Zero Hedge put up this fantastic post yesterday. It's full of good stats and paints a pretty scary picture. In fact, $4 trillion might be a conservative projection.
more because the "toxic waste" is only getting worse. The bailout will cost more money.
We got two very large military operations, a bottomless pit financial bailout, and much needed health care reform. Something has got to give. Ink suppliers are going to be very busy.
Although I think a good old fashioned: The New Black Swan is an old, old story. When one turns on the money printing press, long term disaster can only follow...or,
the Wimpy Hamburger financial resolution plan. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a worthless toxic asset today.
I think the ultimate response would be "no, you can't use footage of my face without a year's worth of my salary"- whether I was ultimately in the layoff pool or not.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
House Financial Services Chair Barney Frank is over at Crooks and Liars doing a live chat.
Crooks and Liars goes on and on about how Frank "stands up to bullies" referencing to the Bill O-Reilly shout out debacle.
uh, myself, Frank does that on every cable interview and one never gets to the real meat of the issues, such as derivatives, nationalizing some banks, oversight, checks and balances with financial power...
so I don't find him standing up to the bully, I see him only creating more noise in the machine that someone can put up on youtube and have some amusement with...
but in terms of the real issues of the day, well, Frank just shouldn't go on cable news.
Good news is on Crooks and Liars people are asking about the latest COP report, nationalizing banks and so on, the same issues we are.....so it appears people are educating themselves rapidly on global finance, regulation and systems.
What's next for reality shows, the life of real time crime in action? This idea has already been explored, Robert, by one of the greatest movies of all time.
You're right, Elizabeth Warren is running the show and thank goodness for that. I sensed that the language of the report was toned down quite a bit but her indictment of the Treasury and the Fed was clearly written between the lines.
1) You wrote: "In WWII, the US government commandeered the auto manufacturers to make tanks and jeeps instead of private cars. When superior weapons were called for and the atomic bomb was foreseen, Washington did not ask for bids from the private sector; it created the Manhattan Project to do it itself, with no concern for balance sheets or profit and loss statements. Women and blacks were given skilled factory jobs they had been traditionally denied. Hollywood was enlisted to make propaganda films. Indeed, much of the nation's activities, including farming, manufacturing, mining, communications, labor, education, and cultural undertakings were in some fashion brought under new and significant government control, with the war effort coming before private profit. And in the wake of this directed capital allocation and unwitting move toward wartime socialism, America won the war and became a prosperous society."
I do not think that a goal-oriented economy should be identified with socialism. The author continues
2) You also wrote:"Socialism came to be understood [in America] as a dictatorship. It meant Stalinist repression, a suffocating planned economy, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to change jobs, elimination of personal expression, and other similar vagaries.”
Planned economy can serve different goals, those that we approve and those that we do not approve. Stalinism should be identified with brutality and violence, against Soviet people, not with planned economy. Planning is an essential precondition for a successful activity in any level.
3) Those who are not familiar with Stalinism are likely to learn a lot about it from my short book. For details see
I didn't even bother to read their statements. You now they are corporate representatives from their past legislation attempts and rhetoric.
The one doing the service is clearly Elizabeth Warren. I have a funny feeling if she wasn't in such an official capacity we would have seen much stronger conclusions and language.
Sometimes I really hate "equal time" because assuredly some conclusions are better than others. i.e. some are based in statistical fact and others are pure B.S. spin.
You get that all of the time with H-1B guest worker Visas...
complete, not in reality, not by any Academic research metric I am aware, "studies" claiming pure fiction.
I decided I want to publish a paper which announces Kellog's fruit loops are the new super fruit. Come up with a bunch of nonsensical logic as to why this is and also demand a government subsidy for all people on food stamps to buy more fruit loops, a tax break for fruit loops, based on my "research results".
That's about the size of some of this pseudo-intellectual spin crap we get these days.
After 8 layoffs/firings in a 15 year career, if I wouldn't have been better off without the freedom and with the security of a dictatorship.
Milton Friedman was right when he said that the fear of free markets, is often the fear of freedom itself. What he failed to comprehend is why freedom is something to be scared of- freedom includes the freedom to defraud (for the rich) and the freedom to fail (for the poor). These are not freedoms that are good to have in any society.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Good job by the committee, well the majority members anyway. When I read the table of contents, I was immediately saddened and infuriated to see that Neiman and Sununu had to insert their "additional views", like they were writing a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. And then they write BS like:
Further, we are concerned that the prominence of alternate approaches presented in the report,
particularly reorganization through nationalization, could incorrectly imply both that the banking
system is insolvent and that the new Administration does not have a workable plan.
