A weekly column
Bankruptcy is Economic Stimulus
The distraction on Capitol Hill this week has to do with the jackpot bonuses that executives at AIG recently received. The argument is over a relative drop in the bucket. The total amount of bonuses given out was $165 million. The government has put $170 billion into AIG so far. Many now are demanding we get this money back. We ought to be spending our time and effort doing something more worthwhile, like figuring out how the Federal Reserve is handling the trillions of dollars they are creating and pumping into the economy, and how that is affecting the purchasing power of dollars in your pocket.
The big mistake was appropriating the TARP funds in the first place. A Johnny-come-lately bill of attainder won't stop the spending epidemic. This whole situation is a perfect demonstration of why "doing nothing" and letting failing companies fail would have been much better than sinking valuable money and resources into them.
When a company makes a profit, it is a signal that it is taking resources and increasing their value while controlling costs. When a company operates at a loss, it is a signal that it is decreasing the value of its resources or letting out-of-control costs outstrip any value it has created. A company operating at a loss is therefore an engine of wealth destruction. Bankruptcies are a net positive for the economy because more productive competitors are rewarded by opportunities to buy up remaining assets at bargain prices to strengthen their operations. In an economy that allows this kind of growth and change, any jobs lost by bankruptcy are soon replaced by new ones as the most efficiently managed businesses gain access to more assets and expand.
Bankruptcy was the stimulus that we needed in the case of AIG. More bankruptcies would clean out malinvested resources and enable economic growth again.
AIG, by losing money and maneuvering their operations to the brink of bankruptcy, was telling us that they were inefficient. So what did we do? We forced the taxpayer to assume the losses, and now we are supposed to be shocked that it is not working out. Had AIG gone bankrupt, it would have been impossible to hand out these bonuses. The taxpayer would have been fleeced for $170 billion less last year. Had they gone bankrupt, the world would not have come to an end, it would just continue on with one less engine of wealth destruction.
We should have learned from Japan. The 1990's is referred to as Japan's "lost decade" because of the zombie banks kept on life support by the Japanese government. Any productivity was redirected through these engines of wealth destruction, resulting in long term stagnation. We should and can avoid this outcome if we come to our senses.
A recession should be a time of strengthening and regrouping for an economy. But as long as the government insists on maintaining the status quo by propping up failed institutions, we will continue to dig a bigger hole for ourselves.
Posted by Ron Paul (03-23-2009, 11:00 AM) filed under Monetary Policy


Comments: 12
Take illegal immigration, this does not exist in Japan
Nor does legal immigration to any meaningful extent
How about social conformity, it could match up with any islamic culture in this respect. If one does not conform to the social norm, . . . well life on the street until death do taketh thee.
So, all I mean to say that comparing Japan to the U.S. is idiotic!
There is no comparasion to the economic, social, fiscal or employment status.
elaine d.
The phylosophy of throwing money at a problem is not going to work this time and that is what Ron Paul is telling us.
agrees with Ron Paul.
There is nothing wrong with being a contraian, but is doesn't make one right.
Back to Japan,
It is the Capitalists who consider Japan's economy to be a failure, and since capitalism depends on growth in consumer spending, of course the Capitalists consider it to be a failure.
Capitalism is 100% dependent on growth, which requires the use of natural resources until they are . . .gone.
Capitalism requires growth not only in consumers, but in workers. How long can earth sustain that as the sole successful business model?
It only worked in the past because the earth was abundant and populations grew.
Can we really continue this?
Instead of promoting this bad old economic model why aren't we looking for something that both rewards individual initiative and values life and the planet?
Private investment you call for. There were many very rich men during the U.S. Depression during the 1930's. NONE of them were investing in the economy. This is true again today.
FDR didn't bail out any international conglomerates that I ever heard about. He did start a few public works projects but they were only taking tax money out of one pocket and putting it in another, just as Obama is doing. It was helping but it was the 2d WW that pulled the nation out of that depression.
You seem to be down on Capatilists. I'm sorry you hate yourself. Capatilism is what people practice to get ahead in this country. If you hate the system so much move to a purely socialist or communist country.
But remember, one can have free marked (removal of trade barriars)without capitalism.
Capitalism is fine, but must be highly regulated to protect the environment, and workers and consumers.
I hope you don't think Capitalists are going
to only sell safe food,
only provide a save work environment,
do as much as possible to protect the environment without regulation.
But there is now and always be the problem of the need for not only an expanding consumer base (constantly growing population), but
a constantly expanding cheap supply of workers (constantly growing population)
Not to mention constantly increasing need for raw materials.
How long to you think earth can sustain this style of economic system?
The earth can sustain this style of system for a very long time since only a small porton fo raw materials have ever been used. Not even a tenth of what the world has in raw material has been exploited as of this time. Don't believe everything the environmentalists are spreading around, it is pure ferterlizer.
So, your idea is to let a food producer poison a few or few hundred people,
then let them go out of business.
Yup sounds real good, are you willing to sacrafice your infant to "test" the quality of an infant formula?
So The earth can sustain this style?
In Colorado is an old mine site, with a "lake" of toxic waste
very deadly heavy metal contamination
Just waiting to spill into the Platt river, then the Mississipi, then the Gulf.
No harm you say
sustainable you say
The mountain top removal coal mining techniques in the Appalachian Mts. Yes, there is still coal in them thar hills,
Do you think it should all be removed?
Do you think there will be a watershed when it is finished, when all the coal is taken?
You are saying it can be sustained for a very long time
How long?
How large a population?
Who will benefit?