board77

The fuller form is, "Yer Mama swims out to meet troopships!"

Uh, Liddy was the one with the "chicago pumpkin" sig during the election. He ain't no Obamatron.

The gov'mint is trying to "wind down" all these (unregulated) massive derivatives without causing a bona fide 19th Century financial panic and multi year depression. Keynes' theory is one of the guideposts. Yes, perhaps we should just stand by and let economic Darwinism and true financial panic take over. I agree that eventually we would get over it, as always happened in the 19th Century. But I'll take my 20th century somewhat imperfectly regulated economy, thanks.

*cheerfully waves hammer and sickle flag*

But I ask you- what does an $8 billion monorail from Vegas to Disneyland have to do with that?

Even Keynes' reanimated corpse would tell the Admin that stimulus spending has to make use of idle resources and direct them to activities with an economic return- 'investment', if you will. Hurling dollars around in random directions (or giving Pelosi a trillion-dollar sausage casing to stuff with whatever she likes) is neither a stimulus nor a recovery plan.

In the meantime, there has been no move to abolish the hideous mark-to-market rule which is keeping those derivatives more toxic than they need to be, and curbing lending thanks to the depressive effect on bank balance sheets.

And our old friends Fannie and Freddie are *accelerating* subprime lending!

This is not a conventional business-cycle recession, the result of excess inventory. This is a crisis in the financial sector brought on by a massive credit bubble and cascading leverage dominoes: a worldwide chain reaction of margin calls. And the Admin wants to *reinflate it* with even more insane levels of debt! Rather akin to the idea of the Dutch government moving to stabilise the tulip-bulb market by buying them all up with gold borrowed from Spain....

This sort of 'stimulus', including life support to persistently vegetative 'zombie companies,' is precisely what failed in Japan throughout the 90's.....but at least Japan had a positive balance of payments, so they did no worse than stagnate.

Tell me, how can we possibly sustain perpetual deficits at 5% of GDP, even before the FICA bomb explodes?

Had Obama put together a well-thought-out, meaningful stimulus bill, targeted at needed infrastructure projects and other ventures offering a long-term positive effect on GDP, that would be one thing. But instead we had a mass panic, a bill filled with rubbish, reconciled in the middle of the night behind closed doors and then voted through before the Congress could even read it! Lunacy! This isn't an economic plan, it's headless chickens.

The money hurled at these zombies is meant to keep them from toppling over catastrophically kind of like an old growth giant in a forest. In the meantime, the toxic-asset sale was announced yesterday. Mortgage rates are pushed lower to try to prevent an overcorrection in house prices and to refinance and thus disappear mortgages from the toxic asset pools. Once the crisis is abating, the giants will be lowered to the ground carefully.

19th century panics damaged rather indisciminately like a forest fire and markets tend to overshoot the bottom (as they tend to overshoot the top and create a bubble). I think the gov'mint is trying to avoid the "overshoot the bottom" phase of this event.

Nobody's accelerating subprime lending, Soli. Where do you get your information? I know several people who got turned away by the banks for a 4.5% mortgage because banks are no longer lending on 10% equity. You've got to be at 20-30% to get these rates now.

Letting GM and Chrysler go into Chapter 11 is not a "catastrophic fall." The whole point of bankruptcy is to let down gently- an orderly process of separating strengths from weaknesses, discharging liabilities, and at the far end leaving either a leaner, healthier company, or a recycling of its assets into healthier applications.

Why should we repeat the disaster of British Leyland?

Even Sweden (Sweden!) has announced that it's not going to bail out SAAB. (And of course were blasted by the NYT- probably the first time in history the New Duranty has ever criticised the Socialist Paradise).

Isn't it weird that Sweden Germany and France are opposing mass stimulus and bailouts, and the US/UK are surging to their left???

solicitr wrote:

Even Sweden (Sweden!) has announced that it's not going to bail out SAAB. (And of course were blasted by the NYT- probably the first time in history the New Duranty has ever criticised the Socialist Paradise).

Will the American right ever stop bitching about poor Sweden?

I'm quite sure its conservative government is rather tired of being called socialist...

