DOWn

444 points at the moment.

A lot of people want to know why I'm not covering this. Well, for one thing, I don't really love covering bad news. For another thing, I don't want to keep arguing about the bailout. But a lot of people do, so here's the thread to do it.

Michelle Malkin asks, "Wasn't the bailout supposed to calm the markets?"

I guess I'd answer: No, the bailout was supposed to avert a near depression. At risk of being "defeatist," we are almost certainly in a recession, and have been for a month or two. Yes, I know about the two negative quarters rule -- but when that happens, when it does, they will date the start of the recession not according to when we really officially negative, but according to when the economy turned pronouncedly south. Ascribing all bad news to the bailout package fails to deal with the fact that we already had a slowing economy even absent a credit crunch. The bailout may (one hopes) alleviate that, and prevent that from working further damage, but it doesn't change the fact that the industrial indices turned negative a month or two ago and that the nation lost 159,000 jobs last month.

And, of course, not a single dime has yet been made available for buying out the toxic assets.

A writer at USAToday notes the economy has numerous problems; the credit crisis is merely the most acute and urgent.

posted by Ace at 11:53 AM

| Access Comments