Money for Nothing
Paul Goodell
That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Money for nothin’ and chicks for free
Now that ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them guys ain’t dumb
– Dire Straights, “Money for Nothing”
Late last weekend, key members of Congress and the Treasury Department finally agreed on the specifics of a plan to bail out Wall Street and the mortgage lending industry to the tune of at least $700 billion. (The actual price will probably be considerably higher, however, as the $700 billion figure only takes into account the first wave of bad loan-buying.) While a strange bedfellows coalition stopped the bailout bill in the House on Monday, the Senate will vote on a slightly altered bill later today, and is expected to pass it. Whether the House would pass the bailout bill on a second try is uncertain.
Other writers will focus on the assault on our basic freedoms that this move represents — since the government will in effect own most of the homes in America, as well as hold controlling shares in several banks. While I completely agree with this analysis, I want to focus on the irresponsible philosophy that made this whole situation possible.
Of course, with a crisis this serious there is no shortage of people to blame.
- We should blame the federal government for the pressure it put on Fannie Mae to lend to “minorities and low-income consumers” — thereby making ideology, rather than people’s credit or ability to pay, the most important factor in lending money.
- We should blame the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates unnaturally low, thereby distorting market incentives and encouraging reckless borrowing and spending.
- We should blame the banks that came up with irresponsible mortgage vehicles — like no down payment mortgages or adjustable rate mortgages — to market to subprime consumers. (Although, to be fair, the banks were under a mandate from the government to sell to subprime customers, and the mortgage vehicles were the best ways they could come up with to limit their risk.)
- We should blame the corporations and banks that bought the bad mortgages and then bundled them together and sold them off, as well as any actor who accepted them.
- And we should blame each and every person who bought a home they didn’t intend to, or had any real doubt that they could, pay off.
One actor many Americans may be reluctant to blame, however, is the person in the mirror. I’m not just talking about people who purchased homes irresponsibly, either — people who bought when they should have rented and kept saving, or bought a 6-bedroom house when a 2-bedroom one would have sufficed. I’m talking about people who made living outside of their means a way of life — a category that encompasses the vast majority of Americans. This entire economic meltdown wouldn’t have been possible were it not aided and abetted at every step by John and Jane Q. Public. For too long now, Americans have subscribed to a Money for Nothing philosophy — a belief that we could spend and live how we pleased without repercussions or the need to think of the future. It is this philosophy which I blame most for the current fiscal crisis.
Americans as a people were once known for their thrift and industriousness. Under President Eisenhower, America was the world’s greatest creditor. Under President George W. Bush, America has become the world’s greatest debtor. True, average Americans didn’t make the decision to borrow trillions of dollars from other countries to finance wars or military build-ups. Those decisions wouldn’t have been possible, however, if people hadn’t been living beyond their means in the first place.
If a man proposing marriage to a woman suggested that before they married they take out a $100,000 loan, quit their jobs, and live on credit cards for the next ten years without paying the loan back, the woman would either laugh at or slap him. Yet nearly 50% of voting Americans embraced George W. Bush when he proposed something fairly similar. During his campaign in 2000, Bush promised to radically cut taxes, increase spending (through compassionately conservative initiatives such as No Child Left Behind), and balance the federal budget. No one who didn’t already practice a Money for Nothing lifestyle would listen to someone explicitly advocating that the government adopt it.
I don’t mean to single out George W. Bush, though, as if he’s the cause of the problem or the problem only started on his watch. (Although the problem certainly became much worse on his watch, it grew under Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.) The problems started with Money for Nothing Americans. They started with people who refused to be content with what they had, who insisted on buying a bigger house, a better car, the latest i-phone, or a fancy vacation without regard to their ability to pay for it.
The thing about Money for Nothing Americans is that they are very susceptible to politicians telling them they can have it all, and who won’t tell them what they don’t want to hear.
Right now, for example, Social Security has a deficit in the trillions and Medicare in the tens of trillions. In other words, Social Security and Medicare are effectively bankrupt. Yet Americans still debate how, not whether, the government will take care of them in their retirement. This is Money for Nothing thinking. Something will have to give: either we’ll have to increase tax rates considerably (greatly reducing our ability to earn a living) or we’ll have to substantially gut (or perhaps even cut) Social Security and Medicare (greatly reducing our security in old age and retirement).
Another example of Money for Nothing thinking is the talk by President Bush and members of Congress about how necessary the $700 billion bailout is to stave off a Recession or Depression. Yet market corrections are natural aspects of a market economy. They are never welcome, but thinking people accept them as part and parcel of a capitalist economy. Trying to stop them not only distorts the economy (by stopping it from correcting itself); it makes the inevitable market correction that much more painful and prolonged when it does come.
These kinds of realizations represent the type of thinking Americans will have to do in the future, and should have been doing all along. Without this kind of thinking, America will never be able to solve the problems that have led it to the brink of financial destruction. As long as Money for Nothing remains the philosophy of most Americans, however, no amount of government intervention will solve what ails America.

