COMMENTS: 124
Alan Greenspan: The Fraud
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Check the record. These are all lies.
Greenspan's testimony endorsing the Bush tax cuts was extremely influential but now he wants to run away from it.
In the instance of Iraq, Greenspan is actually correcting his own memoir, The Age of Turbulence, which just came out. This weekend, newspapers reported provocative snippets from the book, including this: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what every everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Wow, talk about your "inconvenient truth." Greenspan was blithely acknowledging what official Washington has always denied and the news media faithfully ignored. "Blood for oil." No, no, no, that's not what he meant, Greenspan corrected in a follow-up interview. [Bob Woodward in Monday's Washington Post] He was only saying that "taking out Saddam was essential" for "oil security" and the global economy.
Are you confused? Welcome to the world of slippery truth Greenspan has always lived in. He was the Maestro, as Bob Woodward's loving portrait dubbed him. Wall Street loved the Chairman best because the traders and bankers knew he was always on their side and would come to their rescue. The major news media treated him like an Old Testament prophet. Whatever the chairman said was carved on stone tablets, even when it didn't make any sense, as it often didn't.
Some of us who followed his tracks more closely, were not so kind. Harry Reid, now the Democratic Senate leader, said Greenspan was "one of the biggest political hacks in Washington." Amen. I called him "the one-eyed chairman" who could always spot reasons to stomp on the real economy of work and production, but was utterly blind to the destructive chaos in the financial system. No matter. The adoration of him was nearly universal.
Until now. The economic consequences of his rule are accumulating and even the dullest financial reporters are stumbling on crumbs of truth about Greenspan's legendary reign. It sowed profound and dangerous imbalances in the US economy. That's what happens when government power tips the balance in favor of capital over labor, favoring super-rich over middle class and poor, then holds it there for nearly a generation.
Things get out of whack and now the country is paying big time. A pity reporters and politicians didn't have the nerve to ask these questions when Greenspan was in power.
He retired only a year ago, but is already trying to revise the history. To explain away blunders that are now a financial crisis facing his successor. To rearrange the facts in exculpatory ways. To deny his right-wing ideological bias and his raw partisanship in behalf of the Bush Republicans.
The man is shrewd. He can see the conservative era he celebrated and helped to impose upon the American economy is in utter ruin. He is trying to get some distance from it before the blood splashes all over his reputation. Of course, he also came back to cash in -- an $8 million advance for a book that is sure to be a huge bestseller. I don't want to be unkind, but Greenspan could have avoided all the embarrassing questions if his book was posthumous.
I haven't the read it yet. I have a hunch I am not going to like it.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Sep 20, 2007 1:01 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trillions of dollars swamp the system with speculative liquidity and innovative financial instruments. The FED does less and less to control and regulate the US economy. It just follows along controlling damage. We have reached the Lassez Faire sytem often thought impossible. There is less and less oversight. And it is increasingly dangerous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Only SOME damage, yellow?
Posted by: dover23
» Private Scam
Posted by: Aramis
» In a Laissez-faire system, reality ceases to exist. Get the picture? It has never existed!! Period.
Posted by: yellow
» You Have No "picture" and less "reality"
Posted by: Aramis
» Capitalism as a system is only about 200 years old. Get a clue.
Posted by: yellow
» Here's your "clue" - capitalism (by definition)...
Posted by: Aramis
» Your history is flawed. Free markets and private ownership were highly qualified by state control.
Posted by: yellow
» It is your history that is profoundly "flawed"...
Posted by: Aramis
» Your history is foolish. This is what happens when non-scholars try to think about history.
Posted by: yellow
» By definition "capitalism" began in Neolithic times. Marxist "scholars" & dogmas are "foolish".
Posted by: Aramis
» You are quite wrong. There were social systems before capitalism and they were command economies.
Posted by: yellow
» You are quite naive (and "wrong" as well)...
Posted by: Aramis
» There is no "base definition" of capitalism. It remains a controversial issue for social science.
Posted by: yellow
» More Denial & Retread Marxist Kool-Aid...(you really need to de-program yourself)
Posted by: Aramis
» More ad hominem attacks that mean nothing from a closed "mind" which is low cognitive in any case.
Posted by: yellow
» Recycled Paranoid Delusion...(& Projection)
Posted by: Aramis
» Here's a thought. Marx spoke about commodification without using the actual word. He spoke German.
Posted by: yellow
» Nice Try (but no cigar)...
Posted by: Aramis
» It's not attribution. How can you talk about commodity fetishism without implying commodification?
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 20, 2007 1:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll spare you the long set of details, but will assure you this:
The more you find out about our monetary system the more disenchanted you will be. This is no way for a democracy to run it's central bank.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No Greenspan has fled to Germany to consult for Deutche Bank, Allianz, and other European/German
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: The Federal Reserve System Is A Racket
Posted by: wavydavy
» RE: The Federal Reserve System Is A Racket
Posted by: jbur816
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Sep 20, 2007 3:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Nixon made him chief of his Council of Economic Advisors (then secretary of...Treasury? I forget) should be all most of us need to know.
During the Clinton administration, every time somebody got a job, he raised rates. He spent Clinton's last year raising continuously - trying to throw the economy into recession for Bush - then after the election, opened the floodgates. Reid had it exactly right.
BTW, it is almost unprecedented to raise rates in an election year. And I HEARD him encourage mortgage lenders to engage in "creative financing". He is a lying SOS.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nixon appointee...PS
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Nixon appointee
Posted by: rocketman
» Wall Street Hates Good News for Common Workers
Posted by: CatDad
» Greenspan tried to create a recession for Bush?????? You're MAD!!!!!!
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Nixon appointee
Posted by: koolwoman
» I will read the book because he trashes Bush. Maybe he'll see the tax cuts were a bad idea as well.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Sep 20, 2007 5:47 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While most would be hard put to argue details and specifics with him, the ordinary person just needs to look around to see the struggling middleclass and small business owners..the backbone of this country.
Over the years the insane rate adjustments causing market declines etc.etc..just never made much sense. While we probably cannot blame the outsourcing of America on him I would suspect he could/should have had some foresight on these issues to have an impact..
While is role is that of monetary policy, we do not seem to be in such great shape lately. Some herald him as the "all knowing"... I think he was just a guy rolling the dice!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 20, 2007 5:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is most frightening is their "free market" economic ideology. Greenspan's economics "worked" (in a bad way) like a charm under Clinton, because Clinton followed Greenspan's advice like a god. Under Bush II, the Fed Chair found neo-con ideology much more powerful and manipulative than he expected, Greenspan ended up doing damage control, rather than Fed predictions and regulating.
While my commentary explains the differences between Greenspan under two presidents, it doesn't explain the great divide between the rich and everyone else or how flawed free market economics are.
I think either Rand adherents underestimate the power of the wealthy to manipulate every economic, political and social aspect of our lives to their favor, or economists like Greenspan, Friedman, etc. all believe the rich to be benevolent merchants of jobs who'll do the right thing because markets are self-correcting.
Greenspan et. al. refuse to believe that the economic table is tilted in favor of the rich. They politely ignore imperialism, war, death, destruction, except how it effects the market. Meanwhile, they expect charity to make up the enormous differences in disproportionate wealth distribution.
The wealthy nihilists don't give a damn about the poor, except maybe that they might wake up and revolt! But, they won't lose any sleep as long as they've got Republican and Democratic leaders imposing education "reforms" like No Child Left Behind that dumbs down public education, puts dissenting teachers in check and ensures the next generation to be dumber than our president. The rich and powerful are assured to maintain their power for at least the next generation; but there's always hope that Ayn Rand is rotting in her grave and the smell creeps out and makes us want to bury her deeper in the earth.
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: sausage
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: peacelf
» Ayn Rand was the Goddess-on-Earth
Posted by: BenCaxton12
» Ann Rand was a moron. And longer winded than yours truely to boot!!
Posted by: yellow
» Ann Rand...
Posted by: CatDad
» It is also pointless when we see that she was WRONG about the benefits of free market capitalism.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: It is also pointless when we see that she was WRONG about the benefits of free market capitalism
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Ann Rand was a moron. And longer winded than yours truely to boot!!
Posted by: jbur816
» I think you mean feudalism.
Posted by: yellow
» I once read a review of one of Rand's books that stated, "Ayn Rand is to serious philosophy what
Posted by: darkenergy
» RE: Ayn Rand was the Goddess-on-Earth
Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: tw0rkman
» RE: It is the religion of the Free Market
Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: It is the religion of the Free Market
Posted by: peacelf
» "Bubbles" Greenspan is a Shill - No Such Animal as "Free Markets" or "Capitalism"
Posted by: Aramis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 20, 2007 6:15 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where are the Libertarians when it comes to the need to ABOLISH the Federal Reserve ?!?!?
Posted by: MrX
» Thanks. Ron Paul makes most cowardly Dems look like Republicans.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Sep 20, 2007 6:59 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an antidote to Greenspan's selfserving memoir, might I suggest Greenspan's Fraud by noted economist and academician Ravi Batra.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Greenspan's a fraud
Posted by: sterlingdave54
» RE: Greenspan's a fraud
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReformerRay on Sep 20, 2007 7:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greenspan supports the financial interests and ignores the rest of us. He is also an egomaniac.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 20, 2007 7:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been disgusting how the press over the years fawned on this guy whenever I turned on the nightly news or read a newspaper. He did nothing but accelerate the trend of reducing living standards and hollowing-out the middle class.
Greenspan and others of his ilk have absolutely no clue about the lives of ordinary people struggling economically. As far as he is concerned, they might as well be martians.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: james2021 on Sep 20, 2007 8:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: epublican Smoke and Mirrors
Posted by: jbur816
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 20, 2007 9:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Stock Market Rallied. That is one way to keep the bubble going.
Posted by: yellow
» These mindless cliches are about as worthless as YOU claim is the paper money issued by the FED.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: These mindless cliches are about as worthless as YOU claim is the paper money issued by the FED.
Posted by: Trazom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scott.gregory on Sep 20, 2007 9:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, the Fed should be limited to regulating the commercial bank reserve ratio, and other wise purchasing U.S treasury securities and the securities of other public bodies, state and local government, school districts, etc. No discount window, no "open-market operations." And the U.S government should limit itself to assuring the integrity of the deposit insurance systems, only up to the amounts prescribed by law.
