I don't know who has verified it but the history of the IMF, World bank at least was to let 3rd world countries get into massive debt and then come in and demand they remove all of their social safety nets, labor standards, etc. privatize a bunch of things too....in order to be "helped".
While I don't recommend that Economic Hitman book by Perkins (as if he was unaware of what he was doing up until the very end and now works for further compensation, etc.) the person who really did the great, and much preferred, work and interviews on that was Greg Palast. He really nailed it.
The most revealing item about the IMF is their establishment, by way of a third party orgnization, of Financial Intelligence Units at the various offshore finance centers, to track money laundering, which, DUUUUHHH, is what those OFCs are all about.
I would claim it's all U.S. citizens, additional LPR (green cards or legal permanent residents), from the janitor who might be a union member, to the factory worker who also might be a union member to public services (fire, police, teacher) who probably are union members to techies, who probably are not union members to middle management who most assuredly are not union members because the laws do not allow them to join (which is a huge problem).
So, one might also put it to mean the economic range from the working poor to the $250k+ salary people and most assuredly small business owners.
Everybody who isn't in the "executive class" or "uber rich" is working America.
You could also define it from the BLS population survey of the U.S. labor force numbers.
Although I disagree somewhat with your stats as I believe when one drills down further, as in the ownership of banks who own those mortgages, etc., it is more akin to the top 1% actually owning 90% of the assets and real wealth in America, but why quibble?
This made me remember a friend from long ago in the military, who's old boyhood chum was researching and tracking the ownership of all the businesses in his town of 50,000 population as his master's thesis in business admin.
This fellow, a hardcore capitalist, was really shocked to find that at the very end of his research, one family ended up owning, by way of the banks, holding companies, and other financial configurations, all the businesses in his town. Boy, was his Ayn Randian existence turned upside down!
I always see this and I have my hazy picture of working America but who is working America?
Is only someone doing physical labor a working American?
Is the car salesman a working American?
Is the admin assistant a working American?
How about the doctor, the nurse?
The insurance salesman, the book keeper, the guitar player on stage?
Outside of the people that are born into the Trust baby class such as a Rockefeller, a Kennedy and others, are we, the people that get up each morning and toil at their given profession, are we not all the working American?
The problem I see with a populist view is that those with the view have their defined view of a working American. Often I get the feeling that their view of the working American is just a synonym for Union worker which, may very well be the antithesis of the broader view of The American Worker.
I know people that have businesses that some years(they can have multiple years in a row) they make crap money, they almost live hand to mouth. Then they get the good year, the year they need to save and store for the lean years. In the good year, the time of storage, a populist may want to take a greater share of taxation. A populist wouldn't consider the individual business cycle, the populist could / would take too much from what is needed for the savings for the lean years. This is true for people that sell to a niche market , a large equipment sales person, etc.
If person A makes $60,000 a year he will pay 30% a year in taxes. In 5 years they make $300,000 or $90,000 in taxes. If person B makes that big sale in one year, the $250,000 sale, the one that must last through the lean years, why should the populist take 45%? They would pay $112,500 in taxes in one year. Person B might only make $300,000 in total over 5 years but he would pay more out in taxes.
There are plenty of people that have large swings in their income cycle. Why would a populist want to take a bigger share just because they have large swings in income?
I would imagine a lot of people working in Hollywood have large swings. Heck there are some that make one hit wonders and then never appear again. They make that $500,000 that must last a lifetime because they never again get a job in Hollywood. Why should the government take half of their money in taxes? Hm? I'm not a fan of Hollywood but ya get the example.
These are just some of the problems I have with the populist label. I didn't get much sleep last night so I hope I made clear in print what is in my head.
Now I'm going back to listen to my new CD of Neil Young's Greatest Hits. Where's my guitar?
Yes I think the will of the people needs to override these politicians and more importantly these globalist financial international multinational corporate "entities".... especially the money, the economy....
Working America or Americans is the common good....restated, the national economic interest.
The site is also trying to get more people aware of, learn about, self-teach, all things $$ (econ) because currently the masses (esp. bloggers with graduate degrees) get brain fuzz fog when anything appears with numbers in it...and while Joe Q. Public is in a coma, after being hypnotized with graphs and numbers.....the big theft occurs.
