I think I've decided I'm against the Bail Out.

You might have guessed from my previous rants that I would generally be against government control of the economy. Absolutly. So I should naturally be against a government Bail Out of financial institutions, which amounts to nothing more than the Gov't expecting Joe Taxpayer to cover the hinnies of Billionaire Corporate America, complete with paying for Executive "golden parachutes." It is about the most repugnant thing I can think of. 

So why has it taken me so long to decide that I can't tolerate it? Well, because like the rest of the world, I'm worried about an economic collapse. 

But, after seeing the reaction to the failure to pass a Bail Out today, and reading up on what some economists have to say, I've decided to stand my ground. I'll give you two short reasons and a link.

1. Bad Principles Never Lead to Good Policy.  The bailout is wrong as a matter of LIBERTY and FREEDOM.  Even if it makes economic sense, we should reject it. It has been kind of disgusting to watch people argue that the legislation should be decided by how the market reacts. Great, market driven government. 

2. It will be bad. But not that bad. The great thing about a free-er market is it's ability to rebound. Yes, this will hurt. But disaster creates opportunity. Not always in equal amounts, not always instantly, but eventually things work out.

Now the link: Harvard Economist Tells You Bail Out = FAIL.

Parting Shot: There is regulation, then there is regulation. Rules designed to increase transparency, fairness, liquitidy, responsibility, etc. are generally fine. Rules that try to re-direct the allocation of capital (coughFANNIE&FREDDIEcough) generally lead to bubbles and bursts.