From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 17:50:05 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:50:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Dean Baker on the "Credit Squeeze Scare" Message-ID: Comment? -- Yoshie ________________________________ When Wall Street Needs Money, Rules of Journalism No Longer Apply By Dean Baker Washington DC's Fox affiliate appears to have been taken over by Wall Street lobbyists. It has been reporting all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions that a credit squeeze is destroying the economy. You'd never know that typical 30-year mortgage is going for around 6.0 percent these days. Back when I last bought a home I had to pay 7.15 percent. But in Fox's sell the bailout campaign, there is no place for arithmetic. Of course few people expect much journalistic integrity from Fox. On the other hand, the NYT enjoys a somewhat better reputation. However, with some of its reporting on the bailout, it's not clear this better reputation is deserved Today it told readers that "early on Tuesday, banks were charging one another the highest overnight borrowing costs ever recorded, as measured by an important rate known as Libor." That sounds really bad -- the highest overnight borrowing cost in history. Maybe it would have been helpful to tell readers that this data has only been compiled since 2001, a period of unusually low interest rates. If we want a longer time frame, we can look at the history for the three month interbank rate. Bloomberg reports that the three month London Interbank rate (LIBOR) closed at 4.05 percent on Tuesday. In the same chart, we can find that it was 5.23 percent a year ago. Those interested in a little more history can find that the LIBOR rate was over 8.0 percent for most of 1990 and actually topped 9.0 percent on some days in September of 1989. So how scared should we be that yesterday's interest rate was almost half as large as the three month LIBOR back in 1989? It would be hard for a serious person to explain how a 4.05 percent LIBOR can shut down the economy, when the interest rate has been more than twice as high in the not too distant past. But, that won't fit the NYT credit crisis story, so you won't see the historical data mentioned. -- This article was published on September 30, 2008 on Dean Baker's Beat the Press blog. ________________________________ The Credit Squeeze Scare By Dean Baker The Federal Reserve Board chairman described the credit squeeze as being "as severe as any supply-induced constraint ever, other than from policy actions." That statement should help to prompt Congress into quick passage of the bank bailout bill, except this quote is from February of 1991, and the chairman at the time was Alan Greenspan. The economy is in a recession and banks always tighten up on credit in a recession. When the economy's growth prospects are in question, it puts the health of any particular business into question. Therefore, banks will be far more hesitant to make loans during a period of economic weakness. There were literally hundreds of news stories about the credit squeeze in the 1990-1991 recession. While the story of the big Wall Street banks teetering and/or crashing may be unique to the current downturn, the stories we are hearing of the main street credit squeeze could be cut and pasted from the news coverage of the 1990-1991 recession. There is little reason to believe that the current tightness is substantially worse than what we have seen in prior recessions. The most obvious measure of credit tightness is interest rates. We expect that banks will raise interest rates if the demand for credit substantially exceeds the supply. Yet, the interest rates on most categories of loans are far below their averages over recent decades. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the average interest rate on 30-year fixed rate mortgages was 6.07 percent last week (down from 6.08 percent the prior week). Back in the early 90s, the average interest rate on 30-year mortgages was over 9.0 percent. State and local governments are complaining about having to pay interest rates of 5.0 percent, but back in the early 90s they were paying more than 6.0 percent. The same applies to loans for large and small businesses. The interest rates are somewhat higher now than they were in prior months, but they are still relatively low by historic standards. (Real interest rates are even lower by historic standards, since the inflation rate is higher today than it was in the early 90s.) Of course this past history doesn't mitigate the pain being suffered by families and businesses trying to make ends meet. But it is important to put the problem in context. No one threatened us with the Great Depression if we didn't cough up $700 billion for the Wall Street banks in the 1990-1991 recession. The bottom line is that we have badly over-leveraged banks who are on the edge of collapse and we have a credit tightening due to an economic downturn. These problems are related, but even if we could snap our fingers and make the banks healthy again tomorrow, we would still have a serious credit problem due to the recession. In other words, many of the businesses and people who have been appearing on news shows because they could not get credit would still not be able to get credit. (Although they probably will not be appearing on the news shows once the bailout passes.) Just to remind everyone the cause is the loss of more than $4 trillion in housing equity due to the collapse of the housing bubble. The collapse of this bubble has not only devastated the construction and real estate market, it also has forced consumers to cut back. Tens of millions of homeowners no longer have any equity against which to borrow. Even those who still have equity realize that they will have to increase their savings to support themselves in retirement. And all this came about because the experts who are now insisting that we need a bailout had previously insisted that there was no housing bubble and that everything was just fine. It is always important to keep things in context. -- This article was published on October 1, 2008 by TPM Caf? (Talking Points Memo). ________________________________ Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer. He also has a blog on the American Prospect, "Beat the Press", where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. ________________________________ The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. ________________________________ Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 18:07:28 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:07:28 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Doug Henwood: If the Rejection Survives, Perilous Times Ahead Message-ID: Normally crisis-skeptic Doug sounds more panicky than centrists like Kenneth Rogoff and center-leftists like Dean Baker and James K. Galbraith: . Comment? Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 19:26:31 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 21:26:31 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Julio Huato Hoping for a Democrat Victory and Bank Nationalization Message-ID: Meanwhile, Julio Huato is hoping that if we could hold off till the Democrats get to rule both the White House and Congress, we might get a better deal, perhaps bank nationalization. I doubt that Obama is any better, since he is backing the bailout plan anyhow, but is there any reason we have to rush to approve the bailout _now_ without haggling more? -- Yoshie So, here's the thing: In principle, yes, it's better to face now these risks and try to preempt a deeper and longer recession by passing the TARP deal as is, or almost as is. However, in the long run, this "better" may turn out to be only "marginally better." Why? Because it's likely that, in November, Obama and the Democrats running for Congress will prevail, which will drastically alter the political landscape. Come January (or even November) the Democrats will be in a completely different position, thus having more clout to shape up expectations in the economy and, more importantly, to shape the actual bank rescue deal. It seems to me that the Democrats in power would be more willing, especially under active popular pressure, to undertake the (partial) nationalization of troubled banks, a much better approach than buying off toxic assets at some above-market arbitrary price in the hope that 1) the banks are thus re-capitalized and 2) the Treasury is at some point able to dump them in the market at a decent premium. Krugman, DeLong, Galbraith, et alia have aptly argued in favor of the Sweedish approach to rescuing the banks and there's no reason to belabor that point here. I could add (a bit vaguely, I admit) that Mexico's own experience is consistent with their argument. In 1982, Mexico nationalized the banking system. Then, during the Salinas administration, the banks were sold back to private capitalists. Even though the process was corrupt to the core, it seems that Mexico's treasury didn't do too bad on the deal. (I'll sound like Palin vis Couric, but I should get back to ya on this. Need to look for references to this, as I'm sure there are studies that show it. My 3 readers: please help.) Then, in 1995, as a result of the Tequila crisis, Mexico's private banks got again in deep trouble. This time, the government of Ernesto Zedillo used the National Fund for Savings' Protection (FOBAPROA), an institution created by Carlos Salinos in the spirit of the FDIC, to assume the banks' liabilities that resulted from the insolvencies and bankruptcies following the peso plunge. Altogether, the FOBAPROA assumed about 50 billion USD of banks' bad debt, and that debt was later (in 1998) formalized as part of Mexico's public debt. Aside from the outright fraud and corruption involved in FOBAPROA's operations, duly documented by the political opposition in Mexico, the deal was not nearly as good from the viewpoint of Mexico's treasury as the 1982 nationalization. I wish I could be more specific about the reasons why one approach worked and the other didn't, but at some point one has to be humble and admit that ignorance is no valid argument. Anyway, the main point I wanted to make today is this: Sometimes it's better to have a good fight than a bad settlement. From noreply at coha.org Wed Oct 1 09:11:57 2008 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:11:57 -0400 Subject: The South American Defense Council, UNASUR, the Latin American Military and the Region’s Political Process Message-ID: <20081001151157.D950B3E4F6D@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4060 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081001/389721fe/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Wed Oct 1 16:09:14 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:09:14 -0700 Subject: [A-List] A Bailout We Don't Need In-Reply-To: <82b839ea0809302031m17d10b55wbc6a69cfb907d55a@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8DA422D48727414A8A119C97E678841C@TonyPC> <82b839ea0809302031m17d10b55wbc6a69cfb907d55a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 08:31 PM 9/30/2008, MARGARET WYLES wrote: >And what about that $700B number? You know where that very important >figure came from? > >Here's a quote from that Forbes story: > >"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman >told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large >number." http://www.forbes.com/businessintheb...23bailout.html Everybody's saying "Hank Paulson pulled that number out of his ear", but this recalls Al Franken's hilarious comment about where Rush Limbaugh gets his facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOtyigg5BZw Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 948 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081001/098b6931/attachment.txt From billyoc at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 20:43:10 2008 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:43:10 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Doug Henwood: If the Rejection Survives, Perilous Times Ahead In-Reply-To: (Yoshie Furuhashi's message of "Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:07:28 -0400") References: Message-ID: <87wsgrpvi9.fsf@t22.Belkin> "Yoshie Furuhashi" writes: > Normally crisis-skeptic Doug sounds more panicky than centrists like > Kenneth Rogoff and center-leftists like Dean Baker and James K. > Galbraith: > 2008/Bailout+must+be+combined+with+structural+reform>. Comment? OK, OK, give them the trillion. But I want receipts! From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 1 21:37:06 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:37:06 -0400 Subject: [A-List] comment from ICH Message-ID: ....this a 'comment' following a Mike Whitney article on ICH. Seems apropos given Nestor's suggestion. T. The voices on ICH right now, outside of the Homeland Security operative's postings, are struggling with a marked escalation of the class war. I certainly don't and maybe no one has a firm grip on "what is to be done?", to borrow Lenin's phraseology. But it is for sure a time to reject fatalism, defeatism, nihilism and any other current which involves the people in rolling over to die. If Karl Marx was right, we have reached the end times not of humanity but of the capitalist economic system. It is a time when the working class was, through its collective discipline and might, supposed to conduct and win a war with the bourgeoisie and establish its rule. Then the building of socialism was to commence. War, racism and poverty would be banished in the ensuing years along with all of capitalism's pathological influences on man. What are the prospects for this scenario? However likely or remote, the idea should not be given up on because the alternatives are too horrific to passively accept--the Orwellian state, bands of survivalists roaming a scorched planet, the extinction of the human being. So it comes down to a must win for the working class and its allies among the petty bourgeois over the capitalist ruling class and its allies among the petty bourgeois (those among the intelligentsia that spread hopelessness and confusion among working people for 30 pieces of silver). There are, it seems, two loci of power in the ruling class. First are members of the class based on the ownership of the means of production--the financiers, the industrialist, and the other human repositories of massive wealth (Gates, Cheney, Paulson, the Bush Family, the Walton Family...). Then there is the military high command, the last card in the capitalist deck, without which, the civilian side of the ruling class is essentially powerless once their economic superstructure collapses. An important question would seem to be, what is the potential for splitting the not wealthy military top brass from their gold-plated masters? The rank-and-file soldier has already been deemed unreliable and so the formation and building of Blackwater, a private bourgeois shadow army. It's possible that rather than writing the bourgeoisie's errand boys in the Congress we should try to reach Petraeus, Fallon, Mullen, Odierno, Powell, Wilkerson and others and remind them of Cheney's five Vietnam deferments before they acquiesce in his commands to the brigade shipping from Iraq to within the US in October to serve as "an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks". Meanwhile, on our side of the class struggle, there is admittedly no US political party or other formation which expresses the destiny of the working class to power and socialism. Class consciousness would seem to be in short supply. But think about it, would not the United States be the last place where a consciousness of themselves as a class would seize the minds of working people? That's what empire, that's what imperialism, that's what racism has done to us. Class consciousness can develop very quickly in a people though! It is on the rise in the US right now in the reaction to the proposed Wall Street bailout. It will accelerate as the material cocoon provided by the world's dominant economy wears out. Workers, united across all artificial boundaries created by capitalism, whether nation, race, sex, or religion are the only hope now. This is the only force capable of staying the hand of the bourgeoisie and insuring the human experiment "shall not perish from the earth", to borrow Lincoln's phraseology. In your circle, however large or small that may be, in everything you write and say, draw the boundary lines clearly for people between the opposing forces in this final class war. Don't confuse them with Democrats and Republicans. The ruling class is wealthy, we work for a living. Build our forces by raising class consciousness and giving every worker the best chance of making the right decisions in the battles just over the horizon now. Malcolm Martin | 10.01.08 - 1:20 pm | # From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 22:47:56 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:47:56 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Poverty of Crisis Debate Message-ID: Leftists, especially Marxists, are fond of debates on crises. But our debates have often revolved around questions that are not exactly helpful to people in crisis. We tend to debate such questions as: What are the underlying causes of crisis -- overaccumulation, overproduction, underconsumption, or what? But the question that we should have been really debating, learning from historical examples, is: in case of a crisis, _how_ do we counter a financial blackmail of capital (e.g., if you don't give us $700 billion, we'll commit suicide bombing and take you all down)? As long as we cave to this blackmail and seek a solution on capital's terms, we'll remain social democrats. Thoughts? Yoshie From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Oct 2 00:44:48 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:44:48 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Black Monday? Message-ID: <48E46DE0.8000305@attglobal.net> House and Global Investors Vote "No" on Paulson Bailout by Mike Whitney Counterpunch (September 29 2008) Today the US House rejected Treasury Secretary Paulson's $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Paulson said he has the votes, but Paulson was wrong. The House bucked the Paulson's claim that buying up the illiquid mortgage-backed assets from the nation's banks would be enough to save the financial system from an impending meltdown. The jury remains out on that question, too. Professor Nouriel Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics, summed it up like this, "You're not resolving the two fundamental issues: You still have to recapitalize the banking system, and household debt is going to stay high". A large number of economists believe Roubini is right. The bill would not solve the underlying problems. There is a crisis. The banking system is undercapitalized, the credit markets are frozen, and foreign creditors are beginning to slow their purchases of US debt. It's all bad. At the same time the number of casualties among the financial giants - Bear Stearns, Indymac, AIG, Lehman, Washington Mutual - continues to grow. Three more struggling European banks were added to the list of financial institutions that needed emergency government assistance this past weekend. It's no wonder Congress feels like they have to do something to stop the bleeding. Before the stock market opened on Monday, the futures markets had slumped heavily into negative territory, while the TED spread, an indicator of stress in interbank lending, had widened to 3.19, a level that suggests another rocky week of trading ahead. Could this be another Black Monday? Paulson's bill was designed to avert a system-wide crash by clearing the banks' balance sheets so they could resume extending credit to consumers and businesses. The hope was that massive infusion of capital would "turn back the clock" to the happy days of low interest speculation and bubble economics. Paulson is a "one trick pony" who firmly adheres to the belief that wealth creation depends on maximum leverage and an ever-weakening currency. But that world view is no longer applicable after reaching Peak Credit, where consumers are no longer able to make the interest payments on their loans and businesses and financial institutions are forced to curb their spending and dump their toxic assets at firesale prices. The system is deleveraging and nothing can stop it. Paulson has yet to accept the new reality. Besides, there was no guarantee that the banks would use the money in the way that Paulson imagines. As one Wall Street veteran explained to me, "I don't see one penny of that $700 billion ending up helping the broader economy. I see it being used to prop up share prices so the insiders can salvage as much as possible when dumping their shares." Indeed, the $700 billion is just part of a massive "pump and dump" scheme engineered with the tacit approval of the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Once the banksters have offloaded their fraudulent securities and crappy paper on Uncle Sam, they will do whatever they need to do pad the bottom line and drive their stocks up. That means they will shovel capital into hard assets, foreign currencies, gold, interest rate swaps, carry trade swindles, and Swiss bank accounts. The notion that they will recapitalize so they can provide loans to US consumers and businesses in a slumping economy is a pipedream. The US is headed into its worst recession in sixty years. The housing market is crashing, securitzation is kaput, and the broader economy is drifting towards the reef. The banks are not going to waste their time trying to revive a moribund US market where consumers and businesses are already tapped out. No way; it's on to greener pastures. They'll move their capital wherever they think they can maximize their profits. In fact, a sizable portion of the $700 billion will likely be invested in commodities, which means that we'll see another round of hyperbolic speculation in food and energy futures pushing food and fuel prices into the stratosphere. Ironically, the taxpayers' largesse will be used against them, making a bad situation even worse. Then again, if a rehabbed bill isn't passed, no one can predict with certainty what will happen. Here's how Tim Shipman summed it up in "Bailout Failure Will Cause US Crash", in the UK Telegraph: "Officials close to Paulson are privately painting a far bleaker portrait of the fragility of the global economy than that advanced by President George W Bush in his televised address last week. "One Republican said that the message from government officials is that 'the economy is dropping into the john'. He added: 'We could see falls of 3,000 or 4,000 points on the Dow [the New York market that currently trades at around 11,000]. That could happen in just a couple of days'. "'What's being put around behind the scenes is that we're looking at 1930s stuff. We're looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It's going to be really, really nasty.'" The fear on Capital Hill is palpable, especially among the Democrats who have led the effort to pass Paulson's boondoggle ASAP. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and fellow Democratic Party leaders, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and the blabbering blowhard from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, did everything in their power to sandbag dissenters, quash resistance, and rush the bill to a vote without the usual deliberation and debate. Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) was one of many angry members of congress who lashed out at Pelosi's highhandedness. It's all caught on a one minute video: Representative Marcy Kaptur: "The normal legislative process that should accompany a monumental proposal to bail out Wall Street has been shelved. Yes, shelved! Only a few insiders are doing the dealing. These criminals have so much power they can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest lawmaking body in this land. All the committees that should be scanning every word that is being negotiated have been benched. And that means the American people have been benched. We are constitutionally sworn to protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and yes, my friends, there are enemies ... The people who are pushing this bill are the very same one's who are responsible for the implosion on Wall Street. They were fraudulent then; and they are fraudulent now. We should say No to this deal." {1} Republicans were equally furious at the way the Pelosi Politburo kept the rank and file out of loop as much as possible. Representative Michael Burgess (R-Texas) summarized the feelings of a great many congressmen who felt they were being railroaded by Pelosi and Company: "We have seen no bill. We have been here debating talking points ... House Republicans have been cut out of the process and derided by the leaders of the House Democrats as "unpatriotic" for not participating in supporting the bill. Mr Speaker, I have been thrown out of more meetings in the last 24 hours than I ever thought possible as an elected official of 800,000 citizens of North Texas ... Since we didn't have hearings, since we didn't have markup, let's at least put this legislation up on the Internet for 24 hours and let the American people see what we have done in the dark of night. After all, I have never gotten more mail on a single issue than on this bill that is before us tonight." Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) gave the best speech of the day railing against the financial industry and defending the interests of working class Americans. Representative Dennis Kucinich: "The $700 bailout bill is being driven by fear not fact. This is too much money, in too short of time, going to too few people, while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings ... Why aren't we considering any other alternatives other than giving $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect the investors? Why aren't we directly helping homeowners with their debt burdens? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy? Isn't time for fundamental change to our debt-based monetary system so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the US Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?" There was greater opposition to the Paulson bill than any legislation in the last half century. The groundswell of public outrage has been unprecedented, and yet, Congress, completely insulated from the demands of their constituents, continues to blunder ahead following the same pro-industry script as their ideological twins in the White House. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. Not surprisingly, neither Pelosi nor any of the Democratic leadership has even met with any of the more than 200 leading economists who have stated unequivocally that the bailout will not address the central problems that are wreaking havoc on the financial system. Instead, they have caved in to Bush's demagoguery and the spurious claims of Goldman-Sax bagman Henry Paulson, a man who has misled the public on every issue related to the subprime/financial fiasco so far. There are parts of Paulson's Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that every US taxpayer should understand, even though the media is keeping those facts obscured. In sections 128 and 132; the proposed bill would have suspend "mark to market" accounting. This means that the banks would no longer be required to assess the worth of their assets according to what similar assets fetched on the open market. For example, Merrill Lynch just sold $31 billion of mortgage-backed securities for $6 billion, which means that similar bonds should be similarly priced. Simple; right? The banks need to adjust the value of those assets on their balance sheet accordingly. This gives investors and depositors the ability to know whether their bank is in bad shape or not. But Paulson's bill lifted this requirement and allowed the banks to assign their own arbitrary value to these assets, which is the same old Enron-style accounting scam. Paulson's bill also proposed the "Elimination of FASB 157 and 0% reserves". This is just as sketchy as it sounds. FASB or Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act reads: "Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to pay banks interest on reserves under Section 201 of the Act. In addition, Section 202 permits the FRB to change the ratio of reserves a bank must maintain relative to its transaction accounts, allowing a zero reserve ratio if appropriate. Due to federal budgetary requirements, Section 203 provides that these legislative changes will not take effect until October 1 2011." It's all legal mumbo jumbo to conceal the fact that the banks can continue to operate with insufficient capital, which is why the system is currently blowing up. It all get's down to this: The reason the system is exploding is because the various financial institutions have been allowed - via deregulation - to act as banks and create as much credit as they choose without a sufficient capital base. When one reads about massive deleveraging, this relates directly to the fact that under-capitalized businesses were operating with too much debt in relationship to their capital. That's it in a nutshell; forget about the CDOs, the MBSs, the CDS and the whole alphabet soup of derivatives garbage. They were all inserted into the system so Wall Street landsharks could expand credit without supervision and balance trillions of dollars of debt on the back of a one dollar bill. This is why Paulson wants to suspend the rules which would bring credibility and trust back to the system. After all, that might impinge on Wall Street's ability to enrich itself at the public's expense. Nouriel Roubini sites a study by Barry Eichengreen, "And Now the Great Depression", which points out why Paulson's $700 billion plan is likely to fail: "Whenever there is a systemic banking crisis there is a need to recapitalize the banking/financial system to avoid an excessive and destructive credit contraction. But purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is NOT the most effective and efficient way to recapitalize the banking system ... "A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence of how different crises were resolved. "First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in ten cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In six cases the government purchased preferred shares; in four cases the government purchased common shares; in eleven cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in twelve cases the government injected cash in the banks; in two cases credit was extended to the banks; and in three cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased - as in Chile - dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used." (Nouriel Roubini's Global EonoMonitor.) In short, it wouldn't work. Nor was it designed to work. The bill was just Paulson's way of carving a silver canoe for he and his brandy-drooling investor buddies so they can paddle away to some offshore haven while the rest of us drown in a bottomless ocean of debt. _____ Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewghitney at msn.com Note {1} Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) on floor of the House on the subject of the Wall Street bailout: "Wall Street's Greed Game" by Jeffrey St Clair (September 25th, 2008) http://redstaterebels.org/2008/09/wall-streets-greed-game/ http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney09292008.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 2 04:40:07 2008 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:40:07 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Interesting article in Black Commentator on financial crisis Message-ID: <31533A2E21B044E69F1975CC37C43EC6@home9sg93n9r5y> Interesting article in Black Commentator, reviewing international reactions to the financial crisis. -- JD Capitalism Reaches a Crossroads by Carl Bloice "Even now, someone somewhere is penning a book with a snappy title The End of Capitalism," columnist Philip Stephens, associate editor of the Financial Times wrote recently. Not to worry, he continued, that's not about to happen. However, eight days earlier Martin Wolf, associate editor and chief economics commentator at the same paper observed that what was "until recently, the brave new financial system is melting away before our eyes." On the night of September 18 members of Congress were summoned to a Capitol Hill conference room where they were told that if they did not act quickly to approve a radical revamp of how the government deals with the economy, capitalism might indeed collapse. That's before President George W. Bush said, "If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down." Not to worry, cautioned the editor of the conservative German newspaper Die Weit. "These are all trials and crises, but they will not spell the end of America's distinctiveness." "The country will never convert to socialism, nor will it become a mega-state. Faced with similar circumstances, that might be the response of the pessimistic Europeans. America's culture of optimism - which all too often gets on the Europeans' nerves because they consider it to be na?ve and superficial - also has the power to identify a setback as exactly that and not the end of the world," the paper editorialized. That was a few days before the U.S. Treasury took responsibility for the well-being of distressed financial institutions all over the world. No, the U.S. is not about to become socialist any time too soon. That alternative has not been placed before the public in a way that could be considered preferable to what we've got. Besides, a system ceases to be when it is replaced by something else. But with each passing day, as the crisis has deepened, it has become more and more obvious that "unfettered" capitalism and "market