Yeah, why should the DFH opinions of Krugman, Stiglitz, et al have to be made part of the official record? Hell, we already have the Washington division of Goldman Sachs to tell us what's going on. Except that they continually obfuscate their plans and spin their deceit.
But nevermind that, they are just being true to their American ideal:
Congress passed the
EESA to protect the American public from financial chaos, and preventing collapse also avoids
the subsequent need for more extensive forms of government intervention in the markets- forms
less consistent with our American experience of democratic capitalism.
And just to show that they have been paying attention, or perhaps get copies of GS Treasury daily talking points, they go on to this:
We affirm that it is entirely reasonable to assume that a liquidity discount is impairing
these assets, and thus that the Treasury has adopted a viable plan based on this valid assumption.
Further, we believe that a viable plan should be given the opportunity to work. Speculation on
alternatives runs the risk of distracting our energy from implementation of a viable plan and
needlessly eroding market confidence. Market prices are being partially subjected to a downward
self-reinforcing cycle that could be exacerbated by unwarranted consideration of more radical
solutions such as nationalization.
This positive assessment of Treasury’s view on the underlying causes of the financial
crisis is not meant to suggest that the housing bubble should be re-inflated. But we do admit to
being confident that the long-term values of mortgage-related assets secured by American homes
remain a good investment.
There's that nasty "N" word, can't be having any of that here in America. And, oh yeah, there's this gem:
On the issue of transparency, specifically in the stress-testing that federal banking
regulators will be performing under the CAP, results should be held confidential. We believe that
government agencies and officials who monitor the industry have a public trust and should be
held accountable for their oversight.
And, finally, they wrap up their entire dissent in the veil of patriotism:
Prosperity is not a zero-sum
game. It is not the case that one person or group necessarily prospers at another’s expense. If we
stand together in investing in our common future, as individual and as corporate citizens, we
continue in our country’s tradition of pragmatic optimism and lay the most enduring foundation
of all for our lasting economic stability.
Can we just pass a constitutional amendment declaring neoliberal economics illegal? These people are in dire need of a serious reality check. I was truly surprised that they see any further need for the committee.
I wonder if "nationalization" has ever been considered. Drastic situations call for drastic measures. BK will not be kind to GM. BK besides destroying union contracts will liquidate possible valuable infrastructure and technology. There will be no guarantees that the infrastructure will be maintained for manufacturing base and technology may go to another country.
Didn't we nationalize the freight (and passenger) railway system in the U.S. that resulted in Conrail?
While comments are allowed anonymously they go into a moderation queue for review by the admin (which is me).
To turn on unmoderated comments and the rest of the site features, see the upper right hand corner and create an account.
It's a security thing.
1) Socialism can be, and should be, goal-oriented. But what is goal-oriented is necessarily socialism. That is all I wanted to say.
2) Thank you for reading the excerpts. Comments on this website, or in private, would be appreciated.
Ludwik Kowalski kowalskiL@mail.montclair.edu
Zero Hedge put up this fantastic post yesterday. It's full of good stats and paints a pretty scary picture. In fact, $4 trillion might be a conservative projection.
more because the "toxic waste" is only getting worse. The bailout will cost more money.
We got two very large military operations, a bottomless pit financial bailout, and much needed health care reform. Something has got to give. Ink suppliers are going to be very busy.
Although I think a good old fashioned: The New Black Swan is an old, old story. When one turns on the money printing press, long term disaster can only follow...or,
the Wimpy Hamburger financial resolution plan. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a worthless toxic asset today.
I think the ultimate response would be "no, you can't use footage of my face without a year's worth of my salary"- whether I was ultimately in the layoff pool or not.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
We forgot about the ultimate way to fire someone live on air!
For everyone else, if you have not watch the 1976 film Network, or seen it recently, seriously rent it and watch it.
It is so prophetic on what is happening today and at the time the film came out, it seemed way too far fetched to be actual "reality".
House Financial Services Chair Barney Frank is over at Crooks and Liars doing a live chat.
Crooks and Liars goes on and on about how Frank "stands up to bullies" referencing to the Bill O-Reilly shout out debacle.
uh, myself, Frank does that on every cable interview and one never gets to the real meat of the issues, such as derivatives, nationalizing some banks, oversight, checks and balances with financial power...
so I don't find him standing up to the bully, I see him only creating more noise in the machine that someone can put up on youtube and have some amusement with...
but in terms of the real issues of the day, well, Frank just shouldn't go on cable news.
