It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Economists Laid End To End": Judging The Geithner Plan

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

"Economists Laid End To End": Judging The Geithner Plan


www.huffingtonpost.com

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion" -- George Bernard Shaw

Disagreements among the cadre of economists critical of the Obama administration's economic strategies have made it difficult to assess the viability of the recent bank-bailout proposals announced by the President and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

When, for example, Treasury Secretary Geithner on March 23 announced a new "Public-Private Investment Program" -- the latest variation of the Obama administration's bailout plan -- the normally reliable gang of critics split into two camps.

One faction, exemplified by Nobel Laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, remained firmly pessimistic, arguing that the new policy would at best slow a steady march toward the cliff's edge.

"The Geithner plan is very badly flawed," Stiglitz told Reuters. "Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people."

Other concerned economists, including Nouriel "Dr. Doom" Roubini (who has often proved disconcertingly right) and Brad DeLong, Berkeley professor and former deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, argue that the proposal might do some real good, although their commentary is packed with caveats.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
The truth be told none of the economists and most certainly neither of the parties... much less some loud mouth talk radio host... have any clue whether the plan is going to work or not.

And if you have been paying any attention whatsoever president Obama has admitted as much... that they don't know if it will work or not either.

The simple reason is because this is the first real global financial crisis and we can only do so much...

And the sad thing is even if it does work it may take years before we know it did.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
You know, were supopsed to be this so called global community, right? Seems like the ones who wanted this, are the ones fighting with eachother, wheres the unification in that? Globalization dosnt and isnt ever gunna work, thank god.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The plan is fascist economy. The banks makes the money, the taxpayers pays the bad investment. Nothing else.

The CDS are worth more than the world GDP. So unless those CDS are destroyed, no plan will work.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Unless someone is willing to face down the bankers and tell them the gravy train is over, and NO they don't get to KEEP other people's wealth for a fee, this won't work.

The problem is many governments (perhaps even most) are effectively run by their central bankers. So expecting the 'governments' to be working towards any kind of solution to the profiteering which causes this mess is foolishly naive.

All these people do is exploit. That's how they exist. And we let them be in charge.... because they told us to.... sad really.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
As long as people like us keep sitting at home doing nothing while the fed keeps running the nation right now, pulling for their banking cartel we are going to be nothing but milking cows to what our government has become.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


That is not a fascist economy... for the record fascism was a rabidly right wing hyper capitalist ideology.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I agree Grover. Nobody really knows if this will work or not, but, Obama or not, many are hoping it does for the sake of our Nation and future.

The only reason I say it might not work is because of the manner in which I am starting to see the administration go after businesses. I have heard threats of lawsuits, asking CEO to resign, using the IRS, making scapegoats out of companies. These methods, IMO, are bad if one is trying to stimulate the economy.

I believe Washington should just set the policies they feel will best improve the economy and let the businesses decide if they care to participate under those terms.

Sooner or later, businesses are going to get tired of being bullied, blamed and ridiculed by Washington and are going to take their business elsewhere. Washington also has a lot of blame to bear for our current economic fiasco yet seem to act as though they have committed no sin.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


When the state nationalizes industries they may still be "capitalist" in they exist to create capital but they are hardly "capitalist" in terms of a free-market.

National Socialism is a little like anarchy in that idiot descriptions in terms of direction on a line do not apply.

I'm finding it more and more difficult to understand what worth there is in the insisted use of the qualifier "left" or "right." Because the nationalization of industry and socialism branded "left" are somehow different than should they be branded "right"? Either way a military industrial complex is assuming control over my life. I'm supposed to be happy about that if the particular qualifying direction fits some mold I've been shaped to fit into? Not likely.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Both Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's National Socialist party were extreme right wing capitalist states...the term socialism in the party was in their name and for the rubes only... there was nothing socialist about it.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Yet heading up our treasury department is a man caught who admitted to owing more than $34,000 in back taxes and only made good on those payments before he was vetted for a cabinet position.

Yet he is still in the position. Maybe Obama picked Geithner because he's proven that he's good at altering the books, which is exactly what the fed needs during these economic times?



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Perhaps I'm just a rube who doesnt understand the value of the "left" "right" game but how is this not "socialist"


We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens...

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare...

The State is to care for the elevating national health...


en.wikipedia.org...

Again, whether it's allegedly "left" or "right" doesnt make any difference. If it does explain to me how the Nazi's nationalizing industry and spreading welfare is different from our fed nationalizing indistry and spreading welfare.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


The paragraph you quoted most certainly IS socialist. Grover just simply never misses a beat to take a bat to conservatives and the right whenever he/she can.

I'll tell you what's going on here with Grover's diatribe - it looks like now that Grover is realizing that the Obama administration IS moving closer and closer to a socialist agenda each day, he/she is trying desperately to separate socialism from right-wing ideals and make comparisons with conservative, right-wing thinking to some of the worst men in history. Pathetic, really, as Hitler and Moussolini both sought TOTAL POWER, something that is most certainly NOT in the conservative agenda. True conservatism wants less government and less government intervention in private affairs.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by sos37]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Your little diatribe is a crock of bullhooey... You have no idea what I am thinking.

As for the fact that nazism and fascism were hard core right wing capitalists look it up if you don't believe me.

Even the most right wing conservative here in the United States would be considered a hard core leftist in much of Europe... I know damned good and well that there are differences between conservatives in Europe and conservatives in America... or do you think they are one and the same?



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I did look it up and it doesnt make any sense. Given that what people view as "socialist" and "conservative" is relative (I assume you're using those terms in exchange for "right" and "left" now since you didnt explain how "right" and "left" were different in the context of nationalizing industry and expanding welfare yet you insist the nazi's were far right for nationalizing industry and expanding welfare) only reinforces the idea that what is "right" or "left" or "socialist" or "conservative" is wholly inconsequential and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with nationalizing industry and expanding welfare.

Once more, explain to me what the difference is between our fed doing this and the nazi's doing this.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


What the Fed is doing is not socialism... IF it nationalized the banks and auto industry so that they were the sole shareholder in them... that would be socialism.

If they set up a national health care system that you had to belong to and could not opt out of that would be socialistic.

The fed is not doing either of those things despite the rhetoric to the contrary... you can still own stock in banks and when you think about it the argument that the banks should get the bailouts but the government shouldn't oversee it simply does not hold water.

As for the health plan you can chose to join or opt out... it is not requirement.

I mean stop listening to mush loosebowels and the other loons and do the research yourself.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



So you're saying the fed isnt socialist but the nazi's were?



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
A right wing Frenchman for example would be a monarchist... staunchly protectionist and vehemently anti-immigrant.

The German's under Bismark came up with the social safety system (social security, unemployment, workman's comp etc) and he was in his day considered a right wing monarchist... his reason for doing so was to undercut the socialists and tie the proletariat more closely to the state... when Hitler came along he knew a good thing when he saw it so he further increased the social security network for the same reasons Bismark developed it in the first place... no matter how strong his storm troopers were had he dismantled it or even proposed dismantling it... it would have been political suicide.

Mussolini was also a monarchist... just so long as he controlled access to the monarch so in that sense El Duche was more like the Shogun's of medieval Japan than a typical 20th century dictator.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


The Nazi's were vehemently anti socialist and anti marxist... they were the first ones besides political enemies and Jews to be hauled off and shot.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


So what you're saying is right wing = xenophobic socialist?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join