The new Kleptocracy

[mhgaffney]

This is a must-listen audio interview with economist Michael Hudson about Paulson's bail out.

Some have said the bail out is a step toward communism or socialism -- but Hudson shows this is plainly false.

It's false because the bail out will further concentrate wealth in the hands of the top 1% -- which is just the opposite of communism/socialism. Hudson thinks the result will be a return to a feudal system. For many Americans (esp those who have maxxed out their credit cards and face stiff mortages) it will mean serfdom -- debt bondage.

This is a sharp and succint analysis.

IMO, Hudson is correct on all points. I especially like his approach because Hudson is also a biblical scholar. He shows that what we are witnessing is described in the New Testament.

The unfolding economic disaster is not incompetence -- but evil. OUr nation is now being systematically destroyed.

The most disturbing part is that Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, and most of the Democraps are supporting this move toward Kleptocracy -- disaster.

Please share this with others!

MHG

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21041.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's false because the bail out will further concentrate wealth in the hands of the top 1% -- which is just the opposite of communism/socialism.

I've been saying this all along.

I would call this "corporate socialism."

[BroncoBuff]

Guys guys ... the government gets an equity share in return on the money. Plus there is some serious transparency and oversight in the thing now. Besides, Obama and Volcker won't let this enrichment scenario happen ... what did your Obama cartoon say LABF? "Chill out. I got this one."


I hate the bailout as much as anybody, but there is really no other option. This is an emergency. You don't worry about how much the hospital bill will be, you call 911. In fact, we should have moved much quicker on this.

How about this analogy for a tangible comparison: Let's say ... there's a crop virus or famine or something in California and the midwest, and the only way crops would grow anywhere is if farmers spent ungodly amounts on soil additives and chemicals, such that it quadrupled their cost of doing business. So most farmers DON'T PLANT AT ALL because they would lose money, like right now the banks are sitting on their hands because they're afraid they'll lose and go under. We all see banks dropping like flies. So the feds would have to come up with some assistance to the farmers .... people would wail against it - complain that "farm subsidies have been a pig-trough for agri-business for decades!" Fine. I agree. But without it, there will be no food in 6-12 months! And the problem would ripple into every sector of the economy - transportation, service industries, meat and poultry (feed), grocers, and on and on.

[BroncoBuff]

And the ripple is still coming on this one ....

[watermock]

It's astounding that this is covered up by the rich owned media.

Who says it ws an emergency? We are just giving time for the fat cats to get out.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle21041.htm

[DenverBrit]

The most disturbing part is that Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, and most of the Democraps are supporting this move toward Kleptocracy -- disaster.


Along with the rest of the world.

It's a planet-wide conspiracy by the fat cats to keep the working man down, and, as you say, returned to 'serfdom.'
It's a financial 911. :wiggle:

[Arkie]

I've been saying this all along.

I would call this "corporate socialism."

I call it a Plutocracy. It definetly qualifies. We are ruled by parties with powers provided by the wealth in this country. They make the rules, and they change the rules when it benefits them. Sometimes they cause a panic to get by the resistence. 90% of the people were against the bailout at the first vote. It was about 50% with a week of panic by the corporate mass media conglomerates. That was enough to get it through with even more pork.

[loborugger]

Hey, Ghaff,

I have been avoiding this room like the plague lately, but I cruised in and checked out this thread. I listened to the whole thing, and it was very good. At the 53 minute, he said what I have been saying for a while - we need a third party.

Good stuff.

[loborugger]

I've been saying this all along.

I would call this "corporate socialism."

Its funny - Evo Morales down here in Bolivia referred to the bail out as a "socialism of the wealthy". Whereas he practices a "socialism of the poor".

I dont like socialism on any scale, & I think Evo is a kleptocrat from way back, but I think Evo - a guy with a 10th grade education - hit the nail on the head with that comment.

[watermock]

I noticed when he said that 1.3 trillion and counting bailout for the rich would of gone a long way to bringing some solvency into Social Security or keeping people in their houses be eliminating all the penaltes and reworking their morgages. Or maybe taking away these 35% interest rates on credit cards.

What's it gonna be like when we have a 20% prime rate lke under Carter? Fortunately, the economy is now destroyed so that wont happen I think...for now...we have too much debt to borrow at those rates.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Its funny - Evo Morales down here in Bolivia referred to the bail out as a "socialism of the wealthy". Whereas he practices a "socialism of the poor".

I dont like socialism on any scale, & I think Evo is a kleptocrat from way back, but I think Evo - a guy with a 10th grade education - hit the nail on the head with that comment.

The system the American right has been pushing is one of socialism for the wealthy and free enterprise for everyone else.

The Wall Street crooks who created this crisis always crow about the market weeding out the weaklings - but when they get into a jam they are always first to hold out their little tin cups to the same government they complained was "in their way."

