Is there a connection between the war in Iraq and the bailout of Wall St.?  Did the Fed intentionally engineer a bubble? If so, why? The short answer is the housing bubble was engineered to cover the terrible toll of the war on the economy.

Now that the political discussion concerning the response to the credit crisis is settled, there is room for consideration of the factors that contributed the emergence of the crisis. Paramount among them is subscription on the part of policy markers, stemming back to the Reagan administration, to the principles and theories of free-market economics as advanced by Milton Friedman.  Essentially: the market regulated least works best.

However, placing the blame for the current crisis exclusively within the domain of failed policies — rooted in a flawed social-economic theory — and poor governances excludes an examination of intentional factors that may have contributed to the crisis.

I found this comment by Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, former chief economist at the World Bank and co-author of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, to be significant.

Excerpt from Democracy Now 10/2/2008:

AMY GOODMAN: […] does the bailout connect to war?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Very much. Let me first explain a little bit how the current crisis connects with the war. One of the reasons that we have this crisis is that the Fed flooded the economy with liquidity and had lax regulations. Part of that was this ideology of regulations were bad, but part of the reason was that the economy was weak. And one of the reasons the economy was weak was oil prices were soaring, and part of the reason oil prices were soaring is the Iraq war. When we went to war in 2003, before we went, prices were $23 a barrel. Futures markets thought they would remain at that level. They anticipated the increase in demand, but they thought there would be a concomitant increase in supply from the low-cost providers, mainly in the Middle East. The war changed that equation, and we know what happened to the oil prices.

Well, why is that important? Americans were spending hundreds of millions—billions of dollars—to buy imported oil. Normally, that would have had a very negative effect on our economy; we would have had a slowdown. Some people have said, you know, it’s a mystery why we aren’t having that slowdown; we’ve repealed the laws of economics. Whenever anybody says that, you ought to be suspect.

It was actually very simple. The Fed engineered a bubble, a housing bubble to replace the tech bubble that it had engineered in the ’90s. The housing bubble facilitated people taking money out of their mortgages; in one year—out of their houses; in one year, there were more than $900 billion of mortgage equity withdrawals. And so, we had a consumption boom that was so strong that even though we were spending so much money abroad, we could keep the economy going. But it was so shortsighted. And it was so clear that we were living on borrowed money and borrowed time. And it was just a matter of time before, you know, the whole thing would start to unravel.

Hey John, it’s 10:28 AM on Monday and the Dow is 9,990.  How’s them fundamentals?  You F’n moron.  I’m no longer sure who is stupider; you or bush!  Maybe it’s a dead heat; I.Q. 68!  Palin 67!

MAR--To be perfectly honest, I dont remember reading that the “fed was evil” (I think that , for the past 8 yrs they have been extremely, criminally negligent), but I was just trying to show that, there are alot of good economists that do not know if this will work. One thinks that the banks could “sit on the money” (there is nothng to stop them from it), waiting to “see how it works”. So, there is no loaning or borrowing. Then, the housing market does not recover (I’m not sure it can--they built so many McMansioan, my state loos lik a parkinglot!).I mean, there is no promise of the banks having to do anything!

They ue words like"ncourage" and “attempt”. Under Bush, those words have meant they will form a “blue ribbon panel “ or something.

Kenysian programs (I’m not sure that that is what FDRs were) are one thing, when applied to a willing people for their benefit. But, when taken out of the peopes’ hands, with no repercusiions for the peoplethat caused the problem--why will they not do it again?

I am more familiar with the Chicago School, etc. I never rely took economics. I dont know. I just know that it hurts to see so many peope suffering, homeslss, without fuel this winter, our food banks are empty in my city, and no one seems to give a shit.

Plus, if I hear another neo-con talk about the “free market”, I am goig to scream my fuckin head off Those GD welfare queens!!

The trickle down economics we have been following, Reagan through, W, just are not working. If teh Congres comes back and decides to actually DO somethig about that , I might feel better about it.

I think Bush would make anyone, “once bitten , twice shy”. Or, how did he ut it? “Fool me once, shame on...me...you...well, what it iss we dont get fooled agian!”

Vote in YOUR best interests, think....