Good news is on Crooks and Liars people are asking about the latest COP report, nationalizing banks and so on, the same issues we are.....so it appears people are educating themselves rapidly on global finance, regulation and systems.
Why would I possible want to watch this?
If socialism isn't goal oriented, what is it? I'm not sure I understand. I'll look at your excerpts, at least.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
You're right, Elizabeth Warren is running the show and thank goodness for that. I sensed that the language of the report was toned down quite a bit but her indictment of the Treasury and the Fed was clearly written between the lines.
1) You wrote: "In WWII, the US government commandeered the auto manufacturers to make tanks and jeeps instead of private cars. When superior weapons were called for and the atomic bomb was foreseen, Washington did not ask for bids from the private sector; it created the Manhattan Project to do it itself, with no concern for balance sheets or profit and loss statements. Women and blacks were given skilled factory jobs they had been traditionally denied. Hollywood was enlisted to make propaganda films. Indeed, much of the nation's activities, including farming, manufacturing, mining, communications, labor, education, and cultural undertakings were in some fashion brought under new and significant government control, with the war effort coming before private profit. And in the wake of this directed capital allocation and unwitting move toward wartime socialism, America won the war and became a prosperous society."
I do not think that a goal-oriented economy should be identified with socialism. The author continues
2) You also wrote:"Socialism came to be understood [in America] as a dictatorship. It meant Stalinist repression, a suffocating planned economy, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to change jobs, elimination of personal expression, and other similar vagaries.”
Planned economy can serve different goals, those that we approve and those that we do not approve. Stalinism should be identified with brutality and violence, against Soviet people, not with planned economy. Planning is an essential precondition for a successful activity in any level.
3) Those who are not familiar with Stalinism are likely to learn a lot about it from my short book. For details see
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/excerpts.html
systemic risk and investment risk.
losses? Those insurance companies that are seeking help screwed up. There are still AAA-rated insurance companies out there.
Investment losses are a very good learning experience, believe me I know. It is time for bondholders and shareholders to experience losses.
I didn't even bother to read their statements. You now they are corporate representatives from their past legislation attempts and rhetoric.
The one doing the service is clearly Elizabeth Warren. I have a funny feeling if she wasn't in such an official capacity we would have seen much stronger conclusions and language.
Sometimes I really hate "equal time" because assuredly some conclusions are better than others. i.e. some are based in statistical fact and others are pure B.S. spin.
You get that all of the time with H-1B guest worker Visas...
complete, not in reality, not by any Academic research metric I am aware, "studies" claiming pure fiction.
I decided I want to publish a paper which announces Kellog's fruit loops are the new super fruit. Come up with a bunch of nonsensical logic as to why this is and also demand a government subsidy for all people on food stamps to buy more fruit loops, a tax break for fruit loops, based on my "research results".
That's about the size of some of this pseudo-intellectual spin crap we get these days.
After 8 layoffs/firings in a 15 year career, if I wouldn't have been better off without the freedom and with the security of a dictatorship.
Milton Friedman was right when he said that the fear of free markets, is often the fear of freedom itself. What he failed to comprehend is why freedom is something to be scared of- freedom includes the freedom to defraud (for the rich) and the freedom to fail (for the poor). These are not freedoms that are good to have in any society.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Purchase Power parity. PPP wikipedia. That takes into account exchange rates and there is also per capita.
China is right behind the United States on PPP.
Good job by the committee, well the majority members anyway. When I read the table of contents, I was immediately saddened and infuriated to see that Neiman and Sununu had to insert their "additional views", like they were writing a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. And then they write BS like:
Yeah, why should the DFH opinions of Krugman, Stiglitz, et al have to be made part of the official record? Hell, we already have the Washington division of Goldman Sachs to tell us what's going on. Except that they continually obfuscate their plans and spin their deceit.
But nevermind that, they are just being true to their American ideal:
And just to show that they have been paying attention, or perhaps get copies of GS Treasury daily talking points, they go on to this:
There's that nasty "N" word, can't be having any of that here in America. And, oh yeah, there's this gem:
And, finally, they wrap up their entire dissent in the veil of patriotism:
Can we just pass a constitutional amendment declaring neoliberal economics illegal? These people are in dire need of a serious reality check. I was truly surprised that they see any further need for the committee.
I wonder if "nationalization" has ever been considered. Drastic situations call for drastic measures. BK will not be kind to GM. BK besides destroying union contracts will liquidate possible valuable infrastructure and technology. There will be no guarantees that the infrastructure will be maintained for manufacturing base and technology may go to another country.
Didn't we nationalize the freight (and passenger) railway system in the U.S. that resulted in Conrail?
Pages