【三】誠如所言﹐台灣及美國人民﹐均非嬰兒﹔其實﹐更正確的說﹐沒有『人民』是傻爪﹐任誰也無法欺『民』永久。讓民能自行﹐如十七世紀﹐法國財長Colbert (1661-1683﹐如凱恩斯般﹐最主張採政府干涉主義) 召見法國資本家說﹕『我能如何施政幫忙呢﹖』這些商家也如二個月﹐為病筍召見並強迫接受２５０億美元濟款的富國銀行總裁﹐拒絕好意﹐反而對他說“ Laissez-nous faire”﹐要求他『放任自由﹐無為而治』。這正是資本主義的精髓﹐自由市場的主軸。I Wish I Could Be Forced to Take In $25 Billion (尚未發行)
AP - Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it.
*** 修改補註 ***
|10/19/2008|| ||Blog Entry: Let Every Joe the Plumber's Household Declare "Social Bankruptcy": $20,000 grant.|
NOTE: My uncle was given his "inheritance" in a form of an installment plan (at the free will of my grandpa who is the richest in my small town, not in a legal trust on paper). Without a lump sum of money, my uncle can't really do anything in the big city he lived and worked, say, to have enough down for a house. Every month, he got an "allowance" to help subsidy his living. He is an excellent photographer (that's 50 years ago, he had the luxury to play with camera as a playboy.) But, he is making life by working for someone else. All his life, he lived in a slump 2 bed apartment without a living room and sharing kitchen with others.
He had never accomplished his dream as an entrepreneur to buy his own photo studio. At the end, he died without health insurance and left his survivors (my aunt and 4 young daughters) in poverty without income. Every time I think of my uncle, I remember what my uncle told me his worst regret: no enough fund to run his studio, without help from his father. That makes me so mad at my grandpa's stupidity.
Situation is just like, well, here allow me ask you a stupid question: will you expect to know Bill Gates or "Microsoft Window" today if Bill didn't get ENOUGH seed money of $20,000 from his Rich Dad in 1982 as an ordinary fundless Joe who only got $20 for gas fill up from his Poor Dad? And my grandpa has much much more than that, but his bad vision or wrong decision to suppress my uncle's dream makes himself without a son like Bill. Please honestly answer me: is it possible for American to have a lot more brilliant Bill Gates out of our society in the future if now we do it right?
(But, don't blame my grandpa too much. As I said, there is always some new toys for each generation. Asking my grandfather who was living in around WWII with all old stereotype knowledge very useful for "agriculture cash transaction," to understand those fancy industrial terms of "credit", "financing", "leverage" or the recent MBA's stock "investment derivatives" is just like to ask my 80 years old father-in-law who doesn't have any knowledge on computer to see the benefits of internet or i-pod even he operates his VHS recorder better than anyone of us.)
I believe it is not good enough or sufficient to do the job by giving out $2,000 to the poor. It is just too little to be enough to lead us out of the financial mess as Senator John McCain said and concluded on the voucher program of Washington DC school district in the last presidential debate. The best result for it is to create the same short effect, say, a few months retail sale surge, as the "$600 tax rebate" given by Bush last Spring. It surely create a huge short term demand for consumption, but not good enough to have a "investing spending" creativity to revitalize our economy in the long run.
Don't make the same stupid mistake my grandfather did to my uncle. Please trust the people and give them ENOUGH FUND to plan their future (dream to do business or create jobs in return) or re-start their lives in taking care of themselves.
Then the next question: how to avoid the mistake. Let's go back to history and we will find something our ancestors used very well when they didn't have a modern banking system or the credit was very tight, such as the idea of "Chit Fund" for which Time magazine call it "DIY Financing." Yes, you will ask me where the money come from for the FUND? Exactly from the $700 billion fiat money Paulson intended to spend on those fat cats, if we give it directly to people instead. We can easily modernize it to fit the modern society as we created "reverse mortgage."
Most American household equally deserve a break. Allow me to put it this way, if the Wall street can have a "bailout", a life or social "bankruptcy" for average Joe to correct those mistakes he made in the past and re-start his life is justified as our legal system declared a financial bankruptcy to wipes out debts for some people to have a fresh re-start.
My last 3 questions are:
1. Why both McCain and Obama are not willing to give the Main Street their "presidential pardon" while they "approve" or "follow" Bush's presidential pardon to those Wall street fat cats?
2. Is it fair to treat the Main street and the Wall street so differently?
To bailout the Wall Street to have a smooth credit channel is NOT going to cure the problem. It may fix a tool to make business more possible that is fully explained by media and seems the only focus our "elite" is concentrating on now, but I believe it will, by no means, guarantee a broader valid demand if people simply do not have an economic incentive or sufficient down payment to invest. People is the root of our country, not the financial system. This great country is built on 3 people principle: of the people, by the people, and for the people. In fact, people is the end while all the systems are means. The existence of a tool is for us to use, not the opposite way. We the people do not exist for a tool.
3. Is it what all about capitalism an automatic market mechanism, with least government involvement, as the autonomy for American expanding colonization in the 18th or 19th century?
Please at least learn something from Japan where a prolong 20 years recession takes place, it is of no use for the Japanese banking system to have tons of money or credit if there is no will, demand, incentive to borrow from the prudent people who worry about uncertainty of the future. Throwing a lot of money on the Wall Street does not automatically transform into the willingness to lend or borrow. Per the recent report, some fat cats are preparing to keep the government bailout money in their vaults. I don't blame them since it is very understandable that there is no good incentive or urgent motive for them to lend it out (NOTE: who should take the blame for that? You are right if your answer is Paulson.)
Anyone has the answers for me to agree that "NO" is the right answer to Zweig's "check" idea or my "AIP" plan?
本文於 修改第 1 次