Heil, Paulson

A return to hereditary monarchy would be much better than anointing the Secretary of the Treasury as Fuhrer of the National Economy:

That’s right – every bank and other financial institution in the United States has just become a de-facto organ of the United States Government, if Hank Paulson thinks they should be, and he may order them to do virtually anything that he claims is in furtherance of this act. This might include things like demanding that a bank or other financial institution sell him its paper, even if it forces that firm to collapse and be assumed by the FDIC….

Having bought these securities for any price Mr. Paulson would like (and he can compel institutions to sell at his demanded price as noted above!) he can then sell those assets at any price he wishes, to anyone he wishes. It certainly is nice to be a “Friend of Hank”, and it most certainly sucks if you’re not.

This is just another attempt to take advantage of the American people’s fear of disaster. Do recall how 9/11 and the excuse of “fighting terrorism” has been used for a panoply of expansions of government power… this is the same technique but magnified in scope. If the financial system is broken, then let it fail. The probable consequences are vastly preferable to the likely consequences of this power grab.

The Democratic whack-jobs of the left are correct in two regards. First, the Republican Party elite really are national socialists in the economic sense of the term. They say “National Greatness Conservatives” but “national socialist” is actually more accurate. Second, George W. Bush absolutely deserves to be impeached and removed from office. His crimes are as blatant and far more serious than Bill Clinton’s. The Congressional passage of this proposal may well serve to demarcate the end of America as a nation with even the appearance of freedom.

A tangential thought: if depriving the government of one million dollars merits 11 years in prison, how much time will these bankers serve?

UPDATE – Obama does better than expected by getting it half right: “Obama said a combination of greed and unfettered free markets had brought the country to “a perilous moment …a financial crisis as profound as any we’ve seen since the Great Depression.”

There was greed, to be sure. But there was absolutely nothing free about the financial markets. They couldn’t have created a problem of such magnitude if the government had not been actively involved.

Femina economica

There are two types of women, feminina collega and femina economica. The former is a man’s companion and her driving instinct is to put the interests of her family before her own, to make a priority of her twin roles as a wife and mother. The latter, on the other hand, makes a priority of her economic situation; if she happens to marry then she is a man’s parasite. The Virgin Queen brings to our attention a stellar example of the latter, one which illustrates the previously blogged link observed between falling house prices and declining divorce rates:

We saved and scrimped and searched for three years before sinking everything we had and more into a home for ourselves and our two children, a tiny co-op in a fringy New York City neighborhood. The process left us emotionally and financially tapped. Then, three days before we closed on the apartment, my husband lost his job….

It may well be that if this financial and subsequent emotional crisis hadn’t driven a wedge between us, something else would have eventually done the job. It’s certainly fair to say that we’re not the same people we were when we married a decade and a half ago, in our mid-20s. But even if our financial disasters weren’t the cause of our breakup, they sure were the catalyst.

Yet they’ve likewise made us think long and hard about the consequences of ending it. I have spent hours at my desk, ruefully contemplating my Quicken spreadsheet, calculating my monthly income and expenses, trying to make the numbers turn out better. Emotionally, I couldn’t afford to stay in this marriage any longer. Financially, I don’t know how I’ll be able to afford to leave it.

It is the bizarre logic of femina economica that I find particularly fascinating. She has the desire- the need -to leave her marriage because her husband is unable to maintain her in the style she believes is necessary to her emotional well-being, so she is destroying their marriage and sacrificing their children’s emotional stability in order to embrace the probability of penury in economically difficult times on the remote chance that she might be able to either a) discover a hitherto unknown capacity for earning income that she would somehow not be able to utilize as a married woman, or, b) meet a wealthier man and convince him to financially support her and her children despite the fact that she is fifteen years older than she was when she settled for attracting a less economically fit specimen.

In the real world, the grass is seldom greener. Try watering the lawn instead.