OK, so I am not much of a political expert or an economics expert either. The knowledge that I have mostly came from this site. So with that said I have to question something I heard on the news yesterday that, to me, has both good points and bad.
According to a foxnews.com article Wells Fargo had plans to send some of their employees and a, what they called, traditional all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas for 12 days. Wells Fargo recently acquired Citigroup, one of the banks that received billions from the first Stimulus Package which basically puts Wells Fargo under the federally bailed out banks unbrella. Once the story was out about this expensive trip, lawmakers grilled Wells Fargo for planning this trip considering the problems with the economy and at this time I haven't confirmed but I thought I saw another article that said Wells Fargo received bailout money. Can't verify this yet and am also not sure if Wachovia, acquired by Wells Fargo, received Federal bailout money as well.
Now, I can understand the whole grilling thing. I mean in a time where the economy is not fairing very well, where many banks are getting taxpayers money which most Americans do not approve of and on top of that banks are not lending money; I can see why anyone would question things such as the recent story about the $50 million jetplane for Citigroup, the AIG executives who went to resorts, spa's huntinng trips, etc and now this Las Vegas trip from Wells Fargo. But at the same time we have stories on the news how due to the economic issues, the loss of jobs, the lower wages and high prices at the stores that people are not spending as much money as before. That people are actually saving money as oppose to spending and that this is actually affecting our economy as well. If people don't spend, vendor to make money, if vendors don't make money they make have to fire employee and/or go out of business, the more people we have on unemployment, the worse it is for our economy. This domino effect is not good for us.
So I have to ask, should we be making a big deal on how the banks are spending money considering we actually need some spending to be done? I mean, sure we could argue that some of the things the money is being spent on are luxuries they don't need to be spending money on but I think we need to keep in mind that luxuries require people to make them and provide them so this also helps keep people from losing jobs and companies from going under.
We are in a situation where we need to try to help the people who currently have jobs to keep them. But what about people who work in luxurious hotels, car dealers that sell Jaguar, Ferraris, Porches and Rolls Royce, those who work in really expensive restaurants, funiture stores, casinos and any other type of business that depends usually on rich people to spend money so they can make money? Every time someone buys something that doesn't seem like an expense that should be done during this bad economy, they get scolded. But what about those who depend on thes expenses to make a living as well? How do we save jobs while criticizing people for spending at the same time?
Right now I find myself in a similar situation, where I am debating whether to treat myself to a "want" or save the money in case of an emergency (such as job loss). But if I don't spend someone could lose their job because of me and many others who chose not to spend. If I do, I risk getting scolded by friends and coworkers and maybe regret it if I lose my job.
How do we fix the economy while saving money at the same time? I would like some serious reponses to this question. I think it's something we all need to find an answer to.