fundamentalism" and the neo-liberal policies they produce are discredited. Indeed, most of the world had rejected them before the current crisis began. "The globalization agenda has been closely linked with the market fundamentalists - the ideology of free markets and financial liberalization," economist Joseph Stiglitz told Nathan Gardels on the Huffington Post recently. "In this crisis, we see the most market-oriented institutions in the most market-oriented economy failing and running to the government for help." Everyone in the world will say now that this is the end of market fundamentalism. "In this sense, the fall of Wall Street is for market fundamentalism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for communism - it tells the world that this way of economic organization turns out not to be sustainable," said Stiglitz. "In the end, everyone says, that model doesn't work. This moment is a marker that the claims of financial market liberalization were bogus." Conservative commentator and political operative, Newt Gingrich, has come up with the terms "crony capitalism" and "bureaucratic capitalism," both of which he says will be the outcome of the Bush Administration's bailout scheme. The former will mean "a welfare state for rich investors," he says, the latter "salary caps and other government regulatory requirements which would drive the 'private' out of 'private enterprise'." There's a lot of talk out there about the bailout being "socialism for the rich." That's all so much seemingly clever rhetoric designed to make a political point, but of no substance. Nothing the Bush Administration is pushing (with the help of a Democratic Congress) bears any resemblance to anything that could remotely be called socialism. In fact, it looks far more like Italy under Mussolini than the USSR under Brezhnev. As truthdig.com columnist Robert Sheer noted last week, "what is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as 'financial fascism'." The new Treasury Department fund "will share many characteristics of the expanding government-sponsored pools known as sovereign funds," wrote Landon Thomas, Jr. in the New York Times September 23. "The new fund, assuming it is approved by Congress, could pull the United States deeper into a form of capitalism in which the most powerful financial entities are not risk-happy investment banks, but more cautious state-sponsored entities," wrote Thomas. "While not necessarily a third economic way, this general approach presumes that the government - in addition to the private sector - plays a crucial role in deciding how best to deploy a nation's investment capital." "This gets to the point of state capitalism and defining what the role of the government is in a free-market economy," Douglas Rediker, a former investment banker at the New America Foundation in Washington, told Thomas. "The result of the bailout would be that the government would virtually control many of the largest financial institutions in the country," wrote Dan La Botz in Monthly Review online. "The U.S. government and the banks of the country would suddenly be fused - or perhaps entangled would be a better word - into one extremely powerful political-economic entity. While the proposal does not envision state control of the economy as a long-term proposition, merely long enough to save the bankers, still the impact of the current proposals now being debated in Congress will be far-reaching. The American government and the people have suddenly found themselves at a turning point which was not foreseen and for which no one was prepared." "If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism.," wrote Times columnist David Brooks the same day. "We're not entering a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall. We're not entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the people. We're entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government acts to create a stable - and often oligarchic - framework for capitalist endeavor." "After a liberal era and then a conservative era, we're getting a glimpse of what comes next," wrote Brooks. I can hardy wait. An inevitable consequence of globalization is that many of the critical problems facing the planet today can only be solved through international cooperation and coordination. These include: climate change and other threats to the biosphere, aids and other infectious diseases, human migration and international finance. The current economic crisis is an international one yet the recourse chosen by Washington to deal with it globally is to "press" other countries to adopt measures similar to those adopted in the U.S. Under such circumstances the chance of a collective effort to restructure world capitalism would seem remote, if possible. But the demand for such is out there and how our country responds will go a long way in determining the contours of international affairs for decades to come. One has only to grasp the nature of the remarks at the recent opening of the United National General Assembly to appreciate the seriousness of the challenge. Last week in New York, one after another, heads-of-state rose to the Assembly rostrum to drive home the message: the "credit crunch" in the U.S. is much more than a crisis in U.S. banking; it reflects a problem threatening economic devastation across the globe. It requires an international cooperative effort in which diktat, posing as "leadership", cannot be tolerated. Don't even think about handing the problem to the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. The UN itself should be the arena for countries to discuss a solution for the global financial crisis, said Brazil's President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva: "The global nature of this crisis means that the solutions we adopt must also be global, and decided upon within legitimate, trusted multilateral forum, with no impositions." Arguably some of the strongest remarks to the UN came from the leaders of Latin American countries but the most fundamental challenges came from traditional U.S. allies such as France and Germany. These are capitalist countries and for the foreseeable future will remain so. But they have a strikingly different view of how the international economy should function. German chancellor, Angela Merkel, even revealed that an attempt had been made to enlist Washington in a collective effort to head off the crisis. At last year's meeting of the major industrial powers, she said, she had - in the world of the New York Times - "strongly urged both the United States and Britain to be more rigorous in supervising financial activities, and even offered specific proposals to be applied to banks and other institutions." But the U.S. was unresponsive, she said, while seeming "to express a certain exasperation that the United States was now asking Europe for help, after inflicting damage on the rest of the world that could have been avoided." "At the moment, I don't think Japan needs to launch a program similar to that of the United States," Japanese Vice Finance Minister Kazuyuki Sugimoto told reporters in Tokyo, while the European Union let it be known that its members would not be putting up money to rescue banks. "This crisis originated in the US and is mainly hitting the US," German Finance Minister Steinbeck said last week. In Europe and Germany, such a package would be "neither sensible nor necessary." The U.S. "has not only turned away from decades of rhetoric about the virtues of the free market and the dangers of government intervention, but it has also probably undercut future American efforts to promote such policies abroad," wrote the New York Times' Nelson Schwartz from Paris September 18. And most of the other governments are none to happy about it. Japanese commentators were quick to note that the Treasury bailout is precisely what Washington told them not to try when that country faced an economic crisis only a few years ago. (A condition of help for South Korea when it faced an economic crisis in the 90s was that Seoul not bail out banks and other failing enterprises.) Last Friday, editors of the center-right German newspaper Allegemeine Zeitung compared the U.S. financial crisis to 911 saying "this time, the attack on all-American doctrines is not the work of some foreign enemy. It comes from within, from the depths of the system. Largely unobstructed by its own state controls, American capitalism has created its own suicide bomber whose explosives - derivatives - have had an even greater effect than the flying bombs of the jihadists. The whole world - and not just New York - has a new ground zero now - Wall Street. French political leaders immediately seized on the latest bailout moves to trumpet their own version of "economic patriotism." "We're not going to accept to pay for the broken dishes of a failed regulation" and a "corruption of capitalism," said French Prime Minister Francois Fillon. Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a world to "learn the lessons of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s." He proposed to "moralize" capitalism, freeing it from speculators whom he labeled "the new terrorists." Last week, as President Bush went on television to admit the crisis is grave, Sarkozy stoutly defended capitalism but observed that "A certain idea of globalization is drawing to a close with the end of a financial capitalism that had imposed its logic on the whole economy and contributed to perverting it." "The crisis is not a crisis of capitalism," said Sarkozy. "It is the crisis of a system that is far from the values of capitalism and betrayed capitalism." In 2006, long before there was any acknowledgement of the chaos to come (I put it that way because working people in the U.S. were already facing home foreclosures),when the world's elite gathered at Davos, Switzerland, chancellor Merkel had observed that "What we have is a completely new balance of power in the world today." That too was evident in the General Assembly debate. In prior years no one would have expected Latin American governments to openly challenge Washington and Wall Street's conduct in the international economy. However, over a brief recent period, left-leaning political forces have taken power electorally in a number of countries, having in common a rejection of the exploitative policies of the World Bank and IMF, and the influence of the same "market fundamentalists" that the Asians are repulsing and who have led the U.S., itself, into the present economic cul-de-sac. No one was surprised that Cuban first vice-president Jose Ramon Machado Ventura would tell the UN that the drive for profits was increasing poverty and that the current crisis threatened the "existence of mankind." "Fabulous fortunes cannot be wasted while millions are starving and dying of curable diseases," he said. "For a large part of the non-aligned nations, the situation is becoming unsustainable. Our nations have paid and will continue to pay the cost and consequences of the irrationality, wastefulness and speculation of a few countries in the...north." "The prevailing world order, unjust and uncontained, must be replaced," Machado Ventura said. "We don't want to conceive of the idea that the rescue of the dignity of the world's poor does not have the same priority or the same urgency of saving the institutions that