rs at robertsheridan.com
Tue Sep 23 18:26:18 PDT 2008
I must say that I'm amazed at the whole concept of "too big to let
fail." The little guy (the taxpayer) is being asked to bail out the
big guys who've probably screwed him, while the big guys continue to
receive platinum bonuses and golden parachutes.
What would Premier Deng Xiaoping (of Reform and Opening fame, not to
mention Tiananmen) have called this?
Capitalism with socialistic characteristics?
Or Reagan? Trickle-down socialism for the rich?
By the time the bailout reaches the little guy who actually pays the
mortgage every month (w/ no observable relief in sight), much less his
about to be foreclosed neighbor with the "Short Sale" sign on the
vacant house, there'll be nothing left.
Forget the hypothetical anti-Semitism under the current plan. What
about the actual anti-Little Guy bias, the guy whose taxes bail out
the guy sitting on him?
I believe it was Tolstoy, in reference to the serfs, who wrote to the
effect that the landholding aristocracy was willing to do anything for
them except the one thing they really needed, to get off their backs.
I wish someone could explain to me how it is that bailing out "Wall
Street," is going to help the guy paying, or not able to pay, the
mortgage, not to mention the credit card. Help the little guy and
it's either creeping (or rampant) socialism. Help the big guy and
it's Advanced Capitalism. Remember when the American Medical
Association opposed government subsidized health-care on the ground it
was socialistic? What's their position now, I wonder.
Isn't this throwing "moral hazard" (heads you win, tails you lose) out
the window? What kind of crap game is Wall Street where if you're big
enough, it's "heads I win, and tails all the little guys can bail me
I well remember my surprise at hearing Prof. Norman Redlich teach
years ago that the Constitution does not, however, ordain that our
economic system be either Capitalist, or Socialist, or something else,
given all I'd heard about the evils of Socialism.
Call me financially ignorant, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable
about a trickle-up bailout than trickle-down.
On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote:
> Is it thinkable that someone might sue claiming to be in a "similar
> position" as a favored entity, but receiving no relief because, say,
> the Secretary of the Treasury was anti-Semetic and didn't want to
> bil out Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs? Or, of course, it could
> be even simpler, where the disfavored entity refused to supply the
> bribe sought by the Secretary. To be sure, there is no reason to
> believe that Henry Paulson is anti-Semetic or subject to bribery.
> But didn't someone named James Madison (and, in a different context,
> Ronald Reagan), say something about needing to "trust AND verify"?
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof