It was clear to me back when the bailouts were announced that they were a bad idea. From various articles and forums around the Internet, it looks like it was also clear to many others then, and since then it has become clear to many more that the bailouts were a bad idea.
It's disgusting that all taxpayers are paying for business blunders of some fat cats who should really have been forced to declare bankruptcy, because that's what they created for themselves with their own decisions.
It's clear that our government simply isn't equipped to handle a handout and audit of this magnitude. Much smaller projects have failed or later been discovered to be crooked many, many times. This is about people; the people that we elected and the people they hired just aren't strong enough. That means WE are not strong enough, because they and we are all Americans.
So after the smoke clears and we all realize just how much was stolen from us during this bailout, and we begin to rebuke our decision-makers, we need to go further and talk about how we can prevent this from happening again. Because this problem we have is not new, and it's name is corruption.
We are hypocrites because our country is a victim of the largest corrupt schemes in history and at the same time we are trying to "clean up" the rest of the world. We have to admit failure at home so we can fix it and move on and regain our self-respect as well as the world's respect.
Corruption happens because individuals aren't strong enough to withstand the pressures of their position. Let's not be naive and believe we can eliminate the pressures - corporations both profit and non-profit will always attempt to lobby for their interests, ladder-climbers will always be kissing up to the person above them, and bringing home the bacon always looks good to the masses who don't understand what was traded away for it.
We need to focus on strengthening the system in which our elected officials and their hires operate. To strengthen our system we may need to add new laws, remove existing detrimental laws, and amend other existing laws.
The national discussion should be about what can be done in order to strengthen our system for posterity - not just react to the latest blunder.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Government Investments
I was reading an article in the newspaper about Goldman Sachs and how they apparently defrauded lots and lots of investors by selling them subprime-mortgage-backed securities that they knew were junk, right before the housing crash of 2007.
Goldman Sachs says they're innocent, someone else points the finger at their association with the Secretary of the Treasury, and some fishy money movements around the world, yada yada.
What caught my attention is that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, "whose state lost $5 million of the $6 million it had invested in Goldman's subprime mortgage-backed bonds in 2006..." WHOA, STOP - the STATE of Mississippi invested in corporate bonds?? WHY???
States have money that belongs to taxpayers. States need to either use that money for the benefit of society or keep it in a limited-size reserve for future years, and return any excess to the taxpayers!! States must operate as a non-profit institution.
The idea that a state is investing money is infuriating. Mississippi voters, on hearing their Attorney General's remarks, should pause to ponder who was in their congress when the law was passed which authorized the state to invest taxpayers dollars, and dismiss those politicians who either voted for the measure or failed to vote against it. Their careers must end.
Investments are for people who are willing to tolerate risk. In general, government should not be taking any risks. In executing its duties to govern citizens, it should be following the safest course practical, and disclose to the public any remaining risks. We already know some exceptions to the general rule: any military, police, or rescue action involves risks, and the public normally accepts those risks; on the other hand, the public rails against decision-makers who take unnecessary risks or are negligent in the discharge of their duties.
Investments are for people who are willing to tolerate risk. Investments are not for government. When a politician says, "this ultra-fast levitating railroad is an investment in our future", it's fine because the railroad will exist and be useful. A stock market crash may put the railroad company out of business but the state, who should position itself as a creditor of the railroad company, can then repossess the equipment and continue using it for the public good. When a politician says, "we're going to buy corporate bonds that don't have any intrinsic value", he should be stopped because if the purpose is to "make money" for the state, then the correct solution is to increase taxes or decrease spending. It's THAT simple.
Goldman Sachs says they're innocent, someone else points the finger at their association with the Secretary of the Treasury, and some fishy money movements around the world, yada yada.
What caught my attention is that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, "whose state lost $5 million of the $6 million it had invested in Goldman's subprime mortgage-backed bonds in 2006..." WHOA, STOP - the STATE of Mississippi invested in corporate bonds?? WHY???
States have money that belongs to taxpayers. States need to either use that money for the benefit of society or keep it in a limited-size reserve for future years, and return any excess to the taxpayers!! States must operate as a non-profit institution.
The idea that a state is investing money is infuriating. Mississippi voters, on hearing their Attorney General's remarks, should pause to ponder who was in their congress when the law was passed which authorized the state to invest taxpayers dollars, and dismiss those politicians who either voted for the measure or failed to vote against it. Their careers must end.
Investments are for people who are willing to tolerate risk. In general, government should not be taking any risks. In executing its duties to govern citizens, it should be following the safest course practical, and disclose to the public any remaining risks. We already know some exceptions to the general rule: any military, police, or rescue action involves risks, and the public normally accepts those risks; on the other hand, the public rails against decision-makers who take unnecessary risks or are negligent in the discharge of their duties.
Investments are for people who are willing to tolerate risk. Investments are not for government. When a politician says, "this ultra-fast levitating railroad is an investment in our future", it's fine because the railroad will exist and be useful. A stock market crash may put the railroad company out of business but the state, who should position itself as a creditor of the railroad company, can then repossess the equipment and continue using it for the public good. When a politician says, "we're going to buy corporate bonds that don't have any intrinsic value", he should be stopped because if the purpose is to "make money" for the state, then the correct solution is to increase taxes or decrease spending. It's THAT simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
