[Headline loosely modeled on one of Obama's favorite idea men, Ronald Reagan, who famously said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]
And that's a poke in the eye with a sharp stick for Uncle Miltie. Great stuff, read it all. This caught my eye:
But one of the things that’s interesting about the new left in Latin America is that democracy is at the very center. And, you know, the first thing that Rafael Correa did when he was elected president of Ecuador, for instance—well, the first thing he did was give an interview. They said, “What can we expect of your economic program?” He said, “Well, let’s put it this way: I’m no fan of Milton Friedman’s.” And then he called a constituent assembly. He created an incredibly open political process to rewrite the country’s constitution. And that’s what happened in Bolivia, and that’s what’s happened in many Latin American countries, because democracy is being put at the center of these projects, because there has been a learning process of looking at the mistakes that the left has made in the past, the ends-justify-the-means mistakes.
Rules and Bylaws Committee, anyone?
This, too:
We need better ideas responding to what a Barack Obama presidency would absolutely face. As soon as he comes to office, “Yes, you can” turns into “No, you can’t; we’re broke.” No green jobs, no alternative energy, no healthcare for everyone. You know, his plan for—to give healthcare to every child in America costs $80 billion. Bailing out AIG cost $85 billion. They’re spending that money. They’re spending those promises. So, the people who are going to say, “No, you can’t,” who are going to use this crisis to shut down hope, to shut down possibility, are ready.
Except... Obama already made the phone calls and whipped the caucus for the $700 billion giveaway. So.
NOTE Via the essential Avedon. How can anyone get along without her?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Rumored second thoughts on the Trillion Dollar Rip-off process
Just getting kicked around, I think nobody including Paulson has a fucking clue what to do, but supposedly the Wise Heads economists who have been brought in to try and put value on the toxic derivatives have balked at the job and instead have proposed to Paulson that the bailout money be used to buy stock directly from troubled companies.
This approach would support those company balance sheets and inject liquidity while providing a shared risk and benefit relationship. The toxic assets will then be written off or carried along however the companies want to treat them and any losses absorbed over time.
Supposedly Paulson has been convinced and will go to Bush for approval. This still isn't perfect, the money should be going straight to taxpayers in the form of mortgage adjustment and jobs creation projects like infrastructure improvement, but buying stock is a great deal better than buying the damn derivatives.
We'll see, Bush can still fuck this up too, but a little dose of reality may have just been swallowed.
Assuming it's liquidity
Krugman says it's not. Like everything else this year, nobody knows anything.
I think (with Newberry) the bankers are on strike because they want more money. They will regain their "confidence" when there is no more to be had. And "no more" is, of course, an outcome determined by politics, not economics. Another reason why the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bailout bill is so bad.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Blind men and an elephant
Could be this, could be that. I see the underlying fault to be greed, and damn sure throwing more money at it won't help there.
Robert Reich says it's a matter of trust, which isn't going to get better with BushCo in charge no matter how much money gets dished out and may not get better quickly come November regardless of who is the replacement.
The majority of the credit crunch at least at the consumer level seems to be falling on unqualified candidates, which may not be such a bad thing in the long term although in the short term certainly painful. From Mark Glover at the Sacramento Bee:
The right thing to do for those at the bottom of the economic ladder is to raise their income, not make it easier for them to become even more indebted. Meanwhile, the American legal system isn't a complete failure. Thanks to AGs Jerry Brown of California and Lisa Madigan of Illinois, BofA will restructure or modify up to 400,000 Countrywide mortages to the tune of $8.7 Billion.
To the extent that a closer-than-normal holding of credit is the cause rather than availablility of cash, inserting cash into the system will create pressure to invest it in loans earlier in a downturn than otherwise might occur; that is the best that can be said for it, and it is pretty weak tea. At least with stock or maybe warrants the taxpayers can recoup thier investment at a profit after the economy turns around - and it will, if Obama is elected and the deeper structural issues around climate change are properly adressed.
We need universal health care even MORE
Now that there is such a financial problem, not less.
Cutting down the number of foreclosures caused by medical bills would help the problem, not to mention saving money by not letting the insurance companies have a cut of the medical dollar.
There is also the innovation that would flourish because people would be freed up to start small businesses and experiment if they are assured of health care. That is a major reason for many people to stay at their dead-end jobs - fear of losing health care for chronic conditions for someone in their family.
There is also the issue of health care for their employees that holds them back.
Take away those issues, and watch people strike out in a big way.