Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

America's Economic Free Fall

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted August 1, 2008.


In their haste to do anything Wall Street wants, Congress and the lame-duck President are sowing far more profound troubles for the country.
Advertisement

Washington can act with breathtaking urgency when the right people want something done. In this case, the people are Wall Street's titans, who are scared witless at the prospect of their historic implosion. Congress quickly agreed to enact a gargantuan bailout, with more to come, to calm the anxieties and halt the deflation of Wall Street giants. Put aside partisan bickering, no time for hearings, no need to think through the deeper implications. We haven't seen "bipartisan cooperation" like this since Washington decided to invade Iraq.

In their haste to do anything the financial guys seem to want, Congress and the lame-duck President are, I fear, sowing far more profound troubles for the country. First, while throwing our money at Wall Street, government is neglecting the grave risk of a deeper catastrophe for the real economy of producers and consumers. Second, Washington's selective generosity for influential financial losers is deforming democracy and opening the path to an awesomely powerful corporate state. Third, the rescue has not succeeded, not yet. Banking faces huge losses ahead, and informed insiders assume a far larger federal bailout will be needed -- after the election. No one wants to upset voters by talking about it now. The next President, once in office, can break the bad news. It's not only about the money -- with debate silenced, a dangerous line has been crossed. Hundreds of billions in open-ended relief has been delivered to the largest and most powerful mega-banks and investment firms, while government offers only weak gestures of sympathy for struggling producers, workers and consumers.

The bailouts are rewarding the very people and institutions whose reckless behavior caused this financial mess. Yet government demands nothing from them in return -- like new rules for prudent behavior and explicit obligations to serve the national interest. Washington ought to compel the financial players to rein in their appetite for profit in order to help save the country from a far worse fate: a depressed economy that cannot regain its normal energies. Instead, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Democratic Congress and of course the Republicans meekly defer to the wise men of high finance, who no longer seem so all-knowing.

Let's review the bidding to date. After panic swept through the global financial community this spring, the Federal Reserve and Treasury rushed in to arrange a sweetheart rescue for Bear Stearns, expending $29 billion to take over the brokerage's ruined assets so JPMorgan Chase, the prestigious banking conglomerate, would agree to buy what was left. At the same time, the Fed and Treasury provided a series of emergency loans and liquidity for endangered investment firms and major banks. Investors were not persuaded. Their panic was not "mental," as former McCain adviser Phil Gramm recently complained. The collapse of the housing bubble had revealed the deep rot and duplicity within the financial system. When investors tried to sell off huge portfolios of spoiled financial assets like mortgage bonds, nobody would buy them. In fact, no one can yet say how much these once esteemed "safe" investments are really worth.

The big banks and investment houses are also stuck with lots of bad paper, and some have dumped it on their unwitting customers. The largest banks and brokerages have already lost enormously, but lending portfolios must shrink a lot more -- at least $1 trillion, some estimate. So wary shareholders are naturally dumping financial-sector stocks.

Most recently, the investors' fears were turned on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the huge quasi-private corporations that package and circulate trillions in debt securities with implicit federal backing. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (formerly of Goldman Sachs) boldly proposed a $300 billion commitment to buy up Fannie Mae stock and save the plunging share price -- that is, save the shareholders from their mistakes. So much for market discipline. For everyone else, Washington recommends a cold shower.

Talk about warped priorities! The government puts up $29 billion as a "sweetener" for JP Morgan but can only come up with $4 billion for Cleveland, Detroit and other urban ruins. Even the mortgage-relief bill is a tepid gesture. It basically asks, but does not compel, the bankers to act kindlier toward millions of defaulting families.

A generation of conservative propaganda, arguing that markets make wiser decisions than government, has been destroyed by these events. The interventions amount to socialism, American style, in which the government decides which private enterprises are "too big to fail." Trouble is, it was the government itself that created most of these mastodons -- including the all-purpose banking conglomerates. The mega-banks arose in the 1990s, when a Democratic President and Republican Congress repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented commercial banks from blending their business with investment banking. That combination was the source of incestuous self-dealing and fraudulent stock valuations that led directly to the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, financial crisis

William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great Article ... take the next step ... A Public Central Bank ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 1, 2008 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Grieder 100% except that he does not go far enough.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation whose job it has been to take care of its owners, the member banks which include the likes of CITI , BoA etc. We have seen how that works.

