PARSIMONIOUS PROTESTANT PENNY-PINCHERS FOR ANALLY-RETENTIVE TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE IN ALL THINGS

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mrs. Georgette F. Dickerson, Esq., Chairperson; Attorney at Law, Standish Savings & Loan Co., Inc. (a leading bank specializing in stable investments), Des Moines, Iowa; University of Minnesota School of Law (J.D. 1982); Senior Actuary, Stickman, Schuhschnurr & Wedgeworth, P.C. (1983-1998); Adviser to the Board, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Missouri (1998-2002); Author, Be Brave--Save, a Best-Selling Financial Management Guide; Lead Consultant, Parents United to Curtail Juvenile Enjoyment (2004-present); Mother of Five.

Our country confronts financial crisis on an unprecedented scale. Both the Federal government and State governments struggle to balance their budgets. Some States--including New York and California--are bankrupt. Unemployment arcs ever higher. Tax revenues are down. Inflation is up. Christmas shopping is off. The dollar's buying power steadily diminishes as foreign currency floods American markets. There appears to be no end in sight, despite President Obama's promise to rescue the economy with "stimulus packages."

We face hard times. We all need to tighten our belts. But there is a reason why our Nation continues to slip into financial ruin: We are spending too much money.

There are two things you can do with money: You can spend it or save it. If you spend money, you ostensibly get something in return. But in almost every case, you wind up suffering a loss. After all, it is simply smarter to hold onto $1,400 than to buy a comfortable new Ottoman for your living room. Additionally, if you buy an Ottoman, you might have a nice piece of new furniture. But you no longer have $1,400 to pay bills and live responsibly. That is why spending money is rarely a smart alternative.

Saving, however, is always a good idea. Rather than indulging on comfortable furniture, you could put that $1,400 in a low-interest-bearing money market account. You could open a trust with diversified, guaranteed holdings. You could put your money to work rather than fritter it away on transient pleasures. That is the smart thing to do. Sure, you might have to continue sitting on a moth-eaten couch rather than a brand new Ottoman. But wouldn’t you rather get some interest back on your $1,400 than merely toss it away for red plush and velvet?

Yet Americans have committed financial sin. For decades, they elected to spend rather than save. For decades, they poured their money into movie houses, car dealerships, grocery stores, jewelry boutiques, home improvement depots and other frivolous retail outlets. They even mortgaged their property in order to get their hands on more cash to spend. In short, Americans engaged in an unbridled spending orgy. They saved nothing. True, they might have enjoyed themselves at the time. But look where they've landed us now--in a depression.

Still, it is no answer to say that Americans like spending money. It is more complicated than that. Spending is a disease. It gives the spender a high. People who spend money lust for the moment they hand over a credit card to some petty sales associate. They want a full shopping bag. They want more and more "stuff." They don't care about the money; they want to feel good about buying things they want. In short, spending is a drug worse than any street narcotic. People squander their whole lives seeking their next spending fix. In the process, they ruin themselves and their families.

We, the Parsimonious Protestant Penny-Pinchers for Anally-Retentive Treasury Management and Financial Discipline in All Things, offer a solution to America's spending addiction: We must stop all spending at once. We will not save this country from financial crisis with "stimulus packages" and "health care bills." Those are just spending orgies on a governmental scale. President Obama gravely erred when he thought he could save America by spending money. Spending money does not solve problems; it just creates more.

We need financial discipline in America. Financial discipline begins with waging war on enjoyment. For far too long, Americans have equated money with pleasure and fun. That is the psychological impetus for dangerous spending. We must begin inculcating financial virtue in every American. We can no longer tolerate unnecessary grocery shopping or gift binging. We must learn to say "No" to the shopping urge. It is time to put away the credit card. It is time to put that money in a bank and scrimp. It is time to forestall enjoyment. It is time to stop having fun. Fun got us in this mess. And as Protestant Penny-Pinchers, we say: "NO MORE."

We would rather have money saved tomorrow than a good time tonight. Our current financial crisis is more than a debate about money. It is also a debate about morality. After all, unchecked spending leads to enjoyment. Unchecked enjoyment leads to gluttony. Gluttony leads to social decay. And social decay destroys empires.