operate the most powerful financial centre in the world," said Dominican Republic president Leonel Fernandez. "We need an international financial plan that is as urgent and as bold as the one to save Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and American International Group." Fernandez added that while $700 billion is being set aside to rescue U.S. financial institutions, for something like $50 billion millions around the world could be spared a miserable existence. "We're not going to accept to pay for the broken dishes of a failed regulation" and a "corruption of capitalism," said French Prime Minister Francois Fillon. Sarkozy called for a world to "learn the lessons of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s." "Let's create a regulated capitalism," he said. On September 24 in Berlin, German Finance Steinbruck repeated Merkel's charge that Washington had, last year, resisted specific calls for regulations in the financial marketplace. "Crisis management alone will not rebuild the lost confidence," he said. "We must civilize financial markets, and not just through moral appeals against excess and speculation. Self-regulation is no longer sufficient." The US belief in "laisser-faire capitalism; the notion that markets should be as free as possible from regulation; these arguments were wrong and dangerous," he said. "This largely under-regulated system is collapsing today." Steinbeck went on to propose new regulations and said that amid the current economic crisis the US is poised to lose its role as a global financial "superpower." The new world will become "multipolar" with the emergence of stronger, better capitalized centers in Asia and Europe, he said. Meanwhile, Oskar Lafontaine, leader of Germany's fast growing and increasingly influential Left Party, said the world is confronted with more than a banking or economic crisis and - in the words of Der Spiegel - "but rather one of the entire intellectual and moral direction of Western society." "We no longer have a social market economy because of the regimes of the international financial markets," Lafontaine said the consequence of which is increased privatization of the social services and a threat to the retirement security of millions of people. Lafontaine said the Left party wants the re-creation of a Bretton Woods-style system of foreign exchange controls with fixed trading bands, controls on international capital flows and on financial products. "We believe that financial products should be forced to get official stamps of approval just like pharmaceutical products," Lafontaine, the former head of the country's Social Democratic Party, said. "Because the bitter truth is that many extremely greedy bankers don't even understand themselves what they've done. These are people who started something without knowing what they were doing and it's ended in disaster." "When enough banks have been nationalized or gone bust, when the last reputations have been properly shredded, and when prices of Fifth Avenue apartments and Mayfair town houses have fallen finally to earth, politicians are going to have to think hard about the lessons of the financial crash of 2008," wrote Stephens of the Financial Times. "Even now, someone somewhere is penning The End of Capitalism. Experience tells us snappy book titles should be treated with caution. The global financial system will never be the same again. But just as history survived the collapse of communism, so the market economy will weather the demise of Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch and HBOS." "The credit crunch and the financial firestorm have also provided a neat metaphor for the big shift in economic power in the world," writes Stephens. He goes on to endorse the call for "more global governance: credible international rules." "Capitalism will survive these financial shocks," said Stephens. Probably it will; in any case it's good to have faith. On Monday, the House of Representatives voted down the final draft of the bailout plan hurriedly crafted by the Administration and Congressional leaders from the two major parties. This set the stage for what was certain to be desperate attempts to put together a compromise that could win legislative approval. This takes place against a backdrop of widespread public opposition to the original plan and ever greater turmoil in the foreign money markets and on Wall Street. Meanwhile, the dangers and challenges over the next few weeks and months are enormous. On the world scene, the U.S. could join in an international - and more democratic - effort at reconstructing capitalism in an effort to save it, or the White House - whoever lives there - and the Congress could lead us along a path of international isolation in which the rest of the world goes about its business, leaving us in economic mire. On the home front, the policymakers could enshrine a new form of corporate and more authoritarian capitalism or enact policies bent toward greater equality, solidarity and social and economic justice (things real socialists have never ceased advocating). The latter is what we should be insisting. ************************** BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union. Any BlackCommentator.com article may be re-printed so long as it is re-printed in its entirety and full credit given to the author and www.BlackCommentator.com. If the re-print is on the Internet we additionally request a link back to the original piece on our Website. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Oct 2 07:01:11 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:01:11 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Congress Confronts Its Contradictions Message-ID: <48E4C617.1060803@attglobal.net> by George Monbiot The Guardian (September 30 2008) According to Senator Jim Bunning, the proposal to purchase $700 billion of dodgy debt by the US government "is financial socialism, it is un-American" {1}. The economics professor Nouriel Roubini calls George Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke "a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the United Socialist State Republic of America" {2}. Bill Perkins, the venture capitalist who took out an advertisement in the New York Times attacking the deal, calls it "trickle-down communism" {3}. They are wrong. The banking subsidies Congress rejected last night are as American as apple pie and obesity. The sums demanded by Bush and Paulson might be unprecedented, but there is nothing new about the principle: corporate welfare is a consistent feature of advanced capitalism. Only one thing has changed: Congress has been forced to confront its contradictions. One of the best studies of corporate welfare in the United States is published by my old enemies at the Cato Institute. Its report, by Stephen Slivinski, estimates that in 2006 the federal government spent $92 billion subsidising business {4}. Much of it went to major corporations like Boeing, IBM and General Electric. The biggest money crop - $21 billion - is harvested by Big Farmer. Slivinski shows that the richest ten per cent of subsidised farmers took 66% of the pay-outs. Every few years Congress or the administration promises to stop this swindle, then hands even more state money to agribusiness. The Farm Bill passed by Congress in May guarantees farmers a minimum of ninety per cent of the income they've received over the past two years, which happen to be among the most profitable they've ever had {5}. The middlemen do even better, especially the companies spreading starvation by turning maize into ethanol, which are guzzling billions of dollars' worth of tax credits. Slivinski shows how the federal government's Advanced Technology Program, which was supposed to support the development of technologies that are "pre-competitive" or "high risk" has instead been captured by big businesses flogging proven products. Since 1991, companies like IBM, General Electric, Dow Chemical, Caterpillar, Ford, DuPont, General Motors, Chevron and Monsanto have extracted hundreds of millions from this programme. Big business is also underwritten by the Export-Import Bank: in 2006, for example, Boeing alone received four and half billion in loan guarantees {6}. The government runs something called the "Foreign Military Financing Program" which gives money to other countries to purchase weaponry from US corporations. It doles out grants to airports for building new runways and to fishing companies to help them wipe out endangered stocks. But the Cato Institute's report has exposed only part of the corporate welfare scandal. A new paper by the US Institute for Policy Studies shows that, through a series of cunning tax and accounting loopholes, the US spends $20 billion a year subsidising executive pay {7}. By disguising their professional fees as capital gains rather than income, for example, the managers of hedge funds and private equity companies pay lower rates of tax than the people who clean their offices. A year ago, the House of Representatives tried to close this loophole, but the bill was blocked in the Senate after a lobbying campaign by some of the richest men in America. Another report, by a group called Good Jobs First, reveals that Wal-Mart has received at least $1 billion of public money {8}. Over ninety per cent of its distribution centres and many of its retail outlets have been subsidised by county and local governments. They give the chain free land, they pay for the roads, water and sewerage required to make that land usable, and they grant it property tax breaks and subsidies (called tax increment financing) originally intended to regenerate depressed communities. Sometimes state governments give the firm straight cash as well: in Virginia, for example, Wal-Mart's distribution centres receive handouts from the Governor's Opportunity Fund. Corporate welfare is arguably the core business of some government departments. Many of the Pentagon's programmes deliver benefits only to its contractors. Ballistic missile defence, for example, which has no obvious strategic purpose and which is unlikely ever to work, has already cost the US between $120 billiion and $150 billion. The Department of Defense wants another $62 billion for the next five years {9}. The US is unique among major donors in insisting that the food it offers in aid is produced on its own soil, rather than in the regions it is meant to be helping. USAID used to boast on its website that "the principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to eighty percent of the US Agency for International Development's contracts and grants go directly to American firms" {10}. There is not and has never been a free market in the United States. Why not? Because the Congressmen and women now railing against financial socialism depend for their re-election on the companies they subsidise. The legal bribes paid by these businesses deliver two short-term benefits. The first is that they prevent proper regulation, which allows them to make spectacular profits and to generate disasters of the kind that Congress is now confronting. The second is that public money which should be used to help the poorest and weakest is instead diverted into the pockets of the rich. A report published last week by the advocacy group Common Cause shows how bankers and brokers stopped legislators from banning unsustainable