What we need is a Public Central Bank that creates money without interest and regulates without favor for the benefit of people through their government . Benjamin Franklin invented a monetary system that worked perfectly until it was made illegal by Britain. It was the disbanding of the Colonial Banks and their sovereign currencies that instigated the Revolutionary War!

BEN FRANKLIN'S BANK

Benjamin Franklin



Benjamin Franklin helped create the Pennsylvania Scrip, and in his autobiography he wrote of this currency:
The utility of this currency became by time and experience so evident as never afterwards to be much disputed
Franklin believed the shutting down of this paper money by Parliament in 1764 was the principal cause of the American Revolution, as did many other prominent Americans. Peter Cooper, founder of Cooper Union College, Vice-President of the New York Board of Currency, US Presidential Candidate in 1876, and one-time colleague of Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin said in his 1883 book Ideas for a Science of Good Government:
After Franklin had explained…to the British Government as the real cause of prosperity, they immediately passed laws, forbidding the payment of taxes in that money. This produced such great inconvenience and misery to the people, that it was the principal cause of the Revolution. A far greater reason for a general uprising, than the Tea and Stamp Act, was the taking away of the paper money.

Adam Smith -

Adam Smith wrote of the Pennsylvania currency in his famed 1776 work The Wealth of Nations:

The government of Pennsylvania, without amassing any [gold or silver], invented a method of lending, not money indeed, but what is equivalent to money to its subjects. [It advanced] to private people at interest, upon [land as collateral], paper bills of credit…made transferable from hand to hand like bank notes, and declared by act of assembly to be legal tender in all payments...[the system] went a considerable way toward defraying the annual expense…of that…government [low taxes]. [Pennsylvania’s] paper currency…is said never to have sunk below the value of gold and silver which was current in the colony before the…issue of paper money.

COLONIAL MONEY

Why should the banks have a monopoly and enjoy the immense profit on the creation of our money.

We need another Revolution. A Revolution to take back what is ours under the Constitution; the right, indeed the obligation for our government to create our own money without interest and for our own benefit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sed contra..... Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: sed contra..... Posted by: HSencillo
» RE: Metal is Not the answer ... Posted by: HSencillo
» Murdered because he wanted US Notes, Links Posted by: common intelligence
Putting the "Federal" Back in the Federal Reserve
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 1, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The American people are silent because they have been duped into believing they have gotten what they wanted. In fact, what the people got was not at all what the Populists fought for, or what their leader William Jennings Bryan thought he was approving when he voted for the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. In the stirring speech that won him the Democratic nomination for President in 1896, Bryan expressed the Populist position like this:

“We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. . . . Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson . . . and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business. . . . [W]hen we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and . . . until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.”

Bryan lost in 1896 and again in 1900, but he went on to lead the opposition in Congress. A major bank panic in 1907 led to a bill called the Aldrich Plan, which would have delivered control of the banking system to the Wall Street bankers. However, the alert opposition, led by Bryan, saw through it and soundly defeated it. Bryan said he would not support any bill that resulted in private money being issued by private banks. Federal Reserve Notes must be Treasury currency, issued and guaranteed by the government; and the governing body must be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

To get their bill past the opposition in Congress, the Wall Street faction changed its name to the Federal Reserve Act and brought it three days before Christmas, when Congress was preoccupied with departure for the holidays. The bill was so obscurely worded that no one really understood its provisions. Its backers knew it would not pass without Bryan’s support, so in a spirit of apparent compromise, they made a show of acquiescing to his demands. Bryan said happily, “The right of the government to issue money is not surrendered to the banks; the control over the money so issued is not relinquished by the government . . . .”

That was what he thought; but while the national money supply would be printed by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, it would be issued as an obligation or debt of the government to a private central bank. The Federal Reserve is wholly owned by a consortium of private banks; it is controlled by bankers; and it protects their interests. It issues Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) for the cost of printing them (or, more often, for the cost of entering numbers on a computer screen). This privately-issued money is then lent to the government, and it is owed back to the private Federal Reserve with interest. The interest is eventually refunded to the government, but only after the Fed deducts its operating expenses and a 6 percent guaranteed return for its bank shareholders."