Ya know like Hank Paulson and Ben....the money markets went negative....so OMG there is a CRISIS, so we must have $800 billion dollars right now with NO STRINGS ATTACHED....
there were some crisis things happening but the Fed by guaranteeing the money market funds to me stopped quite a bit right there....
and that didn't entail getting $800 billion dollars with no strings attached from Congress.
Yet, since then it has been proclaimed over and over again TARP was necessary. Really? To me, all that has happened is banks just went back to gambling with U.S. taxpayer money and the entire real estate crisis was kicked down the road and onto the Fed's balance sheet from private financial institutions, but that "crisis" sure looks alive and kicking, simply moved to different locations.
Maybe a site poll on
what does populist mean to you?
1. both parties are screwed
2. i'm made as hell and am not going to take it anymore
3. the globe is run by criminals
or maybe
People pay attention to the facts, politicians pay attention to the money
Well, there is the "never let a crisis go to waste" and the more CT view of "create a crisis as a diversion".
My real question on these debt to GDP ratios is how much of it is propping up our new glorified organized crime gang known as the global financial sector.
I don't know who has verified it but the history of the IMF, World bank at least was to let 3rd world countries get into massive debt and then come in and demand they remove all of their social safety nets, labor standards, etc. privatize a bunch of things too....in order to be "helped".
and it sure looks like that's what they are after in Greece, but I have not personally analyzed it.
I will note that Societe Generale generated a doomsday report earlier this year which mentioned sovereign defaults and it was for internal investors.
So, they might have a host of bets on black square doomsday in the structured finance, derivatives roulette wheel for all I know.
Also, currency has it's own CDS and derivatives....
place yer bets! S.G. was the big winner in the 100% AIG CDS payout and before that, they had a rogue trader and were suffering major losses, partly due to that.
I mean this is just insane to have all of these derivatives not even touched, just no reforms, regulations....
so I have no idea, but beyond the derivatives global Gambling casino of these various financial "entities" ...
ya know, can they influence a collapse of a nation or a currency with so few players and a $65 trillion derivatives market?
So the real question is the actual debt, what it's from, how much of this is the "real" economy, i.e. poor management and what's the projection...
I don't know what to believe, it's bad enough digging through the dirt in the U.S. economy/finance sector, or should I say chicken scratches on the top of the shit pile.
I was just going to post a disclaimer that the critique part of the piece wasn't a snark at this site but then it occurred to me, you folks know your're not William Jennings Bryan or Huey P. Long;)
I totally agree on freeing the term populist for the benefit of the people. Here's a very funny response to this article on The Agonist:
If it's just resentment based, then any pol can co-opt and misuse the term. If populism, as the accurate assessment of the political equation, is matched with the fundamental principals of social justice or simply "the greatest good," then it's a strong vehicle -- the people prevail over the powerful for the common good -- that's what I'm trying to get at. Does that fit in with what you're saying? I think so but I'm trying not to be presumptuous..
I agree with the fundamental point you mentioned - vote in the interests of those who elected you and all others that you represent. It is a measure of our problems that we have to make this point but it's necessary.
The first bailout produced more calls, emails and faxes than any bill in memory. Anti bailout sentiment ran 30 to 1 in some cases but was overwhelmingly negative on the bill across the board. What did that get the voters - a 238 to 205 (approx) defeat of the bill. Days later, it was approved after both presidential candidates showed up and supported it. Public sentiment had not changed and, as for as the candidates, they were the only choices. What does it take to get Congress to respond to the people. They knew this protest was spontaneous, yet they ignored it, even though it was overwhelming. That's a huge problem.
The Fire Dog Lake - Tea Bagger dialog is interesting. I can't imagine their economic proposals. This level of contact is good, however, since it overcomes the cultural divide between liberals and those on the right who share views. Divide and conquer is the means of maitaining the status quo. There was a chance for this type of unity after Obama got elected had he honored the "constitutionalist" constituency which is the right and left. He didn't and that chance was lost.