lending {11}. Over the past financial year, the big banks spent $49 million on lobbying and $7 million in direct campaign contributions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spent $180 million in lobbying and campaign finance over the past eight years. Much of this money was thrown at members of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. Whenever congressmen tried to rein in the banks and mortgage lenders they were blocked by the banks' money. Dick Durbin's 2005 amendment seeking to stop predatory mortgage lending, for example, was defeated in the Senate by 58 to forty. The former representative Jim Leach proposed re-regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their lobbyists, he recalls, managed in "less than 48 hours to orchestrate both parties' leadership" to crush his amendments {12}. The money these firms spend buys the socialisation of financial risk. The $700 billion the government was looking for is just one of the public costs of its repeated failure to regulate. Even now the lobbying power of the banks is making itself felt: on Saturday the Democrats watered down their demand that the money earned by executives of the companies the government is rescuing be capped {13}. Campaign finance is the best investment a corporation can make. You give a million dollars to the right man and reap a billion dollars' worth of state protection, tax breaks and subsidies. When the same thing happens in Africa we call it corruption. European governments are no better. The free market economics they proclaim are a con: they intervene repeatedly on behalf of the rich, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves. Just as in the United States, the bosses of farm companies, oil drillers, supermarkets and banks capture the funds extracted by government from the pockets of people much poorer than themselves. Taxpayers everywhere should be asking the same question: why the hell should we be supporting them? www.monbiot.com References: {1} Jim Bunning, quoted by James Politi and Daniel Dombey, 24th September 2008. Republican anger at ?financial socialism'. Financial Times. {2} Nouriel Roubini, 18th September 2008. Public losses for private gain. The Guardian. {3} Andrew Clark, 24th September 2008. US trader attacks ?trickle-down communism' of markets bail-out. The Guardian. {4} Stephen Slivinski, 14th May 2007. The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes US Businesses. Policy Analysis number 592. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf {5} Subsidy Watch, June 2008. Ignoring WTO implications and a presidential veto, US Congress passes the new Farm Bill. Global Subsidies Initiative. http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/news/ignoring-wto-implications-and-a-presidential-veto-us-congress-passes-new-farm- {6} Stephen Slivinski, ibid. {7} Sarah Anderson et al, 25th August 2008. Executive Excess 2008 How Average Taxpayers Subsidize Runaway Pay. Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#623 {8} Philip Mattera et al, May 2004. Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth. Good Jobs First. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf {9} I explain why it won't work and costs so much at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/19/the-magic-pudding/ {10} USAID. Creating Opportunities for U.S. Small Business, viewed 5th January 2004. http://www.usaid.gov/procurement_bus_opp/osdbu/book-information.htm {11} Common Cause, 24th September 2008. Ask Yourself Why ... They Didn't See This Coming. http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4542875 {12} James A Leach, 16th July 2008. Fixing Fannie and Freddie. Institute of Politics, John F Kennedy School Of Government, Harvard University. http://www.iop.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/Fannie%20and%20Freddie.pdf {13} James Politi and Daniel Dombey, 28th September 2008. Long and exhausting road to compromise. Financial Times. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/30/congress-confronts-its-contradictions/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 2 09:54:49 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:54:49 -0400 Subject: [A-List] =?utf-8?q?___Labor=E2=80=99s_recovery_plan=3A?= Message-ID: <48E4B68A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Labor?s recovery plan: http://www.ourfuture.org/page/2008093923/bailout-call-common-sense This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 09:58:55 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:58:55 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Bird and Fortune on the Financial Crisis Message-ID: Yoshie From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 2 10:42:03 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:42:03 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The GOP Blames the Victim Message-ID: <48E4C19C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> OCTOBER 1, 2008 The GOP Blames the Victim Capitalism sure is fragile if subprime borrowers can ruin it. By THOMAS FRANK http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282690823092989.html This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 2 10:56:11 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:56:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] American Monetary Institute Release - Why No Immediate Bailout Will Work Message-ID: <48E4C4ED.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> American Monetary Institute Release - Why No Immediate Bailout Will Work -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: ami at xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [Pen-l] American Monetary Institute Release - Why No Immediate Bailout Will Work From: AMI Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:46:35 -0500 Cc: User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Friends of Monetary Reform, Below is our press release after the 4th Annual Monetary Reform Conference (a report will soon go out; participants are emailing their congratulations) Meanwhile, a gang of ruthless, murdering thieves is attempting to steal an additional $700 billion from our nation, under threat of an economic meltdown. There are two things you can and should do RIGHT NOW to stop this outrage: 1) Forward this email immediately to your entire email list by Wednesday at the latest, and request that they also forward it to their lists, etc, etc, etc! 2) Forward this email to both of your U.S. Senators, and to your Congressman. (The email address of your Congressman is at https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml Your Senators email addresses are at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm Do this before Thursday's vote! Thanks, Stephen Zarlenga Ami Press Release from the American Monetary Institute Sept. 29, 2008 Contact person: Stephen Zarlenga phone: 224-805-2200 The following press release is issued by the American Monetary Institute following its 4th annual Monetary Reform Conference at Roosevelt University, Sept. 25-28th. "The private sector has failed. The public sector is expected to rescue them and it will. Therefore the public sector should control the money system to benefit the country". Why No Immediate Wall Street Bailout Will Work In order for the bail out to work, it needs to restore confidence among the public, not just Wall Street gamblers. Confidence cannot be restored by rushing Congress into bailing out the very same people who wrecked our money and banking system. The public understands this and sees the $700 billion grab as adding insult to injury. The Predators correctly judged the Democratic and Republican Congress to be jellyfish, but misjudged the American people, who refused, and gave the Congress some backbone! The only way to restore confidence is if the Congress carefully deliberates how to solve the crisis, in the American interest. The people will see and understand that Congress is doing its job, and our country can then start rebuilding it?s money system. MORE SPECIFICS FOLLOW and more is at http://www.monetary.org: Monetary Reform of the Federal Reserve System. At the heart of the problem is that our money system has been privatized. Naturally it?s been run for the benefit of the ?privates? in control, with minimal concern for the public interest. Legislation called The American Monetary Act has been in preparation for years. It?s based on well known monetary principles and actual experience from our own, and other countries monetary history. (see the act at http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf) The Act incorporates the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury. It removes the banking systems privilege to create money, placing that firmly within government, and it establishes areas for governmentally created money to be introduced into the economy for infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and education. Should the situation deteriorate markedly now, the American Monetary Act could be put into effect immediately with the reliable understanding that it would be a definite and major improvement over the current system. Our money system would then shift away from credit and debt, to real money. One difference between money and credit is that during uncertain times, credit evaporates, but money does not go out of existence, it is much more stable. A big part of the current problem is that while we have had loads of bank credit circulating, there has been very little ?real money? issued by government in circulation mainly our coins and bills. The credit is evaporating along with housing valuations. The AMI has been ready and working on these provisions for years, while realizing that it unfortunately might require a crisis to bring real attention to it. We have the crisis now. Rather than borrowing the $ billions being demanded, and ending up paying back about 3 times the amount after interest charges, The US Government would issue money itself, instead of borrowing it from banks. But while the banks issue credit that substitutes for money, the U.S. would issue actual money. Our Government has the power to create the money, in an account, or by simply printing it as ?greenbacks.? There would not be inflationary effects, because it was already believed that those moneys existed in the form of the real estate values and loans. In effect this would stop a deflation which will follow from writing down those assets and loans to their present market values. Conditions in the act assure that the banking system could not use those government created dollars for further credit creation, as that would be inflationary. The US Treasury would help direct the money into the real economy, not speculation. Warmest regards and ready to help, Stephen Zarlenga Director, American Monetary Institute 224-805-2200 Attachment: latest working American Monetary Act 12.doc Description: MS-Word document This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 2 11:01:03 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:01:03 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Real Great Depression Message-ID: <48E4C610.