We refuse to allow fun-loving spenders to destroy the country we love. We demand a return our ancestors' financial virtues. Our wise Protestant ancestors did not build the greatest country on earth by buying plasma screen TVs and 24-inch rotating rims for their SUVs. Rather, they wore staid black shawls, scowled all day, worked hard in sparse shops, sang hymns, saved their nickels and had approximately two orgasms per calendar year. Those virtues reflected a commitment to both financial management and healthy living. When our ancestors died, they left behind huge sums in banks, credit bureaus, negotiable instruments and other financial protection devices. Those sums allowed their descendants to capitalize on their hard work, leading the country ever higher. In short, by suppressing enjoyment and saving money, our Protestant forebears built a mighty Nation. They did not enjoy themselves; in fact, they were mean, cold, domineering, loveless tyrants who would have rather died than spend $5.00 extra for anything.

But somehow we lost our way. Now, we want to enjoy our money as soon as we make it. We want video game consoles, huge homes, boats and designer bathrooms. We want Gucci bags, Rolex® watches and useless gold baubles. We even want Dom Peringnon champagne and $500 steak dinners. In short, we want to have a great time before we die.

We have no right to a good time before death. Our insistence on fun has wrecked this country. We have a responsibility to be disciplined. That means we must stop all spending NOW. We must tell our children: "No, you may not have another piece of cake." We must tell ourselves: "No, you may not buy that car." Put simply, we must learn to curtail our corrosive spending urges. Only then will we save this Nation from certain financial doom.

Financial virtue begins at the top. Our government must stop acting like the individual spendthrifts who created the problem in the first place. We will get nowhere by spending money on health care, welfare, the military, green energy, salaries, the postal service and various bureaus. We must halt our dependence on spending. Our Nation has become addicted to spending. We must break the addiction by simply going cold turkey on spending. From now on, our government must hold on to its money. We must learn a new paradigm: "Income good. Spending bad. Saving good." In a word, it's time to start saving, scowling and living totally unfulfilling--but financially disciplined--lives.

If you're disgusted with inefficiency in Washington, put a party in power that will return this country to solvency. If you're sick and tired of runaway spending and decadence, put a party in power that promises saving, not enjoyment. If you care about discipline, virtue and our children, you will vote for Protestant Penny Pinchers. Let us join together to teach our children that spending is evil. Let us learn together that there is joy in saving money and earning interest. We can defeat this economic slump if we commit to reforming ourselves. We can break our addiction to spending if we step back and recognize what is at stake.

We are Americans. We can do without. When we earn a dollar, we can put it straight into a piggy bank, not into a cash register at Best Buy. We can make do with less. If we care about our Nation and our children, we will do the right thing. We will stop enjoying ourselves today. We will stop spending. We can do it. As soon as we become heartless, unhappy, unrequited, coldblooded skinflints, we will know the country is safe from financial catastrophe.

President Obama, not one penny more! We are Protestant Penny-Pinchers. From today on, we refuse to spend a single cent. Saving is better than spending. Because when we save, we win.

Burn your credit card. Stay away from that mall. Ignore your children's pleas for toys. Cook your own meals. Sew your own clothing.

Get disciplined. Stop enjoying yourself. It is the only way to defeat this Depression.

YOUR ENTIRE LIFE IS AN EXTERNALITY

AN ESSAY

When I studied property law, I learned the word "externality." Before law school, I understood the word to mean what it says: "external to something else." But I soon found out that in the law, words do not always mean what they say in plain English. No, they function as shorthand for other concepts. And sometimes those concepts bear no relationship at all to the word that signifies them.

In both legal and economic terms, an "externality" refers to the effect on others when two people conduct a lawful transaction. It also refers to the effect on others when one person lawfully uses his land. To be blunt, "externalities" mean the shit everyone else has to endure because others act within their legal rights. After all, the law empowers certain people to act in more sweeping ways than others. An oil company has much more power to act in sweeping ways than some private farmer next door. And when more powerful people act within their rights, they can produce an enormous--though not intentional--effect on others' lives.