There's more !

Putting the "Federal" Back in the Federal Reserve

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» silence Posted by: Dboy
The real estate market needs a big FLUSH
Posted by: Bobsays on Aug 1, 2008 1:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not agree with these bail outs of banks, and I do not agree with calls for a public bank to back-up the currently overinflated housing market. A huge flush of this over-inflated turd of a bubble needs to happen. The pain can't be avoided.

But once housing gets back to a price that better reflects salaries and the cost of living, then, yes, set up some sort of entity to back-up home loans and only forward home loans when the person has stumped up 25% deposit, has a stable job and is looking for a long-term mortgage. No more liar loans, NINJA loans etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bobsays is right on Posted by: pfeifer999
» 'Because I'm worth it!' Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: 'Because I'm worth it!' Posted by: HSencillo
"The Coming Battle"
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 1, 2008 2:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I urge all who are interested in this subject to access M.W. Walbert's magnificent history of the National Bank System that documents every evil and unlawful practice that has led us to the banking and money crisises we face today. Though written in 1899, it is as relevant and pointed today as it was then and it should be at the heart of any discussions dealing with reform. But....it will rest dormant as the feckless Democrats and utterly craven Republicans pander to Wall Street gluttony and stupidity in the ongoing lust for amassing the most filthy luchre which, by the way, is never intended for "all."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Suberp post
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Aug 1, 2008 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a comprehensive post with PRESCRIPTIONS FOR amelioraton! Thank you, William Greider.

Of course we'd be better off with Obama than neo-con McCain, but, as you stated:

"but John McCain has surrounded himself with influential advisers who were co-architects of this financial disaster. For that matter, so has Barack Obama.
(my emphasis).

Again, it's the lesser of two evils in our choice, but a decent difference; I have faith that Obama will do at least some of what you prescribe; at the very least, he will restore some sane regulation to the markets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where's the Change? Posted by: edgar1
It's Not Just America And It's Not Just The Financial System
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 1, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Powerful forces are not only attempting to crash the entire World's financial system - but even more dangerously - the World's food supply.

The objective is mass depopulation - mass genocide - via poverty and famine.

Check out "Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" by William Engdahl.

And look to those who have the power.

"New World Order conspiracy theories present the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, DuPonts, Vanderbilts, Bush family, etc. as the real rulers or would-be rulers of the world"

Of course I wouldn't normally go along with such "conspiracy" theories and Engdahl's book might be a load of nonsense (I haven't read it yet) and GM foods might be the solution rather than the problem (I have read good arguments in favour)

But I think there is very strong evidence of concentration of overwhelming power within tiny elites.

Financial and Food crashes don't happen by accident. People are being led to believe that the real problem is lack of Earth resources to sustain human life - whereas I believe that the resources are there and plentiful - but are being deliberately denied.

Where is the resistance to the planned mass genocide and deliberately created hell on earth?

To eliminate mass diversity of food seeds is the height of madness. The earth created this wealth naturally.

Diversity produces natural resistance to all forms of attack - not just in food - but in everything.

If we have just one form of wheat - even if its a genetically constructed form of wheat designed to be resistant to attack - and it is grown throughout the world - an unexpected attack could wipe out the entire crop.

If we had 100 totally different natural strains such an attack might only lose a few per cent the crop.

This attack could be human and deliberate by those who believe the human race needs to be culled.

I expect them to blame the 2 Billion deaths on climate change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ATH
Posted by: ATH on Aug 1, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is not going to stop the building of massive bases in Iraq and an embassy that's basically a small city--like the vatican. Furthermore, he's going to involve us in two more wars--Afganistan and Pakistan. The answer to terrorism is to first get the hell out of their countries, and then if they still strike at us, then it should be a policing/special forces type engagement, not a typical war. We always here them talking about how we're fighting a new kind of enemy, yet we're still fighting this war in traditional ways, which lead to massive civilian casualties, which the Taliban and al-queda use as recruiting tools.
And I think we definitely need a real investigation of 9/11, since the 9/11 Commission and the NIST reports are total white-washes, and full of holes large enough to fly one of those 757s through--like, the biggest one, why did they change the story on WTC 7, which was obviously brought down by demolition (since it wasn't hit by anything, was farther away than other buildings that were impacted by debris and had small fires,(yet were fine) and the fact that fire does not ever bring down steel-framed buildings, even when they burn for 18 hours and are completely gutted, like the one in Madrid not too long ago) and even admitted to being professionally demolished by Larry Silverstein (the leaseholder) on public T.V. I have the clip. He says "the decision was made to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."
They changed the story because it takes usually a week to rig a building of that size for wireless demolition, but even rushing, it couldn't have been done that day. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that Police, Firefighters, and reporters not only knew the building was going to collapse (which it shouldn't have) but exactly what time it was going to collapse. They changed the story because people figured out that, for the building to have been demolished, as it was, it had to have been rigged prior to 9/11.
Until we get to the truth of that awful day, we are operating in the blind. And of course the republicans, any time criticism of Bush is brought up, bring up 9/11 again.9/11 was completely preventable, but Bush and his administration didn't listen to the multiple warnings..Perhaps because they were looking for, according to their own manifesto,"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a "new Pearl Harbor" event to use to push through these draconian policies!! I suggest everyone do their own research into this event and discover the extent to which we have been lied to. I don't claim to know what actually happened, but it certainly was a lot more, and perhaps very different, from what we've been told. Anyone who believes otherwise hasn't truly studied the evidence, is naive, ignorant, or downright stupid and closed-minded. If you don't believe the government is capable of killing its own citizens to fulfill its agendas, I suggest you check out the "Northwoods Documents."
And yes, the FED is a privately owned bank, which together with the military industrial complex and the oil companies, control Washington. There are a few good people there, but they are in the minority--whether dems or GOPS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR! Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR! Posted by: ronheri
Umm, the economy is growing
Posted by: Derek Maddox on Aug 1, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bad timing for this article. The economic report out yesterday reported 1.9% growth in the US economy. Not exactly burning up the boards, but not a "free fall" either. It needs to be negative growth in order to be a "fall" at all, and "free fall" implies drastic shrinkage in the economy. We're such a bunch of nervous nellies, and have absolutely no memory, if we can't remember the 17% inflation and 10% unemployment of the early 1970s.

The housing market and oil prices are the two sore spots in the economy right now. The housing thing will work itself out sooner or later, and if we'd just start drilling for oil the price of gas would well and truly start a "free fall".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Umm, Give me a break... Posted by: jlohman
» SILENCE DEREK MADDOX Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: SILENCE DEREK MADDOX Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Yes, now, back to the facts - Posted by: pfeifer999
» "attacking" Posted by: pfeifer999
» Grow up. Posted by: pfeifer's day off
» Growing RED Ink Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Umm, the economy is growing Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Umm, the economy is growing Posted by: HSencillo
» The trip down........ Posted by: carbon-based
Our problem is pretty basic...
Posted by: jlohman on Aug 1, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's our corrupt political system that is fueled by campaign contributions. They buy favors, like the deregulation that lead to the mortgage crisis and the huge taxpayer-funded subsidies. But it began long ago.

To satisfy his cronies Bush gave a tax cut to the wealthy, which converted our $300 billion deficit to a $600 billion deficit, trashed the value of the dollar bill which devalued houses and increased the cost of oil, which now affects every industry in the U.S. to the point than even more jobs have to be sent to low-cost countries.

To get out of this we need:

1) Public funding of campaigns, and at $10 per taxpayer per year it would be a terrific bargain. If politicians are to be beholden to their funders, those funders must be the taxpayers.

2) Single-payer health care, like a Medicare-for-all system that the total population pays for and the burden is removed from corporations who are then able to better compete with foreign product that does not have healthcare costs built into them.

3) Zero taxes on corporations that (a) pay their CEOs below 100 times their lowest paid worker and (b)do not outsource their manufacturing to other countries and keep their jobs in the US.