Well, Sweden's conservative government is only 'conservative' in Swedish terms, as in 'slighly less far to the left.' I don't see it moving to dismantle the Welfare State.

It's still amazing to me that *any* US government could be to the left of *any* Swedish government.

I like the few Swedes I've known, and I'd love to see them enjoy sensible government. But I don't see it happening any time soon.

solicitr wrote:

Well, Sweden's conservative government is only 'conservative' in Swedish terms, as in 'slighly less far to the left.' I don't see it moving to dismantle the Welfare State.

It's still amazing to me that *any* US government could be to the left of *any* Swedish government.

I like the few Swedes I've known, and I'd love to see them enjoy sensible government. But I don't see it happening any time soon.

Thank goodness, no. Then those poor Swedes might even continue enjoying one of the world's highest standards of living.

If anyone was wondering how the last week of news has impacted the public approval ratings of President Barack Obama

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ce-so-far/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

They are doing exceedingly well thank you.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As President Obama prepares for his second prime time White House news conference, a new CNN poll of polls indicates that more than six in ten Americans are happy with the job he's doing as president.

Sixty-three percent approve of how President Obama handling his duties, according to a CNN poll of polls compiled Tuesday, just hours before Obama takes reporters' questions in front of a national audience. Thirty percent disapprove of his performance.

The poll of polls is an average of the four national polls conducted mostly after March 14, when the AIG bonus controversy became generally known across the country.

"A poll of polls in early March showed Obama's average approval rating at 61 percent, indicating that although the public is angry about the AIG bailouts, they are not taking that anger out on Obama." says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.


The current 63 percent approval rating is higher than any of Obama's four predecessors received at a similar point in their first terms in office. George W. Bush stood at 58 percent in mid March of 2001, Bill Clinton at 53 percent in March of 1993, George H.W. Bush at 56 percent in March of 1989, and Ronald Reagan stood at 60 percent in mid March of 1981.

The surveys included in the CNN poll of polls are Gallup (March 20-22), CBS, (March 20-22), CNN/Opinion Research Corporation (March 12-15) and NPR (March 10-14). The poll of polls does not have a sampling error.

And it seems that most people do not blame President Obama for the AIG mess either.

Quote:

There's a lot of blame to go around when it comes to the $165 million in bonuses paid to executives at AIG, the insurance giant that has gotten $170 billion in federal aid. A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows that Americans hold AIG management itself most responsible.

Nearly half of those surveyed (46%) say AIG management is "most to blame for the fact that these bonuses were paid." Almost one in five (19%) finger Congress, while 8% blame Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and 7% say President Obama bears responsibility.

The poll of 2,019 adults was taken Saturday and Sunday. Half the sample -- 1,002 respondents -- were asked about the blame game. Some were reached on landlines, some on cellphones. The margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points.

For more results, including responses to questions about the handling of the AIG bailout, check back at USATODAY.com this evening and see editions of USA TODAY.

During the decade of the 1980's it used to drive many of us on the left to tears because nothing seemed to detract from the popularity of Ronald Reagan with at least half the population. Many said he was our "Teflon President". Its only been two months, but it is looking like President Obama may well have some of that same quality. This time, it will be those on the Right who will decry that ability.

It used to puzzle me Sharky why the American right idealogues were obsessed with Sweden and trying to paint it as a failed society; and that was back in the early 60's too. Obviously they are still at it but I know why now. It sticks in their craw that a social welfare state works.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

It sticks in their craw that a social welfare state works.

I think that's exactly it, Tosh.

It's probably envy too, since Sweden -- and Scandinavia in general, actually -- enjoys such a high standard of living, low levels of crime, etc etc etc.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

It sticks in their craw that a social welfare state works.

And does it without God or guns.

Nienor asks

Quote:

Will the American right ever stop bitching about poor Sweden?

The American Right thrives on the politics of fear. Part of their past success was based on the fear of the Other - the Immigrant, the Unionist, the Catholic, the Jew, the Black, the Communist, the Radical, the Socialist...... anyone who was different in thought or belief or demographics could be isolated as the real enemy. All this was done to justify their own policies even if the people promoting them knew that these were mostly paper tigers who posed no real threat that could not be routinely dealt with.

