If I'm reading Krugman correctly, and he's right---the latter far, far more likely than the former---what the banks are essentially asking is for the government to declare that the last ten years or so have more or less been a giant game of Monopoly played with house money and now that the game is over and they've lost, they want us to fork over a shitload of real money so that they can start playing a new game.
The banks want to pretend as though the last decade never happened and, according to Krugman, the feds, even the newly Obama-ized feds, seem inclined to go along with the charade.
Have I got this right? We're going to party like it's 1999 all over again?
Except, what do I mean be we, kemo sabe?
We don't get to pretend anything. We're still stuck in a busted economy with too much debt and not enough money and no sign the government really wants to help us.
If we're going to pay off the bank's losses, so that they can start losing money all over again, shouldn't we get something out of this, besides the chance to get shaken down and gouged all over again?
Can't we declare the last ten years null and void too?
In fact, wouldn't that be better all around, to put us all back where we were during the Clinton years, when we were flush enough to be good customers?
Because as far as I can see the big problem with letting the banks start over is that they'll be without something they had last time they began this game.
People to play with.
_________________________
Updated, glumly: David Sirota's not making me feel the least bit better. Not here, and not here.
Josh Marshall isn't helping either.
the part that krugman, and most of the other economists are leaving out, is that there isn't any real money left. what they are putting into the banks are pretend pixel blips. if they keep injecting the economy with pretend money there will be a collapse, the only parallel i can think of at this time of the morning is the valley, near the coal slurry dam, in tennessee.
there, done. that's about all the good feeling i can muster this morning.
Posted by: minstrel hussain boy | Monday, January 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Give it up, Lance. Hundreds of thousands of citizens wrote, faxed, phoned, and emailed their elected representatives last time, and it was to no avail. Our new president whipped votes for Pelosi during the second round in the House, after the first effort failed, so he's in favor of this looting.
We have no say in this. It's robbery, it's done, and it will continue for as long as they want it to.
I'm sorry. I don't know how else to say it.
Posted by: merciless | Monday, January 19, 2009 at 02:41 PM
Anyone recall "The Pruitts of Southampton"? The show finally played out in reality, how predictive 1966 was. Phyllis Diller was the last Pruitt, and she was broke. But the Gov couldn't let that be known so they floated her lifestyle to cover up the truth! She stayed in her Mansion, drove her car all for appearances.
Shades of things to come!
I hope not.
UM
Posted by: Uncle Merlin | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 09:43 PM