Feb. 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukg4sgF2BH4&feature =related

KDelphi:
I read the three references. The first and the third are, in my opinion, without too much merit - are just opinion blogs. The second is relative to the collapse of individual banks, not the potential collapse of a national economy, which you have in the US.  I believe the 700 B is to shore up the general economy credibility. And it is sick for all the reasons mentioned in all these threads - the financial market and the fat cats in it acting without restraint to feather their own nests.

I could be wrong as nobody but nobody can see into even the near future. I still believe it is about confidence and therefore it is all about how the bailout is recieved. The quote says it all - it is about confidence.  I don’t mean the stock market, that is mainly a gambling hall. Can you tell me how many IPOs have been launched, say in the last six months. I don’t know but in recent weeks it has been a big fat zero. There will likely be no new endeavours or new financing until confidence and credit is restored. That means few new jobs, or even shrinking jobs. As I mentioned in a previous post, GM has used all its credit and must pay the bills from earnings.

I am no big stick either KD, just a long-retired old fart who has been on the edge of things for years.  But I don’t have anything left over at the end of the month either.

What did Roosvelt do in the GD? He applied Keynesian economic principles and invested government credit in social programs to get money moving and help those in need. But things were absolutely moribund then.

Unlike one of your references, I don’t necessarily regard central banks (such as the Fed Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada and so on as evil. They all have much the same function - to control credit up or down down and recommend monetary policy (i.e interest rates, what money is worth, credit expansion or contraction). Fiscal policy is the area of the administration (what do yoou spend and save).

And as I have said before, socialism is not the answer - I think the mixed economy is the way to go - see previous post.  Socialism has had far more failures because the prime motive is to spend on programs not create wealth. Experientally they don’t know how.  The Swedes are an exception because they have a smallish but vibrant industrial economy to support a relatively small population. I have visited all the Scandanavian countries except Finland as well as most European countries - some time ago, not recently.

As a matter of fact, I read recently that the Euro may replace the US dollar is the preferred currency.

MAR--Not that I’m questioning your motives, but there are a lot of economists who think that this will not work. We have already bailed out: GM, Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie aMae, Freddie Mac, and, others. (It may have actually been Chrysler--I keep hearing different stories)

The whole system is rotten. It doesnt need a boost--well, if it does, it should not be on the backs of the poor, and the people who were hurt by this scam.I know I’ve said it before, but there were amendments, suggestions, etc. from many members of both houses.

I saw the contempt on their faces when Kucincih or Sanders got up to speak. No changes were allowed--excpet $150 billion more in tax cuts. THAT is scary!!

If your doing ok now, maybe its not. I am surviving, but not easily. I am spending more and more of what little money I get on bills. I have loans and credit cards to pay medical bills that the govt program wont cover (They are not luxuries).

Another part of it is, that nobody trusts this horrible, criminal administraition anymore. This has been coming for a very long time. What’s the rush? The elections?

Maybe it will all work out. But, I am, yes, afraid. And so are some economicsts.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=89259& t=01001482315991999237

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/wa llstreet.useconomy?commentpage=1

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/09/29/wall-street-bailout- wont-work-without-economic-aid-for-workers/

McHammered, Kdelphi et al:

Why fears???  Read on in the same article to which you referred:

I quote:

“Analysts also believe that the mere presence of the government as buyer of last resort will be enough to get credit markets moving again, and that a large number of banks would not need to take part for the legislation to succeed.”

That is what I have been saying all along. It is a matter of confidence, a ‘buyer of last resort’, not necessarily actually buying $700 billions.

And the ultimate benefit is to the economy as a whole, not necessarily the fat cats - and definitely not a reason to praise Marxism or Marx.  As long as the poaper is backed it will be traded. Did you ever calculate the real worth of a greenback - probably less then a cent. It is what it symbolizes and what confidence there is in it.  Basic Money and Banking.

There are problems with saying that laissez-faire capitalism (moneyism) “works”.I know that, by now, everyone has seen Naomi Klein qwuoted to death--but she is correct. The problem is the direct result of de-regulation, greed, and an unlevel playing field.

There is no other country in the “free” world that has such unregulated markets. We no longer have the highest standard of living (if we ever really did), but we do have the 400 richest people. These peopel all profit from war, denying health care, etc. But, they end up paying no taxes for them. How is taht fair?

