John Simkin Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Karl Marx argued that the inherent contradictions in free-market capitalism would eventually result in a collapse in the economic system and would be replaced with a more rational system of socialism. In the late 1920s the economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out that Marx’s predictions would not come true as the inherent contradictions in capitalism could be dealt with by sensible government intervention in the economy. In the 1930s two very different politicians dealt with the economic depression by the use of Keynes’ economic ideas: Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hitler was rightly described as a fascist whose main intention was to save the capitalist system. Roosevelt was incorrectly called a socialist. In fact, he did more than anyone to save capitalism from socialism. After the war several industries were nationalised by Atlee’s Labour government. This was also incorrectly described as socialism. Industries such as railways and coalmining were finding it impossible to make a profit from the free-market. However, these industries were too important to be allowed to disappear. The shareholders in these industries were only too pleased to sell out to the government. This process went on throughout the industrialised world. In the UK we are now experiencing the folly of de-nationalizing of the railways, gas, electricity, water, coal-mining, etc in the 1990s. At the same time, governments in the west are being forced to nationalize companies in order to make sure capitalism survives. In the UK we have recently had Northern Rock, in the US, we have the case of the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It seems that all politicians are now supporters of Keynesian economics now. They of course have no choice in this matter. If they don’t take action Marx will be proved right. The issue is not whether Bush is right or wrong over this issue, but whether he has acted fast enough. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have racked up a combined $14bn of losses during the past year. This is only the tip of the ice-berg. Will the Bush administration have enough money in reserve to bail out all those banks who got involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal? I doubt it. How long will it take the Chinese and Arabs to realize the game is up and begin withdrawing their investments in the United States? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Karl Marx argued that the inherent contradictions in free-market capitalism would eventually result in a collapse in the economic system and would be replaced with a more rational system of socialism. In the late 1920s the economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out that Marx’s predictions would not come true as the inherent contradictions in capitalism could be dealt with by sensible government intervention in the economy. In the 1930s two very different politicians dealt with the economic depression by the use of Keynes’ economic ideas: Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hitler was rightly described as a fascist whose main intention was to save the capitalist system. Roosevelt was incorrectly called a socialist. In fact, he did more than anyone to save capitalism from socialism. After the war several industries were nationalised by Atlee’s Labour government. This was also incorrectly described as socialism. Industries such as railways and coalmining were finding it impossible to make a profit from the free-market. However, these industries were too important to be allowed to disappear. The shareholders in these industries were only too pleased to sell out to the government. This process went on throughout the industrialised world. In the UK we are now experiencing the folly of de-nationalizing of the railways, gas, electricity, water, coal-mining, etc in the 1990s. At the same time, governments in the west are being forced to nationalize companies in order to make sure capitalism survives. In the UK we have recently had Northern Rock, in the US, we have the case of the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It seems that all politicians are now supporters of Keynesian economics now. They of course have no choice in this matter. If they don’t take action Marx will be proved right. The issue is not whether Bush is right or wrong over this issue, but whether he has acted fast enough. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have racked up a combined $14bn of losses during the past year. This is only the tip of the ice-berg. Will the Bush administration have enough money in reserve to bail out all those banks who got involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal? I doubt it. How long will it take the Chinese and Arabs to realize the game is up and begin withdrawing their investments in the United States? Socialism for the rich, and free market Capitalism for the rest. in a decade long party, that most of us didn't even get invited too, we are now, in the grand hypocritical tradition, being asked to clear up the mess our ruling class have created for themselves, and by extention the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 (edited) Karl Marx argued that the inherent contradictions in free-market capitalism would eventually result in a collapse in the economic system and would be replaced with a more rational system of socialism. In the late 1920s the economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out that Marx’s predictions would not come true as the inherent contradictions in capitalism could be dealt with by sensible government intervention in the economy. In the 1930s two very different politicians dealt with the economic depression by the use of Keynes’ economic ideas: Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hitler was rightly described as a fascist whose main intention was to save the capitalist system. Roosevelt was incorrectly called a socialist. In fact, he did more than anyone to save capitalism from socialism. After the war several industries were nationalised by Atlee’s Labour government. This was also incorrectly described as socialism. Industries such as railways and coalmining were finding it impossible to make a profit from the free-market. However, these industries were too important to be allowed to disappear. The shareholders in these industries were only too pleased to sell out to the government. This process went on throughout the industrialised world. In the UK we are now experiencing the folly of de-nationalizing of the railways, gas, electricity, water, coal-mining, etc in the 1990s. At the same time, governments in the west are being forced to nationalize companies in order to make sure capitalism survives. In the UK we have recently had Northern Rock, in the US, we have the case of the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It seems that all politicians are now supporters of Keynesian economics now. They of course have no choice in this matter. If they don’t take action Marx will be proved right. The issue is not whether Bush is right or wrong over this issue, but whether he has acted fast enough. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have racked up a combined $14bn of losses during the past year. This is only the tip of the ice-berg. Will the Bush administration have enough money in reserve to bail out all those banks who got involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal? I doubt it. How long will it take the Chinese and Arabs to realize the game is up and begin withdrawing their investments in the United States? Socialism for the rich, and free market Capitalism for the rest. in a decade long party, that most of us didn't even get invited too, we are now, in the grand hypocritical tradition, being asked to clear up the mess our ruling class have created for themselves, and by extention the rest of us. the Fannie/Freddie take over will cost US taxpayers a few trillion $. Before you know it, we'll be talking about REAL money. And, don't expect Craig Lamson to pony up -- he'll move in with Sarah Palin's family, hunt bear, and yell to never setting Alaskan sun, "I don't own no stink'in houses".... Edited September 8, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 8, 2008 Author Share Posted September 8, 2008 the Fannie/Freddie take over will cost US taxpayers a few trillion $. Before you know it, we'll be talking about REAL money. And, don't expect Craig Lamson to pony up -- he'll move in with Sarah Palin's family, hunt bear, and yell to never setting Alaskan sun, "I don't own no stink'in houses".... How are the free-market advocates dealing with this issue in America? Or is everybody now in favour of government intervention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 the Fannie/Freddie take over will cost US taxpayers a few trillion $. Before you know it, we'll be talking about REAL money. And, don't expect Craig Lamson to pony up -- he'll move in with Sarah Palin's family, hunt bear, and yell to never setting Alaskan sun, "I don't own no stink'in houses".... How are the free-market advocates dealing with this issue in America? Or is everybody now in favour of government intervention? Yes, I wouldn't mind hearing the opinions of free market disciples myself. I don't like our chances, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 the Fannie/Freddie take over will cost US taxpayers a few trillion $. Before you know it, we'll be talking about REAL money. And, don't expect Craig Lamson to pony up -- he'll move in with Sarah Palin's family, hunt bear, and yell to never setting Alaskan sun, "I don't own no stink'in houses".... How are the free-market advocates dealing with this issue in America? Or is everybody now in favour of government intervention? I've been on the record for letting them fail. Nationalization is the wrong move ofr lots of reasons. I would prefer for us to take the lumps now and move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Karl Marx argued that the inherent contradictions in free-market capitalism would eventually result in a collapse in the economic system and would be replaced with a more rational system of socialism. In the late 1920s the economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out that Marx’s predictions would not come true as the inherent contradictions in capitalism could be dealt with by sensible government intervention in the economy. In the 1930s two very different politicians dealt with the economic depression by the use of Keynes’ economic ideas: Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hitler was rightly described as a fascist whose main intention was to save the capitalist system. Roosevelt was incorrectly called a socialist. In fact, he did more than anyone to save capitalism from socialism. After the war several industries were nationalised by Atlee’s Labour government. This was also incorrectly described as socialism. Industries such as railways and coalmining were finding it impossible to make a profit from the free-market. However, these industries were too important to be allowed to disappear. The shareholders in these industries were only too pleased to sell out to the government. This process went on throughout the industrialised world. In the UK we are now experiencing the folly of de-nationalizing of the railways, gas, electricity, water, coal-mining, etc in the 1990s. At the same time, governments in the west are being forced to nationalize companies in order to make sure capitalism survives. In the UK we have recently had Northern Rock, in the US, we have the case of the mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It seems that all politicians are now supporters of Keynesian economics now. They of course have no choice in this matter. If they don’t take action Marx will be proved right. The issue is not whether Bush is right or wrong over this issue, but whether he has acted fast enough. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have racked up a combined $14bn of losses during the past year. This is only the tip of the ice-berg. Will the Bush administration have enough money in reserve to bail out all those banks who got involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal? I doubt it. How long will it take the Chinese and Arabs to realize the game is up and begin withdrawing their investments in the United States? Socialism for the rich, and free market Capitalism for the rest. in a decade long party, that most of us didn't even get invited too, we are now, in the grand hypocritical tradition, being asked to clear up the mess our ruling class have created for themselves, and by extention the rest of us. the Fannie/Freddie take over will cost US taxpayers a few trillion $. Before you know it, we'll be talking about REAL money. And, don't expect Craig Lamson to pony up -- he'll move in with Sarah Palin's family, hunt bear, and yell to never setting Alaskan sun, "I don't own no stink'in houses".... I'm going to "pony up" just like the rest of the American taxpayers..well those above the 50% or so line that ACTUALLY PAY federal income tax...regardless of my opinions. You really need some new material davie, your current stuff really stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 the Fannie/Freddie take over will cost US taxpayers a few trillion $. Before you know it, we'll be talking about REAL money. And, don't expect Craig Lamson to pony up -- he'll move in with Sarah Palin's family, hunt bear, and yell to never setting Alaskan sun, "I don't own no stink'in houses".... How are the free-market advocates dealing with this issue in America? Or is everybody now in favour of government intervention? I believe the term: "no option" is being bandied about. That'll be spun every which way from Sunday... The short answer is that legislation Congress passed in July failed to reassure financial markets enough to position the two companies to raise needed capital on their own. That law gave the Treasury new authority to funnel credit or capital into Fannie and Freddie, if needed – at taxpayer expense. In short, they can't sell it to the marketplace... see the article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080908/ts_csm/afanfred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 I've been on the record for letting them fail. Nationalization is the wrong move ofr lots of reasons. I would prefer for us to take the lumps now and move forward. The problem is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole system is under threat. As much as it must hurt, Bush had no choice but to nationalize them. What alternative strategy do you suggest Bush should take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I've been on the record for letting them fail. Nationalization is the wrong move ofr lots of reasons. I would prefer for us to take the lumps now and move forward. The problem is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole system is under threat. As much as it must hurt, Bush had no choice but to nationalize them. What alternative strategy do you suggest Bush should take? Let everyone take their lumps and then lets move on. We eitther take the big hit, suffer and then rebuild or we die the death of a thousand cuts. I'll take the big hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I've been on the record for letting them fail. Nationalization is the wrong move ofr lots of reasons. I would prefer for us to take the lumps now and move forward. The problem is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole system is under threat. As much as it must hurt, Bush had no choice but to nationalize them. What alternative strategy do you suggest Bush should take? This represents an unlimted bailout of international speculators. The sane alternative is to place the system into bankruptcy and freeze the debt. There is a reported $185 trillion worth of derivatives in the US banking system. There is no way to bail out the derivatives market. We should do what Franklin Roosevelt did in the 1930's. Put the system through government supervised bankruptcy re organization and write off all the derivatives obligations. Essentially bankrupting the speculators, which is long overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 News has emerged that the departing chief executives of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Richard Syron and Daniel Mudd, will take combined severance pay of $23m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 This represents an unlimted bailout of international speculators. The sane alternative is to place the system into bankruptcy and freeze the debt. There is a reported $185 trillion worth of derivatives in the US banking system. An impossibly high number $185 Trillion is: “…the notional value of GLOBAL OTC (over the counter) interest-rate derivatives” as estimated in 2004 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF24Dj01.html “the total value of all real and financial assets in the U.S.” as estimated at the end of 2007 http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.27849/news_detail.asp and “the projected US “GDP over the next 10 years” http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mone...5C%7D&dist= Reports I’ve seen indicate the total debt of the two is about $ 50 billion which is still a huge sum of money about $ 165 per American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) This represents an unlimted bailout of international speculators. The sane alternative is to place the system into bankruptcy and freeze the debt. There is a reported $185 trillion worth of derivatives in the US banking system. An impossibly high number $185 Trillion is: “…the notional value of GLOBAL OTC (over the counter) interest-rate derivatives” as estimated in 2004 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GF24Dj01.html “the total value of all real and financial assets in the U.S.” as estimated at the end of 2007 http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.27849/news_detail.asp and “the projected US “GDP over the next 10 years” http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mone...5C%7D&dist= Reports I’ve seen indicate the total debt of the two is about $ 50 billion which is still a huge sum of money about $ 165 per American. (Edited for offensive remark) April 1998 http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/42998eir.htm August 21, 2008 http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/fil...iv_exposure.png Edited September 11, 2008 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 (edited) As the financial system continues to collapse at a break neck pace, the financial oligarchy has come up with a solution. They want to legalize their favorite commodity "DRUGS". As usual they are right on que. This would mark a return to the days of the British East India company. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Colle...1>1=33004 Edited September 10, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now