[mhgaffney]

DenverBrit was taking a cheap shot when he called the bail out a financial 911.

But he was stating the truth -- even though he doesn't get it.

As for his absurd statement that "it's a planet wide conspiracy" -- No Brit, it's a conspiracy of the 1% against the rest of us.

The vast majority of Americans oppose the bail out. I heard that Diane Feinstein admitted on the floor of the Senate that she received 91,000 calls from her constituents. 85,000 were against the bail out. That equates to 85% of Americans.

Yet Feinstein voted FOR the bail out. Why? Because she said "You the people don't understand the issues."

What a crock of BS. Feinstein and every other Senator and Congressman who voted with her (against the people) must be thrown out of office.

As Jefferson said: A revolution every 20 years!

MHG

[W*GS]

I wonder how you anti-capitalism folks explain the plans afoot in Europe. Just in the euro area, they've set aside over $2.5 trillion for banks.

Why would European banks, which were properly regulated and controlled by the State (at least they aren't the wild "unregulated" beasts here) need such a massive infusion of capital?

Perhaps the current crisis isn't as readily explained by the ignorant rantings of our resident populists as they like to think...

[baja]

Or they invested heavily in American born derivatives thinking they were buying A++ debt packages when in fact there were smoke and mirrors bundled junk.

[DenverBrit]

The vast majority of Americans oppose the bail out. I heard that Diane Feinstein admitted on the floor of the Senate that she received 91,000 calls from her constituents. 85,000 were against the bail out. That equates to 85% of Americans.
So if someone posts a 'negative' review about your book on Amazon, does that mean that 100% of America think your book is crap??
Ok, never mind, bad analogy. :spit:

Gaffney, in the 'real' world, incoming calls are not a 'poll.'
So either you're trying to Bullsh*t your way to make a silly point, or you're ignorant about the basics of what constitutes a representative poll.

[DenverBrit]

Or they invested heavily in American born derivatives thinking they were buying A++ debt packages when in fact there were smoke and mirrors bundled junk.

You make a very good point about an issue that most forget when describing Bankers as crooks or greedy.
Moody's! They were responsible for rating the mortgage backed bonds as A++ investment grade.
Banks worldwide relied on Moody's ratings alone, to make investment decisions for their banks.
Banks, in most cases, were doing business as usual.

Regulators say that incorrect ratings of complex structured debt products lie at the heart of the current financial crisis. While other coding errors have occurred, this one is the most significant thus far.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/moodys_debt_ratings_mess/2008/05/21/97874.html

[kappys]

So if someone posts a 'negative' review about your book on Amazon, does that mean that 100% of America think your book is crap??
Ok, never mind, bad analogy. :spit:

Gaffney, in the 'real' world, incoming calls are not a 'poll.'
So either you're trying to Bullsh*t your way to make a silly point, or your ignorant about the basics of what constitutes a representative poll.

Nevertheless polls also showed the vast majority of Americans were against the bailout.

Personally I think that's one of the reasons the bailout has changed from a straight money giveaway to a semi-sane plan to inject liquid capital into these banks in exchange for shares.

[DenverBrit]

Nevertheless polls also showed the vast majority of Americans were against the bailout.

Personally I think that's one of the reasons the bailout has changed from a straight money giveaway to a semi-sane plan to inject liquid capital into these banks in exchange for shares.

Yes, there were a majority against the original bailout plan. Did anyone understand it.....including the Administration?
Also, piling on another $140 billion of pork didn't help its popularity.

The reason it changed was because the UK, Irish and European Banks chose the equity and loan guarantee approach.
The US got in step and followed along. It was a much better plan.

Also, polls depend upon the question asked, as illustrated below:

Polls Show Conflicting Views on Bailout
Earlier today we previewed a new Washington Post/ABC News poll that suggests Americans are split down the middle on the Bush administration's $700 billion rescue package for Wall Street.

However, two new polls show completely different results. One suggests the public overwhelmingly favors a bailout; another finds the public firmly opposed.

Pew Research: "By a margin of almost two-to-one the American public thinks the government is doing the right thing in investing billions of dollars to try to keep financial institutions and markets secure."

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg: "Most Americans don't believe the government has responsibility for bailing out financial firms with taxpayer money, a core part of the rescue plan Congress is considering to halt the near-meltdown of the nation's financial markets."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/23/polls_show_conflicting_views_on_bailout.html

[baja]

You make a very good point about an issue that most forget when describing Bankers as crooks or greedy.
Moody's! They were responsible for rating the mortgage backed bonds as A++ investment grade.
Banks worldwide relied on Moody's ratings alone, to make investment decisions for their banks.
Banks, in most cases, were doing business as usual.


http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/moodys_debt_ratings_mess/2008/05/21/97874.html

Hey Denver Brit do you live in London?

I'm going top be laid over in Heathrow for 5 hours on the 13th of Nov. Maybe I could give ya a call.

[DenverBrit]

Baja, that would be great, but I live in Denver.

[baja]

Ha ha Oh!

[kappys]

Yes, there were a majority against the original bailout plan. Did anyone understand it.....including the Administration?
Also, piling on another $140 billion of pork didn't help its popularity.

The reason it changed was because the UK, Irish and European Banks chose the equity and loan guarantee approach.
The US got in step and followed along. It was a much better plan.

Also, polls depend upon the question asked, as illustrated below:

Polls Show Conflicting Views on Bailout
Earlier today we previewed a new Washington Post/ABC News poll that suggests Americans are split down the middle on the Bush administration's $700 billion rescue package for Wall Street.

However, two new polls show completely different results. One suggests the public overwhelmingly favors a bailout; another finds the public firmly opposed.

Pew Research: "By a margin of almost two-to-one the American public thinks the government is doing the right thing in investing billions of dollars to try to keep financial institutions and markets secure."

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg: "Most Americans don't believe the government has responsibility for bailing out financial firms with taxpayer money, a core part of the rescue plan Congress is considering to halt the near-meltdown of the nation's financial markets."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/23/polls_show_conflicting_views_on_bailout.html

Yes - people did understand the original bailout - a straight giveaway to financial interests with no guarantees for the taxpayer and were firmly against it.

The difference in polls merely reflects the questions not poor methods. The public is not against government intervention in the markets to bring stability(which I agree with) - they are against a government program which bails out the rich without anything for average people. This is exactly with the original Bush plan was - and more or less was passed with slight modifications due to popular outrage (slight but important).

I happen to believe most people are smart enough to see that their pockets were being picked.

The current plan is at least a sane response as opposed to the original bailour - but I doubt it will go far enough. Unless the government seriously threatens nationalization these banks aren't going to start loaning out money. I think its time for the US govt to flex their muscle.

[DenverBrit]

The difference in polls merely reflects the questions not poor methods. The public is not against government intervention in the markets to bring stability(which I agree with) - they are against a government program which bails out the rich without anything for average people. This is exactly with the original Bush plan was - and more or less was passed with slight modifications due to popular outrage (slight but important).

I happen to believe most people are smart enough to see that their pockets were being picked.

The current plan is at least a sane response as opposed to the original bailour - but I doubt it will go far enough. Unless the government seriously threatens nationalization these banks aren't going to start loaning out money. I think its time for the US govt to flex their muscle.

I thought that was my point when I posted the poll results.
But I agree, the original plan was a 'crock' and the current plan...with it's borrowing requirements and equity positions....is a superior option.
The original scheme was more 'ideology' based...avoiding ownership or anything that appeared to be 'nationalization'.....and was doomed from the start.
Fortunately, their 'bailout' plan was trumped by a better plan, put forward by more capable economic minds.

[Paladin]

I wonder how you anti-capitalism folks explain the plans afoot in Europe. Just in the euro area, they've set aside over $2.5 trillion for banks.

Why would European banks, which were properly regulated and controlled by the State (at least they aren't the wild "unregulated" beasts here) need such a massive infusion of capital?

Perhaps the current crisis isn't as readily explained by the ignorant rantings of our resident populists as they like to think...

Actually, (rup, gag, spit) I agree with you...

[frerottenextelway]

O'Reilly vs. Barney Frank. This is great.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1884590&fullscreen=1" width="480" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="true" /><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1884590&fullscreen=1" /></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:480px;">
</div>

[kappys]

I thought that was my point when I posted the poll results.
But I agree, the original plan was a 'crock' and the current plan...with it's borrowing requirements and equity positions....is a superior option.
The original scheme was more 'ideology' based...avoiding ownership or anything that appeared to be 'nationalization'.....and was doomed from the start.
Fortunately, their 'bailout' plan was trumped by a better plan, put forward by more capable economic minds.

Ah, I thought you were suggesting that public opinion was not against the bailout (or that polls were conflicting and therefore we didn't know public opinion).

At any rate I don't cut my congressmen or senators any slack for voting for the bailout - which was a giveaway. As you say more capable economic minds have prevailed. At the same time it doesn't seem like banks have started lending yet and they'd better start doing it soon.

[DenverBrit]

Ah, I thought you were suggesting that public opinion was not against the bailout (or that polls were conflicting and therefore we didn't know public opinion).

At any rate I don't cut my congressmen or senators any slack for voting for the bailout - which was a giveaway. As you say more capable economic minds have prevailed. At the same time it doesn't seem like banks have started lending yet and they'd better start doing it soon.

There was plenty of sentiment against the 'bailout' as it was originally presented. But it did also depend upon how the question was phrased, which is shown in the poll info I posted.
The polls in question were taken at the time of the original 'bailout' plan.
Same plan, but the poll questions described the 'bailout' differently..

Bailout=unpopular.
Investing to keep the markets secure=popular.