This is an excellent and concise presentation. I have to wonder, who benefits from the doomsday scenario. Do you think it might be politically motivated?
One of the reasons I co-opted the name is to redefine the term. I believe today's Populism are the sane policies that are for the national interest and working America, on the economic front.
But this is a long overdue post because I don't think too many know the political U.S. history of the term.
It's pretty clear they have never lived abroad or even studied in depth their overall economies. I think the focus is just markets and they are looking for those quick gains.
I agree, Europe quality of life, middle class, labor, employment is so much better than the U.S.
Don't mean to ignore you, so here's the generalized framework:
The creator of those credit derivatives aimed at the S&L recovery and utilized by RTC (wish I could recall that fellow's name);
Next, around the early '90s, probably 1993, the Group of Thirty notes some movement in the credit derivatives markets and contacts JP Morgan about their probity.
They communicate back to them, and the G30 releases a report advocating for the use of credit derivatives, but suggesting that "legal risk" should be removed in this arena.
Next, JPMorgan Chase comes out with a report, titled: Glass-Steagall: Overdue for Repeal.
Then, to get rid of "legal risk," the Derivatives Research Group forms, made up of the usual suspects, and lobbies congress to pass legislation removing said legal risk.
Next, we have that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act) passed after several tries, followed by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, thereby removing legal risk and oversight.
Yeah, this hype at 0hedge and elsewhere is indicative of a lack of knowledge of the overall EuroUnion. Their small businesses are doing much better, and generating more employment than in America, Mirkel in Germany has reined in the leveraged buyout spree by the international private equity firms, changing their tax laws their to preempt them (ditto for Denmark in that regard).
Nope, there appears to be a bear run taking place on Greece (a la Lehman Bros., WAMU and Bear Stearns, etc.).
Their CDS exposure displays all. And Goldman Sachs, as always, figures in.
Sorry, but I'm deeply immersed and in the middle of the causal factors tied to the quick rise in healthcare insurance costs at the moment.
And the big problem with your constructive suggestion is finding any valid and verifiable information regarding the interactions between the S&L bailouts and credit derivatives, other than it's creator's remarks on the matter. (Which was why I made mention of the increase in social security taxes regardint this.)
The euro was introduced in 1999, the high-water mark of neo-liberal economics. As such, its institutional design embeds neo-liberal monetary theory which in many regards rests on the same economic principles as the gold standard. These principles are that fiscal policy is ineffective; inflation is caused exclusively by money supply growth; and the real economy quickly and automatically returns to full employment in response to negative shocks.
All three principles have been fundamentally discredited by the current recession. Around the world, countries have turned to fiscal policy to offset the collapse of private sector spending, and the recession would have been far deeper absent that fiscal response. Money supplies have risen dramatically almost everywhere without matching increases in inflation, showing that the money - inflation link is highly contingent upon economic factors such as unemployment, capacity utilisation, commodity prices, and business expectations of profits. Finally, rather than rebounding to full employment, the global economy looks set for high unemployment that will last years. This possibility was Keynes’ message in his 1936 General Theory.
I see this all over the place, on the economics blogs. You will see some great research, writings on say the financial bail out...then the same person will turn around and write some religious doctrine on labor arbitrage, claiming how it's the way to go, or in spite of all of the evidence that the U.S. trade deficit is a major problem....try to claim that's good and means economic growth.
Same true with some on deficits. Not all spending is equal and wasteful spending or corporate welfare spending isn't the same animal as investment spending or demand driven temporary stimulative spending.
Kind of amazing the economic blinders on people who look at this stuff every day.
Yet another reason to focus on the numbers, on the theory itself and the stats.
But....ignoring that agenda to ruin more working populations and turn the world back into a pool of glorified serfs.....these GDP to debt ratios are really friggin' scary!
So, I guess we need to dig around into these ratios and discover just how much of it is financial oligarchy prop-up, giveaway.
Another post would be how much of Medicare/Medicaid is waste and it should be/could be eliminated since those 2 plus SS are the deficit propaganda du jour.
Neoliberal policies crash the entire global financial system which cause these massive deficits and more "trickle down" bullshit - save the top and financial conglomerates and everything will be OK.