Strict capitalism is NOT a “level playing field”. If it was, the “Capts of Industry” would not have made such a mess of things, and we would never have had dW.
In unreg. capitalism, ther is no one to stop melamine in your food, e coli in meat, plastics liek Besphenol A. The FDA, USDA and other regulatory agencies have been severely de-funded under the neo-cons. People aroudn the world used to admire US products. Now, Japan and the EU wil not buy our beef, among other things.

‘Ole Ranch Hand Dubya and Cheney Daddy-Warbucks get their beef from Trump and Kobi beef. (They are afraid of cows and horses--ask Pres. Fox) The Champagne region of France actually ran out of champagne this year, because so many rich-ass Ams. were buying it up. They buy $25,000 gold shower curtains. I do not se how anyone , with a conscience, can think that this is right, when we have kids sleeping in tents.

I was afraid that the “libertarians” would use this opportunity to “blame regulation”. World history would just show that that is not the problem.If we are to be civilized (recognizing that some peole are not), we have to rein inthe Type A personality that is so successful in capitsliams. it is not sustainable.

Sweden had a smniliar crisis in 1989. This is how they handled it.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness /23krona.html?_r=1&em;=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ad xnnlx=1223226409-2pa6tofFmIagIF/rmioaBg

They now have the highest standare of living in the world. They pay somewhat more in taxes. But, survey after survey shows that the vast majority of Swedes wouod NOT want to go back to privitized medicine, low income housing, etc. If you are saying we cannot do something like that, you must be saying that Anglo-Saxons are just too greedy. (The UK does alot better than us with regulation and social welfare--so that cannot be true, either)

The reality of our economy is that it hasn’t worked since the 60’s.

American industry, has relied on buying off congress, so that there would be no protection for consumers, from the Drugs we take to the cars we drive.

There was plenty of protection for U.S. Corporations, but no rights for workers. Intead there was an endless exposure to workplace toxicity, and corporate written laws that allowed the import of cheap labor, and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, that exempted corporations from liabiity for their malfeasance.

It has been obvious to everyone that at some point dirt poor American workers would not be able to afford the products that business made.

That’s the corporations realized there was only one thing left that could sell, the indebtedness of American’s young and old. That’s when GM started it’s own finance company, because it knew it’s customers couldn’t buy GM cars anymore, they were too poor to qualify for loans from anyone else.

Since the 60’s the corporations along with congress have engineered a kind of protectionism of US corporations, that allowed them not to compete with the rest of the world.

When Detroit made no effort to be competitive with Japan, congress bailed them out.

And their still doing it, that’s why there’s a bailout for the Wall Street rich, but no extention of unemployment benefits - blocked by the Republican party.

Capitalism, in the United States is a corupt system of paybacks, bribes, media manipulation, slight of hand, legal maneuvering, and slanted tax laws.

The whole thing is rotten from top to bottom, and that’s why this country cannot compete in the world, and why soon, very soon we will be in an economic collapse the likes of which we have never seen. A colapse that will see the market fall to 6,000, and which nothing on God’s green earth can stop. It’s judgement day.

I think our version of capitalism may need an attitude adjustment if it is ever to work again. Like a child falling on the playground, our banks, auto makers, and airlines have come to expect Mommy(government) to come running with hugs and bactine every time a tear hits the corner of our eyes.
Our businesses have become as soft as our citizens and our government.
I am afraid there may be no fixing it this time. the federal reserve and FDIC, as well as congress, can throw as much liquidity(money) into the market as they can lift, but at the end of the day(resession) the 800 pound gorilla will still be in the room, that’s a 10 trillion dollar gorilla! and he will still want his bananas! (there, is that enough metaphors for a sunday morning?)

I think in a previous post Mar mentioned that the ultimate national and natural resource that a country can posess is it’s well educated, open minded, citizenry. But since the US has the worst education system among the industrialized nations, and we do indeed think angels are watching us, and the earth is 6000 years old, what are our odds of pulling ourselves out of this debt spiral?

I didn’t think so either.

It’s the height of irony; I, a huge critic of our irresponsible form of capitalism, have had an epiphany of sorts; capitalism works.  The problem is the government interference in “our” very abuse of our capitalist system.  If left to “its” natural tendencies it would correct itself as “it” was doing; until that is, the government intervened.  If left to the natural flow, so to speak, the largest abusers would crash and burn taking with them all of the greedy idiots.  And, eventually, we would return to a balanced system.  Just some musings in my attempt to understand this whole mess.  Since I’m not part of it, it appears I’ll be okay.  Not gloating, just thankful.