4) Add tariffs to products that are imported, which increases government revenues and reduces the glamor of cheap foreign products and encourages domestic manufacturing.

5) Politicians should Politicians should protect the public with new Oil-USA option

To get out of this and save the country, the politicians are going to have to take back from the wealthy some of which they gave them. The people without money cannot fix this problem, only the wealthy can.

Jack Lohman
MoneyedPoliticians.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Our problem is pretty basic... Posted by: richholland
» To the Point. Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Our problem is pretty basic... Posted by: Lincoln fan
Bush: Economic Superhero..........NOT
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Aug 1, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall Street is expressing concerns about a possible recession or even a depression. All these prognosticators of gloom and doom have not fully understood the effectiveness of the Bush Administrations clever economic policies which are based on Friedman’s economic magic.

By involving the United States in two wars at the same time spending over two trillion dollars, Bush has applied the tried and true formula of war to stimulate the economy. If World War II rescued the country from two the depression of the thirties, think about the effect of two wars. Naturally Bush’s extensive knowledge of history was a major factor in implementing this policy.

On the one hand, economists postulate different theories about stimulating growth, but on the other hand, tax cuts seems to be the solution of choice given certain conditions. Having researched the various options, Bush chose to implement huge tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy. The genius in this solution is that even though only the top one percent of the population benefits, they are the big spenders whose extravagant consumption will spur growth ensuring that consumption remains at satisfactory levels.

Since Friedman, Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics has become the latest fad in sound economic management, it has become an axiom that the private sector is the key to long-term stability. To strengthen the private sector at the expense of the inefficient, wasteful government agencies and departments, President Bush has infused large corporations with billions of dollars, based on no-bid contracts, for the reconstruction of Iraq. Although reconstruction projects are either permanently unfinished or non-existent, the end result is that companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel have benefited in a major way. Bush has achieved the goal of free-market economics by not interfering with an inefficient bidding process or burdensome regulations and allowing the market to enrich large corporations with tax-payers dollars.

Bush demonstrated his insight into complex economic principles by creating a huge budget and trade deficit and the largest current accounts deficit in the world. These policies have encouraged countries such as China and Japan to invest heavily in the U.S. every day, all of which allowed the U.S. government to continue to prosecute its very profitable war in Iraq.

All of these policies have lived up to the economic philosophy of the Chicago School of Economics which has built a reputation over many years of successfully ramming free-markets and privatization down the throats of countries that were fortunate enough to be targeted by the United States. Just ask Jeffrey Sachs. Despite the fact that these countries suffered economically, the market system channeled money to multinational corporations. Capitalism in its finest hour. Just ask Bill Gates.

Bush clearly deserved more than the “C” when he was a student of Yale. I will bet that his history professors are scratching their heads now. How could such an intellectually shallow, academically mediocre student have created so much wealth for so few at the expense of so many?

http://www.stateofdarkness.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War and Debt
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 1, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's keep this simple. War is when you borrow every piaster you've got and promise to pay people back with war plunder. If you don't get the plunder, your credit is bad. You kite your mortgages around until the next guy gets in power, then blame him for the catastrophe.

In WWII we won. We got the German and Japanese people to pay us some massive war and reconstruction debts for thirty years, thank you.

We lost in Vietnam. In the 1970s we called the debts "stagflation". You don't think the War in Indochina was free, do you?

The government of Iraq wants us out by a mandated December 31, 2008. We lost. We're broke. Now we collectively have to live the life of a big-time gambler and a loser.

Remember Argentina 10 years ago? 70% unemployment. People forcibly occupied abandoned factories and ran them illegally.

This author here, I think he doesn't quite get it, and he's a bit too conservative in his outlook. That's right, too conservative.

Too bad we don't have a popular think tank working on our problems now. Volunteers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So you think you're so smart huh
Posted by: civilsociety on Aug 1, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all the geniuses in the crowd here's the state of affairs.

Basics are now unaffordable for most people. We are talking the 90% of the American public. I don't want the top 10% to comment on this post since they have NO idea what living in the bottom is like.

Basics have risen in price thus we are spending more money. Difference is we are getting less for what we spend. That's ok too. Americans need to learn to do with less. Problem is we need to include the top 10% in the equation.

