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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
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.


So they were hypocrites? You said that the nationalization of industry and expanded welfare were "socialistic." Both of which the nazi's did in spades. Yet they hated socialists?

Are you getting the point yet?




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Xenophobic yes... in both the US and Europe... Socialist... no.

No matter where you go socialists are always on the left... what Bismark did was to blindside them by co-opting their program but it was still a monarchist state capitalist afterwards.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


So even though he implemented socialist programs he wasnt socialist but rather co-opting a brand (directional qualifier of right or left which still doesnt mean anything)?

I guess you arent getting the point yet.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I got the point a while ago actually...

look at it this way... one of the reasons Republicans hated Bill Clinton so much was that he co-opted many of their ideas but in doing so it didn't make him any less a liberal... he just out manueveured his opponents.

What it really means is that neither side controls their ideas...

... and in reality its not the ideas or programs that matter... its the ideology and in that sense yes there is a difference.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


... and in reality its not the ideas or programs that matter... its the ideology and in that sense yes there is a difference.


So I can claim myself faithful to my wife then go whoring myself out to legions of anybody and in the end my ideology remains true and I will be know as a faithful man?

I think you have it backwards. The programs (actions) matter. Everything else is lip-service bull-S.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


In the marketplace of ideas ideology doesn't mean squat... Ideas and allegiance come and go.

When the Democrats dropped their century old support of segregation during the civil rights era, that was a dramatic change in ideology that effected almost everything about the Democratic party... still their core ideas about labor... the original basis for American liberalism remained the same.

When the hardcore southern segregationists switched their allegiance from the Democratic party to the Republican party because of it, creating the momentum for the conservative error that is just ending...

... they changed parties but they did not change their ideology.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706
 


Derivatives aren't the problem. The securitization market is a marvel of modern capitalism. It aids in the creation of business ventures that might not have otherwise been recognized in the past. Nikola Tesla's alternating current system for electricity generation and distribution was only caught by the keen eye of JP Morgan, probably the greatest of the 19th century's most prominent businessmen. Just imagine if there wasn't a man with as much capital as he at that very time the brilliant Dr. Tesla was alive and kicking. It must have been luck.

The problem began with the passage of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act under President Clinton, which relinquished the oversight capabilities of federal regulators over the exchange of securities. Under this regime, a whole host of inappropriate new securities were invented to extend credit in such a way as to increase profit for interested investors.

The problem began when large corporations, such as AIG, took this to their advantage. They insured lending from hedge fund managers to subprime borrowers, such as low credit rated businesses and individuals so that they could collect interest and make more money. By insuring subprime borrowers, this essentially raised the credit rating of these borrowers so that mutual funds could legally lend to them.

It's a simple money making procedure: a) raise the credit rating of previously low credit rated borrowers by insuring them, b) extend credit to low credit rated borrowers, c) collect interest where it was previously illegal to do so and d) because more interest, and therefore more income, is collected from more borrowers, the hedge fund managers and their insurers (e.g. AIG) make more money.

And to compound the whole problem, because of the nature of derivatives, which are simply a method to securitize risk by distributing it through a large number of financial instruments (futures, options, swaps, convertibles, warrants, etc.) these hedge fund managers could leverage at totally inappropriate levels, claiming that their risk was all accounted for and under control.

When the market figured the insurers were doing something fishy, the subprime borrowers were exposed, and investors pulled out from all these hedge funds, which were backed up by the wealth of millions of regular Americans. The end result was none of these people saw a single dividend for all the money they ever invested in these funds. Billions of dollars were evaporated and that prompted regular savings banks to freeze up credit, thereby slowing business and bringing international trade to a seeming halt.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

In unveiling the governments’ new plan, Geithner was shortest on detail about proposed solutions to most fundamental cause of the financial meltdown — the relentless rise in foreclosures and fall in home prices. Following up on a proposal introduced in the House last month, Geithner said the new plan will include $50 billion to stop foreclosures. The details of how it will be spent, he said, would be announced “in the next few weeks.”


From another article, but this relevant:

Foreclosures were never the cause of the financial meltdown. They were the symptom of a crumbling economy, the result of victimization on behalf of greedy, irresponsible hedge fund managers and insurance corporations. Why are these foreclosures happening in the first place?

I have yet to hear a single suggestion from Capital Hill in regard to regulating Wall Street. All their plans have to do with is capital injection. The simple answer is to reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act and create a permanent federal oversight committee for the creation of derivatives. The industry needs laws to keep these things in check. Investment banks shouldn't be allowed to leverage so much. There are legal restrictions on the operation of regular savings banks, but why not on AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehmans? Is the government in on this?

