The 'free-market bailout'
Peter Coy, economics editor at BusinessWeek, calls the market rescue plan a "free-market bailout," which is, of course, a contradiction in terms. Host Stacey Vanek-Smith asks what he thinks of the situation.
Man looks at "exploding" stock market board (Yoshikazu Tsuno/AFP/Getty Image)
More on The Economy, Wall Street, Politics, America's Financial Crisis
Links
- Audio: Full speech by President Bush
Full speech by President Bush
TEXT OF STORY
Stacey Vanek-Smith: Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain will be joining Congressional leaders at the White House this morning. The group will be trying to reach a compromise on the $700 billion bailout plan for financial markets. Last night President Bush said the bailout was in everybody's interest.
Tape of President Bush: This rescue package is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs.
Vanek-Smith: But, of course, politicians on both sides of the aisle are championing different issues. Bush did make a couple of concessions to Democrats in his speech last night, including emphasizing the need for regulation. Peter Coy is the economics editor for Businessweek. Peter, what do you think of the plan as Bush laid it out?
Peter Coy: This is $700 billion with few strings attached, and for that reason it could almost be called a free-market bailout, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms.
Vanek-Smith: Right.
Coy: Right. It's a bailout in the sense that a lot of money is going to people who have these really toxic, mortgage-backed securities and other assets. But it's a free market in the sense that the people who get the money are free to participate or not participate as they choose, and there's no real government role in straightening out the market by figuring out where the money would best be spent.
Vanek-Smith: Peter, one thing that President Bush mentioned in his speech was that once the government buys up these mortgage-backed securities, their value would increase and their value would be worth something, and therefore the taxpayers wouldn't actually end up paying anything for this plan in the long run.
Coy: Well, I think the taxpayers will end up paying something, but they will end up paying less than whatever the $700 billion figure is because there will be some recovery. Economists at Goldman Sachs are estimating the net cost would probably not be more than $200 billion. Of course, Goldman Sachs is one of the companies that's at the heart of these mortgage-backed securities, so we take that with a grain of salt. But I think conceptually that's right.
Vanek-Smith: One thing that we've been seeing in the last couple of days, especially right now, are the differences between sort of what the Democrats and the Republicans want from this bailout. Can you rough out what the two parties want?
Coy: Well, it's really funny that this is not strictly a partisan division over this. There are people on both sides of the aisle who are very concerned about the amount of authority that the Treasury Department would get in this. The Republicans are in some cases even more resistant than the Democrats, because they see it as more of an expansion of government power and deficit spending.
Vanek-Smith: And what about the Democrats?
Coy: So the Democrats tend to be more keyed in on the issue of whether there's enough support in the plan for ordinary homeowners. And they're also probably more zeroed in on the issue of trying to provide punishments for some of the CEOs who caused the mess in the first place.
Vanek-Smith: What happens if Democrats and Republicans can't put their differences aside and there is no deal by Friday?
Coy: The market's going to be on tenterhooks, but it could be if there's a sense that a deal will come than the market might have enough confidence at least to say, we don't need to know the exact terms but if it does seem that they're on track to do something, we'll be able to stay out of a real crisis here.
Vanek-Smith: Peter Coy is the economics editor for Business Week. Peter, thank you for talking with us.
Coy: Thanks a lot.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Steuben, ME, 09/29/2008
I wonder what the face value of the unpaid portion of all US defaulted mortgages is? And...the current value of same? And...how does this compare to $700B? In other words, how inflated are the derivatives? And why not put the money into the real property, let the derivatives float on real property made good? And why hasn't anyone reported on the face value of the defaulted mortgages? Doesn't that at least give us some perspective? Also, when reporting these bailout sums, it would be helpful if they were compared to the GDP so we have some comparable idea of their magnitude. Thanks.
From st.louis, MO, 09/27/2008
re S.Henn's interview re the 'bail out' and how the Ds approach is different from that the conservative R'. His idea about the conservative's perspective unclear, and I felt needed a "Just what do you mean by that? Steve" question by Kai.
From Browntown, WI, 09/26/2008
We have a trust crisis, not financial one.
What about investing in an America that offers the kind of America we need for the 21st Century?
An America where we purchase things (when we need them) from our neighbors, in our communities, and that are made without destroying the planet or exploiting people in how they’re designed? What about energy independence with renewable energy that does not contribute to climate change or harm ecological systems on which we depend? What about a food system that lessens its addiction to natural gas and oil (used for chemical-based agriculture)? How about a transportation system that reconnects communities by a more energy efficient railroad system and cities that showcase safe bike paths and zoning that encourages people to live closer to where they work (perhaps, even, in a home office). How about a healthcare system where people don’t get sick worrying about it?
Many Americans are asking why we’re bailing out (“saving”) the America that is all about greed, growth, super-sizing and empire building. We desperately need a Congress that’s acting as a check and balance for an Executive Branch that’s never been more secretive – and lately, particularly misdirected. We need a Congress that demands accountability, transparency, and oversight. We need a President who actually recognizes the Constitution and her/his responsibility to the American people.
My entire blog on this is at:
http://sustainablog.org/2008/09/24/nothing-sustainable-about-a-700-billion-bailout-plan-why-not-made-in-america/
From Long Beach, CA, 09/26/2008
The major problem in the US is that there is no counter-balancing force to curb the excesses of business. In other countries, there are strong states, unions, religious groups, and other recognized interests (homeowners, families, students) that have a say in how business is allowed to operate. What force or forces exist in the US to take on this role? None.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.