Zero Hedge and the rest of the gold bug, monetarists can take a flying leap because they don't know jack shit about Keynesian economics.
True Keynesian economics would have called for more principal reductions, loan write-offs and more economic stimulus going to those who can use it - not the upper income/financial oligarchy. But no, what we got was bailout the financial oligarchy - nothing Keynesian about that.
Wow, that's the first I've read on that. Talk about a great post, to put up the details on what exactly happened there and how that all worked! I seriously have never seen any mention on that at all...(hint, hint, you should answer this with a blog post detailing it, seriously, such a post would be a "reader winner", I'm sure of it).
more it's been the RTC worked just great and was touted often as a better alternative to this financial oligarchy pig fest that they did.
That exception being the Resolution Trust Corp. was based upon a new concept known as credit derivatives.
Now, that fellow who "invented" those claim that they were paramount in clearing up the S&L meltdown and corruption mess, but I have two problems with that.
Problem number one: Reagan doubled the social security tax, and began moving some of those funds toward the resolution of that mess (the other funds being used to take up the slack in the budget when the legislation for the tax cuts for the super-rich passed).
Problem number two: There's never been any real, hard data to demonstrate that those credit derivatives actually functioned as claimed. Those S&L's actually had real assets on their books, so eventually there was value regained.
Whereas, today, those credit derivatives and various multiples based upon those derivatives, have little or no actual value; other than earning billions for those who peddled them.
Until someone comes up with another clever scam enough rubes will fall for, it appears to be decades of deleveraging ahead.
So amusing anyone in their right mind would think Feinstein is a Progressive, more evidence on how the term is used as political soup when convenient.
Well, that's one of the reasons EP exists so we can get people learning and talking about the real facts, real data, real details.
I literally cannot watch more cable talking heads. Hardball has to be the worse. If it's empty and trivial, you can bet it will be beaten into the ground during the 24 hr "chant mantra" news cycle which seems to have almost an agenda to try to divert people to meaningless terms and phrases and then pound on the empty trivial political event du jour.
So, ok, CNBC has 220k viewers per day. How do we grow EP to get 220k participants a day? That's the real question. How do we get people to turn to discussing real statistics, events and get their facts on straight instead of watching idiots like Glenn Beck?
He really irritates me because he takes some factoids, even gets some real economists and people on the show....
then somehow spins that to embrace yet another corporate agenda....i.e. kill health care reform, social safety nets are bad, "free" markets with zero regulation are "good" and so on.
The guy is scary because he can spin facts to try to endorse yet some pre-written corporate lobbyist agenda shopping list.
While I don't recommend that Economic Hitman book by Perkins (as if he was unaware of what he was doing up until the very end and now works for further compensation, etc.) the person who really did the great, and much preferred, work and interviews on that was Greg Palast. He really nailed it.
The most revealing item about the IMF is their establishment, by way of a third party orgnization, of Financial Intelligence Units at the various offshore finance centers, to track money laundering, which, DUUUUHHH, is what those OFCs are all about.
Kind of self-evident, that one?
I would claim it's all U.S. citizens, additional LPR (green cards or legal permanent residents), from the janitor who might be a union member, to the factory worker who also might be a union member to public services (fire, police, teacher) who probably are union members to techies, who probably are not union members to middle management who most assuredly are not union members because the laws do not allow them to join (which is a huge problem).
So, one might also put it to mean the economic range from the working poor to the $250k+ salary people and most assuredly small business owners.
Everybody who isn't in the "executive class" or "uber rich" is working America.
You could also define it from the BLS population survey of the U.S. labor force numbers.
Although I disagree somewhat with your stats as I believe when one drills down further, as in the ownership of banks who own those mortgages, etc., it is more akin to the top 1% actually owning 90% of the assets and real wealth in America, but why quibble?
This made me remember a friend from long ago in the military, who's old boyhood chum was researching and tracking the ownership of all the businesses in his town of 50,000 population as his master's thesis in business admin.
This fellow, a hardcore capitalist, was really shocked to find that at the very end of his research, one family ended up owning, by way of the banks, holding companies, and other financial configurations, all the businesses in his town. Boy, was his Ayn Randian existence turned upside down!