What are more bailouts going to accomplish but funnel money to corporate bonuses, galas and travel funds? Why would I give money to failed banks just so they can lend it out my neighbors? Does that even make sense? I'd rather have a Japanese bank taking care of my money. The economy should never fall prey to nationalization or national incentives. Why hasn't that option ever been brought up yet? Forget nationalization, BANKRUPT THE BANKS. Send us some responsible foreign corporations to get the job done. Same goes for the auto industry. The economy is supranational. Global capitalism is on the rise.

Why exactly are banks short of capital to lend? America is going downhill. If Congress doesn't regain power over the printing of money then this will never be fixed. The Federal Reserve can not be trusted if it refuses to be audited. Money printing should lie in the hands of the people, in the Republic, in the hands of elected representatives. Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to be transparent whatsoever.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Now I'm really confused. You said ideology makes all the difference then ideology doesnt mean squat then you get right back to ideology makes all the difference.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

No... I said that in the marketplace of ideas ideology doesn't mean squat... i

Let me explain what I mean as simply as possible...

(1) All groups be they political parties or the boy scouts have an underlying ideology.
(2) Associated with their ideologies are certain ideas that form its basis.
(3) However a group can change ideas without changing their ideology...
(4) Or they can change ideology along with the change in ideas... but they don't have to.
(5) My example of changing ideas without changing ideology were the dixicrats who bolted the Democratic party for the Republicans because of segregation... their idea... which party suited their needs changed but their underlying racist ideology didn't.
(6) the Democrats however changed a long standing underlying ideology (support for segregation) when they rejected the idea of it.

So what I am saying is that unless you change the ideology when you change an idea it doesn't mean anything...

In connection to this thread... the treasury sec. was a long standing advocate of deregulation so unless he has had a change in ideology... which I doubt... his change of ideas... i.e. in favor of regulation... doesn't mean squat... the policies he floats will still have the same underlying idea that financial instituitions shouldn't be regulated.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by grover]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


So if a treasury secretary who tells you he likes deregulation goes on to support or write legislation that regulates he isnt really regulating anything because he has previously stated he believes in deregulation?

This goes right back to my whoring around town scenario. Is my wife supposed to be okay with it because I went on record stating I hold fidelity in high regard?

These "ideologies" don't exist. They don't have any value. The only things that matter are actions and policies. This "ideology" stuff seems a lot like Santa Clause for adults. And applying an "ideology" to a larger group gives it exponentially less value as the size of the group increases. I might have a core set of beliefs and they might be rock solid. My friends my share some but not all. If we belonged to an even larger group fewer of those beliefs would overlap. Eventually, in a group large enough, it's likely that not one of those beliefs is held consistently through the group.

This is smoke and mirrors and nothing more. Any one can do and say any thing. Whatever group they pretend to belong to has absolutely no bearing.

The myth of "ideology" is right up there with organized religious ritual as a means to control people and convince them to adopt (or at least claim to adopt) beliefs that are not their own.

If Republicans pretend to have a foundation of limited government interference and unfettered liberty for all that's all well and good but essentially meaningless. When their top-dog (Bush Jr. in this case) goes off expanding government interference and enjoys a spending spree of epic proportions that has meaning. Meaning in that it makes it abundantly clear that "ideologies" of parties have absolutely no value in the face of individual actions.

Putting your faith in some stated or claimed "ideology" (as you apparently have) is naive and reckless. Such faith only emboldens the individuals who knowingly and willfully act contrary to what their allegedly like-minded horde expects given these individuals infinite power over the groups to which they pretend to belong as the the majority of the horde who has aligned themselves with the group opt to see such action not as a failure of the mythical "ideology" to hold them together but as an isolated incident. An isolated incident that continues to be found in all directions with ever-growing regularity and still the horde refuses to see where the real breakdown is happening.

You seem well embedded in your horde.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Just because I can understand it doesn't mean I go along with it. I actually trust pragmatists far more than I do ideologists because ideologists like the neo-con's are going to go with the policies their ideology has produced come hell or high water and defend it regardless of what history has shown is the result. Whereas a pragmatist isn't wedded to an idea and are willing to change them as needed.

I am a self declared old hippie liberal but my world view is far wider than any of the cliches associated with the words hippie and liberal. I also describe myself as an agnostic Christian Buddhist pagan Baha'i' because there are aspects of each of those I agree with fully but there are also aspects with each of those I disagree with.

What I am saying is that when someone works from an ideology they are far less likely to change their opinions than if they are just working from an idea.

In terms of the treasury sec. unless he has had a profound change of heart he has been one of the key disiaples of the whole deregulation movement so unless he proves otherwise I do not trust him or his ideas... and he and his ideas are my only gripe (so far) with Obama and his administration.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by grover]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join