Let’s start with McCain and His decades long embezzlement crimes. What id di his first crime cost US, About 300 billion to bail out his Buddy Keating? How much did his Buddy’s Wife, Wendy’s, tanked Enron corp cost Us? How much has Phil’s ‘Modernization Act’ Ripped US off? Speicifically Mac’s Buddy Rick Davis’ firm swindle out of Fannie Mae before cutting ties last month ( How od you get paid $15,000 a month to Do Nothing? Either You did do something - or You were committing Fraud.
John YOUR CHICKENS are ROOSTING on All of Your 7 Doorsteps!

Thanks for posts.

Outraged--Yes! I wondered when people were going to wake up to the purposefully deflated “unemployment rate”. When I found this out in statistics class, I thought, “Those fricking liars!”

If you dont qualify for unemployment, you dont count. If you have given up--you dont count. If you were working at, say--Lehman Bros. and, now you work at McDonald’s --or, as you say--even worse--a temp. agency--you dont count. I will look at the YouTube link. My RAM and HD are old and low--so I can barely do two things at one time. LOL Or maybe its my brain.

Big B--Scary, isnt it?

Fadel--It may be true, but, why not hit a military installation? Not all of us deserve chicken shit. Om fact, the people who made gobs of money off of all the occupations and wars are getting rich as hell!

MAR--Absolutely, Thanks.

Now, that post made me want a beer. Its oprn and flat, but I’m gonna go drink it. If someone else doesnt get there first.

KDelphi:
There is an economic way to look at health care and education. The term the eggheads use is “human capital” A country that pays attention to a universal good education with opportunity for all, and a health system that promotes healthy youngsters has found the real basis of wealth. To ignore a particular race or social group is for a country to shortchange itself. To abase education with religious nonsense such as the creation thing is cheating the kids of what it is really all about. Any school or any church whose teachings are contrary to good science is creating a bleak and twisted future for itsel - I believe it has done that in the much of the US - which explains Bush.

Though my following brief statement about the economic crises might irritate some, I can summarize the situation as “American financial chickens coming home to roost!”

Great posts from last night guys(I did not get in until late, and after 2 beers at dinner could not find the dexterity to type, I am such a lightweight anymore)

KDelphi

I am still amazed to this day how much that deeply seeded fear of socialism still effects attitudes in the US(you would like think that we would have moved past our MacCarthyistic roots, but we are after all, americans)
I have begun to believe that socialized medicine will only reach americans when big business wants it. And they will never want it because portable healthcare scares big business! It’s how they keep people longer in jobs they despise(how many americans stay in jobs they hate because of their benefits? I’ll wager it’s a sizable number)

MAR

My wife and I visited the evil Canadian Empire last year. While it is true enough that when a canadian isn’t drinking coffee he is having a beer, and they do indeed swear at other bad drivers(it is amazing that no matter where you are, the phrase “get out of the way you fucking idiot!” sounds the same, in english or french.)However after spending six days in Montreal my wife made the comment that Canadians are the people our grandparents wanted us to be.
You folks north of the border may not be perfect, but your a damn site closer to it than we bible thumping, gun toting, fearful americans are.

We still could probably invade tomorrow led by the vermont national guard, and the Burlington ladies auxillary.

The issue is, that it isn’t “just Bush”, Clinton’s “booming economy” only enhanced the demise of workers.  Sure...there were those who made money, but it wasn’t “the average working American”.  I remember looking for employment, during Clinton’s reign, it was the same as today. The same as Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 and any of the corporate butt-sniffers.

Workers who have been out of work for a certain length of time are not included in these numbers.  Therefore the actual numbers are much higher.  Another “trick of the trade” is for government and corporations to inflate the number of “jobs available”.  They do this by running ads and “having a position open” which they have NO INTENT of filling.  Have you ever noticed those PERPETUAL job openings?  The “issue” here is that this makes it “appear” that jobs ARE available, when in fact they are not.

