Between Heaven and Hell

That's more or less the definition of limbo, as a theological term, although it has long entered the world of ordinary speak. As in the current crisis on Wall Street in the United States, and the status of President George W. Bush's bail-out package for its financial sector. Limbo, that's where it is. And here the markets thought, soon as they heard the proposal, it was a done deal, and didn't they pick up at that news. Pity the big money investors on Wall Street, all is doom and gloom.

Should Congress pass the bill that the White House has placed before them, America's banks and lending institutions can get on with life, become rescuscitated, reassert their dominance, and everything will once again click into place. Some pain, much gain. For them, in any event. For the ordinary person on the street, all those people who have, or will, lose their homes, their belongings, lose employment, find themselves with nothing to sustain themselves - well, there's always hope.

After the initial shock of the losses, the collapse of the U.S. financial market, when the G-7 hastened to assure their big-brother partner that their thoughts were with them - as how couldn't they be, since Europe, Japan and Canada will most certainly feel a lot of the pain imposed upon them by their intermingling of financial services with the U.S. - some have had second thoughts.

Blame is beginning to trickle in from some G-7 countries, most of whom are mute, but some, like Germany's finance minister have called Washington "irresponsible"; by its efforts to resolve the crisis through government buy-up of worthless securities, exacerbating the crisis. The G-7 would far prefer the expedience of enacting tougher and tighter financial regulation for future stability. Sensible, no?

As it is, the current collapse exemplifies what neglect has wrought in world money markets, following the example of the United States. The U.S. was of course, the leader in that market, the respected, trusted leader. The very exemplar of the free market system, capitalism writ large. And although there's no such thing as a free lunch everyone seemed to be dining out for free, and reaping huge benefits that have suddenly dissolved.

The bipartisan and bicameral meeting with members of Congress and the White House in Washington was a handy bit of theatre, some necessary showmanship to assist a flailing Republican presidential campaign. To which Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats willingly lent themselves. Manipulation goes both ways. Senator Obama and Nancy Pelosi appear ready to sign on to the bail-out. Senator Obama quoted as feeling "things were moving forward".

While the traditional wing of the Republican Party and more particularly, Senator McCain are not so ready. He has stoutly withheld endorsement of the agreement. There are, he said, "legitimate concerns". The Republican candidate hesitant to buy in to the bailout; the Democratic candidate ready, along with his party heavies, to do just that. Now who looks better to the electorate?

And how's that for a cleverly manipulated turn-about? How's that for expressing value and responsibility to the electorate? Well, Main Street doesn't think much of it actually, and while resenting the very notion that tax money will save the banks and leave the suddenly materially-unendowed with memories of what they once had, may recall before casting their vote that it was a Republican administration that brought them this disaster.

On the other hand, would the Democrats have acted any differently? All that steamy rhetoric about representing the ordinary people, of taxing the wealthy in a country and an economy with an ever-increasing divide between the rich and the poor guaranteeing exactly what? What monetary policy guidelines separate each from the other? The free market is enshrined in the American system.

"Our Hard-Earned Pensions Are Not Up For Grabs", neatly expresses the outrage of unions. "The Bush administration wants us to pay the freight for a Wall Street bailout that does not even begin to address the roots of our crisis", claims AFL-CIO national president John Sweeney. He would know, of course. Unions are so uncompromisingly out for the little guy on Main Street, dammit. But they don't make law.

How could he doubt his president who claimed sensitivity in the knowledge - in a national address on television - that what would impact Wall Street would harm Main Street? And that he, personally, as president of the great United States of America was equally concerned about Main Street as he was about Wall Street. Mind, President Bush is a Wall Streeter himself, and has little idea of the struggles of Main Street, but his heart is there.

The German finance minister warns of an opening rift between the G-7 ministries that would resonate for years to come in international economic relations. Things will never be the same again. Some are far more sanguine. Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney considers the impending rescue effort to be "bold and timely", required to bring an end to the global credit crisis. Isn't he a one? Actually, he's a former senior executive with Goldman Sachs.

Perhaps Senator Dodd, a Democrat and head of the Senate Banking Committee had it right on when he described the failed meeting as a "rescue plan for John McCain", which took lawmakers away from their business for two useless hours of public relations and flashing news cameras.