In property law, "externalities" are both obvious and subtle. As a general rule, our society holds up land ownership as a talisman. Everyone strives to own his own patch of earth to do as he wills with it. Yet by "doing what he wills" with his own land, our archetypal landowner may unintentionally injure someone else. How can this be? Well, what if he wants to open an industrial tannery on his land? He's master of his land, right? He wants to make money on his land, right? Isn't that what we're supposed to do in America, make as much money as possible from our land?

If he opens a tannery, he exercises his rights as a property owner. Yet he makes noise, produces foul odors and makes life miserable for everyone else around him. Those are externalities that flow from his lawful land use.

He's not breaking the law; he's living the American dream. Problem is, when some people live their American dream, they give people around them nightmares. That's what externalities are all about.

But I'm not writing today to put down property owners. As a cynic, I am prepared to believe that most people will use their land only to enrich themselves. If they make everyone else's life difficult in the process, they could care less. As long as they don't face a nuisance suit for using their land as they wish (ie, that would cost more money than merely continuing the objectionable land use), they will keep on using it in a way that brings in the most cash. That's American life: Cost-benefit analysis. Effects on others rarely come into the equation unless those effects would result in greater costs than benefits. Even courts subscribe to this view. They won't let a few poor neighbors complain about pollution from a nearby auto plant because the auto plant keeps people employed. Sure, the land use might be horrible--and it might make the neighbors' existence miserable--but their suffering is a "bearable cost" given the "ultimate benefits" that flow from it. Shutting down the auto plant might solve the neighbors' ills, but it would cost hundreds more their jobs. So the law lets the more powerful landowner use his land as he pleases, externalities or not. That's just the way our society values things.

But externalities do not just exist in property law. They are all over our lives. After all, we are consuming animals. There are not enough resources to go around. By living well for ourselves--even innocently--we might deny others the chance to live well. For example, if a person gets sick, he becomes an externality on everyone who must care for him. His life drags others down with it. It imposes costs. It strains emotions. By living his life, he makes it difficult for others to live theirs.

In essence, sometimes just staying alive on this planet produces a burdensome effect on others. Every time one person enjoys a meal, he eats food that will not go to someone else who needs it. Every time one person falls in love with another, he denies that person's love to someone else who wants it. Every time one person gets a job offer, someone else had to get a rejection letter. Every time a corporate board awards bonuses to its members, it reduces the available funds for employee raises. Whenever a child is born, it imposes a staggering financial, emotional and social burden on the family.

These are all perfectly lawful things to do. Yet they produce negative effects on others' lives. People don't mean to produce these effects on others. People are simply trying to survive in a world that requires consumption. But these effects are inevitable because resources are limited. When one person succeeds, another must fail. When one person relaxes, another must toil.

Yet where would we be if we constantly worried about externalities? I think we must merely accept the fact that our continued existence will impose substantial difficulty on many people, both far and wide. To some extent, we must resort to selfishness in order to feed ourselves and to secure our bodily health. This may sound bleak. But if you think about it, human bodily existence is quite bleak. There is nothing grandiose about our biological processes: We eat, excrete, grow hair, breathe, make money, buy things, strive to experience positive emotions, have sex, groom ourselves and do our best to avoid pain. These are our "goals" as living creatures. And when we fulfill them, we necessarily impose costs on others. For every goal we reach, someone else did not make it.

True, we rarely want to make others suffer by pleasing ourselves. But that is the price of survival in a world of limited resources. We must simply accept the fact that our own quest for comfort and happiness in life impacts many other people.

GEICO ADVERTISING : INSIDIOUSLY SMART

AN ESSAY

Advertising repels me because it is the language of commerce. In commercial life, private economic actors resort to virtually any means to win a profit. This leads to undignified, obfuscatory and flat-out misleading speech intended to drum up sales. But it is not entirely their fault, because we live in a free market economy. In the free market system, private actors own the manufacturing facilities and distribution channels that move goods through the economy. Government plays a regulatory role, but at bottom, economic activity in America is private. Government simply ensures that private actors do not defraud or injure each other as they bargain, buy and sell. And this is necessary, for economic actors would certainly defraud or injure each other if the law did not constrain certain actions.

