Working Class People Taking to the Streets! The Revolution is Here! Oh, wait…

re: Escaping the Bust Bowl

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/opinion/12kristof.html

I liked how Nicholas Kristof’s newest op-ed got started:

In a moment, we’ll come to a two-step solution to the banking mess: First, tar and feather America’s 100 leading bankers; and, second, take over insolvent banks and distribute shares to members of the public (without ever using the term “nat…” — oh, never mind).

And I generally agree with what Mr. Kristof has to say in the rest of his piece, but a later paragraph, in that it echoes the general sentiments on the bailout being expressed in the media, caught my attention and raised my ire:

Yet Japan also underscored that you can’t resolve a crisis when the public is more interested in punishing banks than rescuing them. That’s why I suggested tarring and feathering a group of prominent bankers. Populist rage then would be satisfied, and we could get on with reviving the banks.

The idea that the current banking establishment should not be allowed to reap the benefits of the banking bailout is hardly “populist rage,” despite what the oh so reasonable fellows at the Times would have you think. Let us remember that it was the bankers who lost trillions of dollars and ruined the banks in the first place. What sane person would give them another trillion so that they can give themselves billions more in unearned bonuses?

These bankers are like rich kids that blew through their trust funds by age twenty-five then go crawling back to dad for more. Would dad simply give his prodigal son a lump sum, say ten million, and let him squander it as he did his first fortune? Of course not! He would put restrictions on how the new money would be distributed and spent.

Furthermore, why would we want to employ the same people who ruined our banking system to save it? To me it seems like utter lunacy. In what other field of work can you be one of the worst failures of all time and then not only avoid being summarily fired but actually be allowed to bargain for how much you’re going to get paid as you continue in the exact same position you were in before? Is anyone else following me here? Am I insane to think that these are the most obvious points I can conceive of?

It isn’t just “populist rage” at the incredible gall of the bankers that causes us crazy people wielding pitchforks to want to do something to hem in their behavior, although outrage is a completely justified reaction under the current circumstances. The undeniable fact of the matter is that these guys fucked up royally and it would be crazy to give them a free hand with billions of dollars again.

As for the horrible n-word (not what you’re thinking- I mean nationalization), it’s not as if this is Cuba in 1960 and the government would simply be seizing the banks’ assets. We, the American people, are fucking paying to save the banks. Why shouldn’t we get to own part of them? Why should shareholders who made poor investment decisions be rewarded out of our pockets? Capitalists saved by government largesse? It’s like some bizzaro version of the USSR circa 1928.

And considering that our upper class is so against “rewarding the poor for not working” with welfare and who are responsible for the lack of a safety net for millions now in actual need, it is baffling to see these same people not only having no problem taking massive handouts themselves but actually acting as if they are entitled to this welfare for the wealthy. Yes, it’s true, rich people. If you are benefited by the bailout, you are officially on welfare, just like the crackhead with six malnourished kids who was clawing at your window as you got off the highway the other day. Won’t that be good for a laugh next time you meet friends for cocktails and dinner at “21″?

And that brings me to another point: it is rational to “punish” those who are total failures at their job, as it sends a message that one’s performance in life is related somewhat to the rewards one receives. The lesson that Americans have learned over and over again in the last few years is that reward is not about performance but about connections and politics, whether in Washington or on Wall Street. This is a corrosive principle for any society, and it must be counteracted swiftly and decisively lest we complete our transformation into a country of mere hucksters and con men. So it’s not just “punishment” for the sake of being mean, or even just, to the poor bankers if we American patriots ask to have them fired or restrict their pay. It’s pure rationality, upon which any well-functioning economy must be based.

So to cast the debate of how the current banking establishment should be dealt with in terms of assuaging “populist rage” is patently absurd. To do so is simply another means of conveniently shifting the blame for the recession away from those who deserve it (bankers) to those who rightly ought to be doing the blaming (non-banker taxpayers and investors). Frankly, it makes me sick to see that people like Kristof, the type that pass for “liberals” in this country, are already backtracking from previous hard-line stances, instead pretending to hold up their hands like you would to an angry child and say, “Oh no, it’s the crazy proletarian masses! We’ll do something to make you insane socialists and irrational retribution-mongers feel better while getting good ol’ capitalism back in order, don’t worry!”

This is no Communist scheme, you smug, disingenuous dicks! It’s simple common sense! You pay for something and you own it! How much more fucking capitalistic do you get than that? The government is an entity that can own assets like any other organization! If taxpayers bail out the banks, the government (us) should get some fucking shares to show for it! As the government did when we bailed out Chrysler in the eighties, you dopes! Stop pretending you’re so goddamn smart and that everybody else is a bunch of idiot yokels. And get off my fucking back about my fucking outrage, ok?!