Instead they are the ones that are still reaping benefits from this cockeyed economy. Where are the hedge funds spending their money now? Why, they are buying foreclosures, of course.

Since moving to this state of Florida I've had several incarnations of jobs. After two years I am now a casualty of the rich once again. The principal of the firm "inherited" money and no longer sees it necessary to work. Poof, out of a job. Office closed.

I can name at least six people I have talked to in the last two weeks who are in my same position. Another is working three jobs to try to make ends meet and still may lose his house. Taxes and insurance and the rise in electric and water and food are all the cause. Not for lack of the guy workign from dawn to dusk.

And many of us are SELF employed (that means we don't live off the fat of some corporate largesse based on the back of the consumer) so we don't show up in the "small" unemployment rate.

Don't feel sorry for me but start to awaken to the real story that needs to be told. This government is corrupt to its very core and they plan to do even more to make sure they thin the herds. That could easily be you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Civil society.... Posted by: pfeifer999
America's Economic Free Fall
Posted by: bc430 on Aug 1, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A generation of conservative propaganda, arguing that markets make wiser decisions than government, has been destroyed by these events. The interventions amount to socialism, American style, in which the government decides which private enterprises are "too big to fail." Trouble is, it was the government itself that created most of these mastodons -- including the all-purpose banking conglomerates. The mega-banks arose in the 1990s, when a Democratic President and Republican Congress repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented commercial banks from blending their business with investment banking. That combination was the source of incestuous self-dealing and fraudulent stock valuations that led directly to the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed."

Do the same thing - Get the same result. Duh???

The whole nation duped by right leaning deification and worship of the god of deregelation is now getting it's reward from dereglated market forces and Union busting in the form of low wages, no wages, endless war, the demise of the middle class, a revival of racism, fear, doubt, dread and uncertainty. America has been deficated on by the wealthy wizards they feared, believed in and reverenced; whose royal asses generations of her children have been persuaded to kiss. Behind the curtain? The basest of brutes.

Take a closer look at:
Aaron Russo's "America, FREEDOM TO FASCISM"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Democrats Would Love to Put Grieder Out to Pasture?
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 1, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The blame is bipartisan; so also is the disgrace. In 1980, before Ronald Reagan even came to town, Democrats deregulated the financial system by repealing federal interest-rate ceilings and other regulatory restraints -- a step that doomed the savings and loan industry and eliminated a major competitor for the bankers."

As the quote from his article above show, Grieder correctly doesn't let the lie of a 'two-party' system rest. What will Obama do to enforce antitrust laws, repair the damage of past Democratic presidencies and Congresses in deregulation (including the shameful bankruptcy "reform") and put multi-millionaire corporate stooges like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi out of power and replace them with real reformers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Welfare
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 1, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you know just how evil that sounds? Now I have a superficial understanding at best as to how it works... But if it works as it sounds than it reminds me more so of Corporatism than Republicanism.

I mean as a government giving money to help big business is dangerous and unlawful. Government can manipulate the business or blackmail the business and as the business become more dependent upon that welfare than what happens, you cant follow your own path but rather what Government says.

Plus it does not help when your money is loosing value as well since your pulling it out of thin air. Eventually the money will be worthless and when it is whats going to happen? You are going to have business closing and government imploding

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All owners are financial funds could be hurt
Posted by: dogsoldier on Aug 1, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is fanciful to suggest that those who bought Fannie and Freddie assets should be cast aside like dirty laundry.
There are very few companies that offer pensions. Most of us will live or die with our IRAs and 401Ks. If your fund invests in financial stocks, you are probably a bank stock owner. So it isn't just the rich who will be jabbed; it is all of us.
They was always an "implicit" guarantee the feds would prop the Fred...s up as they pretty much fund the conventional mortgage market. The Fred...s did guarantee bandit loans which makes them partly guilty for the meltdown.