In the free market, competition abounds. When private actors compete to offer particular goods and services to the public, consumers benefit because competition forces private sellers into a bidding war for the lowest cost. The competitor who offers the same goods or services for the lowest price wins. Despite this positive effect, however, private competition also induces negative behavior. After all, competition is a form of warfare. It implies that there is a prize that only one person can win, leaving the competitors to fight each other for the glory. If the prize is enticing enough, it will draw countless competitors into a bitter struggle for victory. Common experience tells us that people abandon dignity when it comes to winning a desired reward. Just watch a reality show on television to answer the question whether human beings will do anything to win a tempting prize. The same holds true in the free market. In free market economics, the “prize” is profit and dominant market share. Competitors for that “prize” will do almost anything to win it.

Consumers are the means by which free market actors achieve their goals. To win profits and market shares, commercial actors must reach out to consumers. Because competitors in the same field offer roughly the same goods and services, a determined private actor must persuade consumers to buy his goods and services, not the competitors’. Persuasion is never easy; most people know what they think about particular issues. For example, no florid rhetoric or logical feat will ever convince an abortion opponent to switch his position. But in commerce, people face relatively uncontroversial subject matter. They simply need to buy something, and numerous competitors offer the same thing. In these circumstances, persuasive speech can actually influence a listener. In commerce, speakers do not talk about lofty philosophical issues; they talk about chairs or televisions or bundles of hay. It is not grandiose. The seller who best describes his chair or television or bundle of hay will win the customer. This is the heart of advertising.

Advertising is “commercial speech.” Our Supreme Court recognized that advertising plays a vital role in the free market system in its seminal decision Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). It wrote: “Advertising, however tasteless and excessive it sometimes may be, is nonetheless dissemination of information as to who is producing and selling what product, for what reason, and at what price. So long as we preserve a predominantly free enterprise economy, the allocation of our resources will in large measure will be made through numerous private economic decisions. It is a matter of public interest that those decisions, in the aggregate, be intelligent and well informed. To this end, the free flow of commercial information is indispensable.” Id. at 765. Later in its opinion, the Court clarified that the First Amendment protects only a certain “type of information” within “commercial speech:” “[A] different degree of protection is necessary to insure that the flow of truthful and legitimate commercial information is unimpaired.” Id. 774, fn 24.

What, then, should advertising do? The Supreme Court seemed to know that advertising can be “tasteless and excessive.” It even seemed to hesitate before declaring that advertising deserves protection under the First Amendment. To avoid thorny practical problems, it took a middle course. It protected advertising only to the extent that it protects “the free flow of information” in a private enterprise economy that helps consumers make “intelligent and well informed private economic decisions.” Those “intelligent and well informed private economic decisions,” in turn, depend upon “truthful and legitimate commercial information.”

Why did the Court make these qualifications? If it accorded First Amendment protection to advertising only if it provides “truthful and legitimate” commercial information, it must have known that advertisers all too often disseminate untruthful and illegitimate information about their products. As discussed, competition in the private market is ferocious. Competitors want to win, and to win they must lure in more customers with enticing information. Advertisers do not want customers to hear bad news or facts that will turn them away from their products. If a customer hears that a product has a terrible service record and was rated “lowest in safety” in a magazine, he most likely will not buy it. But will an advertiser mention these facts? Certainly not. The Supreme Court seemed to know that advertisers are not wont to “play fair,” and it only agreed to protect their speech if they agreed only “to tell the truth” and “be fair.”

Asking advertisers to be fair is like asking the devil not to play tricks.

Fairness does not win customers in commerce. Advertising does not work when it tells the whole truth about a product. It works when it implants an idea or image in the listener’s mind. Accurate information may help the consumer make a “well informed, intelligent” economic decision. But advertisers would rather see the customer just spend his money. Whether his decision was “intelligent” makes no difference. More customers mean more sales, and more sales mean more profits. More profits advance the advertiser down the path to coveted victory in the free market competition. As we saw, victory is the ultimate goal. If inaccurate, misleading information results in more sales than accurate, truthful information, which information do you think advertisers will more likely broadcast? In a word, the Supreme Court was hopelessly naïve in concluding that advertisers will always choose the “truthful path” in advertising. The “best” advertisers stretch the truth to the furthest possible limits. In that way, they garner the most customers without technically violating the law. “It was not technically a lie,” they say, “because we printed a disclaimer on the bottom of the page that said: ‘See Store for details.’ So it was not misleading.’” Does such “arguable lying” constitute the “free flow of information” that is supposedly so important to the free market economy?

