Thoughts on Urgency

All the experts are saying we need to rush this stimulus through. Of course, they said the same thing about the initial (fill-in-the-blank-I-can't-remember-how-much-it-seems-like-play-money) billion we gave to the banks. Oh yeah, they also said the same thing about the GM bailout.

In my admittedly brief experience in the real world, I've noticed one similar trend in both consulting, filmmaking, and the agenting business: whenever something is rushed it is generally done wrong. Two reasons why: it is usually rushed because someone is trying to cover up mistakes or incredibly poor planning; or it is rushed because they don't want to answer the difficult questions of how the plan will work because they don't know and want to pass the buck.

So when these politicians - Obama included - stand up there urging them to move quickly, I'm skeptical. I mean, why shouldn't we be? What happened to the 80 bil we just gave to the banks? I thought that was supposed to "free up" lending. It didn't work. Or did it? If so or if not, what is the additional 825 billion is supposed to do? According to this report, we did a 240 bil dollar "infrastructure" bill in 2005. So how is this different that that? How does it make more jobs?

And here is a good article about how to really stimulate. The premise:

Many economists think that an economic recovery requires the renewal of lending by banks. Instead, I think that we need to step over the corpses in the financial sector. A revival of business investment will come from profits, not from lending.

Ughh...that makes sense.