Given the recent passage and signing of H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, I think it’s appropriate to give Murray Rothbard’s take on what they are doing.

From America’s Great Depression, page 19 and 20:

If government wishes to see a depression ended as quickly as possible, and the economy returned to normal prosperity, what course should it adopt? The first and clearest injunction is: don’t interfere with the market’s adjustment process. The more the government intervenes to delay the market’s adjustment, the longer and more grueling the depression will be, and the more difficult will be the road to complete recovery. Government hampering aggravates and perpetuates the depression. Yet, government depression policy has always (and would have even more today) aggravated the very evils it has loudly tried to cure. If, in fact, we list logically the various ways that government could hamper market adjustment, we will find that we have precisely listed the favorite “anti-depression” arsenal of government policy. Thus, here are the ways the adjustment process can be hobbled:

1. Prevent or delay liquidation. Lend money to shaky businesses, call on banks to lend further, etc.
2. Inflate further. Further inflation blocks the necessary fall in prices, thus delaying adjustment and prolonging depression. Furthercredit expansion creates more malinvestments, which, in their turn, will have to be liquidated in some later depression. A government “easy money” policy prevents the market’s return to the necessary higher interest rates.
3. Keep wage rates up. Artificial maintenance of wage rates in a depression insures permanent mass unemployment. Furthermore, in a deflation, when prices are falling, keeping the same rate of money wages means that real wage rates have been pushed higher. In the face of falling business demand, this greatly aggravates the unemployment problem.
4. Keep prices up. Keeping prices above their free-market levels will create unsalable surpluses, and prevent a return to prosperity.
5. Stimulate consumption and discourage saving. We have seen that more saving and less consumption would speed recovery; more consumption and less saving aggravate the shortage of saved capital even further. Government can encourage consumption by “food stamp plans” and relief payments. It can discourage savings and investment by higher taxes, particularly on the wealthy and on corporations and estates. As a matter of fact, any increase of taxes and government spending will discourage saving and investment and stimulate consumption, since government spending is all consumption. Some of the private funds would have been saved and invested; all of the government funds are consumed.¹⁵ Any increase in the relative size of government in the economy, therefore, shifts the societal consumption–investment ratio in favor of consumption, and prolongs the depression.
6. Subsidize unemployment. Any subsidization of unemployment (via unemployment “insurance,” relief, etc.) will prolong unemployment indefinitely, and delay the shift of workers to the fields where jobs are available.

These, then, are the measures which will delay the recovery process and aggravate the depression. Yet, they are the time-honored favorites of government policy, and, as we shall see, they were the policies adopted in the 1929–1933 depression, by a government known to many historians as a “laissez-faire” administration.

Since deflation also speeds recovery, the government should encourage, rather than interfere with, a credit contraction.

¹⁵In recent years, particularly in the literature on the “under-developed countries,” there has been a great deal of discussion of government “investment.” There can be no such investment, however. “Investment” is defined as expenditures made not for the direct satisfaction of those who make it, but for other, ultimate consumers. Machines are produced not to serve the entrepreneur, but to serve the ultimate consumers, who in turn remunerate the entrepreneurs. But government acquires its funds by seizing them from private individuals; the spending of the funds, therefore, gratifies the desires of government officials. Government officials have forcibly shifted production from satisfying private consumers to satisfying themselves; their spending is therefore pure consumption and can by no stretch of the term be called “investment.” (Of course, to the extent that government officials do not realize this, their “consumption” is really wastespending.)

Sound familiar?

http://news.yahoo.com/…

Hoyer, though, said on NBC’s “Today” show he was concerned that the tax issues could complicate the chances of final congressional passage when the legislation comes back to the House floor for a vote.

“There’s no doubt the tax package is very controversial,” he said, adding that “there’s no doubt in my mind that the Senate added this because they thought that’s the only way they could get it passed.” He said he wasn’t pleased the tax provisions were attached to the bill.

Adding a set of popular business tax breaks and legislation to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax promised to win House GOP votes for the plan even as it angered moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats concerned about the tax cuts adding to the deficit.