Eugene Debs, now there was a Real American!
Thanks again.
I always see this and I have my hazy picture of working America but who is working America?
Is only someone doing physical labor a working American?
Is the car salesman a working American?
Is the admin assistant a working American?
How about the doctor, the nurse?
The insurance salesman, the book keeper, the guitar player on stage?
Outside of the people that are born into the Trust baby class such as a Rockefeller, a Kennedy and others, are we, the people that get up each morning and toil at their given profession, are we not all the working American?
The problem I see with a populist view is that those with the view have their defined view of a working American. Often I get the feeling that their view of the working American is just a synonym for Union worker which, may very well be the antithesis of the broader view of The American Worker.
I know people that have businesses that some years(they can have multiple years in a row) they make crap money, they almost live hand to mouth. Then they get the good year, the year they need to save and store for the lean years. In the good year, the time of storage, a populist may want to take a greater share of taxation. A populist wouldn't consider the individual business cycle, the populist could / would take too much from what is needed for the savings for the lean years. This is true for people that sell to a niche market , a large equipment sales person, etc.
If person A makes $60,000 a year he will pay 30% a year in taxes. In 5 years they make $300,000 or $90,000 in taxes. If person B makes that big sale in one year, the $250,000 sale, the one that must last through the lean years, why should the populist take 45%? They would pay $112,500 in taxes in one year. Person B might only make $300,000 in total over 5 years but he would pay more out in taxes.
There are plenty of people that have large swings in their income cycle. Why would a populist want to take a bigger share just because they have large swings in income?
I would imagine a lot of people working in Hollywood have large swings. Heck there are some that make one hit wonders and then never appear again. They make that $500,000 that must last a lifetime because they never again get a job in Hollywood. Why should the government take half of their money in taxes? Hm? I'm not a fan of Hollywood but ya get the example.
These are just some of the problems I have with the populist label. I didn't get much sleep last night so I hope I made clear in print what is in my head.
Now I'm going back to listen to my new CD of Neil Young's Greatest Hits. Where's my guitar?
Yes I think the will of the people needs to override these politicians and more importantly these globalist financial international multinational corporate "entities".... especially the money, the economy....
Working America or Americans is the common good....restated, the national economic interest.
The site is also trying to get more people aware of, learn about, self-teach, all things $$ (econ) because currently the masses (esp. bloggers with graduate degrees) get brain fuzz fog when anything appears with numbers in it...and while Joe Q. Public is in a coma, after being hypnotized with graphs and numbers.....the big theft occurs.
Ya know like Hank Paulson and Ben....the money markets went negative....so OMG there is a CRISIS, so we must have $800 billion dollars right now with NO STRINGS ATTACHED....
there were some crisis things happening but the Fed by guaranteeing the money market funds to me stopped quite a bit right there....
and that didn't entail getting $800 billion dollars with no strings attached from Congress.
Yet, since then it has been proclaimed over and over again TARP was necessary. Really? To me, all that has happened is banks just went back to gambling with U.S. taxpayer money and the entire real estate crisis was kicked down the road and onto the Fed's balance sheet from private financial institutions, but that "crisis" sure looks alive and kicking, simply moved to different locations.
Maybe a site poll on
what does populist mean to you?
1. both parties are screwed
2. i'm made as hell and am not going to take it anymore
3. the globe is run by criminals
or maybe
People pay attention to the facts, politicians pay attention to the money
I'll do a poll if people want one.
Well, there is the "never let a crisis go to waste" and the more CT view of "create a crisis as a diversion".
My real question on these debt to GDP ratios is how much of it is propping up our new glorified organized crime gang known as the global financial sector.
I don't know who has verified it but the history of the IMF, World bank at least was to let 3rd world countries get into massive debt and then come in and demand they remove all of their social safety nets, labor standards, etc. privatize a bunch of things too....in order to be "helped".
and it sure looks like that's what they are after in Greece, but I have not personally analyzed it.
I will note that Societe Generale generated a doomsday report earlier this year which mentioned sovereign defaults and it was for internal investors.