Another BS preposteration is “temps”.  Were you aware that you could work as a temp for 8-12 years.  This is an extremely wonderful way for crooked corporations to undermine workers (i.e. seniority, benefits, job security, unionization, safety...you name it.) But let’s not leave out the Post Office, who calls these workers “casuals”...all of it...one big FAT lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN24rhMI9IE&feature=user

This is still the rule.  (There are two parts to this video, part 2 will show up in the side bar, this video was posted in 2006 but this is still, “business as usual")

Temp Agencies....THE SCOURGE OF HUMANITY and the most vicious invention since SLAVERY.

MAR--Thanks. I understand what you are saying.

I do disagree on the socialism. The Scanadanavian countries have higher personal income taxes, but lower business taxes. I think. Sorry. I have a traditional American liberal arts education. “We dont need to know about anythign except ‘Mercanism”. Actually, it was a Quaker School and they taught us alot--I just dont remember. They sent me to Scandanavia to work in a workcamp for a few mos! (Like VISA or something here) I loved it

I hear what you say about the protestant work ethic. It is especially extreme in the Rust Belt. But, as I said, some religions (Quakers--some are atheists)When so few peopel prosper, and the middle class is fleeced, it becomes a sad joke.

My uncles in Denamark say that, despite the taxes (and their children’s taxes) they would never want to go back to the privitized system they had before.
I think most Canadians feel that way, do they not?

I did not know that public sdchools were not nationalized there. Well, not here either, much anmymoer. The faith based charter school movement (that often teaches kids that the planet is 5000 years old) has taken so much money from the urban public school systems, that they are really bad.

I just dont think that things that are ultimately profitable to almost everyone (the “community) like school, should be for profit. I think, similarly , that health care, housing, food , etc. are basic human rights. I do not think that these can be provided for people, at taxpayer’s expense, in a for-profit manner. As it is, the huge insurance cos. rule almost all health care decisions.

But, then, there is the problem of making the “services” worse, and letting the rich opt out. That is why I think Obama’s plan wont work (as if he would have $$ to implement it now) If peoel dont need to join (they wouldnt have to necessarily USE the services), then , basicaly, the poor will still get medicaid (which really sucks bad, depending on which state you live in).

I think that, with 50 million people without health coverage, and 20,000 people dying in the US, every year, for a lack of care--we really need to nationalize and socialize it.

If anyone disagres, I would not worry about it.Theyve got the bejesus scared out of everyone taht it would be “Hillary-care” or “socialized medicine"--people in this country seem terrified of the world socialism. They think taht it means a socialistic dictatorship, ala Stalin.

There is also “tax phobia"--although people very often end up paying alot more for things “alone” “on teh open mkt”. Buying into a single private plan is, at least , $12,500 a yr. And , it stil leaves alot for out of pocket.

It is a life or death Catch-22. For millions

Kdelphi: Sorry, I screwed up my last post and had to re-do it as I remember it.Yes two large parties and many small parties does not cut it.  You need to have a fairly large party on the Left to make what I described work because if the threat of them taking power is not real you don’t get the effect I described. Canada’s social programs only came in because after WWII the socialist party then called the CCF, now the NDP ( New Democratic Party) was threatening because of increased following due to the Great Depression and WWII. As a consequence the party in power (a centrist party called the Liberal Party) virtually plucked the social programs planks from them. Hence we adopted a better unemployment system, an old age pension, and eventually a universal health plan as well as other things - for example what was called a baby bonus, or a small allowance paid directly to mothers for each child under the age of 16. Similarly, there were substantial funds made available to further education, even though education is a provincial (read state) responsibility in Canada.

The problem with some of these programs is, of course, expense. Health Care is what is described in economic terms an “increasing cost” program due to advances in medical science and population. That is, efficiencies are quickly absorbed. Often an area is not unionized and that in itself brings considerable increases as about 80% of health care costs are for personnel.

Nor is a “Labour Party”the answer. As shown in Britain the Labour Party in power meant the unions were in power. Thatcherism was a corrective to that.  And their health care system is now two-tiered because they gave in to allowing the rich to buy services and thus bypass waiting lines. So as usual, eventually the poor get the leavings.