So how about these actions:
Bail them out but demand changes and transparency in the entire banking process so banks who loan risky loans take the hits from now on.
As a matter of fact, add transparency to the financial world. If a company gets caught, the board of directors and CEOs start breaking rocks in the hot sun.
Make savings and loans pay taxes. They are getting so large they have an unfair advantage over banks. They are supposed to be small and community owned. Many are getting into the world of too big to fail.
Stop the myth that is is only fat cats that benefit. We are all in this together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good start, but not far enough
Posted by: alturn on Aug 1, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greider's comments on reform are pointing at the first level of reform. Yet there is a reason that Japan and China still give us money. It is their realization that when the U.S. implodes, the effect on them will be enormous.

The financial house of cards was not created just by Americans. Ruling interests around the world were complicit. Reform likewise will not just be about protecting the interests of the American public, it will necessarily be about moving away from all levels of selfish interest and finding ways to take care of the basic needs of everyday people around the world. The twin interrelated challenge of both economic and environmental implosion will bring this clarity.

It was said, "To make progress man must die to the old. Thus it ever was. So, at this time of change must the old structures be renounced, and simply, must all men share". Sooner or later, we will see the wisdom of that course of action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perfect example of "conservative in action"
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 1, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is a perfect example of what "conservatives" believe. It is unfortunate that the bailing out of the financial industry doesn't come with the same rules and regulations that the rest of us have to sign for when we go to get a loan.

Exactly, how many more S&L disasters are we the people going to have to pay for before we start to demand both responsibility and accountability from the "Washington club"!

Let's review hard-work = trickle-down, elitist = bail-out with public funds! I'm sure that the founding fathers are sooooo proud! Maybe just as during the depression some of those good ole boys need not get bailed out - then maybe they can really feel the pain experienced by the other 90% of Americans!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When greed begrudges the living wage
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Aug 1, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Henry Ford was smart enough to want workers to earn enough to buy his cars, so he stepped up first with pay raises and wages in other areas began to rise. This made for a much greater market for his automobiles.

Perhaps certain segments of labor went too far in the early 70s. Remember the grievances filed when a supervisor changed a light bulb instead of calling in an off-duty electrician for a minimum 3-hr call in? I had friends and relatives in union positions that felt that some of this was going too far.

As a result, laborers - for a time - lived better than most bank employees, accountants, teachers, etc. In our town the UAW ruled, followed by the teamsters, pipefitters, electricians, etc. How many of you can remember numerous families with two UAW incomes that owned several cars (Vettes and Cadillacs were popular), a house boat, a fishing boat, snowmobiles, jet skis and an RV or customized van? That - for a time - was the holy grail, and available even to those without much education.

We've seen corrections and now over-corrections. The feeding frenzy has now taken back those gains and once again begrudges the common person any real economic benefit. This alone leads to over-production. It's not that there aren't enough consumers, it's that they can't really afford everything the market has to offer.

Sure, we can find ways to acquire - through debt. Through homes, credit cards, gasoline cards, on-line shopping, equity loans, reverse mortgages, over-priced health insurance, etc., we are becoming owned by or obligated to (beyond our ability to redeem) a financial sector so pervasive as to resemble the much-reviled company store of yesteryear.

If a hard day's work earned more than just the cost of living, we could buy our way back to corporate solvency through real production. We'd have to stop begrudging most of the rest of the world that type of purchasing power.

It's not going to work for the money handlers to have all of the wealth. It has to circulate all the way to the bottom and back up. There shouldn't such great fear. Working class people will spend it, if they can earn it.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the politics, stupid.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Aug 1, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The economy is in bad shape but I believe that our political system is a more serious problem. Read the comments above. Some of these contain good suggestions on how to solve the problem. These are the solutions that our politicians will never consider unless the voters force them to consider them.

Anyone who thinks that the Democrats are going to do anything differently than the Republicans have done has ignored the evidence f past elections. The Democratic party is very sincere in their "reaching across the aisle" rhetoric for in truth we have only one party. And it's controlled by the monied interests.

I think that the mistake that people make is to try to elect leaders. Every king, emperor, dictator, tyrant, and despot were and are leaders. The purpose of our revolution was to
overthrow leaders and put the leadership in the hands of the people. We don't need leaders in politics, we need executives that know how to do what the people tell them to do. It amazes me that after almost two hundred and fifty years, democracy is still a foreign concept to Americans.

