tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2728235187998502824.post7892496617445385995..comments2024-02-26T00:23:11.724-08:00Comments on metamorphoses: Obama's sad timingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2728235187998502824.post-67990053692346070032010-09-11T15:45:25.487-07:002010-09-11T15:45:25.487-07:00Palast is a journalist, not academic. He presente...Palast is a journalist, not academic. He presented the crisis/bailout issue in compact form, with quite a bit of research. And he's Sounds like fairly traditional democrat (tho' the Beck/Foxnews types generally consider that marxism...then Palast's about like Ben Franklin compared to some dimwit like Beck Limbaugh et al)<br />not quite a Marxist. <br />Chomsky on the other hand is an academic. Not my guru. He has criticized some aspects of marxist-statism. His political writing may not be Keynes or something, but he had a few interesting things to say, especially on 'Nam and Reagan era skullduggery.<br /><br />Orthodox marxist Im not, but be assured no marxist would approve of your pro-laissez-faire-libertarian views. The great depression demonstrates what happens when finance capitalism --and speculation--proceeds unchecked and unregulated (as do many recent economic disasters, including the bailout). Marxists want centralized planning, far beyond that of New Deal demos .Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2728235187998502824.post-31521004271291651252010-09-11T14:23:40.625-07:002010-09-11T14:23:40.625-07:00... the recent mortgage crisis shows what happens ...<i>... the recent mortgage crisis shows what happens when the finance boys get their way. </i><br /><br />Ah, no, as I've said, it shows what happens when the politicos muscle the finance boys to get <i>their</i> way. Which, then, the finance boys are content enough to accommodate, since they can figure there's a good chance of a govt bailout or other form of rescue if things go south. <br /><br />Same thing was true in the 30's -- markets of all sorts do fluctuate, but that's the only way they ever correct. If you don't let them correct, you get an economy in a permanent stall -- which it was in, until global war blasted them out.<br /><br />And then there's Palast, J? Next you'll be citing the Works of Mikey Moore, or, worse yet, Chomsky. At least Marx and his followers had a brain.Metamorfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199074976158603981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2728235187998502824.post-13493997082059873452010-09-11T11:01:26.788-07:002010-09-11T11:01:26.788-07:00as though Morgan & co. didn't have a bette...<i>as though Morgan & co. didn't have a better grasp on that than the academic amateurs of the Roosevelt Administration.</i><br /><br />They didn't. JP Morgan and Co. may have known that less regs was most likely better for their business--at least until the market crashes ala '29. But they're not economists. One routinely notes this conflation of economics and business practices. Not the same, regardless what "Trickle-down" types insist. What's good for the society at large is not always good for the corporations and financiers . <br /><br />And I don't think you understand what the regulations implied. The New Deal meant security for the mortgages of many Ma and Pa Kettles. Once those funds were made available to JP Morgans, AIG, G-sachs, etc--starting even with FHMLC if not before--, the market became far more volatile. Property values fluctuate (and this can be verified). At the same time, the lenders freed up by relaxed regs can make loans to anyone they want to. <br /><br />It's a rather complex issue, and I don't claim to be an expert in it ---yet at any rate the recent mortgage crisis shows what happens when the finance boys get their way. Lets not forget the crisis and subsquent Bailout--a massive fucking swindle, pardon my french--was bipartisan, which is to say the Demo. leaders are as tied to finance capital as GOP, regardless of what Goldbergs try to say. Palast wrote some decent stuff on this.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2728235187998502824.post-41370114645514186452010-09-10T22:45:11.337-07:002010-09-10T22:45:11.337-07:00The details are debatable, certainly, but I don...The details are debatable, certainly, but I don't think anyone would try to say that FDR and his New Deal fixed the Depression. In fact, it seems to me increasingly evident that, for all its hyperactivity -- largely <i>because</i> of its hyperactivity -- the New Deal likely prolonged it. Just one aspect of that may well have been the attempt to tell financiers and bankers how to manage money -- as though Morgan & co. didn't have a better grasp on that than the academic amateurs of the Roosevelt Administration. So, despite the fact that it's been an icon of liberal faith for some three generations now, I doubt the New Deal will survive as a model of how governments should behave in a financial crisis. And the current Administration seems just to be adding another nail in that coffin.Metamorfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199074976158603981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2728235187998502824.post-59476729033312933942010-09-10T20:55:17.733-07:002010-09-10T20:55:17.733-07:00none of FDR's interventions worked either.
De...<i> none of FDR's interventions worked either.</i><br /><br />Debatable and would require quite a bit of historical and empirical research to verify, either way. The recovery programs like WPA put people back to work. The economy slowly returned (helped greatly by WWII). The New Deal wasn't perfect but rather superior to the robber baron capitalism of Coolidge and Hoover. And the New Deal regs arguably kept financiers from gambling with secured funds (at least until the Gingrich-Clinton era)--they stabilized things. That might not please JP Morgan Jrs but Ma and Pa Kettle are better off. <br /><br />Marx's point on history repeating itself-- "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."--applies to right-wing buffoons at least as much as it does to liberal bureaucrats--so, Nixon and Reagan as tragedy, Bush I and II as farce, if not theatre of the ridiculous.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com