I reported earlier on the some of the changes made to the House amendments by the Senate. Unfortunately the only way to find out is through piecing together random news articles as at last I checked the actual bill to be voted on was not publicly available. So… I hadn’t seen that the AMT was part of this supposed tax reduction. We’ve all have heard the horrors of the AMT and yet Congress has been unable to do anything about it until now? It’s not even a carrot for passage, as a real tax reduction would be, but the promise not to use the stick… as hard. Another example where government regulation has lead to an unforeseen problem that would simply not have existed in any sort of resemblance of a free market. Now they are trying to sweeten this poison bill with it. Getting rid of the AMT is a great idea… but not on the back of one of the most egregious corporatist bills to come our way in a generation.

Speaking of negative unforeseen consequences.

http://www.bizjournals.com/…

The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Tuesday decided to ease “mark to market” accounting rules which have hurt banks, mortgage lenders and the housing sector during the downturn.

Mark to market is a Sarbanes Oxley accounting rule that requires holdings, assets, and loans be valued at their current value. It was aimed at keeping company’s books on the up and up but it has devastated banks and mortgage lenders in the housing slump.

On Tuesday the SEC said companies and financial institutions have some leeway in assessing value, not just the current market, which is of course way down.

There is also some talk in Congress of a temporary or permanent mark to market repeal to allow for a more long-term valuation of assets and loans.

What a surprise? Government regulation which manipulated the market values of assets caused the market to negatively react to that misvaluation. It’s unfortunate there isn’t a way to translate the economic distortion into something the politicians could understand. Like a punch in the face.

http://www.cnn.com/…

Some key parts:

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

Concise and to the point. On the front page of CNN. Not bad.

http://money.cnn.com/…

• “NO NO NO. Not just no, but HELL NO,” writes Richard, a reader from Anchorage, Alaska.
• “This is robbery pure and simple,” Anna from Denver posted on CNNMoney.com’s TalkBack blog this weekend.
• “I’m tired of rewarding institutions and people for the bad decisions they have made,” said Dean from Madison, Wis. “Sure, it will hurt tax payers if/when some of these institutions fail, but perhaps we need to let that happen. We do not need more big government involved in our lives. Enough is enough.”
• “Companies, like individuals, should be held responsible for their decisions,” wrote Jorge from El Paso, Texas. “This buyout does not address the other problems in the pipeline such as personal credit default and market slowdowns in most industries. No new jobs will be created.”
• “It is time for the financial institutions of this country to be called to the mat. We should be expecting and demanding responsible and ethical business practice, not rewarding it at the expense of taxpayers.” Paul from Portsmouth, N.H.
• “The government does not have $700 billion dollars. WE have $700 billion, and it is being taken from us. If this is passed then the next administration and the next will be extracting this one from the people who are supposedly being protected by this bailout.” John from Springfield, Va.
• “Why not take the billions and … make funds available to home owners stuck in the loans these idiots created, marketed and sold,” asked Don from Coarsegold, Calif. “It will put the money where it should be with the little guy who made a mistake, instead of the big guy who created the problem.”
• “Once I invested in something and lost money. Maybe I could just change the rules of investing so that my loss turns into a gain? Oh, I forgot only banks can do that!” Jordan from Charlestown, Ind.
• “I will be watching to see which of our representatives vote for this bailout,” said R. Kidd in Troy, N.C. “Let the American people see how many we can fire come election time.”
• “Call your Congressman. Stop blogging, posting comments, and call your congressman. This is the patriotic thing to do. Let them hear your opinion, show them this is still America and that you will not stand for this!!” Danny from Texas

Not everyone is upset about this though:

• “I was opposed to the bailout at first, but realized that the scope of this thing is global and so massive that the entire global economy could collapse if nothing was done. …The priority has to be resolving the present crisis of confidence in our economy. Remember, if Wall Street collapses, Main Street will go with it.” Bill from St. Louis
• “This money is not a handout to companies. It’s simply giving banks and mortgage companies loans, since the banking system itself is too unstable to raise this kind of capital. And no, the government cannot just use the $700 billion to pay back all the citizens that will be hurt by this. If the companies like AIG fail, the cost will be far far greater than $700 billion. Wake up!!” Andy from Chicago
• “It’s NOT a bailout. The government is not handing out cash, they actually stand to make a great deal of money out of this, which will trickle down to YOU. First priority should be to try to control and fix the problem, then regulate sufficiently to make sure this NEVER happens again.” Surfta from Brooklyn, N.Y

From Answers.com:

bailout: n. A rescue from financial difficulties: corporate bailouts.