GEICO is a masterful advertiser because it understands that people do not want to hear truthful, legitimate information about goods and services. The Supreme Court thought that commercial speech was valuable because it “disseminated information” to consumers that allows them to make “intelligent, well informed private economic decisions.” But GEICO knows that such information is boring. People do not want to hear about percentages, statistics and insurance policies during commercial breaks on prime time television. GEICO sells car insurance. It is hard to imagine a more boring subject. So how do they lure in customers? Simple: They do not talk about their exhaustive insurance programs. They do not even talk about how their insurance objectively compares to their competitors. No, they show you an animated gecko who speaks in a cockney accent. Or perhaps they show you a hairy caveman who cannot get a girlfriend or board an airplane. Then, at the very end of the advertisement, they post the company logo and a phone number. A voice then quickly says: “10 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.”

What is significant about this? First, GEICO’s advertisements really provide no information. They merely stimulate the senses with memorable images. Consumers need car insurance, but they really do not care about the details. They just want to know who sells it and how much it costs. GEICO’s advertisements answer both questions. More importantly, they forge a mental link between “car insurance” and their company. In other words, when a consumer thinks “car insurance,” he thinks “gecko” or “caveman.” Then he calls GEICO. Skillful oratory and “truthful information” did not produce this result. Clever imagery and sensory appeals did. It is neither subtle nor sophisticated. Rather, GEICO advertising proceeds on an unabashed hypothesis: That consumers are completely stupid. GEICO assumes that consumers just want to see animated geckos and save money. That’s all they need to know to make “intelligent and well informed” decisions about car insurance. And they are probably right.

GEICO is shrewder than it appears at first glance. Its most recent advertising push confirms this. Now, GEICO shows completely random encounters between people and a stack of money. There is a pair of bobbly eyes on top of the stack. Then an 80s tune kicks in: Rockwell’s “I always feel like there’s someone watching me.” Narration fills in the gaps: “It (the stack of money with eyes) just knows you want to save money on your car insurance.”

As a satirist, GEICO’s brazen approach amazed me. I have always criticized commercial behavior for its fanatical fixation on money. Here, GEICO actually shares my satirical view, but seriously imputes it to consumers for its own gain. GEICO, like me, assumes that consumers are idiots who just want to make or save money. GEICO puts that view into practice on consumers. Consumers may think that these advertisements are funny. But the joke is on them. GEICO assumes that they are all dummies who just want to save a few dollars. They do not need to hear about why GEICO insurance is better than other insurance. They just need to see a funny image and hear that they will save money. It is cunningly simple. It works because GEICO is right: Consumers are dumb. And GEICO is laughing all the way to the bank.

GEICO is a “good advertiser” because it does not disseminate very much information about its product. The fact that GEICO wins praise for its advertising reveals just how little the Supreme Court knew about commercial speech. The Supreme Court assumed that consumers want to hear “truthful, legitimate” information about goods and services. GEICO, by contrast, assumes that consumers are children who just need to associate an image with a logo, then go out and buy. The Supreme Court thought that commercial speech resembles political speech in the sense that competing economic actors would truthfully debate one another to “persuade” consumers to buy their products because they are “objectively better.” GEICO, on the other hand, knows that consumers do not want to hear reasoned debates; they just want to hear a catchy tune or see a funny scenario that has nothing to do with the product. Put simply, the Supreme Court knows nothing about commercial values. Commerce does not adhere to abstract principle; it knows only expediency. It does what works, not what ancient parchments dictate.

