimulus
Having already asked if Pres. Obama's inaugural address told us "post-partisan" means "do it my way or shut up," I'm concerned about some of Mr. Obama's comments regarding the House stimulus package.
He asked Republicans "to 'put politics aside' in the interest of creating jobs."
But that's the problem: the Republicans don't think much of this bill is designed to create jobs.
Is it "politics" to say, "This bill has more pork than a luau" or "This is about as stimulating as a shot of NyQuil?"
Apparently so. What Mr. Obama and the Congressional Democrats want is to give taxpayer money to ACORN and La Raza unopposed and to use this economic situation as an opportunity to expand government health care.
As boring as it is, I encourage everyone to read the stimulus bill and let your Congressmen know what you think about it. It may not be "post-partisan," but it is a necessary part of our political process.
He asked Republicans "to 'put politics aside' in the interest of creating jobs."
But that's the problem: the Republicans don't think much of this bill is designed to create jobs.
Is it "politics" to say, "This bill has more pork than a luau" or "This is about as stimulating as a shot of NyQuil?"
Apparently so. What Mr. Obama and the Congressional Democrats want is to give taxpayer money to ACORN and La Raza unopposed and to use this economic situation as an opportunity to expand government health care.
As boring as it is, I encourage everyone to read the stimulus bill and let your Congressmen know what you think about it. It may not be "post-partisan," but it is a necessary part of our political process.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Booming Tax Bill
An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal claims that taxes must go up no matter who's in charge. The argument is basically that, unless spending goes down, there simply will not be enough money to fund all of the government's responsibilities, especially Medicare and Social Security for Baby Boomers, and spending is not going to go down.
My question is, why not?
People often say about SocSec, "I paid into it, and I want to get my money back out of it." Newsflash: Your money's long gone.
Instead of raising taxes, we need to tell people to accept that they're not going to get their money back.
When Barack Obama suggested raising the ceiling on SocSec taxes, people said decoupling input and payout would turn it into welfare. Well that's exactly what we need to do.
Social Security was never a good plan. For years we've known that it would crash and burn as soon as a smaller generation (e.g., Generation X) had to support a large one (e.g., the Baby Boomers). In fact, calling it a ponzi scheme is probably fair. As in any ponzi, eventually someone is going get the shaft, and the shaft is upon us.
There is no nonpainful solution to this mess. The best we can hope for is to keep it from destroying both our economy and our way of life.
The first thing to do is impliment means testing for Social Security payments. Bill Gates and Rush Limbaugh do not need Social Security; they're not alone. We need to tell those folks who can get by without Social Security, "Sorry, we screwed up, and you're not going to get your 'investment' back."
Second, we will have to keep SocSec payments low. Not only will this keep costs down, it will help fix one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of the Social Security system: its enabling young people's failure to support their elders. We need, as a society, to remind people they are responsible to financially support those who supported them. This will be painful to many; some will have to cut down on the number of Wii games they buy. Others may have to switch from Starbucks to McDonalds. A few will even have to make real sacrifices ... just like their parents and grandparents made for them.
Perhaps we can make it easier for people to declare their elder relatives as dependents. Maybe we can make it possible to share the tax deduction. We can probably find ways to help, but we will need people to start taking care of their own families.
Third, and related to the last, we need to reconsider the retirement age. When SocSec appeared on the scene, people generally lived about 3 years after retirement. We now have a large segment of our population that is retired for 15 years. Besides the cost of supporting these retirees, we deprive our society of the benefit of having these experienced, wise people in our workforce, and we deprive our senior citizens of purpose -- which frequently leads to declining health and happiness.
Fourth, we cannot fix Medicare without fixing healthcare. And Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA have shown us that centralized control of medical care or medical insurance do not lower costs. We will have to impliment real changes in the way we do things if we want to see our health insurance system improve.
While we're at it, we need to get serious about cutting spending across the board. We need to cut how much we let the First Lady spend on redecorating the White House, and we need to cut how much we give to foreign countries for military spending. We may need to explore alternatives to prison for nonviolent felons and alternative funding for the space program. Nothing should be off the table.
As our neighbors across the Atlantic are finding out, you cannot support a large welfare state for long, and certainly not with low reproductive rates. We have escaped many of their problems by keeping our entitlements somewhat in check, by having more kids, and by having a booming economy, but it's about to catch up with us. We can spare ourselves some painful lessons if we learn from their mistakes and fix our problems before they become crises.
My question is, why not?
People often say about SocSec, "I paid into it, and I want to get my money back out of it." Newsflash: Your money's long gone.