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The Chronicle of Higher Education The Chronicle Review http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i08/08b09801.htm From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 2 13:28:36 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:28:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Leaflet Message-ID: <48E4E8A6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> _Click here: AFL-CIO NOW BLOG ? Print ? Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Leaflet Worksites_ (http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/10/01/philadelphia-building-and-construction-trades-worksite-leaflet/print/) in solidarity jim This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 2 13:31:55 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:31:55 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Finite-time singularity in the dynamics of the world population, economic and financial indices Message-ID: <48E4E96D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0002075 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 15:49:07 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:49:07 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Before you vote in 2008... FYI Message-ID: <48E541D3.4090706@gmail.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqAXOnatyTo From cbcox at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 2 17:55:30 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:55:30 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Julio Huato Hoping for a Democrat Victory and BankNationalization References: Message-ID: <48E55F72.708ECBA4@ilstu.edu> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > Meanwhile, Julio Huato is hoping that if we could hold off till the > Democrats get to rule both the White House and Congress, we might get > a better deal, perhaps bank nationalization. I doubt that Obama is > any better, since he is backing the bailout plan anyhow, but is there > any reason we have to rush to approve the bailout _now_ without > haggling more? -- Yoshie I think I'll replay the tune I've been returning to for about 10 years on lbo" There is no "we" to make a noise one way or the other but only scattered individuals & small (mostly invisible} groups. Willy nilly radicals are in the same relationship to congressional action as cheerleaders standinng outside the park are to the game going on inside! On lbo Henwood praised Adolph Reed for engaging in "strategic and tactical" thinking; I objected that those were military metaphors and presupposed the existence of an army! Where is the even loosely organized or semi-coherent leftist 'army' in the U.S. Carrol P.S. The n-key on my keyboard stickes inntermittently. I think I caught all the instances but may nnot have. From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 18:36:43 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:36:43 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz Message-ID: If there is anyone more pessimistic on capitalism than MR, that will have to be Nouriel Roubini. -- Yoshie October 2, 2008, 5:11 pm Live-Blogging the Roubini/Ritholtz Conference Call Posted by Mark Gongloff Nouriel Roubini is the NYU economics professor known lovingly around Wall Street as "Dr. Doom" for his foresight in predicting the end of the financial system as we know it. Blogger/strategist Barry Ritholtz of The Big Picture and Fusion IQ, who hasn't been much more optimistic, is joining him this afternoon for a conference call to discuss the credit crunch. Should be fun! And by "fun," we mean "a reminder to stuff our money in our mattress." 5:08: Roubini starts out saying there are six things to think about. The first question has about 10 parts. Could be a long call. 5:11: The U.S. economy risks a negative feedback loop: Economic woes hurt creditworthiness, hurting banks, hurting credit, hurting the economy. Wash, rinse, repeat, lose your house. 5:14: The Fed's next move is likely a rate cut. 5:14: Everything that's going on in markets now? You know, stocks and credit being lousy? Expect more of that. 5:16: "The events of the last few weeks say we're one accident away from a systemic financial meltdown," says Roubini. He points to previous accidents that nearly caused a universe-eating financial black hole: Bear Stearns in March, Fannie and Freddie in July and Lehman and AIG a couple of weeks ago. "We're seeing the beginning of a silent run on the shadow and traditional banking system," he says. "There's a generalized panic" in the financial markets. 5:20: And that's not the scariest part, he says! The scariest part is that, every time the government steps up its response, the market reaction gets weaker and weaker. 5:22: "We are literally one step away from collapse of entire financial system and even the corporate system." 5:24: This bailout package isn't going to do the trick. That's why the market isn't cheering it any more: Nobody trusts anybody any more. "We've reached the point where $700 billion doesn't make any difference given reaction of market." 5:26: The economy was already in "freefall" before September. We're in for a severe recession, according to a litany of data. 5:28: Treasury should have done more ? you can't just buy and park bad assets. You have to triage, shutting down weak banks and deciding who to save. You have to recapitalize the banking system so they'll extend credit. You have to reduce debt. Earlier, he said you have to guarantee all deposits, regardless of amount. "This plan in Congress is just a sham." 5:29: Roubini ends with the words "Great Depression." Ritholtz asks, "That's how you're introducing me?" He says he's relieved to be the less-bearish guy on the call. 5:30: Ritholtz says we won't have a "Great Depression," but a "Fair Depression ? not nearly as bad as 1930!" What a relief. 5:31: He takes time to poke the permabulls. Everybody take a drink. 5:33: We won't see a one-day loss like in 1987, but all told, the market is already doing worse than it did in 1987. "You would have been better off investing in 1982 and investing for six years than investing in 2002 and investing for six years." 5:35: There's a smallish chance of another 20% stock-market downside from here. 5:37: Given his forecast for earnings next year, the S&P should be about 975 (it's at 1114 now) assuming a P/E multiple of 15. If you use a much lower multiple, then, well, you get the picture. "Crazy numbers." 5:39: Oil could fall to $50. 5:39: The bailout plan doesn't really go to the problem, which is that banks have a shortfall of capital. "This solves issues on the balance sheet, not the higher issue of capital." 5:40: On the bright side, we're seeing some signs of market panic. But there's still buying on dips ? people haven't been "punished enough" to stop having that reaction. 5:42: This is shaping up to be a "generational bear market," not a typical bear market. We have a severe recession, with a credit crunch. We're just starting to see the effects of credit on the real economy. 5:44: The thing to remember about every bailout is they all have unintended consequences ? every bailout has begotten the next bailout. Look at LTCM, considered a good bailout: No tax money, no Fed money. LTCM was an undercapitalized hedge fund that used a lot of leverage to trade hard-to-value thinly traded paper. We bailed them out, and, lo and behold, nobody got hurt from it. So it's no surprise that a few years later, here we are with the same situation. "My concern is what disaster are we gonna be dealing with 3, 4, 5 years from now that will be the consequences of giving Wall Street's most reckless players a pass?" 5:45: Zach Gast at RiskMetrics is speaking now, offering the "bottom-up perspective" on the banking sector. He starts off with that baseball metaphor, asking what inning it is. On the teevee, it's the 9th inning in Tampa Bay, and the Rays are up 6-4 with one out. 5:48: The Tampa game is now over (the Rays won), but Gast is suggesting that we are still in the mid-to-early innings for the banking sector. We're starting to see problems in commercial loans and other previously healthy credit areas. 5:52: There are loans still sitting, overpriced, on bank books. When you move away from fair-value accounting, people lose confidence in your numbers and it gets harder to get capital. Moving away from mark-to-market accounting, as the banking sector seems anxious to do, will be a net negative for banks. 5:54: "Many institutions would be insolvent if we fully fair-valued their assets," says Gast. 5:56: Deposit insurance up to $250,000 won't make much of a difference ? the deposits we're worried about are much larger. 5:57: Removing the bad assets from a bank and adding an equity warrant is an improvement over the original plan ? it will build the equity base. But it's not enough; there needs to be more. 5:58: This bailout is probably best for the money center banks. They're the ones holding trading securities. They've already taken the hits to earnings. This hurts the regional banks and others still holding assets at cost basis. Setting a lower market price will hurt their capital adequacy in "a big way." breadline_art_257_20081002183142.jpg The Not-So-Fair Depression 6:00: We will probably need to explore injecting capital into the banks. There will be significant resistance to creating winners and losers this way. But there are ways to have the market do this, using private-equity investors and matching their offers with government money. 6:02: Now it's Q&A time. The first question is why this bailout plan is so awful. Roubini suggests it was a rush job by Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke and that Congress is just in a hurry to get on the campaign trail. 6:05: Ritholtz suggests Paulson is running Treasury the way he ran Goldman, "with an iron fist," without a lot of consultation. The Bush administration has operated in a similar fashion, he says. "It's a mediocre plan, poorly sold and poorly managed. I don't think this is a slam-dunk tomorrow. I expect it to pass, but it wouldn't surprise me if it loses by a vote or two." 6:06: The big, scary question: What if we pass the bill and it doesn't help? What might happen, says Ritholtz, is that either one or both of the presidential candidates calls for emergency panel to figure out a better solution. They'll probably end up deciding to recapitalize the banks after all. 6:09: Roubini says recession is marching around the globe. It doesn't help that the world's biggest consumer, the USA, is in bad shape, and the world's biggest producer, China, is slowing down, too. 6:11: Ritholtz suggests being in cash. Roubini makes fun of him for being "only 55%" in cash. "Cash is safe today as long as it's not in a bank or a money-market fund," says Roubini, getting another laugh. Financial apocalypse humor is somehow less funny than other kinds of humor. 6:13: "Gold is not a bad place to hide," says Ritholtz, maybe 5% or 10% of your portfolio. 6:15: Gast says the short-selling ban hasn't saved any financial firms, but has increased the cost of trading, which hurts mutual funds. Ritholtz says it's counterproductive because there aren't any shorts to cover ? the "natural floor in a crash." Now there's no parachute. Roubini says would-be shorts are now in the CDS market, pushing spreads really wide, which creates a mess for financials anyway. In short, nobody likes what the SEC has done. 6:19: The dollar will be in a narrow range for the next 6-12 months, but things get scarier later because of rising fiscal deficits, says Roubini. 