GEICO knows what works in commerce because GEICO understands that commerce is war. GEICO cuts right to the chase with its advertising: “Here’s our logo. Here’s an image you can remember. You could save money. End.” Logic, principle and debate do not enter the analysis. In commerce, there is only one goal: To maximize profits. In the competitive free market, that means luring the most possible consumers to your product. GEICO succeeds because it does not waste time trying to persuade consumers with reasoning or “information.” It simply gives them something funny to remember and tells them they could save money. That is much more likely to motivate the average consumer than a detailed comparison between rival car insurance policy terms. GEICO wisely keeps it simple for the stupid. That is precisely what successful commerce demands.

A MESSAGE FROM THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT

By : Mr. Henry A. Pleiterman, Deputy Undersecretary of Interest Rate Management, United States Treasury, Washington, D.C.

America is descending into financial chaos. The so-called “credit crunch” is more than a mere catchphrase; it refers to a destructive cancer that has already corrupted America’s financial health. For decades, consumers could buy whatever they wanted, as long as they could show an income and make minimum monthly payments. It did not matter whether they had any real wealth. Banks lent money without a second thought. Americans thought they owned their homes, cars and stereo systems. Our Federal Reserve System played its part, slashing interest rates to record lows. Never before was so much money available. But in 2008, America awakened to the rude truth: It was all an illusion.

Markets began collapsing immediately. The New York Stock Exchange exploded like an atomic bomb, obliterating trillions in retirement savings in just a few short weeks. Small banks scurried to call in their loans, only to find that overextended borrowers could not repay them. With liabilities exceeding assets, banks folded. Business owners could not get loans to support their enterprises. Major companies, having lost billions in the stock market implosion, sounded the cost alarm by cutting thousands of jobs. Unemployment skyrocketed. In November alone, more than 533,000 people lost their jobs, just in time for the Holidays. Retailers are preparing for the driest season in history as consumers struggle to pay for their mortgages, let alone for expensive trinkets.

This is not a casual meltdown. This is a disastrous full-scale panic with no end in sight. Unless we start thinking fast, we will degenerate from a Nation of debtors to a Nation of hobos and beggars. Unless we start thinking fast, this disaster is going to drag us all into the gutter.

We need to save the economy. Earlier this year, President Bush tried his best to stem the tide by sending every American taxpayer a generous stipend totaling $640. Childrearing taxpayers received even more. Despite this, the collapse continued. More and more people lost their jobs. People stopped buying cars. People stopped buying gasoline. People stopped going on vacations. People stopped buying homes. In a word, we can no longer afford short-term solutions. We have tried every subtle economic trick in the book to clean up this mess. They all have failed. At this point, we here at the Treasury have only one thing left to say: “Fuck it. We are going to print more money.”

Let us be honest. The financial crisis would go away if everyone had enough money to pay their bills. Even General Motors says they can keep employing people if they just had $43 billion. Thus, we have only one alternative to solve this mess: We need to make more money available to everyone. Our goal is long-term economic rebirth, not small-scale crisis-dodging. To achieve that goal, we need to get to the heart of the problem: There is not enough money to go around. Before the crisis, people had plenty of money. Now they don’t. In my book, when there is a problem, you look to the times when there was not a problem to figure out a solution for today. Five years ago, America was strong because people had money. We can recapture that prosperity as long as we give people money again. If people have money, they will be able to spend money at retailers. They will be able to buy homes, cars and jewelry. This, in turn, will kickstart the economy. It will encourage private enterprise to start hiring again.

We need to stop insisting that people earn their money. Letting people earn their money from private business is what got us into this hole in the first place. Private business cannot employ people when people are not earning enough money. By the same token, people cannot support private business when they do not earn money from employment. To end this vicious cycle, we must print trillions of dollars and simply hand it out to everyone. We must not think that this is “irresponsible.” If we cling to outmoded principles such as “responsibility,” we will sink further into economic turmoil. We have tried everything else; it does not work. There is only one path left open. We must print money and give it away for free.

