I consider myself to be a pretty well-informed, well-educated person. And I've read a lot in these past few weeks about the congressional bailout plan for the financial sector. But even still, I haven't really understood how and why such a measure is needed, and certainly not why it has to be done, like, yesterday.
Our leaders, including Barack Obama, have not done much in the way of explaining the situation except to tell us it's serious, and I don't blame people for not blindly believing what the Bush Administration says, particularly in crises (it shows we can learn!). So we're left to figure it out on our own.
I just had a conversation about all of this with my mom (who is the office manager/billing department/payroll person/all around money-handler at a local law firm). She broke this "credit crunch" down for me, explaining how already it is having an impact on even very successful companies like hers. And what I learned scared the heck out of me.
My fundamental mental stumbling block was around this whole notion of small businesses (and not-so-small businesses) needing credit to cover their payroll, which is the one specific thing we have heard repeated by the pols and talking heads. As a consumer, my frame of reference for credit involves long-term financing. So my reaction has been, "Well jeeze, if they have to borrow money to pay ther employees, something's wrong anyway!" But what I now understand is that for businesses, a lot of credit is actually used for short-term funding.
This is how it works. Widgets Inc. sells widgets. It sends out bills to its customers, with payment due on the 1st of each month. While some customers promptly pay their bills when they receive them, most wait until the last minute. In the meantime, Widgets has its own bills to pay. It has to pay rent, suppliers, and of course, its employees. When all the customers pay their bills, Widgets will have a good deal of money on-hand. But that's not until the first of the month, and employees get paid every week. So by the end of the month, Widgets needs a little carry-over cash. They use their credit line to cover payroll the last week of the month, and then pay the bank bank a few days later when the money comes in. This has been the pattern for years, and has never been a problem.
But now, because of things far beyond their control or ability to predict, Widgets can no longer get that short-term credit from the bank.
The company decides to make payroll the top budget priority: when money comes in, it goes towards payroll until that expense is fully-funded; only then do suppliers and other bills get paid. The problem is that many of the suppliers are themselves small businesses in the same exact position. So when Widgets Inc. only partially pays its bill to Dongles Ltd., the supplier has less money to put towards its payroll. And, conversely, more and more of Widgets' customers are making partial payments on their bills, meaning Wigets has an increasingly difficult time affording its employees.
Eventually, hiring is frozen and layoffs begin. Those folks, suddenly without a paycheck, have difficulty making their house and car payments. The banks are left holding more and more property, with less and less cash coming in -- and therefore less credit to extend to businesses. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, and we're already in it.
What I didn't realize, in addition to how this system works, is just how quickly it can all fall apart. Businesses don't get to just not pay their bills until the banks get this sorted out; people have to be paid, bills have to be paid, groceries need to be bought, etc. So the fact that Congress has been dithering on about this for 2+ weeks already has started to tighten the pressure on small businesses.
Now that the bill has been passed by both houses of the legislature, and Bush is due to sign it into law later today, it's possible that credit will start to loosen. (The whole idea of the plan is to buy some of the bad assets from the banks so that they have a better balance sheet and can more freely extend credit.) The Washington Post argues that as far as credit goes, the rescue plan may simply not be enough. But it's something, and in this case, something is definitely better than nothing.
For what's it's worth, I lay blame at the feet of all of the politicians and pundits who failed to explain in simple terms what this is all about and why it's so urgent. This conceivably could have been done four days ago if House Republicans had not been besieged by underinformed voters. A good leader should strive to inspire buy-in by the people he or she leads, not by scaring them with generalities, but by educating them and helping them see how a plan or project is beneficial. By that standard, we have seen dismal leadership in Washington and on the campaign trail during this crisis.

Salon.com
Comments
For everyone out there watching the stock market's reaction to the bailout, that is irrelevant to some extent. As Becky points out, the important thing right now is credit. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman has just posted that the credit markets haven't shown signs of life since the House vote, but there are signs that the money markets are slightly unfreezing. We'll see what happens next week.
As a socialist I didn't expect to reject an act which has been labelled "the largest socialist investment in history". But I think the motive, "we must do this to stop all those small businesses failing!" is not why this measure must pass.
I am not sure it should have passed.
It may just be that the consequences were bought and paid for. Sometimes it really is necessary to sever the limb to save the patient. The rescue measure may well be equivalent to keeping the limb.
If so, America may have had its best 2 changes ever to save itself, long term: Reject the Bush administration's final economic poison (this rescue); and reject McCain-Palin.
Here are links to two posts about the down sides and pork in this bill as well details on Congressional Representative Kucinich's and Senator Feingold's principled refusals to vote affirmative and their reasons why:
A Mantra for Our Times: Why, Why, Why?
No Banker Left Behind Passes - Oh, the OINK of it!