Cut the rich investors loose. Make them stand on their own feet. No more handouts to the rich. And many, many more Americans are becoming aware of what a racket and shell game the Fed has truly been. Legally-speaking Greenspan's and others like him; their heads should roll.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Exactly, but don't expect the Libertarian ideologues to call for its abolition.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Ron Paul has been calling for the abolition of the Fed for years
Posted by: jbur816
» Ah, thanks. Wished the rank and file Libertarians would learn from his consistency.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar_michel on Sep 20, 2007 10:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, Congress capitulated and in 1816 the Second Bank of the United States was chartered for another twenty years. It should be noted that by this time, the United States government lost its 20% share in the Bank of the United States so that it was now completely privately owned. This created the notion of a business (bank) as an artificial person entitled to the same rights under the Constitution as a real person, thereby justifying the creation of a private bank as the controller of the banking and credit of the United States as though it was under citizen control.
In 1815, Nathan Mayer Rothschild gained control of the Bank of England, the design of which Hamilton used in creating the First Bank of the United States. Then in 1936, during Andrew Jackson’s tenure the charter came up for renewal again which he vetoed. It should be noted that there were two attempts on Jackson’s life. The Second Bank of the United States now no longer receiving U.S. tax money called in all its loans and went bankrupt in 1941. From this point until the Civil War, the state banks managed the currency of the United States. In 1862, Abraham Lincoln in an attempt to stop European Bankers renewed attempt to gain control of the currency and credit of the United States elected to print the Green Backs. The London Times said of Lincoln at the time, "If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North America Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." Bismarck of Germany said of Lincoln, "He obtained from Congress the right to borrow from the people by selling to it the 'bonds' of States ... and the Government and the nation escaped the plots of the foreign financiers. They understood at once, that the United States would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was resolved upon."
However, the beginning of the end of Lincoln's bid to thwart the efforts of the International bankers was initiated in 1863 with the passage of the National Banking Act. This was the forerunner to the Federal Reserve Act and the permanent end to American control of its own currency.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: U.S. Central Banking, Always About Private Investors! (continued)
Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Isn't this why Alan Greepspan Palys Both Sides of the Aisle?
Posted by: edgar_michel
» More BS propaganda about "jewish bankers" with no mention that the FED stopped runs on the banks.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: More BS propaganda about "jewish bankers" with no mention that the FED stopped runs on the banks.
Posted by: edgar_michel
» WIngnut pseodocriticism of the FED is conspiricy mongering crap. The FED was legit if highly flawed.
Posted by: yellow
» The Federal Reserve Bank is not UnConstitutional.
Posted by: yellow
» Yes the "Federal Reserve" Corporation is Un-Constitutional (Article 1 Section 8)
Posted by: Aramis
» Is it a coincidence that you and six other parrots use the term KOOL-AID in your ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: yellow
» I keep waiting for an intelligent, fact based response. I don't actually expect one, however.
Posted by: yellow
» You Bring Marxist Fantasies (Sweezy-Magdoff, etc) & expect a "debate"?
Posted by: Aramis
» Ad hominem attacks do not a serious rebuttle make. Do better. Unlike you, I'll actually listen.
Posted by: yellow
» Have Done "better"—Drop the Faux Hegelian Dogma & Let Reality In (it’s a start)…NM
Posted by: Aramis
» What Hegelian dogmas? My posts use Marxian crisis theory as well as labor process theory.
Posted by: yellow
» Marx was in crisis before he developed pipedream "theory" (He borrowed from Hegel)
Posted by: Aramis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 20, 2007 10:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 20, 2007 11:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A fraud supported by nothing but other frauds
Posted by: edgar_michel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aramis on Sep 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A privately rigged bank monopoly in charge of any nation is recipe for serial war along with boom-bust economic tragedy – not to mention fraud. All for the benefit of what Einstein called the “ruling class”.
No accident the true history of the “Federal Reserve” Corporation is never taught at any institution of higher “learning”.
btw, like our corporate owned media and “education” system, William Greider won’t touch any of this truth. Greiders basic work on the “Fed” is a whitewashed doorstop called “Secrets of the Temple” that offers no secrets but more propaganda that lets the “Fed” completely off the hook by perpetuating the myth the "Federal Reserve Corporation" is a public org.
edgar_michel on this thread has outlined the basics on this sham and pandemic so I won’t bother. However, I will quote Andrew Jackson the last president who successfully defeated a corporate crime Mafia through its prime tool (a privately owned “central bank” then called the “U.S. Bank”). What Jackson said of the “U.S. Bank” of his time is equally true of the “Federal Reserve” Corp – the global private bank foisted on the U.S in 1913.
“No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest [European monopolists vs. American people]; yet, if you had not conquered [the so-called central “U.S. Bank” owned by European monopoly bankers], the Government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, and this organized money power from its secret conclave would have dictated the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war, as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your Government might for a time have remained, but its living spirit would have departed from it.”
President Andrew Jackson - Farewell address to the nation, March 4, 1837
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: “Bubbles” Greenspan was a Front for a Ponzi Scheme (Private Bank Monopoly)
Posted by: edgar_michel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 20, 2007 1:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the academic arena, he founded the Unversity of Chicago and made sure that someone like Milton Friedman would be the cheif spokesman. He also pushed hard to create the "Nobel Prize in Economics", which is a complete farce, having been launched by the Bank of Sweden in 1969.
Here is an article on that: Nobel descendant slams Economics prize Published: 28th September 2005 12:24 CET
Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being, Peter says, reiterating his vehement criticism of the Nobel Economics Prize which he says Alfred Nobel would never have created.
Unlike the Nobel Prizes for Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature and Peace, which were created by Nobel in his 1896 will and first awarded in 1901, the Economics Prize was conceived by Sweden's central bank in 1968 to mark its tricentenary and first awarded a year later.
"There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize."
The Economics Prize has over the years been criticized as not being a "real" Nobel, and a newspaper article Peter Nobel wrote in 2001 refuelled the debate.
"It's most often awarded to stock market speculators", which does not reflect Alfred Nobel's spirit of improving the human condition, he fumes.
The other thing Rockefeller did was to promote the Hearst publishing empire, which shared his views on trusts. He also promoted writers like Aryn Rand.
This theme has continued right up to the present day. It's not about economics, it's about psychology and mass control and making sure the people don't oppose the will of the ruling class.
For an example of this, see "Why the draft was ended by Nixon" it's a Libertarian site (read: Corporate Libertarian site), but is eye-opening.
Essentially, they got rid of the draft because they felt an all-volunteer army could be more easily controlled, and wouldn't be as likely to resist imperialist wars. Milton Freidman and Alan Greenspan were on the committee that proposed this.
Again, this all has little to do with economics, and everything to do with psychological manipulation of the public.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 20, 2007 1:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hazel Henderson
OCTOBER 2006 (IPS) - Peter Nobel, grandson of Nobel Prize founder Alfred Nobel, is part of an academic movement critical of the economics prize as illegitimate, writes Hazel Henderson, whose new book, "Ethical Markets: Growing the Green Economy", covers reform of capitalism and unsustainable, fossilised industrialism. She created the TV series 'Ethical Markets'.
In this article, Henderson writes that this lesser prize was set up in 1969 by the Central Bank of Sweden to help legitimate economics, creating a broad controversy among mathematicians and physicists, who point out that economics is not a science and that many Bank of Sweden prize winners have misused mathematics to 'dress-up' unproven notions or try to 'prove' questionable hypotheses.
Most Bank of Sweden prizes have gone to U.S. 'free-market' economists and followers of the neo-liberal Chicago School. Some of these economists who use or misuse mathematics include those whose models of stock market behaviour led to the collapse of the notorious hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998. This year's winner was US economist Edmund Phelps, who contends that unemployment is necessary to keep workers in line and compliant with their company bosses.
/NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, IRELAND, POLAND, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM/ (END/2006)
Now, isn't that interesting? Why would that tag be applied? Could it be that economic theory in the West is just a massive PR operation aimed at providing moral support for the billionaire class? Or is that conspiracy theory? Gotta wonder...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's a juicy tidbit (the bottom line is the most interesting)
Posted by: dover23
» RE: Here's a juicy tidbit (the bottom line is the most interesting)
Posted by: Aramis
» There are only 2 alternatives?
Posted by: justaguy
» RE: There are only 2 alternatives?
Posted by: Aramis
» RE: There are only 2 alternatives?
Posted by: justaguy
» Alternative Redux
Posted by: Aramis
» I think you dismiss Marx too casually.
Posted by: justaguy
» Marx dismissed himself long before I did...
Posted by: Aramis
» Human Nature doesn't exist. Authority does!! That is the constant throughout all human history.
Posted by: yellow
» Forgive Yellow, he has tourettes.
Posted by: justaguy
» System Follies...
Posted by: Aramis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Missing Piece on Sep 20, 2007 8:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
good luck, get out of debt, go off grid, buy silver coins and get ready, the house of cards is coming down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vzn on Sep 20, 2007 8:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the federal reserve is not supposed to work toward the
benefit of the overall economy. its supposed to be used as
a sophisticated smokescreen for "class warfare" ie the rich against
the poor, or the wealth generating class (labor) vs the actionless wealth extraction class (parasites)
all the excruciating details, if anyone dares to read them, are
spelled out a paper I wrote called
"fractional reserve banking as economic parasitism"
endorsed by two phd economists. printed in nexus
magazine, 60k world circulation. #1 top downloaded
economics paper. used by economics
teacher in australia as standard classroom material.
more info on request.
ps, I cite secrets of the temple
recent supporting material:
The Shock Doctrine: Naomi Klein on the Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:
How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
John Perkins on "The Secret History of the American Empire:
Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption"
Video, senator/pres candidate Dennis Kucinich
at last years 2005 Monetary Reform Conference
money as debt video by Grignon
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's you who are naive. Fractional Reserve Banking has Nothing to do with our current problems.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bigjackjj on Sep 21, 2007 6:19 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth is right in front of you but no one can see.
Capitalism as an economic system proposes continuous expansion.
One would hope that at least the work of the environmentalists, let alone the works of such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, would make it apparent that continuous expansion is in fact impossible, that only a system of expansion based on production for need, rather than profit, is sustainable/possible.
Greenspan's views, weather he believes them or offers them as a fraud, are beside the point as are the views of every proponent of capitalist economics.
Human beings are the only creatures on earth capable of producing far more in a day's work than they need for existence. Capitalism's "A fair day's work for a fair days pay" conceals the fact that capitalist expansion is based on the theft inherent in paying, as a "fair day's pay", only enough for the worker to come back and do it again on the morrow, thus enabling the capitalist to invest the surplus of labor (Surplus to labor's sustenence), in exponential expansion in a market whose real expansion at best is only linear.
Hence the well known seven year business cycle and the larger total collapse every sixty or seventy years.
All you so-called liberals need to read Marx.
Jack Jersawitz
404-892-1238
bigjackjj@yahoo.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Why don't you actually read Das Kapital before passing judgement you lying anti-semite moron.
Posted by: yellow
» I have read "Das Kapital" - Most of it is a Confused Mess (what is not is borrowed)
Posted by: Aramis
» You're a troll and you lied about reading Capital. I'm very sure it's banned in your native country.
Posted by: yellow
» Why should such illogical rubbish be "banned"?
Posted by: Aramis
» Maybe because it just plausible enough to be threatening to capitalist apologists like yourself.
Posted by: yellow
» How is illogical Marxist rubbish "plausible" except to the gullible?
Posted by: Aramis
» You're a first rate parrot with a tenth rate mind. A master name caller full of ad hominem attacks!
Posted by: yellow
» Paranoid Delusion (101)...
Posted by: Aramis
» Your words would carry more weight if you actually made an argument instead of ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MrX on Sep 21, 2007 7:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frank69 on Sep 26, 2007 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Sep 20, 2007 1:01 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trillions of dollars swamp the system with speculative liquidity and innovative financial instruments. The FED does less and less to control and regulate the US economy. It just follows along controlling damage. We have reached the Lassez Faire sytem often thought impossible. There is less and less oversight. And it is increasingly dangerous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Only SOME damage, yellow?
Posted by: dover23
» Private Scam
Posted by: Aramis
» In a Laissez-faire system, reality ceases to exist. Get the picture? It has never existed!! Period.
Posted by: yellow
» You Have No "picture" and less "reality"
Posted by: Aramis
» Capitalism as a system is only about 200 years old. Get a clue.
Posted by: yellow
» Here's your "clue" - capitalism (by definition)...
Posted by: Aramis
» Your history is flawed. Free markets and private ownership were highly qualified by state control.
Posted by: yellow
» It is your history that is profoundly "flawed"...
Posted by: Aramis
» Your history is foolish. This is what happens when non-scholars try to think about history.
Posted by: yellow
» By definition "capitalism" began in Neolithic times. Marxist "scholars" & dogmas are "foolish".
Posted by: Aramis
» You are quite wrong. There were social systems before capitalism and they were command economies.
Posted by: yellow
» You are quite naive (and "wrong" as well)...
Posted by: Aramis
» There is no "base definition" of capitalism. It remains a controversial issue for social science.
Posted by: yellow
» More Denial & Retread Marxist Kool-Aid...(you really need to de-program yourself)
Posted by: Aramis
» More ad hominem attacks that mean nothing from a closed "mind" which is low cognitive in any case.
Posted by: yellow
» Recycled Paranoid Delusion...(& Projection)
Posted by: Aramis
» Here's a thought. Marx spoke about commodification without using the actual word. He spoke German.
Posted by: yellow
» Nice Try (but no cigar)...
Posted by: Aramis
» It's not attribution. How can you talk about commodity fetishism without implying commodification?
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 20, 2007 1:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll spare you the long set of details, but will assure you this:
The more you find out about our monetary system the more disenchanted you will be. This is no way for a democracy to run it's central bank.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No Greenspan has fled to Germany to consult for Deutche Bank, Allianz, and other European/German
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: The Federal Reserve System Is A Racket
Posted by: wavydavy
» RE: The Federal Reserve System Is A Racket
Posted by: jbur816
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Sep 20, 2007 3:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Nixon made him chief of his Council of Economic Advisors (then secretary of...Treasury? I forget) should be all most of us need to know.
During the Clinton administration, every time somebody got a job, he raised rates. He spent Clinton's last year raising continuously - trying to throw the economy into recession for Bush - then after the election, opened the floodgates. Reid had it exactly right.
BTW, it is almost unprecedented to raise rates in an election year. And I HEARD him encourage mortgage lenders to engage in "creative financing". He is a lying SOS.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nixon appointee...PS
Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Nixon appointee
Posted by: rocketman
» Wall Street Hates Good News for Common Workers
Posted by: CatDad
» Greenspan tried to create a recession for Bush?????? You're MAD!!!!!!
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Nixon appointee
Posted by: koolwoman
» I will read the book because he trashes Bush. Maybe he'll see the tax cuts were a bad idea as well.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Sep 20, 2007 5:47 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While most would be hard put to argue details and specifics with him, the ordinary person just needs to look around to see the struggling middleclass and small business owners..the backbone of this country.
Over the years the insane rate adjustments causing market declines etc.etc..just never made much sense. While we probably cannot blame the outsourcing of America on him I would suspect he could/should have had some foresight on these issues to have an impact..
While is role is that of monetary policy, we do not seem to be in such great shape lately. Some herald him as the "all knowing"... I think he was just a guy rolling the dice!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 20, 2007 5:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is most frightening is their "free market" economic ideology. Greenspan's economics "worked" (in a bad way) like a charm under Clinton, because Clinton followed Greenspan's advice like a god. Under Bush II, the Fed Chair found neo-con ideology much more powerful and manipulative than he expected, Greenspan ended up doing damage control, rather than Fed predictions and regulating.
While my commentary explains the differences between Greenspan under two presidents, it doesn't explain the great divide between the rich and everyone else or how flawed free market economics are.
I think either Rand adherents underestimate the power of the wealthy to manipulate every economic, political and social aspect of our lives to their favor, or economists like Greenspan, Friedman, etc. all believe the rich to be benevolent merchants of jobs who'll do the right thing because markets are self-correcting.
Greenspan et. al. refuse to believe that the economic table is tilted in favor of the rich. They politely ignore imperialism, war, death, destruction, except how it effects the market. Meanwhile, they expect charity to make up the enormous differences in disproportionate wealth distribution.
The wealthy nihilists don't give a damn about the poor, except maybe that they might wake up and revolt! But, they won't lose any sleep as long as they've got Republican and Democratic leaders imposing education "reforms" like No Child Left Behind that dumbs down public education, puts dissenting teachers in check and ensures the next generation to be dumber than our president. The rich and powerful are assured to maintain their power for at least the next generation; but there's always hope that Ayn Rand is rotting in her grave and the smell creeps out and makes us want to bury her deeper in the earth.
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: sausage
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: peacelf
» Ayn Rand was the Goddess-on-Earth
Posted by: BenCaxton12
» Ann Rand was a moron. And longer winded than yours truely to boot!!
Posted by: yellow
» Ann Rand...
Posted by: CatDad
» It is also pointless when we see that she was WRONG about the benefits of free market capitalism.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: It is also pointless when we see that she was WRONG about the benefits of free market capitalism
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Ann Rand was a moron. And longer winded than yours truely to boot!!
Posted by: jbur816
» I think you mean feudalism.
Posted by: yellow
» I once read a review of one of Rand's books that stated, "Ayn Rand is to serious philosophy what
Posted by: darkenergy
» RE: Ayn Rand was the Goddess-on-Earth
Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan
Posted by: tw0rkman
» RE: It is the religion of the Free Market
Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: It is the religion of the Free Market
Posted by: peacelf
» "Bubbles" Greenspan is a Shill - No Such Animal as "Free Markets" or "Capitalism"
Posted by: Aramis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 20, 2007 6:15 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where are the Libertarians when it comes to the need to ABOLISH the Federal Reserve ?!?!?
Posted by: MrX
» Thanks. Ron Paul makes most cowardly Dems look like Republicans.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Sep 20, 2007 6:59 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an antidote to Greenspan's selfserving memoir, might I suggest Greenspan's Fraud by noted economist and academician Ravi Batra.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Greenspan's a fraud
Posted by: sterlingdave54
» RE: Greenspan's a fraud
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReformerRay on Sep 20, 2007 7:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greenspan supports the financial interests and ignores the rest of us. He is also an egomaniac.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 20, 2007 7:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been disgusting how the press over the years fawned on this guy whenever I turned on the nightly news or read a newspaper. He did nothing but accelerate the trend of reducing living standards and hollowing-out the middle class.
Greenspan and others of his ilk have absolutely no clue about the lives of ordinary people struggling economically. As far as he is concerned, they might as well be martians.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: james2021 on Sep 20, 2007 8:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: epublican Smoke and Mirrors
Posted by: jbur816
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 20, 2007 9:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Stock Market Rallied. That is one way to keep the bubble going.
Posted by: yellow
» These mindless cliches are about as worthless as YOU claim is the paper money issued by the FED.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: These mindless cliches are about as worthless as YOU claim is the paper money issued by the FED.
Posted by: Trazom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scott.gregory on Sep 20, 2007 9:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, the Fed should be limited to regulating the commercial bank reserve ratio, and other wise purchasing U.S treasury securities and the securities of other public bodies, state and local government, school districts, etc. No discount window, no "open-market operations." And the U.S government should limit itself to assuring the integrity of the deposit insurance systems, only up to the amounts prescribed by law.
Cut the rich investors loose. Make them stand on their own feet. No more handouts to the rich. And many, many more Americans are becoming aware of what a racket and shell game the Fed has truly been. Legally-speaking Greenspan's and others like him; their heads should roll.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Exactly, but don't expect the Libertarian ideologues to call for its abolition.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Ron Paul has been calling for the abolition of the Fed for years
Posted by: jbur816
» Ah, thanks. Wished the rank and file Libertarians would learn from his consistency.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar_michel on Sep 20, 2007 10:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, Congress capitulated and in 1816 the Second Bank of the United States was chartered for another twenty years. It should be noted that by this time, the United States government lost its 20% share in the Bank of the United States so that it was now completely privately owned. This created the notion of a business (bank) as an artificial person entitled to the same rights under the Constitution as a real person, thereby justifying the creation of a private bank as the controller of the banking and credit of the United States as though it was under citizen control.
In 1815, Nathan Mayer Rothschild gained control of the Bank of England, the design of which Hamilton used in creating the First Bank of the United States. Then in 1936, during Andrew Jackson’s tenure the charter came up for renewal again which he vetoed. It should be noted that there were two attempts on Jackson’s life. The Second Bank of the United States now no longer receiving U.S. tax money called in all its loans and went bankrupt in 1941. From this point until the Civil War, the state banks managed the currency of the United States. In 1862, Abraham Lincoln in an attempt to stop European Bankers renewed attempt to gain control of the currency and credit of the United States elected to print the Green Backs. The London Times said of Lincoln at the time, "If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North America Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." Bismarck of Germany said of Lincoln, "He obtained from Congress the right to borrow from the people by selling to it the 'bonds' of States ... and the Government and the nation escaped the plots of the foreign financiers. They understood at once, that the United States would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was resolved upon."