The leadership of the country should exist outside the political system and it does. Every positive movement has been created outside the government. The Magna Carta wasn't the idea of a government ruled by a king. Our revolution wasn't the idea of King George. The union movement, the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage,the civil rights movement, peace with Viet Nam were all the ideas of people outside the government.

There are thousands of times more experts outside of government than there are inside. There are thousands of times more people outside government considering thousands of times as many everyday problems than there are inside. These are the people who should lead.

Our trouble is that the average citizen doesn't think that the average citizen is capable of knowing what's best for his country.

It is time to choose one of two alternatives: go for majority rule or continue with minority rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sarafornia
Posted by: kelifornia on Aug 1, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The need for a central, truly national bank that controls our money supply is evident. For more information see also The Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown, J.D. More also available on globalresearch.com.ca

We firmly believe this debacle is planned to bring the US middle class to its knees and pave the way for the Amero. The control of the megabanks must be eliminated. If only the public will wake up. The problem is that the media is controlled so little real news gets out to alert citizens. Only the internet affords real communication. Have you noticed how almost no issues of substance are even being discussed by the candidates? We are bombarded with trivia in this campaign. Congress never takes up legislation that is needed; they don't even meet regularly. All of this is designed to keep us in ignorance and avoid a revolution. The corruption is everywhere and out of control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's high time to ABOLISH the IMF, World Bank, Fed Reserve, Chamber of Commerce, Wall $t, etc ...
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 1, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some army tanks will do !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This I Believe...
Posted by: ranchero42 on Aug 1, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the Neo-cons have offered up an American Gulag, where many are led, sheeplike in their focus to believe that a life lived in poverty and deprivation will bring them greater reward in the next life. Those who vilify the moneychangers will live in their own hell on this earth, and the fiery pit that follows. We need to turn these prophecies against those who would force them upon us, our only chance will be in this life. Won't somebody show us the true path?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This I Believe... Posted by: Animal
it'll never happen ...
Posted by: dailyplummet on Aug 1, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greider is a genius -- but his ideas for reform will never be enacted, not before the cataclysm he fears. Just like 1929, the lemmings of Wall Street and Washington will never be able to let go of their cookies, so will do everything to hang on. That is why the housing bill is a tepid response. And "the people" are too powerless, disconnected, demoralized, and traumatized to march on Washington.

Do you all realize that the only way for this situation to change is a sort of revolutionary shift in America's governing paradigm? In other words, the social conflict and class warfare underlying these deteriorating economic times is going to get much much uglier -- much more conflicted and violent -- before the sort of "moral awakening" he speaks of will lead to anything approaching real and meaningful change.

And Greider is right that the Dems are just as complicit in constructing this disastrous casino that we still -- in all naivete -- call "the economy." Those who believe real change is coming with a Democratic Congress and an Obama administration need to go into drug rehab. That is because those hopes are based on a fundamental abdication of responsibility: The change won't come from Obama, but from a mass movement of economically disenfranchised people, forcing -- with growing militance -- the reforms and reconstructions he proposes. I simply don't believe most Americans have that sort of courage -- particularly because it will require middle-class people to cast their lot with those who are really coming apart below. And that won't happen because the nation is in a Titanic mentality: dapper upper-crusters in tuxedoes will jump into the lifeboats assigned for women and children. Perhaps they will do so with shamed faces -- but, did shame stop these people when the stakes were a lot lower than today?

We really are seeing 1929 all over again. So hang on to your hats, brothers and sisters, our country is about to slide down into a great big cesspool of poverty and displacement.


-dp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money is Like Water - It's Designed To Be Sprinkled Generously
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 1, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we have now is the rich and powerful hoarding all the money and denying it to ordinary people.

Its the equivalent - of hoarding all the fresh water - like diverting the natural water flow to enormous great lakes - where the rich can entertain themselves fishing for fresh trout

Whilst denying water to everyone else - so WE can't even grow food or have clean water to drink.

There is no shortage of fresh water on this planet.

And there is no shortage of money

And there is no shortage of energy

Or resources

The elite are trying to impoverish us all and starve us all to death

A weapon of mass destruction

Are we going to let them kill us all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]