Instead of raising taxes, we need to tell people to accept that they're not going to get their money back.
When Barack Obama suggested raising the ceiling on SocSec taxes, people said decoupling input and payout would turn it into welfare. Well that's exactly what we need to do.
Social Security was never a good plan. For years we've known that it would crash and burn as soon as a smaller generation (e.g., Generation X) had to support a large one (e.g., the Baby Boomers). In fact, calling it a ponzi scheme is probably fair. As in any ponzi, eventually someone is going get the shaft, and the shaft is upon us.
There is no nonpainful solution to this mess. The best we can hope for is to keep it from destroying both our economy and our way of life.
The first thing to do is impliment means testing for Social Security payments. Bill Gates and Rush Limbaugh do not need Social Security; they're not alone. We need to tell those folks who can get by without Social Security, "Sorry, we screwed up, and you're not going to get your 'investment' back."
Second, we will have to keep SocSec payments low. Not only will this keep costs down, it will help fix one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of the Social Security system: its enabling young people's failure to support their elders. We need, as a society, to remind people they are responsible to financially support those who supported them. This will be painful to many; some will have to cut down on the number of Wii games they buy. Others may have to switch from Starbucks to McDonalds. A few will even have to make real sacrifices ... just like their parents and grandparents made for them.
Perhaps we can make it easier for people to declare their elder relatives as dependents. Maybe we can make it possible to share the tax deduction. We can probably find ways to help, but we will need people to start taking care of their own families.
Third, and related to the last, we need to reconsider the retirement age. When SocSec appeared on the scene, people generally lived about 3 years after retirement. We now have a large segment of our population that is retired for 15 years. Besides the cost of supporting these retirees, we deprive our society of the benefit of having these experienced, wise people in our workforce, and we deprive our senior citizens of purpose -- which frequently leads to declining health and happiness.
Fourth, we cannot fix Medicare without fixing healthcare. And Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA have shown us that centralized control of medical care or medical insurance do not lower costs. We will have to impliment real changes in the way we do things if we want to see our health insurance system improve.
While we're at it, we need to get serious about cutting spending across the board. We need to cut how much we let the First Lady spend on redecorating the White House, and we need to cut how much we give to foreign countries for military spending. We may need to explore alternatives to prison for nonviolent felons and alternative funding for the space program. Nothing should be off the table.
As our neighbors across the Atlantic are finding out, you cannot support a large welfare state for long, and certainly not with low reproductive rates. We have escaped many of their problems by keeping our entitlements somewhat in check, by having more kids, and by having a booming economy, but it's about to catch up with us. We can spare ourselves some painful lessons if we learn from their mistakes and fix our problems before they become crises.
A Bailout Roundup
The newspapers want a bailout, or is it protection money? "Pay us or we'll start doing our job."
Nobody needs steel, so steel wants cash.
The states want a bailout, too -- why should they practice deficit spending when the feds will do it for them?
Nobody needs steel, so steel wants cash.
The states want a bailout, too -- why should they practice deficit spending when the feds will do it for them?
Friday, December 12, 2008
Bailout Blues
The "no bailout?!" hysteria is about to hit a fever pitch, but I don't think it's the calamity many are declaring.
First, the Big 3 bailout question has been framed in terms of "we can't let them fail!" But bailout and bust are not the only two options. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It exists to help companies get their act together.
But some don't want them to file bankruptcy. Who and why not? Well, that should be obvious. Big labor knows that if the automakers go into chapter 11, all labor contracts are on the table for renegotiation. That's not good for the unions. The evidence for this is that the unions jumped up to offer concessions to keep them out of bankruptcy (e.g., suspending the "jobs bank). If they have to go back to the bargaining table in this climate, they're going to lose big, and they don't want that to happen.
You can't blame the labor unions for wanting to keep the deals they've gotten. Their job is to get the best deals they can for their people. The problem is that those deals are a big part of what's killing the domestic car companies.
Second, even if one of them does close its doors, it's not the end of the world. I understand the whole domino effect, and it would certainly be a hit to our limping economy, but we would survive.
What we may not survive is further strengthening the notions that the federal government holds the solution to all of our problems and that the American taxpayer is supposed to rescue poorly run companies.
We live in an increasingly consequence averse society. We don't like to let anyone fail -- be it students, little league teams, or poorly run businesses. Well, failure is a part of life, and it is frequently an important instructor. If one (or more) of the Big 3 has to close up shop, that will provide many important lessons for all the other car makers, "foreign" and domestic, and every other industry.