Our Nation depends upon private enterprise for its economic strength. But private enterprise depends upon vigorous consumer activity to support healthy profits for entrepreneurs. The risk inherent in this system is self-evident: When people stop consuming, the entire structure buckles. Without a constant stream of cash, private enterprise cannot afford to pay employees. And when people lose jobs, they can no longer afford to keep cash moving through the system. In happier times, private enterprise had plenty of money to pay employees, lend money, extend credit and help Americans lead fulfilling lives. Now, the gears have jammed. We must lubricate them with some cash grease. We must adjust our thinking. We must forget about “stipends” and start putting real money in people’s pockets. After all, what can an average person really do with $640? Rent in New York City is $3000 per month for a studio apartment. For a one-bedroom apartment, rent costs $4400 per month. Health insurance for a private individual costs up to $1000 per month. How can we blame an overstretched consumer for responding: “I wipe my ass with $640.” If government truly wants to make a difference in people’s economic lives, it must give them amounts that can actually pay for something.

We can overcome these challenging times if we work together for solutions that will make a difference. To do that, we must not be afraid to give away money. Money caused this problem and money will fix it. People constantly complain about money. They don’t have enough. They need more money to pay their bills. Countless Americans say: “I just want enough money to pay my bills.” That begs an easy solution, provided we are bold enough to undertake it: PRINT MONEY AND GIVE IT AWAY. Let us establish a Federal Bureau through which every American can request all the money they need each month for their expenses. The Treasury has plenty of printing presses to churn out $100 bills all day and night. Americans can do anything they decide to do. If we work together, we can print all the money we need to pay our expenses.

When every American can pay his bills, imagine how much happiness we will bring. Americans will be free from worry; they will be able to feed their children. They will sleep soundly at night. They will be able to heat their homes and buy groceries. They will even be able to pay rent. At the same time, private enterprise will benefit because there is nothing more economically lucrative than an American with money to spend. Americans will pour their money into all kinds of businesses, swelling profits and spurring capital growth. Once profits reach suitable levels, private enterprise will begin hiring again. We stand at a precipice. We can reverse this crisis now. We must merely overcome our own sense of convention and print trillions of dollars.

Naysayers will doubtlessly claim that no one gets a free lunch. They will balk at the idea that everyone—including lazy sluggards, oafs and layabouts—will be able to get all the money they need to pay their way in life. They will say that Americans need to know the value of a dollar. They will say it is dangerous to undermine traditional notions of responsibility in economic life. But these criticisms miss the point: When Americans have money, they will spend it. And when Americans spend money, private enterprise ultimately wins. The same critics who praise individual financial responsibility are also the people who run private enterprise. If they merely took a step back and considered the benefits they will gain from giving free money to consumers, they would see that they are the real winners. All that money will wind up in their hands. Who cares whether “irresponsible” people spent it? We venture this to our critics: The important thing is that you get the money, not where the money came from.

Financial crises strike when there is not enough money to go around. By printing copious amounts of money, we will solve the problem. In 2008, the well ran dry. Now we feel the pinch. We will continue to feel the pinch until we put water back in the well. The bailout plan partially addresses the problem, but it will not bring us lasting economic strength. The bailout plan is flawed because it demands that consumers and private enterprise “act responsibly” with the money it supplies. Worse, it only supplies a finite amount: $700 billion. What good is it to splash a bucket of water into a well? People will always need water; and they will quickly use up a mere bucketful. We must provide a constant water supply, not just a bucket here and there. There is only one way to do this: PRINT MONEY AND GIVE IT AWAY. The bailout plan will fail as soon as the $700 billion runs out. American consumption must continue unabated. To do that, we must feed it money—all the time.

In sum, let us join together and stop this disaster before it claims more jobs and more prosperity. It is time to make genuine changes to our financial habits in order to accommodate the unique nature of our free enterprise system. Money must be available to everyone, all the time. Without constant spending and lending, our system will grind to an ignoble halt. Here at the Treasury Department, we are determined to avoid that fate. Join us in our efforts to end the financial crisis. Consumers, stop by soon to pick up all the money you need to keep consuming. Employers, stop by soon to pick up all the money you need to keep hiring. Manufacturers, stop by soon to pick up all the money you need to keep building cars. Banks, stop by soon to pick up all the money you need to keep underwriting mortgage loans and car notes. Our presses are running. We’ll be waiting for you.

It’s almost Christmas. Let’s start spending like it.