Think the myth of Horatio Alger has a lot to do with the strong right in the US. Some do make out well and generally skill and hard work often pay off. But I think the real factor is that greed is encouraged. It’s the old Protestant work ethic.  There are some denominations that interpret worldly success as a sign of godly favour! It is sad that, as you point out, there wasn’t much social consciousness in the shameful affair related to Katrina.

KDELPHI:

Thank you. Of course there is the story of poor boy makes good. The sad truth is that most socialist governments have made a mash of their attempts to create wealth. Scandanavian socialist states have found that for the wonderful programs you have to dig up the money. The same in Canada. Provinces that have gone socialist (New Democratic Party) have usually brought in good social programs but do it by spending reserves that “free market"parties have put aside. When socialistic parties in Canadian provinces have tried to be entrepreneurial they have universally screwed up because the truth of how wealth is really created (greed?) is contrary to their principles.  Free market parties usually forget the little fellow if they can.  That it is why I believe it is necessary to have a fairly strong party on the left to keep them honest.

I don’t know what to say about the plethora of parties you mention. Labour itrself is not the answer in my opinion as they have a rather narrow outlook as shown in the UK. Thatcherism was really a response to the excesses of the Labour Party in power. Socialism does not work in my opinion, but it has its place as I have said.

re health care in the UK. My understanding is that it is now a dual system. The rich are allowed to pay for faster or better services but this leads to deterioration of the public servive. We are fighting this trend in Canada too, but the cost of the programs is constantly going up due to various pressures. Many doctors would love to go back to the old system but they forget that they had to write off 15 to 20% as bed debys (or pro bono if you like. When I had a look at the Swedish system they were complaining of the same pressures. And this was many years ago. Health care is,; in economic

MAR--you are correct. There are really plenty of other parties here, but, in general they are not strong enough to make much difference

If we could go to public financing, for anyone, say, collecting enough signature, we could break the stranglehold of the duopoly. I think.

There is a Green Party (former Rep Cynthia McKineey is running--great person), INdependesnts , like the formerly Green Nader, Barr (Libertarian, I think) and Paul (I just cant get past some of his stuff enough to actualy explain to you what I think he is. I dont mean that he is a bad person--he;s just fricking WIERD) (Please dont take that personally , followers of his.Yes, he wouldve been better than Bush)

There are more minor parties, like SP-USA, CP-USA (Socialist and Communist) , but they are generally very small, or have been co-opted by the Democratic Party.

Labor unions used to have some strength, but the Reaganites helped carry out the worst attack on the principles of union in our history--except maybe Pres. Taft (his great grandson was Ohio’s governor, aqnd he stole $3 million and got to just “apologize” and pay a $3000 fine--he teaches at a local catholic college) who wrote the Taft -Hartley Act. Reagan actually used it, too. Nobody made to much of it--it was an Air Traffic Controllers strike--but, I knew that it was another victory for the anti-union corporate masters.

I’m sure there are more--there is a chapter of World Socialist WS--I forget what it is exactly called.There is no real labor party, and, that is a real problem.

I heard the supposedly conservative UK candidate , David Cameron on BBC the other night. He would not be considered a conservative here--only a moderate. He supports the natl health service, which is more than either of the major party candidates do. He might cut services, etc.. I just dont know him enough to know. But, hell, Blair was labor , wasnt he?

I’m not sure that labor even means the same thing here, and, I think that the natl health services of the UK are constantly on shakey ground, due to Thatcherism (like Reaganism here).But, I do not think that the British are willing to put up with a crappy privitized health system. Someone sugggested it in Parliament there, and, there were people in the streets , carrying signs , saying “No US style Health Care in the UK”. That should humiliate DC into doing something. Unfortunatley , they seem to know no shame.

I guess after Hurricane Katrina, almost anything can make some people numb. That tragedy wa sof great intl importance, although , alot of the govt (and populace) seem to think that it was the poor people’s fault. It was the day that I had to admit to myself, that, the govt would do anything--literally--anything--and , if you had no money, or were sick or old, or a minority--non-"productive"--go die in the streets.(I know that alot of people living there worked very hard.) But, the conditions of the 9th Ward should have made us all ashamed. Like alot of other people, I just thought of it as New Orleans/Mardi Gras.

If that sounds a little melodramatic, it is (LOL). but, it is also very true. You know how you say, “Well, yeah, things are bad. But the govt is never going to let THAT happen”. The answer I received , loud and clear, that day(s), was “Oh yes we will. F*ck you”.