Most of all it well tell our society that failure is still an option in this country.
First, the Big 3 bailout question has been framed in terms of "we can't let them fail!" But bailout and bust are not the only two options. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It exists to help companies get their act together.
But some don't want them to file bankruptcy. Who and why not? Well, that should be obvious. Big labor knows that if the automakers go into chapter 11, all labor contracts are on the table for renegotiation. That's not good for the unions. The evidence for this is that the unions jumped up to offer concessions to keep them out of bankruptcy (e.g., suspending the "jobs bank). If they have to go back to the bargaining table in this climate, they're going to lose big, and they don't want that to happen.
You can't blame the labor unions for wanting to keep the deals they've gotten. Their job is to get the best deals they can for their people. The problem is that those deals are a big part of what's killing the domestic car companies.
Second, even if one of them does close its doors, it's not the end of the world. I understand the whole domino effect, and it would certainly be a hit to our limping economy, but we would survive.
What we may not survive is further strengthening the notions that the federal government holds the solution to all of our problems and that the American taxpayer is supposed to rescue poorly run companies.
We live in an increasingly consequence averse society. We don't like to let anyone fail -- be it students, little league teams, or poorly run businesses. Well, failure is a part of life, and it is frequently an important instructor. If one (or more) of the Big 3 has to close up shop, that will provide many important lessons for all the other car makers, "foreign" and domestic, and every other industry.
Most of all it well tell our society that failure is still an option in this country.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Equal Distribution of ...
Once again the Obama people have said he would consider holding off on raising taxes on the "wealthy" while the economy is limping. This makes me wonder about something.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama said that raising taxes wasn't about punishing anyone but about "fairness." He's concerned about this "fairness" even if raising taxes lowers government revenues.
But if we're not raising taxes to bring more money into the government for necessary expenditures, and if raising taxes is bad for the economy, why raise taxes?
What is "fair" about taking money away from someone with no benefit to anyone?
It's often said that conservatives are concerned with equality of opportunity and liberals with equality of outcome. I guess if they don't know how to make everyone equally happy, they can make everyone equally unhappy.
So maybe Rush Limbaugh's right -- liberal economic policies are about equal distribution of misery.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama said that raising taxes wasn't about punishing anyone but about "fairness." He's concerned about this "fairness" even if raising taxes lowers government revenues.
But if we're not raising taxes to bring more money into the government for necessary expenditures, and if raising taxes is bad for the economy, why raise taxes?
What is "fair" about taking money away from someone with no benefit to anyone?
It's often said that conservatives are concerned with equality of opportunity and liberals with equality of outcome. I guess if they don't know how to make everyone equally happy, they can make everyone equally unhappy.
So maybe Rush Limbaugh's right -- liberal economic policies are about equal distribution of misery.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Bailout on Auto
I doubt anyone’s surprised that half the country’s asking for bailout money. Once we let the genie out of the bottle, there was little hope of getting him back in quickly.
General Motors, among others, wants the federal government to ride in to their rescue. They say they simply do not have enough cash to keep going.
If we don’t stop this train now it will only get harder to stop. Every industry or company we bail out adds to the momentum of this whole situation; every bailout makes it harder to say no to the next guy.
GM is a great place to stop this, and here’s why:
My first car was a Chevrolet. So were my second, third, and fourth. Last year I bought a Toyota, and I’ve never looked back.
GM is a great place to stop because their problems are largely self-inflicted. Their sales are down because their product is not as good. Yes, credit is difficult to get, and yes, people seem to assume GM doesn’t make fuel efficient cars.
But GM’s cars simply aren’t as good as their competitors. They’ve also allowed themselves to get into a situation where their operating costs are much higher than the competition’s. In short, they’ve made their bed.
Now, I don’t want to see them shut down. Besides the fact that I have family that works for GM, I also don’t want to see their many, many employees out of work.
But would refusing to rescue them destroy the American economy? Probably not. I don’t think it would even destroy GM.
Michael Levine makes a good case in today’s WSJ that bankruptcy would actually help GM fix a lot of its problems. And it would tell US corporations that the feed trough is closing.
Now, there are things the government can do to help GM without writing them a check. Currently GM doesn’t get to play under the same CAFE rules as Toyota. The feds should fix that. As a matter of fact, this might be a good time for the feds to put the CAFÉ increases on pause – maybe even roll them back a tad.
If they just have to spend some money, maybe the feds can use tax credits like were offered for buying hybrids to help “domestic” manufacturers move their vehicles. Maybe they can even buy a few for the government fleet.