However, the beginning of the end of Lincoln's bid to thwart the efforts of the International bankers was initiated in 1863 with the passage of the National Banking Act. This was the forerunner to the Federal Reserve Act and the permanent end to American control of its own currency.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: U.S. Central Banking, Always About Private Investors! (continued)
Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Isn't this why Alan Greepspan Palys Both Sides of the Aisle?
Posted by: edgar_michel
» More BS propaganda about "jewish bankers" with no mention that the FED stopped runs on the banks.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: More BS propaganda about "jewish bankers" with no mention that the FED stopped runs on the banks.
Posted by: edgar_michel
» WIngnut pseodocriticism of the FED is conspiricy mongering crap. The FED was legit if highly flawed.
Posted by: yellow
» The Federal Reserve Bank is not UnConstitutional.
Posted by: yellow
» Yes the "Federal Reserve" Corporation is Un-Constitutional (Article 1 Section 8)
Posted by: Aramis
» Is it a coincidence that you and six other parrots use the term KOOL-AID in your ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: yellow
» I keep waiting for an intelligent, fact based response. I don't actually expect one, however.
Posted by: yellow
» You Bring Marxist Fantasies (Sweezy-Magdoff, etc) & expect a "debate"?
Posted by: Aramis
» Ad hominem attacks do not a serious rebuttle make. Do better. Unlike you, I'll actually listen.
Posted by: yellow
» Have Done "better"—Drop the Faux Hegelian Dogma & Let Reality In (it’s a start)…NM
Posted by: Aramis
» What Hegelian dogmas? My posts use Marxian crisis theory as well as labor process theory.
Posted by: yellow
» Marx was in crisis before he developed pipedream "theory" (He borrowed from Hegel)
Posted by: Aramis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 20, 2007 10:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 20, 2007 11:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A fraud supported by nothing but other frauds
Posted by: edgar_michel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aramis on Sep 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A privately rigged bank monopoly in charge of any nation is recipe for serial war along with boom-bust economic tragedy – not to mention fraud. All for the benefit of what Einstein called the “ruling class”.
No accident the true history of the “Federal Reserve” Corporation is never taught at any institution of higher “learning”.
btw, like our corporate owned media and “education” system, William Greider won’t touch any of this truth. Greiders basic work on the “Fed” is a whitewashed doorstop called “Secrets of the Temple” that offers no secrets but more propaganda that lets the “Fed” completely off the hook by perpetuating the myth the "Federal Reserve Corporation" is a public org.
edgar_michel on this thread has outlined the basics on this sham and pandemic so I won’t bother. However, I will quote Andrew Jackson the last president who successfully defeated a corporate crime Mafia through its prime tool (a privately owned “central bank” then called the “U.S. Bank”). What Jackson said of the “U.S. Bank” of his time is equally true of the “Federal Reserve” Corp – the global private bank foisted on the U.S in 1913.
“No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest [European monopolists vs. American people]; yet, if you had not conquered [the so-called central “U.S. Bank” owned by European monopoly bankers], the Government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, and this organized money power from its secret conclave would have dictated the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war, as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your Government might for a time have remained, but its living spirit would have departed from it.”
President Andrew Jackson - Farewell address to the nation, March 4, 1837
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: “Bubbles” Greenspan was a Front for a Ponzi Scheme (Private Bank Monopoly)
Posted by: edgar_michel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 20, 2007 1:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the academic arena, he founded the Unversity of Chicago and made sure that someone like Milton Friedman would be the cheif spokesman. He also pushed hard to create the "Nobel Prize in Economics", which is a complete farce, having been launched by the Bank of Sweden in 1969.
Here is an article on that: Nobel descendant slams Economics prize Published: 28th September 2005 12:24 CET
Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being, Peter says, reiterating his vehement criticism of the Nobel Economics Prize which he says Alfred Nobel would never have created.
Unlike the Nobel Prizes for Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature and Peace, which were created by Nobel in his 1896 will and first awarded in 1901, the Economics Prize was conceived by Sweden's central bank in 1968 to mark its tricentenary and first awarded a year later.
"There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize."
The Economics Prize has over the years been criticized as not being a "real" Nobel, and a newspaper article Peter Nobel wrote in 2001 refuelled the debate.
"It's most often awarded to stock market speculators", which does not reflect Alfred Nobel's spirit of improving the human condition, he fumes.
The other thing Rockefeller did was to promote the Hearst publishing empire, which shared his views on trusts. He also promoted writers like Aryn Rand.
This theme has continued right up to the present day. It's not about economics, it's about psychology and mass control and making sure the people don't oppose the will of the ruling class.
For an example of this, see "Why the draft was ended by Nixon" it's a Libertarian site (read: Corporate Libertarian site), but is eye-opening.
Essentially, they got rid of the draft because they felt an all-volunteer army could be more easily controlled, and wouldn't be as likely to resist imperialist wars. Milton Freidman and Alan Greenspan were on the committee that proposed this.
