In my opinion, after the recent massive financial bailouts and other interventionist federal actions (and in some cases nationalizations) within our economy (i.e. the private sector), several pressing questions remain unanswered. I have been pondering on five of them for some time now. These are listed below in no apparent order.

1. If bad loans got us into this situation, then why is there so much effort to get banks to loan even more money?

If there is a dollar to be made and people are free to act in rational ways, then somebody creative will find a way to earn that dollar. My thinking is that in spite of the negative news regarding financial markets right now, there remains a market for loaning money to people with good credit. If this is the case, then there must be people willing to make a profit in such a market and so they will loan money to those with the means to pay them back. No crisis there.

On the other hand, the market for people with bad credit (i.e. people who you shouldn’t loan money to) has dried up and rightfully so. That should be a good thing. It made no sense to make risky loans but such actions were encouraged by foolish government policy that distorted reality and created an artificial market for bad loans. No loans to people who should not get loans means no crisis there either.

So let’s fast forward to now. I want to know why there is all the fuss about banks not loaning money then? It’s good banks are not making more bad loans. To push them to loan on a large scale again seems to me to further push us into the mud. We’re supposed to be getting ourselves “unstuck” but loaning more would seem to do just the opposite and compound our already bad situation. That doesn’t make a bit of sense.

2. Bailouts rewards bad performance.

Corporate leaders are paid to lead. Part of leading means avoiding problems. It seems to me that we have a bunch of bad leaders at many financial institutions (and in government) since they led their companies (and federal policy) on a path of suicide. Why should the government reward these guys with a bailout? Seems to me that such actions simply reward their poor judgment and punish those who kept their companies out of trouble.

As for the auto industry in particular, I have some specific thoughts along these lines. They were on an unsustainable path by operating at a loss and piling up debt for so long. Instead of cutting back, rethinking, retooling, living within their means and building products that customers want (and will turn a profit), they were unwilling to change. A bailout will just put off the invevitable and reward their past negatives. Where is the incentive to adjust to market forces and make an honest profit by pleasing customers like all other businesses have to do? Furthermore, a bailout invites the government to meddle within an essential American industry. That’s an incredibly dangerous proposition.

3. Bankruptcy and subsequent restructuring allows serious change to occur quickly.

Bankruptcy can give a company temporary relief while forcing hard decisions to be made and implemented under court order. In some cases, ownership changes as assets are sold or even repossessed. Physical assets, however, don’t disappear just because ownership changes. In most cases of high profile companies, ownership changes don’t kill the company. Just because ownership or the company name changes doesn’t mean the demand for that type of product ends. Good news! That means, then, there is still a market for those products.

Think again of the American auto industry. If General Motors were to go bankrupt, the demand for vehicles would not cease. Somebody would still build cars in most of those General Motors factories. The other companies could not step in overnight and build enough cars, trucks and parts to meet consumer demand. That means there is still a huge market for, and thus incentive, to keep General Motors alive.

If left alone, I predict that instead of collapse, bankruptcy and much-needed restructuring would occur within the American auto industry. The result would be an industry that is much stronger and more competitive for the future after undergoing the tough decisions needed now.

4. We’re on a slippery slope to socialism and nationalization (i.e. communism).

I alluded to this thought above. I don’t like the federal government taking taxpayer money (or borrowing money that taxpayers will have to repay) and “buying” or assuming ownership of private companies or even parts of them. I see no Constitutional authority for such a move and it is highly contrary to the tenets of capitalism.

This economic downturn is not a problem with capitalism. Instead, it is a problem caused by government interference that distorted free markets by preventing them from properly regulating themselves and rooting out bad loans and risky behavior. In short, government created this problem and now we’re asking government to fix it? How foolish is that?

5. Finally, why have certain leaders not been fired for their incompetence?

We have a Treasury Secretary that serves at the will and pleasure of the President. There are leaders in Congress that oversee financial committees and other influential boards and administrative bodies. Corporations and banks have leaders. Surely these leaders should have seen this problem coming years ago. After all, they are paid to prevent problems such as this.

The very fact that so many of our leaders, from the Treasury Secretary down to corporate executives, either didn’t see the problems or failed to warn of them makes these individuals part of the problem. Instead, and making the case even worse, it seems many of these leaders contributed greatly to the problem. That scenario suggests they are guilty of inept leadership. Simply put, they are incompetent.

In short, those incompetent individuals who contributed to this problem should be fired and replaced with competent individuals who will work to get their companies and our country out of debt and on a solid financial footing. I’m troubled that I can think of nobody who has been fired for their part in creating this problem. Instead, they are awarded billions to spend and authorized with questionable powers to “fix” what they either helped create or failed to avert. That response seems about as reasonable as giving gas and matches to an arsonist.

So, in conclusion, these five ponderings have occupied a great deal of my thought (and frustration) over the past few months. Please share your ponderings below.

Article II of the United States Constitution presents the qualifications for the office of the Presidency. I quote in part:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There are questions about the birth place of Barack Obama. His paternal grandmother reportedly claims she witnessed his birth in Kenya, while others, including Obama himself, claim he was born in Hawaii.

If he was born in Kenya then he would not be a natural born citizen (his father was Kenyan and his mother American so U.S. citizenship would not flow to him as a birthright). Needless to say, assuming he is Constitutionally qualified, Obama could clear up the controversy by simply submitting his birth certificate as John McCain did (McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to a military family).

However, to this day, Obama has not submitted his birth certificate or any records proving his citizenship. He refuses to release any college records as well that would state his citizenship. That has prompted at least one lawsuit to prove he is Constitutionally eligible to be President. The video below (10 minutes 52 seconds) is the story of one such lawsuit from a life-long Democrat and attorney in Pennsylvania.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Barack Obama’s refusal to show that he meets the basic Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the Presidency troubles me. It is a legitimate Constitutional question that should be asked of every candidate.

John McCain’s birth has been analyzed at length by the mainstream media and bloggers (see here and here for examples). Why does the mainstream media not show the same interest in Barack Obama’s place of birth?

For Obama to withhold evidence of his Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency suggests he is hiding something. That makes him look very suspicious to the scores of millions who feel the Constitution matters. Furthermore, his refusal fans doubt regarding his eligible and provides ammunition to those who say he is trying to hide actual Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship.

To be completely honest, I find both his withholding of documents and the growing questions of ineligibility very disturbing. I join with those who demand that Barack Obama produce his legal birth certificate and evidence that he is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Just release the records!