the bailout: an ignoramus's view

I don't know anything about economics.  My excuse (although if I were a better man this would probably be the opposite of an excuse and would motivate me to learn, instead) is that the very smartest and best-informed economists disagree passionately on what seem from my vantage point to be not just advanced application but the very fundamentals—as if at the highest level of mathematics there were a major, major ideological split about whether or not x=x or 1+1=2, or if actual scientists disagreed about the essential validity of the theory of evolution.*  A G.O.P.-friendly friend once tried to explain why raising the minimum wage was bad for poor people, and I think I ended up saying, "Look, what you're saying sounds confident and reasonable, but I know so little about this topic that I simply can't judge it for myself and would just have to take your word on it"; it sure seemed to me that he was wrong, and I know there are economists that would disagree with him, but honestly, what do I know?

So then here we are with the financial bailout, which as I write has been once rejected and is going up for another vote tonight.  (Current headline on The New York Times online: "Obama and McCain Rally Support for Rescue.")  It would appear that, for once, the far right and the far left have something in common.  Monopoly Man slash Michigan Militia Republicans [M⁴R, as they're affectionately known] think that the government shouldn't interfere with the economy and that the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for shit**; Leninist–Marxists slash Neorevolutionaries Opposed to Plutocracy [LMNOPs, we call 'em] are pleased as punch to see Wall Street and maybe even the capitalist American system as a whole go down in flames.

Then there's me.***

I've got to say, I know people in finance upon whom I wish no harm, and I would hate to see their lives get ruined—but apart from that, I will cry not a tear for Wall Street.  If it turns out that the real catastrophe here would be devastation to the bankers—and if, contrary to conservative economic theory (sincere? insincere?), the damage is limited to them—well, then, I suppose I'm more or less with the LMNOPs: fuck 'em.  And sure, everybody in the mainstream media says this would spell doom for America as a whole (not just for the tiny plutocratic minority whose taxes would be lighter under McCain), but the mainstream media is hardly set up to challenge or question the fundamentals of American society, even if those fundamentals are corrupt—reporters are themselves corporate employees.  Could it be that all the panic is really only the sound of Wall Street in distress?

But then I remember from U.S. History class...Hoovervilles, did you call 'em?  Abject poverty.  Not enough food.  Those people sitting around starving weren't all former stockbrokers, were they?  What was the deal...unemployment, mainly, then?  Unemployment is a pretty big fucking problem.  So then the big question is—does that in fact follow?  Some of those LMNOPs wouldn't mind, I think, because the hope is that revolution will finally result: got to break some eggs, that kind of thing.  There I'm afraid I'm not quite with you.  Taking the super-long-range Marxist view (couple rough generations to get to a sunny utopia) just doesn't seem to work for me—particularly since I can't help but think that national catastrophe plus revolution equals not utopia but totalitarianism.  In my view, disaster is not the best (or at least not the likeliest) context for positive growth.  See 9/11.

So can anyone explain this for me?  The one thing I know is that no one knows for sure, or at least that the people who think they know disagree with each other, and I'm not qualified to distinguish between them.  What's the story here?  Does no bailout basically mean hello Great Depression II, in which case what I think of is shantytowns and National Socialism?  Or does no bailout mean the Monopoly Man has to sell his top hat and his country house, in which case mainly I just try to be a big man and keep the Schadenfreude in check?  I have no idea and for once (or, well, it's not that unusual, but it's unusual for something this big) don't even feel confident about whom to ask.  How about you?

* I'm sorry, they do disagree—just not with other scientists.

** Although of course I guess the great hypocrisy is that the Monopoly Man ("Rich Uncle Pennybags," according to Wikipedia—Jesus) suddenly is in favor of a little regulation when it means he doesn't go broke.

*** Excuse me: there am I.  Grammar sluts, accept my apologies.