Again, this all has little to do with economics, and everything to do with psychological manipulation of the public.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 20, 2007 1:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hazel Henderson
OCTOBER 2006 (IPS) - Peter Nobel, grandson of Nobel Prize founder Alfred Nobel, is part of an academic movement critical of the economics prize as illegitimate, writes Hazel Henderson, whose new book, "Ethical Markets: Growing the Green Economy", covers reform of capitalism and unsustainable, fossilised industrialism. She created the TV series 'Ethical Markets'.
In this article, Henderson writes that this lesser prize was set up in 1969 by the Central Bank of Sweden to help legitimate economics, creating a broad controversy among mathematicians and physicists, who point out that economics is not a science and that many Bank of Sweden prize winners have misused mathematics to 'dress-up' unproven notions or try to 'prove' questionable hypotheses.
Most Bank of Sweden prizes have gone to U.S. 'free-market' economists and followers of the neo-liberal Chicago School. Some of these economists who use or misuse mathematics include those whose models of stock market behaviour led to the collapse of the notorious hedge fund Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) in 1998. This year's winner was US economist Edmund Phelps, who contends that unemployment is necessary to keep workers in line and compliant with their company bosses.
/NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, IRELAND, POLAND, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM/ (END/2006)
Now, isn't that interesting? Why would that tag be applied? Could it be that economic theory in the West is just a massive PR operation aimed at providing moral support for the billionaire class? Or is that conspiracy theory? Gotta wonder...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's a juicy tidbit (the bottom line is the most interesting)
Posted by: dover23
» RE: Here's a juicy tidbit (the bottom line is the most interesting)
Posted by: Aramis
» There are only 2 alternatives?
Posted by: justaguy
» RE: There are only 2 alternatives?
Posted by: Aramis
» RE: There are only 2 alternatives?
Posted by: justaguy
» Alternative Redux
Posted by: Aramis
» I think you dismiss Marx too casually.
Posted by: justaguy
» Marx dismissed himself long before I did...
Posted by: Aramis
» Human Nature doesn't exist. Authority does!! That is the constant throughout all human history.
Posted by: yellow
» Forgive Yellow, he has tourettes.
Posted by: justaguy
» System Follies...
Posted by: Aramis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Missing Piece on Sep 20, 2007 8:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
good luck, get out of debt, go off grid, buy silver coins and get ready, the house of cards is coming down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vzn on Sep 20, 2007 8:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the federal reserve is not supposed to work toward the
benefit of the overall economy. its supposed to be used as
a sophisticated smokescreen for "class warfare" ie the rich against
the poor, or the wealth generating class (labor) vs the actionless wealth extraction class (parasites)
all the excruciating details, if anyone dares to read them, are
spelled out a paper I wrote called
"fractional reserve banking as economic parasitism"
endorsed by two phd economists. printed in nexus
magazine, 60k world circulation. #1 top downloaded
economics paper. used by economics
teacher in australia as standard classroom material.
more info on request.
ps, I cite secrets of the temple
recent supporting material:
The Shock Doctrine: Naomi Klein on the Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:
How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
John Perkins on "The Secret History of the American Empire:
Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption"
Video, senator/pres candidate Dennis Kucinich
at last years 2005 Monetary Reform Conference
money as debt video by Grignon
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's you who are naive. Fractional Reserve Banking has Nothing to do with our current problems.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bigjackjj on Sep 21, 2007 6:19 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth is right in front of you but no one can see.
Capitalism as an economic system proposes continuous expansion.
One would hope that at least the work of the environmentalists, let alone the works of such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, would make it apparent that continuous expansion is in fact impossible, that only a system of expansion based on production for need, rather than profit, is sustainable/possible.
Greenspan's views, weather he believes them or offers them as a fraud, are beside the point as are the views of every proponent of capitalist economics.
Human beings are the only creatures on earth capable of producing far more in a day's work than they need for existence. Capitalism's "A fair day's work for a fair days pay" conceals the fact that capitalist expansion is based on the theft inherent in paying, as a "fair day's pay", only enough for the worker to come back and do it again on the morrow, thus enabling the capitalist to invest the surplus of labor (Surplus to labor's sustenence), in exponential expansion in a market whose real expansion at best is only linear.
Hence the well known seven year business cycle and the larger total collapse every sixty or seventy years.
All you so-called liberals need to read Marx.
Jack Jersawitz
404-892-1238
bigjackjj@yahoo.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Why don't you actually read Das Kapital before passing judgement you lying anti-semite moron.
Posted by: yellow
» I have read "Das Kapital" - Most of it is a Confused Mess (what is not is borrowed)
Posted by: Aramis
» You're a troll and you lied about reading Capital. I'm very sure it's banned in your native country.
Posted by: yellow
» Why should such illogical rubbish be "banned"?
Posted by: Aramis
» Maybe because it just plausible enough to be threatening to capitalist apologists like yourself.
Posted by: yellow
» How is illogical Marxist rubbish "plausible" except to the gullible?
Posted by: Aramis
» You're a first rate parrot with a tenth rate mind. A master name caller full of ad hominem attacks!
Posted by: yellow
» Paranoid Delusion (101)...
Posted by: Aramis
» Your words would carry more weight if you actually made an argument instead of ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MrX on Sep 21, 2007 7:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frank69 on Sep 26, 2007 8:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
GOP and Dems Agree: Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity Unjust and Needs Reform
The FBI Could Be Watching You on Facebook
Why a High-Protein Diet May Make You Fatter




