Financial Bailout Hints Possible Corruption

Hypothetically, what would the US government want if it were corrupted—what would a corrupted democratic-republic have as goals? Undoubtedly, they would want to control the money, retain a strong central government, and have no opposition strong enough to oppose them (or have any opposition stronger than them at all). Again, under the hypothetical assumption of corruption, what is standing in the way of the US government attaining these goals? Well, it cannot control the money because of the free-market economy system implemented in America; it also cannot be the strong central government it wants to be because of Regan’s Devolution Revolution: returning power and sovereignty to the States and giving the federal government less control than before—limiting federal power; neither is it free of opposition in the least—the European Union’s currency, the Euro, has hit new highs in value against the US dollar and is definitely a contending economic force.

Sounds like another washed out conspiracy theory, right? Well, let’s take a look at recent events. In the end of October, 2008, the government bought $700 billion worth of power in banking. With this intense financial bailout, the government bought ownership which allows them to have significant influence and control over many of the major banks left in our economy (the last time this happened was in the Great Depression in the early 1930s). Their public reason was to flush the economy with financial liquidity. To emphasize their reasoning they also lowered the Fed inter-bank interest rate from 2% to 1.5%. When you consider the amounts of money normally borrowed by big businesses to handle day-to-day investments from big banks, this is an extreme discount. Now, although the effect on businesses and the economy is valid and working, this does not erase the fact that the government—the same government which was supposed to have absolutely no influence in the economy and finances when it was begun in the late 18th Century—now has a greater influence and control of our country’s finances (not to mention its control of our currency and the production of bills and reserve notes). The US government is most certainly on its way to being a stronger central government than we have ever seen in our country's history. Its public intentions of economic salvation and rescue do not cover the facts of its increased power and influence.

The effect of this lowered interest rate does not stop at the shores of the Pacific or the Atlantic; the international effect of our economy’s probable recession is jaw-dropping. First of all, we can see the international effect when the dollar value lowers; US-made goods are cheaper for foreign importation. (Our exports this quarter increased 12.3 percent compared with an increase of 5.1 percent in the first quarter, and our imports decreased 7.3 percent in comparison with a decrease of 0.8 percent in the first quarter.) Secondly, the banks of England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, China, France, and others have all collaborated with the US to also drop their financial interest rates for inter-bank loans by a similar percentage. The financial crisis that has wreaked havoc on US soil has had similar international effects all across the world. The recession into which we have more than likely slid has affected more than just our own economy.

These facts imply nothing of corruption, yet could they not also be factors that would uphold the hypothetical corruption? The European Union (EU), held together financially by the all-powerful Euro, is under stress. Germany, arguably the strongest financial power in the EU, has made it quite clear that they are going to worry about their own economy before they worry about the EU. It is not improbable that other countries will follow Germany’s lead. If they assume the same mindset, the EU would be in serious trouble, and by association, so would the Euro. In some circles of economists, the idea that this is the beginning of the end for the Euro is often espoused to a probable world future. Such a strain has never before been placed on the US economy or the EU economies, let alone the financial relationships therein. The US government could most certainly lose its only competing financial entity in the near future.

The free-market economy that is so loved and traditional in our country, seen through the eyes of Adam Smith—the father of modern economics, is also affected by the US government’s recent involvement. Under the pretext of saving and rescuing the economy, the US government has stepped in and temporarily placed on-hold the freedom of our economic market and is taking measures to ensure that the US economy does not go under or collapse. It has also taken certain financial powers, normally delegated to the States, in order to assure our economic future. These may be valid and admirable reasons, but do short-term effects validate long-term intentions? How can we be sure that this was not just a way for the US government to get its hands into the free-market economy? It seems that it could most certainly be on its way to becoming a contending power and influence over the economy itself.

IF the government were corrupted, our current financial situation could very easily be the due process and actions of that same government. The idea that such a government would purposefully cause this recession, in order to acquire the end results, is not as absurd as it may sound. They have a desired situation in mind, so they carefully create an action that will incur a reaction that will in turn render a specific solution that will model the desired solution: problem, reaction, solution; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This economic teleology is a model that has been studied and implemented for centuries. Its existence in our current situation is not absurd…assuming the government is corrupt. But how could that be? No, not our government! Not the United States of America! We are above such talk—above such ideas.

Now how could a corruption of this magnitude go unnoticed? It would have to be a unanimous, far-reaching corruption of such a macro scale that it would be statistically highly probable that somebody would talk. However, corruption on the fundamental level does not necessarily mean that all those who are corrupt understand the deeper fundamentals. The level of corruption may be unanimous, but what’s to say that there is not corruption in the midst of the corrupt? Would it be so hard to believe that those with the unscrupulous morals capable of instilling and implementing such a massive corruption could also be capable and willing to have, within their own levels of corrupted pawns, the same dishonesty and corrupted intentions as those used to mastermind the initial corruption? Is it not probable that between the corrupt and dishonest there exists a level, perhaps an even higher level, of dishonesty than even the level required to be corrupt in the first place? Those who understand the fundamentals of this hypothetical corrupted government do not have to be numerous, just intelligent enough to convince other corrupted individuals to follow them unquestioningly. The only requirement of a massive corruption is the requirement of brainwashing the influential—of convincing the influential to follow. One does not have to brainwash the macro-population, one just has to brainwash those with the influence to brainwash the rest of the population.