(rated)
But getting the RIGHT thing done was also critical. Now the feds have to buy up an securities that cannot be sold in the private sector because buyers do not know what they will turn out to be worth. Can a federal employee figure out the worth of thousands of complex assets in a short period of time, while the top priority is to transfer billions of dollars of public money to the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?
Such an approach is better than nothing, but it will only work if consumers manage to start paying their bills while also going deeper into debt to stimulate the economy. There are better alternatives. See http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=24603
As a controller, your statement in paragraph 5, last sentence ("This has been the pattern for years, and has never been a problem.") says it all. It is a problem and continues to be because this is how people including some who own businesses operate. As a controller who works for a very conservative individual, I can assure you at all times, we operate with as much cash on hand as is possible. This is not to say we don't borrow money, but our borrowings our long term (over 1 year) projects without ever the intent of being squeezed on the short side. In fact, we will make sure we have at least 6 months debt payment on hand before going to the bank to borrow long term. It is a serious problem to run a business any other way and those businesses that do are kidding themselves and whether it be this crises or the next, they are one step away from disaster.
Ex. Some years back Ford Motor had over $50B in cash on hand and got coerced into using those funds by large shareholders such as CALPERS and others. I wonder if today or even a few years ago, if Ford would have liked to have had that cash back to utilize at their discretion. Another example: Go ask Warren Buffet how much cash he has on hand or Bill Gates? Look at their balance sheets! Those are organizations that will eat because they are not constantly on the hunt.
People and/or businesses who run on the edge are just that, on the edge and one step away from disaster. The Gov't let them do this with the belief they will be there. Well guess what, they are not.
So first, I think in retrospect that I should've given this a different title. My intent was to explain how the credit crunch can bring down the economy; whether the rescue bill (or any rescue plan) can short-circuit that, I have no idea. And I freely admit to not understanding the intricacies of the bill, or how it is expected to improve the credit situation.
@qu1j0t3: Wow. As I just said, I don't pretend to understand exactly how what's happened on Wall St. translates into the tight credit, but it's clear that it has. And while I certainly agree that we need to fix the problems that got us into this mess, I don't see how causing literally millions of self-employed and small businesses go under is going to help matters! Why on earth should a local bakery be expected to take the hit for the subprime mess? That's counterproductive, and it lacks common sense or decency.
Also, while I agree that prudent businesses keep a cushion, or should, the point of running a business is to bring money home, not let it build up in the company's checking account. I can't quote statistics, but I'd imagine that most small businesses, even extremely conservative ones, run on a thinner margn than most people think. There's nothing wrong with using short-term credit to help cash flowing. Indeed, it allows businesses to build credit so if they need a larger loan, for capital improvements, for example, they can get that.
Your analysis is correct for a normally operating mid to large size business. I had a smallish retail business for 12 years. I was allowed to borrow once or twice a year to buy inventory, and had to repay all of it before I could borrow more for the next season. Much like a farm loans, a bad crop or seasonal disruptions could wipe out our ability to borrow for six months. After 25 years in business, the store was lost shortly after 9/11. This was the last of too many seasonal disruptions as well as the actions of a spendthrift owner, who took too much out for herself (not me).
For this particular business, if the company was not able to pay the loans back, I came up with the necessary funds from my household money or personal lines of credit for over 12 years. The bank was always paid first, however, and myself and personal loans second.
That is why I resent being asked to bail out Wall Street. These millionaires and billionaires should have been required to refund the businesses from which they had hugely benefitted. Only the CEO's compensation was required by a corporate contract; no participation as a fiscally interested partner was required of them. Of course, with such detachment and lack of personal involvement CEO"S would not reinvest any of their HUGE compensation package voluntarily.
Unfortunately, by definition, a corporation is a money-making machine with no social contract. A CEO's benefits are the same whether the company thrives or fails.
In plain English, the people that run large corporations are not personally invested enough to do anything but take care of themselves.
This aspect of the bailout is what I resent the most -- the boys get paid at our expense, and will likely suffer little to no consequences until the gold parachute is outlawed AND enforced as law. The latter is key -- with a lawless administration in place, there is little chance that any cronies will receive harsh treatment at the hands of the Bush administration.
I agree with you that a change in perspective is in order, not just the usual transition, but something more than that. Something that brings some sense to what is going on.
Gordon, I agree. Good topic for a separate blog post.
And if Congress is typical of the American public, they are ignorant as hell when it comes to finances. That is something we've got to address. We should make finances something that every single high school student needs to take in order to graduate.
Previous plans of various sorts by the government haven't worked. As a for example, look at the Great Depression & the new Deal. The New Deal was why the Depression lasted so long. See:
Great Myths of the Great Depression
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3489
If the Govt was really about payroll for small bus. we could have gotten away a lot cheaper if the govt. had just loaned that money directly. This is all about BIG BUSINESS. And saving the million dollar salaries of the people that run them.