Helping them like this would send two important messages not only to corporate America but to all Americans – government charity can only go so far, and there are more ways to help someone than writing them a check.
General Motors, among others, wants the federal government to ride in to their rescue. They say they simply do not have enough cash to keep going.
If we don’t stop this train now it will only get harder to stop. Every industry or company we bail out adds to the momentum of this whole situation; every bailout makes it harder to say no to the next guy.
GM is a great place to stop this, and here’s why:
My first car was a Chevrolet. So were my second, third, and fourth. Last year I bought a Toyota, and I’ve never looked back.
GM is a great place to stop because their problems are largely self-inflicted. Their sales are down because their product is not as good. Yes, credit is difficult to get, and yes, people seem to assume GM doesn’t make fuel efficient cars.
But GM’s cars simply aren’t as good as their competitors. They’ve also allowed themselves to get into a situation where their operating costs are much higher than the competition’s. In short, they’ve made their bed.
Now, I don’t want to see them shut down. Besides the fact that I have family that works for GM, I also don’t want to see their many, many employees out of work.
But would refusing to rescue them destroy the American economy? Probably not. I don’t think it would even destroy GM.
Michael Levine makes a good case in today’s WSJ that bankruptcy would actually help GM fix a lot of its problems. And it would tell US corporations that the feed trough is closing.
Now, there are things the government can do to help GM without writing them a check. Currently GM doesn’t get to play under the same CAFE rules as Toyota. The feds should fix that. As a matter of fact, this might be a good time for the feds to put the CAFÉ increases on pause – maybe even roll them back a tad.
If they just have to spend some money, maybe the feds can use tax credits like were offered for buying hybrids to help “domestic” manufacturers move their vehicles. Maybe they can even buy a few for the government fleet.
Helping them like this would send two important messages not only to corporate America but to all Americans – government charity can only go so far, and there are more ways to help someone than writing them a check.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Obama’s Tax Plan and the Credit Crunch
Driving home yesterday I was suddenly struck by the discontinuity between Sen. Obama’s approach to the so-called credit crisis and his tax plan should he be elected president.
The basic problem as Wall Street crumbled was that the flow of credit halted keeping companies from being able to borrow either short- or long-term – credit that is used to finance day-to-day activities, inventory, and expansions of businesses.
There’s another word for this “credit” – money. They need money to make their businesses work. We need free-flowing money to keep our economy running.
According to Sen. Obama, failing to keep the money flowing “would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs.”
Yet his tax plans – raising the top income tax rate more than 11% plus increases in capital gains and payroll taxes – would suck money out of the economy, out of businesses just as surely as the credit crisis did. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s simple economics.
Can someone please ask Sen. Obama why it was so essential to keep money in the economy in September but it won’t be next year?
The basic problem as Wall Street crumbled was that the flow of credit halted keeping companies from being able to borrow either short- or long-term – credit that is used to finance day-to-day activities, inventory, and expansions of businesses.
There’s another word for this “credit” – money. They need money to make their businesses work. We need free-flowing money to keep our economy running.
According to Sen. Obama, failing to keep the money flowing “would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs.”
Yet his tax plans – raising the top income tax rate more than 11% plus increases in capital gains and payroll taxes – would suck money out of the economy, out of businesses just as surely as the credit crisis did. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s simple economics.
Can someone please ask Sen. Obama why it was so essential to keep money in the economy in September but it won’t be next year?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Credit Chaos
Lots of people talking about the current mess are lawyers, politicians, and people with no credentials other than having a radio show. I really want to hear from economics and finance specialists on this subject, especially regarding the consequences of not bailing out these corporations.
I've found a couple of good collections of links I want to share with you:
"What the $700 Billion Proposal Means for You" is an article from Motley Fool, an investment website.
Culture 11 brings us "5 Easy Pieces" on the economy.
Also, Investor's Business Daily shares some of the history of this mess: "The Real Culprits In This Meltdown"
Finally, here's a little video history courtesy of Fox News (I know, not exactly neutral):
(Click here to view this at YouTube. HT: Verum Serum)
I've found a couple of good collections of links I want to share with you:
"What the $700 Billion Proposal Means for You" is an article from Motley Fool, an investment website.
Culture 11 brings us "5 Easy Pieces" on the economy.
Also, Investor's Business Daily shares some of the history of this mess: "The Real Culprits In This Meltdown"
Finally, here's a little video history courtesy of Fox News (I know, not exactly neutral):
(Click here to view this at YouTube. HT: Verum Serum)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