It is a very rude awakening. I was just stupid not to realize it sooner.

The economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research writes:

Okay, let’s hear from all those media commentators and politicians who screamed about the stock market plunge on Monday in response to Congress’ rejection of the bailout. With the market closing lower on Friday than it did on Monday, should we assume that the bailout didn’t work?

Should we be screaming about the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in retirement accounts and pensions? Or was that just something they talked about when they were pushing for a Wall Street bailout?

KDelphi:
What I described works best where the one you don’t really want (the Left) is strong enough to be a threat so its programs are sapped by a centrist party. I believe you have only two, nay? Others have not been strong enough? Nader etc?

MAR--I thinkt that the threads are getting to so full, it is taking many “pages” to show them all.

Thanks for your response.

Thje mixed economy sounds preferable, and, totally do-able, even with all the conservatives in the US.(Well, they are reeally neo-cons, but I wont belabor that. Nor the large influx of neo-liberals since the Democratic Leadership Council) But, the “liberals” wil have to move fast, as when this “shock” wears off a little, they wil be touting that the mkt needs LESS regulations again. I guarantee it, if the (dis)loyal opposition does nothing.

But, let no one ever forget hoqw we, in the US, got ourselves, and the most helpless in , not only our society, but, around the qworld, into this mess. It was unregulated, “free” mkt capitalism.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/03-4

KDelphi:
It was on the Scheer thread but so far back I forget where. The basic picture of a misxed economy is that the Left is strong enough to threaten the Right for power. Consequently you have Centrist parties adopting planks from either side to emasculate them. The result can be things like universal health care, not quite arms-length state corporations under tight regulatory and directional control, (such as a national airline) and other matters as well )atomic energy, regulation of large utilities.  That has been the result in Canada

In the case of the US the Right is probably too strong and pervasive and the Left too weak.

BigB.  If you take on Canada what are you going to do for the rest of the day? Most of our effective troops are in Afghanistan. Arsenic in the Seattle stuff is still a better idea. What would you call the thought police? Gestapo is already been used.

MAR--I canrt seem to find the post youre referring to. I guess this thread got too full? Or we’re talking on a different thread?

No matter. I think I’m trying to find your explantion of Canadian politics, and, my response.

It was nice hearing from you again, too.

I am not happy with what they did today, and, I dont think it wil help in the long term. But, I am not an econimist.

KDelphi: Nice to hear you again. Try a mixed economy as I discussed - but to the bigwigs that is lke spilling do-do on the floor. Guess you’ll have to have another go at 1776.

At this point I seriously doubt, that anyone in this country has missed the demise of our economy.

That the government has been juggeling the books, to make it look good, should be no surprise either. The real unemployement rate, is lost somewhere in the ether. That this is the best they can do, is frightening. 

Today, in the Mail… I got an offer for an unsecured loan of $50,0000 from one of the last remaining banks in this country. Sounds good doesn’t it? Except that, $50,0000 is probably worth about $10,0000 now, and I couldn’t think of anything I’d want to buy, that would be worth my indebtedness.

Im sure my little loan would be resold, to someone outside the good old USA, with lots of other loans, and maybe even sold again, and again until it’s leveraged up to the sky.

Maybe I’m funny, but instead of a loan for $50 grand, I’d like a wage increase so I wouldn’t have to get into debt. But that wouldn’t make the derivative sellers at the banks happy, because they wouldn’t get anything to leverage.

Since there are about $53 trillion worth of unsecured derivatives out there, I doubt if the bail out will do much good in the long run.

It’s my belief that those in charge, will continue with the same things that got us into this mess, because that’s all they know how to do.

I know working for a living takes a lot more time than jacking debt up to the sky, but it feels a lot cleaner.

They passed the bailout.

But I can’t find out if they removed those infamous 32 words,
(Section 8 of the original proposal) - Did they amend them, or
remove them, or just re-word them so they actually remained?

Anyone know? - If so, please give a link to that info?

The failure of this unregulated caoitalist system seems to be apparent to all. Yet, just try to suggest any other sytem,. and peole freak out, and, would rather be “dead than red”.

That could, in the end, be the actual choice. It already is, for the peole left out of this Bail.