Replies

You may be right, but consider the following:

Europe did not have the world’s most used reserve currency, and thus could not count on loans of such magnitude to inflate a big bubble. Britain did have the pound and got a little bubble going before Thatcher, but nothing on the scale of the US dollar today.

If a bubble can’t be inflated then there is muddling through malaise. The results are more extreme if a large bubble can be created.

Eventually we'll recover from the recession. The recession is painful, but it corrects things that are wrong in a market. A government CAN take action with fiscal, monetary means as well as try to build confidence but it should not keep nonviable businesses alive artificially. What I see today is the creation of government systems and structures that will require long term sustained money to stay alive. Once enacted, like many other social services it will be hard or near impossible to roll them back. Government cheese is like heroin for the masses.

The litmus test I use is simple: Without government subsidies even if hidden, would this structure or system economically stay viable? If the answer is no, then you have a unsustainable program that like a leach simply exists at the expense of viable business. When it comes to certain programs such as defense, law enforcement etc. the answer is almost always “no,” but they are the exception to the rule, and are also one of the few areas where a federal and state run government is needed (conflict of interests, mass, coordination, commonality, etc.). Today however, many believe that the government should manage banks, education, power, health care and even influence what cars are built and light bulb we screw into our lamps. That won't go well for long. There is a huge difference between the words effective and efficient. A military is effective, and that's what they need to be, but they are not efficient, which private enterprise needs to be.

The stimulus bill will create or vastly expand new big government programs. Much of this money will go to nonviable projects, and the multiplying effect of the money infusion in many instances will be very low in an economic sense. Many of these ideas have long lead times that make them take effect too late, and because it's a government administering it, expect massive corruption and fraud. Even if Obama did nothing we'd eventually recover despite his call to immediate action. The real worst case scenario has already been adverted by keeping the lending from freezing up. I'd be more content with inaction and just suffering through what comes than the direction Obama is heading.