Any profit the government would make on this is going to be completely negated by price inflation and interest on the debt accumulated. There is no money to perform this bailout. The money will be borrowed or printed. If the market was allowed to unwind this those issues would not occur and recovery would be far faster. Malinvestment needs to be liquidated and prices recalculated… not arbitrarily inflated.

http://www.forbes.com/…

Despite these steps, more is needed. We must now take further decisive action to fundamentally and comprehensively address the root cause of our financial system stresses.

To restore confidence in our markets and our financial institutions so they can fuel continued growth and prosperity, we must address the underlying problem.

OH OH! So the Federal Reserve is going to be dismantled?! Remove regulations which are only show or there to help those at the top already?

And this morning, we’ve taken a number of powerful tactical steps to increase confidence in the system, including the establishment of a temporary guarantee program for the U.S. money market and mutual fund industry.

The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy.

First, to provide critical additional funding to our mortgage markets, the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will increase their purchases of mortgage-backed securities. These two enterprises must carry out their mission to support the mortgage market.

Second, to increase the availability of capital for new home loans, Treasury will expand the MBS purchase program we announced earlier this month. This will complement the capital provided by the GSEs, it will help facilitate mortgage availability and affordability.

These two steps will provide some initial support to mortgage assets, but they are not enough. Many of the illiquid assets clogging our system today do not meet the regulatory requirements to be eligible for the purchase by the GSEs or by the Treasury program.

I look forward to working with Congress to pass necessary legislation to remove these troubled assets from our financial system. When we get through this difficult period - which we will - our next task must be to improve the financial regulatory structure so that these past excesses do not recur.

This crisis demonstrates in vivid terms that our financial regulatory structure is suboptimal, duplicative and outdated. I have put forward my ideas for a modernized financial oversight structure that matches our modern economy and more closely links the regulatory structure to the reasons why we regulate.

Damn! No.

More artificial risk reduction. This will only continue the distortion price signals and cause more malinvestment. More regulation that will either further enrich Wall Street at the expense of those on Main Street or will stifle their ability to do what they need to do.

Q: Mr. Secretary, what is the alternative here? What is the dire picture you painted for members of Congress last night to try and convince them to support this effort? What is the alternative?

PAULSON: This is what we need to do. Because for some time we’ve been saying that the root cause of the problems in our economy and our financial system is housing, and until we get stability in the housing market we are not going to get stability in our financial markets.

We’ve worked with Congress on a number of the steps, all of which were important, leading up to this. But this is the way we stabilize the system and get at the root cause.

The root cause is central control of the economy. Something every American child is taught is a bad thing. Look at what happened to those evil commies. While the message we received was hyperbolic it’s has some truth. Central control isn’t only inefficient. It’s an inherently flawed system doomed to failure. These neo-Keynesians just won’t give up on their desire to control or antiquated theories. I saw Obama talking about how the fundamental reasons for this crisis include: not spending enough on infrastructure, not spending enough on education, not spending enough on labor (wages), not taxing the rich enough, etc. Just because you spend capital on something does not mean it’s good. It does not mean that’s what should be done. It does not mean you’ll receive a positive capital growth from the deal. The cost of education has doubled in real dollars since the 1970’s with at best a static result. The fundamental problems are the distortions of the pricing signals due to regulation and primarily the Fed’s interest rate and money supply manipulation. If you make debt cheap, or give it away like it is now (interest < price inflation), individuals will fall into the moral hazard trap and over estimate. They will over consume. Over invest. The illusion of wealth furthers the problem.

I wonder what could be the best practical policy to get this information out. I’m not looking to turn everyone into economists… I just want the to recognize something I think everyone does to some degree but stops short of applying it equally across others and the market as a whole. Perhaps just putting Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson [pdf] in public places with Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed [pdf] sprinkled about would help? I think after the recent happenings people would be happy to read through one of these while waiting for the doctor instead of reading People.