I have always been amazed how the Right contradicts itself regarding Communism as a governmental and economic system.

One the one hand they tell us that the system was doomed to fail eventually because it is founded on a lie. On the other hand they tell us that Ronald Reagan and the Cold War get lots of credit for bringing Communism down since it forced them to spend dollar for dollar against the West and that bankrupted them causing their downfall.

So are we to assume that if there were no expensive Cold War that the Soviets and others could have thrived without those huge military expenses? Would Communism then be alive and well in thos nations? Was it doomed to failure all along?

We will never know.

Joseph McCarthy scared the living hell out of Americans waving his lists and telling of Communists in various agencies of the US government. In one way or another, this policy was kept up for decades with the villians changing only marginally. Bush justified his power grab with the fear of the other - this time Islamic terrorists.

So Nienor, its been a policy that has reaped rewards for the Right in America. I just hope it is now impotent and near death. But you can see that some here who still embrace the Right and its fear mongering have not yet let it go completely.

Walter Shapiro, wiriting in the New Republic, has a rather thought provoking article in which he says the the Right is in a rather poor position to benefit from any public anger about the economy:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 2d222161d8" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

So maybe the American public is wising up after fifty years.

It's a stupid example/argument anyway.

1) Sweden is not, and never has been, a socialist state. Social democratic, yes, but not socialist. Same goes for the other Nordic countries.

2) These are among the most well-functioning societies on earth. If they really were socialist, it would be a poor argument for socialism being bad.

**recalls Denmark

**nods vigorously

sauronsfinger wrote:

I have always been amazed how the Right contradicts itself regarding Communism as a governmental and economic system.

One the one hand they tell us that the system was doomed to fail eventually because it is founded on a lie. On the other hand they tell us that Ronald Reagan and the Cold War get lots of credit for bringing Communism down since it forced them to spend dollar for dollar against the West and that bankrupted them causing their downfall.

So are we to assume that if there were no expensive Cold War that the Soviets and others could have thrived without those huge military expenses? Would Communism then be alive and well in thos nations? Was it doomed to failure all along?

I'm no lover of neocon rhetoric, sf, but it's hard to argue that Communism was not ultimately doomed to failure because quite apart from its questionable ideology it is such an almighty economic train crash.

But this is all a far cry from Sweden.

Which is neither Communist nor indeed pure socialist, as Nienor SharkAttack points out so succintly.

Nienor SharkAttack wrote:

It's anyway a stupid example/argument.

Oh, it certainly is. Word.

As I said to Tosh, I suspect it's fuelled by jealousy.

Quote:

2) These are among the most well-functioning societies on earth. If they really were socialist, it would be a poor argument for socialism being bad.

Quite.

Let me add my chorus to the general appreciation of Scandinavian society in this thread. Well-ordered society, high standard of living, and very pleasant, civilised people.

Di of Long Cleeve wrote:

... and very pleasant, civilised people.

You've obviously never seen Norwegians "debating" the EU.

Nienor SharkAttack wrote:

You've obviously never seen Norwegians "debating" the EU.

Rich countries that adopt socialist policies (and that includes the current USA where socialism is erroneously defined as "always more than we have" ) can maintain the gloriously high standard of living for a while as they eat their seed stock.

Scandinavian countries are the current example of "see it does work" as they eat their seed stock. Other countries used to be that example, but for some reason stopped being such a great example once they ran out of stored wealth to consume.

Any system - regardless of where it can be placed on the political spectrum - must adapt and change with the times and conditions it faces. That is true of capitalism, it is true of socialism and it is true with communism. It is true of any other system as well. The world changes. Any ststem that does not change with it risks becoming antiquated and dying.

The type of Gilded Age capitalism that existed in the USA after the Civil War could not have existed in todays world where our political system has greatly expanded democracy to nearly all in the citizens. A vast majority are not going to stand by and live in relative squalor while a minority enjoys the life of a Robber Baron. The USA adapted and changed both its economic and governmental systems.

Obviously, the Soviet Union did not make the necessary adaptive changes to survive. That does not necessarily mean that any sort of communistic or socialistic system is doomed. Time will tell.