October 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I was watching CNN after the Senate passed stimulus bill B by a wide margin (~3/4 in favor). I saw Barack Obama and John McCain both speaking about the bill, saying it is necessary for the economy. I realized as I was listening that at no point did either of them mention the voters they are supposed to represent, they only spoke of the presumed benefits of passing the bill. Earlier in the day I read commentary on Yahoo and elsewhere around the internet, and the lay comments in response to articles regarding this bill seemed to unanimously descry the long-term implications of the bill and to call for its defeat. I realize this is worse than a straw poll, but reflecting on all this, I realized that we do not, in fact, seem to live in a democratic state. This is a pseudo-oligarchy. However, unlike true oligarchy, our rulers are term-limited with incentive to recruit re-election votes by making near-sighted decisions. We have the worst of both worlds.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 am
Don’t give up hope. Changes in the way government works over the past 70 years (and especially since the ’60s) which have consolidated power in the hands of unelected specialists (regulatory agencies, “representative” panels, etc.) have greatly diluted the democratic nature of our government, this is true. But as the National Suicide — er, Comprehensive Immigration Reform — Act earlier this year showed, Congress will still respond to the intense, concerted efforts of motivated citizens, even in the face of unified elite opinion.
Before the first vote in the House, public support for the bailout was a lowly 24%:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/support_for_bailout_plan_now_down_to_24
Now support is up to 45% as a result of nonstop fear-mongering on the parts of the unified elites in favor of this bill:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/voters_divided_on_whether_wall_street_
should_clean_up_its_own_mess
One way of looking at this change is that support for the bailout has nearly doubled since Monday. Another way to look at it, the way I prefer, is that in spite of their rabid fear-mongering and thumb-on-the-scale coverage, the elites in question still haven’t managed to convince even half of Americans that Congress should do anything about the situation. (I say this because the question on the second poll concerned whether Congress should “do something” about the crisis, not whether the people being polled actually supported the bailout.)
Things could get hairy from here on out and it’s still entirely possible (I think maybe even likely) that the House will pass the bailout package on a second try. People have been that bludgeoned by the scare tactics of the people in favor of the bailout. (Who, for the record, speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. Many of them don’t hesitate to scream “The Depression is coming! The Depression is coming!” like economic Paul Reveres, to get people afraid enough so their thought processes are interrupted. On the other hand, you’ve got folks like Roger Altmann, Dept. Treasury Secretary under Clinton and a huge proponent of the bailout, talking on 60 Minutes the other night about how a Depression isn’t realistically possible because of the monetary tools that the Fed has these days.) But there’s still plenty of life left in the anti-bailout movement. They may yet succeed.
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
RECIPE FOR SOCIALISM
*Take a legislation targetting a heightened concentration of wealth to the friends of the bourgeoisie, meaningless war, state-mandated education, breach of privacy rights, or the removal of property rights.
*Extend Congress’s calendar beyond scheduled adjournment.
*Add some pork to dissenting representatives’ home districts. They may also require special pressure sessions from party leaders for proper reform.
*It’s extremely helpful to make sure that any actions of the finance czar are not reviewable by the people or the courts. That way, your job and performance are insulated. (If your Constitution isn’t a dead letter yet, stall this project and focus all your energies on killing it. This may take a generation or two, but is entirely possible. Another option is to not have a Constitution that guarantees individual freedom. Whatever works.)
*If your subject government prints their own money, make sure they do so without any commodity backing it. This is a VERY important step. This way, there’s no requirement to make a balanced budget, and those in the proletariat inevitably pay for the spoils you will soon begin!
*Ensure that federal banking czar has only Keynesian or Monetarist training in money printing. This will help his/her cause in appealing to the people through state-run media.
*Spew propaganda to instill fear of dissent into public. This will hopefully dull the public into a resignation, but at worst will alienate dissenters into being ‘the weird ones.’
*If your country is having an ‘election’ for its Fuhrer position, make sure the media is pretending that the ‘candidates’ appear intelligent on the subject and know what they’re talking about. (Whether they do or don’t is inconsequential).
*VERY IMPORTANT: The revised bill cannot mention specifics about the source of the bill’s funding, otherwise you risk reverting back to democracy when the commoners realize the true relative cost of the measure.
*Vote again.
*Order finance czar to print new money, his comrade in the treasury to direct toward bourgeoisie.
*You may see the commoners complain when their currency-denominated goods and services go up in price. They can be silenced by comparing them to any surviving freedom-fighters — who you’ve hopefully discredited. If that doesn’t work, give them another tax break funded with more printed dollars. That may only be a temporary fix, but a fix nonetheless.
=====
“Ours is not a fated existence, for nowhere is our destiny etched in stone. In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would be without it, there is no force that can stop them. If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking.” — Ron Paul
October 6th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Looks like the Money for Nothing Plan continues unabated.
The voices of reason failed, mostly because they had such inconvenient things to say. “We’ll have to suffer through a nasty recession to right this ship,” just doesn’t have the same zip to it that “What we need to do right now to fix this situation is pump more money into it. That will make everything better.” If this latest “Eff you!” from our representatives doesn’t wake us up enough to throw the bums out, I honestly don’t know what will do the trick.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Here’s at least a little evidence that voters may send a lot of their representatives a pink slip in a month:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/63_say_wall_street_not_taxpayers_will_
benefit_from_bailout_plan.
Overall opinion is 45%-30% against TARP.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:27 am
You’ve got to be kidding me! The bailout’s not a fortnight old and already the government’s planning on an even more “ambitious” plan to use taxpayer dollars to rescue companies that made bad financial decisions: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008234544_econworld070.html
When you feed the beast, it grows. And it wants more to eat. Will we never learn?
October 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Economists like to look at incentives. Peter Schiff (From Europac) looks at this bill that was just passed, and do you know what the average Joe is now incentivized to do? Not pay their mortgage.
If you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank will not foreclose. Instead, they will sell your note to Uncle Sam for a partial write-down, which is far cheaper than foreclosure proceedings. Uncle Sam is bound by statute to do whatever they can to keep you in your house; forgiving part of your debt, lowering your payment, whatever.
Awesome.