So, they might have a host of bets on black square doomsday in the structured finance, derivatives roulette wheel for all I know.
Also, currency has it's own CDS and derivatives....
place yer bets! S.G. was the big winner in the 100% AIG CDS payout and before that, they had a rogue trader and were suffering major losses, partly due to that.
I mean this is just insane to have all of these derivatives not even touched, just no reforms, regulations....
so I have no idea, but beyond the derivatives global Gambling casino of these various financial "entities" ...
ya know, can they influence a collapse of a nation or a currency with so few players and a $65 trillion derivatives market?
So the real question is the actual debt, what it's from, how much of this is the "real" economy, i.e. poor management and what's the projection...
I don't know what to believe, it's bad enough digging through the dirt in the U.S. economy/finance sector, or should I say chicken scratches on the top of the shit pile.
I was just going to post a disclaimer that the critique part of the piece wasn't a snark at this site but then it occurred to me, you folks know your're not William Jennings Bryan or Huey P. Long;)
I totally agree on freeing the term populist for the benefit of the people. Here's a very funny response to this article on The Agonist:
----------------
Populists think the system is fine, but that the people at the top are swine.
Sunnstein is the new Godwin
I agree with the fundamental point you mentioned - vote in the interests of those who elected you and all others that you represent. It is a measure of our problems that we have to make this point but it's necessary.
The first bailout produced more calls, emails and faxes than any bill in memory. Anti bailout sentiment ran 30 to 1 in some cases but was overwhelmingly negative on the bill across the board. What did that get the voters - a 238 to 205 (approx) defeat of the bill. Days later, it was approved after both presidential candidates showed up and supported it. Public sentiment had not changed and, as for as the candidates, they were the only choices. What does it take to get Congress to respond to the people. They knew this protest was spontaneous, yet they ignored it, even though it was overwhelming. That's a huge problem.
The Fire Dog Lake - Tea Bagger dialog is interesting. I can't imagine their economic proposals. This level of contact is good, however, since it overcomes the cultural divide between liberals and those on the right who share views. Divide and conquer is the means of maitaining the status quo. There was a chance for this type of unity after Obama got elected had he honored the "constitutionalist" constituency which is the right and left. He didn't and that chance was lost.
This is an excellent and concise presentation. I have to wonder, who benefits from the doomsday scenario. Do you think it might be politically motivated?
One of the reasons I co-opted the name is to redefine the term. I believe today's Populism are the sane policies that are for the national interest and working America, on the economic front.
But this is a long overdue post because I don't think too many know the political U.S. history of the term.
Thanks and good work.
It's pretty clear they have never lived abroad or even studied in depth their overall economies. I think the focus is just markets and they are looking for those quick gains.
I agree, Europe quality of life, middle class, labor, employment is so much better than the U.S.
Don't mean to ignore you, so here's the generalized framework:
The creator of those credit derivatives aimed at the S&L recovery and utilized by RTC (wish I could recall that fellow's name);
Next, around the early '90s, probably 1993, the Group of Thirty notes some movement in the credit derivatives markets and contacts JP Morgan about their probity.
They communicate back to them, and the G30 releases a report advocating for the use of credit derivatives, but suggesting that "legal risk" should be removed in this arena.
Next, JPMorgan Chase comes out with a report, titled: Glass-Steagall: Overdue for Repeal.
Then, to get rid of "legal risk," the Derivatives Research Group forms, made up of the usual suspects, and lobbies congress to pass legislation removing said legal risk.
Next, we have that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act) passed after several tries, followed by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, thereby removing legal risk and oversight.
Meltdown to follow.....
Yeah, this hype at 0hedge and elsewhere is indicative of a lack of knowledge of the overall EuroUnion. Their small businesses are doing much better, and generating more employment than in America, Mirkel in Germany has reined in the leveraged buyout spree by the international private equity firms, changing their tax laws their to preempt them (ditto for Denmark in that regard).
Nope, there appears to be a bear run taking place on Greece (a la Lehman Bros., WAMU and Bear Stearns, etc.).
Their CDS exposure displays all. And Goldman Sachs, as always, figures in.
