(if we'd only listened to Brooksley Born in 1997... - promoted by poligirl)
I'm getting sick of writing about this whole Milton Friedman faith based economic theory. I'm weary of bleating about the Ayn Rand cultists and how they have ruined my country. (Read my essays on Sheldon Wolin's "Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and Inverted Totalitarianism and on Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine".) When will we ever learn that "the smartest guys in the room" are dangerously close to actually being morons. How many times have I as a woman rolled my eyes at utter stupidity coming out of male bosses' mouths? How many insufferable conversations did I have sit through before I learned to say, "Enough, you are speaking gibberish."
Turns out that another one of those uppity women was annoying the "three marketeers", Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Lawrence Summers back in the 1990's.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel has the story at The Nation.com and alternet.org. "The Woman Who Could Have Prevented this Mess Was Silenced by Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers." The woman's name is Brooksley Born who 10 years ago was the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. http://www.alternet.org/workpl...
I reported two weeks ago on the army times article on The First Brigade of the the First Infantry Division's new assignment of "crowd control" and "civil unrest". Back from Iraq and Germany, they are now in training for civil unrest and practicing lethal and non-lethal techniques. See "What Does the National Times, Army Times, and Bolivia Have in Common?" http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi...
I heard a clip of Rep. Brad Sherman on the floor of the House last week arguing against the bailout. (And yes, it's a bailout or a handout. You can say it's a "rescue" over and over, but it's still a heist. It's that old lipstick on a pig thing again.) It's pretty chilling to hear a representative confirm our suspicions:
"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. ... Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."
Nancy Pelosi carries much blame for the breakdown in passing the bailout but NOT because of her "I'm holding my nose while voting" speech trying to herd Democrats to vote yes. Rather, it's the failure of BOTH Republican and Democratic House leadership to impeach Bush and Cheney for violating the Constitution, and replace them with trustworthy heads of state who govern for the good of all citizens!
(more interesting thoughts on the economy, Part II... - promoted by poligirl)
Robert Scheer calls it what it is "Financial Facism".
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2... In an article for The Nation, columnist Robert Scheer calls the "bail out" is akin to what Mussolini did in Italy. Mussolini called the merger of corporations and government, fascism.
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., condemned Paulson's proposal as an effort to "take Wall Street's pain and spread it to the taxpayers." He added, "It's financial socialism and it's un-American."
He's wrong on that last point, for what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as "financial fascism." After all, even Hitler never nationalized the Mercedes-Benz company but rather entered into a very profitable partnership with the current car company's corporate ancestor, which made out quite well until Hitler's bubble burst.
Smell a rat if Congress approves the Paulson plan without severely curtailing CEO pay and putting a freeze on the mortgage foreclosures that are threatening to destroy the homes of millions of Americans.
(some interesting thoughts on the economy, Part I... - promoted by poligirl)
Dean Baker writes on TPMcafe.com http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme... that the basic element in this crisis is "trust". These guys knew that this was a bubble. They knew that what they were doing was a huge Ponzi scheme. Alan Greenspan was being knighted by the Queen of England back when the non fundamentalist economists like Dean Baker were warning of the coming debacle. So now mistake after mistake later, none of these people in charge or the ones making millions off this meltdown should be listened to, let alone given money to spread around.
Unless the conditions are written in stone, for example specific rules that limit executive compensation using the same type of language that CEOs use when they sign contracts with their companies, there is no reason for the public to believe that they will get a fair deal in this bailout. The public should also demand that some genuine outsiders, representatives of labor, consumer groups and other non-Wall Street segments of society, have a direct oversight role in this deal.
Instead of seeing Obama surrounded by bankers like ex Fed chairman Paul Volker and ex Goldman Sachs now Citigroup former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin last Friday, I wish Barack Obama had been huddled with Leo Gerard of the Steelworkers, James Hoffa of the teamsters, Naomi Klein author of "The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Wolfe, "The End of America" , Nomi Prins, "Other People's Money" and Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.
One of the reasons I have a hard time getting enthused about either of the Democratic candidates is that I find both of their Iraq withdrawal plans lacking. I am enthused about ending the Bush era, and I'm enthused about preventing the election of another Republican who doesn't even seem to realize we have a problem in Iraq, but neither of the Democrats offers a plan that I consider to be complete.
Reading such is usually particularly galling to Obama supporters, because he gave such a pretty speech in 2002, and is therefore supposed to be vastly superior to Clinton, on Iraq. Some of the more deranged Obama supporters even go so far as to try to pin the war on Clinton, as if her having voted no on the AUMF would have changed anything other than her present political fortunes. It was a terrible vote, but she is demonized for it even by many of the same people who now lionize John Kerry, because he supports Obama, and despite his having made the same terrible vote made by Clinton. And, of course, most of these Obama supporters ignore the reality that despite the very pretty speech, when Obama was not in the position of actually having to vote on the resolution, his voting record has been nearly identical to Clinton's, since he has been in the position of having to vote. That's one of the reasons I find this particular argument for Obama and against Clinton to be, at best, specious. But the main reason is their withdrawal plans. I have said it many times: what happened in 2002 and 2003 is now irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what begins to happen in 2009. Which candidate will do the best job of most expeditiously getting us out of Iraq? And that doesn't even begin to address the question of reparations, which isn't even a topic of discussion.
Naomi Klein recently published what I consider to be the best book on politics in at least a generation. I've mentioned it in previous posts, and I will undoubtedly do so again. Many times. It should be required reading for anyone who claims to be politically informed. So, I also want everyone to click over to Huffington Post, and read her new article, with Jeremy Scahill:
Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent anniversary rallies and vigils.
When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet five years on, U.S. leaders are still shrugging: "So?"
There is no question that the Bush administration has proven impervious to public pressure. That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.
Because Klein and Scahill also understand that although both Democratic candidates are much more honest and realistic than John McCain, when discussing Iraq, neither is coming close to being honest and realistic enough.