Sorry, but I'm deeply immersed and in the middle of the causal factors tied to the quick rise in healthcare insurance costs at the moment.
And the big problem with your constructive suggestion is finding any valid and verifiable information regarding the interactions between the S&L bailouts and credit derivatives, other than it's creator's remarks on the matter. (Which was why I made mention of the increase in social security taxes regardint this.)
Euroland is being crucified upon its cross of gold
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I see this all over the place, on the economics blogs. You will see some great research, writings on say the financial bail out...then the same person will turn around and write some religious doctrine on labor arbitrage, claiming how it's the way to go, or in spite of all of the evidence that the U.S. trade deficit is a major problem....try to claim that's good and means economic growth.
Same true with some on deficits. Not all spending is equal and wasteful spending or corporate welfare spending isn't the same animal as investment spending or demand driven temporary stimulative spending.
Kind of amazing the economic blinders on people who look at this stuff every day.
Yet another reason to focus on the numbers, on the theory itself and the stats.
But....ignoring that agenda to ruin more working populations and turn the world back into a pool of glorified serfs.....these GDP to debt ratios are really friggin' scary!
So, I guess we need to dig around into these ratios and discover just how much of it is financial oligarchy prop-up, giveaway.
Another post would be how much of Medicare/Medicaid is waste and it should be/could be eliminated since those 2 plus SS are the deficit propaganda du jour.
Neoliberal policies crash the entire global financial system which cause these massive deficits and more "trickle down" bullshit - save the top and financial conglomerates and everything will be OK.
Zero Hedge and the rest of the gold bug, monetarists can take a flying leap because they don't know jack shit about Keynesian economics.
True Keynesian economics would have called for more principal reductions, loan write-offs and more economic stimulus going to those who can use it - not the upper income/financial oligarchy. But no, what we got was bailout the financial oligarchy - nothing Keynesian about that.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Wow, that's the first I've read on that. Talk about a great post, to put up the details on what exactly happened there and how that all worked! I seriously have never seen any mention on that at all...(hint, hint, you should answer this with a blog post detailing it, seriously, such a post would be a "reader winner", I'm sure of it).
more it's been the RTC worked just great and was touted often as a better alternative to this financial oligarchy pig fest that they did.
That exception being the Resolution Trust Corp. was based upon a new concept known as credit derivatives.
Now, that fellow who "invented" those claim that they were paramount in clearing up the S&L meltdown and corruption mess, but I have two problems with that.
Problem number one: Reagan doubled the social security tax, and began moving some of those funds toward the resolution of that mess (the other funds being used to take up the slack in the budget when the legislation for the tax cuts for the super-rich passed).
Problem number two: There's never been any real, hard data to demonstrate that those credit derivatives actually functioned as claimed. Those S&L's actually had real assets on their books, so eventually there was value regained.
Whereas, today, those credit derivatives and various multiples based upon those derivatives, have little or no actual value; other than earning billions for those who peddled them.
Until someone comes up with another clever scam enough rubes will fall for, it appears to be decades of deleveraging ahead.
So amusing anyone in their right mind would think Feinstein is a Progressive, more evidence on how the term is used as political soup when convenient.
Well, that's one of the reasons EP exists so we can get people learning and talking about the real facts, real data, real details.
I literally cannot watch more cable talking heads. Hardball has to be the worse. If it's empty and trivial, you can bet it will be beaten into the ground during the 24 hr "chant mantra" news cycle which seems to have almost an agenda to try to divert people to meaningless terms and phrases and then pound on the empty trivial political event du jour.
So, ok, CNBC has 220k viewers per day. How do we grow EP to get 220k participants a day? That's the real question. How do we get people to turn to discussing real statistics, events and get their facts on straight instead of watching idiots like Glenn Beck?
He really irritates me because he takes some factoids, even gets some real economists and people on the show....
then somehow spins that to embrace yet another corporate agenda....i.e. kill health care reform, social safety nets are bad, "free" markets with zero regulation are "good" and so on.
The guy is scary because he can spin facts to try to endorse yet some pre-written corporate lobbyist agenda shopping list.
Pages