6:23: They're talking about their favorite sectors. "I would buy stock in antidepressant firms," says Roubini, getting another laugh. 6:27: Roubini points out that this is the end of the deregulation era ? we've gone from an extreme of laissez-faire to the greatest government intervention since the Great Depression. We need more pragmatism, less ideology. Ritholtz points out that even Russia allows short-selling. "But they closed the stock market," says Roubini. On that happy note, the call ends. Vice Presidential debate, anyone? From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Oct 2 19:17:49 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:17:49 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Public losses for private gain Message-ID: <48E572BD.7050401@attglobal.net> The effective nationalisation of huge sectors of the economy means US taxpayers are picking up the tab for failing banks by Nouriel Roubini guardian.co.uk (September 18 2008) With the nationalisation of Fannie and Freddie, comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke started transforming the US into the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America). This transformation of the US into a country where there is socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street (that is, where profits are privatised and losses are socialised) continues today with the nationalisation of AIG. This latest action on AIG follows a variety of many other policy actions that imply a massive - and often flawed - government intervention in the financial markets and the economy: the bail-out of the Bear Stearns creditors; the bail-out of Fannie and Freddie; the use of the Fed balance sheet (hundreds of billions of safe US Treasuries swapped for junk, toxic, illiquid private securities); the use of the other GSEs (the Federal Home Loan Bank system) to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of "liquidity" to distressed, illiquid and insolvent mortgage lenders; the use of the SEC to manipulate the stock market (through restrictions on short sales). Then there's the use of the US Treasury to manipulate the mortgage market, the creation of a whole host of new bail-out facilities to prop and rescue banks and, for the first time since the Great Depression, to bail out non-bank financial institutions. This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks (not even the subordinated debt-holders who made a fortune yesterday as those claims were also made whole). Like scores of evangelists and hypocrites and moralists who spew and praise family values and pretend to be holier than thou and are then regularly caught cheating or found to be perverts, these Bush hypocrites who spewed for years the glory of unfettered Wild West laissez-faire jungle capitalism allowed the biggest debt bubble ever to fester without any control, and have caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. They are are now forced to perform the biggest government intervention and nationalisations in the recent history of humanity, all for the benefit of the rich and the well connected. So Comrades Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA. Zealots of any religion are always pests that cause havoc with their inflexible fanaticism - but they usually don't run the biggest economy in the world. These laissez faire voodoo-economics zealots in charge of the USA have now caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the nastiest economic crisis in decades. _____ This article first appeared on Nouriel Roubini's blog and is edited and cross-posted here with the permission of the author. Nicknamed "Dr Doom", Professor Roubini is now widely acknowledged as having accurately predicted the present crises in financial markets. This blog was amended at 17.00 on Thursday 18 September, to include more of Nouriel Roubini's original post. guardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/marketturmoil.creditcrunch http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Oct 2 10:33:31 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:33:31 -0500 Subject: [A-List] [LASolidarity] URGENT! Pastors for Peace Construction Brigade toCuba Needs Your Help Message-ID: <002701c924ac$a329f2e0$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> From: Chuck Kaufman From: Manolo E. De Los Santos Subject: URGENT! Pastors for Peace Construction Brigade to Cuba Needs Your Help Dear Friend and Supporter of IFCO/Pastors for Peace, This is an update about the IFCO/Pastors for Peace Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction project. We are in need of your help to reach out to more people who might be interested in joining us on the Construction Brigade to Cuba. It has been almost one month since Hurricane Ike left Cuba after wreaking havoc and destroying homes and social facilities. People all over Cuba are now in the process of a massive reconstruction effort, rebuilding infrastructure and restoring vital services. Pastors for Peace is organizing a Construction Brigade of skilled workers to join with Cuban workers in this historic reconstruction effort. Now that we have more details in place for the Construction Brigade, we wanted to share them with you to use as you out reach to people who might be able to join us for this important time in Cuba. The Construction Brigade will be in Cuba for a two-week period between October 13 and 31st, getting to work as soon as possible. We will be working alongside Cubans in Pinar Del Rio, the Western most province of Cuba, which was hit hardest by the hurricanes. We are looking for people to join us who are skilled carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, or have experience in similar construction/reconstruction efforts. If there is anyone in your community that you think would be interested, please have them call IFCO/P4P at 212-926-5757, or send an e-mail to p4p at igc.org. Please join us in recruiting the hardest working, best prepared Brigadistas to make this the strongest Construction Brigade possible. We desperately need fundraising efforts to help support the brigade and help us buy the equipment to be used in the reconstruction efforts in Cuba. Please think of the ways in which your community can contribute to these efforts. If you have any questions or would like to request informative materials on the hurricanes and its damages in Cuba please feel free to contact us at 212-926-5757, or send an e-mail to p4p at igc.org. Manolo E. De Los Santos Project Coordinator IFCO/Pastors for Peace Tel. 212.926.5757 Fax. 212.926.5842 Email. p4p at igc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ LAsolidarity mailing list LAsolidarity at lists.mutualaid.org http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/lasolidarity free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/ To unsubscribe, send a blank email to LAsolidarity-unsubscribe at lists.mutualaid.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7087 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081002/174c2263/attachment.txt From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Oct 2 11:25:02 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:25:02 -0500 Subject: [A-List] MOVEMENT FOR UNITY PROGRESSES WHILE COLOMBIA IN VIOLENT TURMOIL Message-ID: <00a901c924b3$d5b62600$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here and Venezuela, Brazil, and so on reach agreements, strengthen drive for unity, NEOLIBERALISMO NO MAS. While Uribe Bush US COLOMBIA is a hell hole. The brutal strategy for displacement of the indigenous is on a rampage. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1029 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081002/677a1795/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081002/677a1795/attachment.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: rose_of_tokio Subject: [redsquare2] Venezuela and South American Allies Advance Integration Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:18:09 -0000 Size: 8839 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081002/677a1795/attachment.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: grok Subject: [21stcenturysocialism] COLOMBIA: Paramilitaries on a rampage in model democracy Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:15:20 -0700 Size: 5449 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081002/677a1795/attachment-0001.eml From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 07:23:12 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:23:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] What's the total amount of money in the whole world ? Message-ID: <48E5E483.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Subject: [Pen-l] What's the total amount of money in the whole world ? From: "Charles Brown" Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:02:29 -0400 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: raghu < > Laurent GUERBY : > As of Q2 3008, sum of about 51 trillions USD. > > Do the same for all currencies, and you have the total amount of fiat > money in the world. > CB: So, "we" have enough to cover the 700 billion + 200 billion + 85 billion easily,and throw in a trillion to bailout a lot of debtors. > The way I look at it is: almost all of this money is in the form of debt i.e. promise of future use-value. If we try to convert even a small fraction of it into use-value today, you'll end up with hyper-inflation. -raghu. ^^^^^ CB: I'm trying to think of what is the social utility of the whole Wall Street banking sector. How is it in the best interest of society as a whole for the Wall Street bankers to hold such gigantic amounts of money ? or funny money ? or "debt-money" ? fictional capital or value ? Is it really in the best interest of most of us to "credit" the creditors with owning such a large proportion of the total wealth or the total amount of money ? Do their activities really contribute so much to the commonweal such that they should be credited with holding so much of the total wealth of society ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 07:33:12 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:33:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Shorter work week with no cut in pay Message-ID: <48E5E6DB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Shorter work week with no cut in pay Constitutional Amendment for a right to a job or income. To: "Progressive Economics" Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Problem with Dean Baker's "The Bailout Round II: Adult Version?" From: Sandwichman Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:43:39 -id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-dispositio -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eugene Coyle > A third policy tool, to add to the > fiscal and monetary policy we enshrine as job sources, is cutting working > hours while maintaining income at the pre-cut level. This is a > confrontation between labor and capital. Let's get on with it rather than > continuing on the treadmill that can only end in environmental destruction. Hear! Hear! Cutting working hours was put forward by Keynes as the ultimate solution to full employment. It was proclaimed by Marx as the essential prerequisite for social improvement and emancipation. The 19th century movement for the eight hour day was the incubator for the working class movement in the US. Can we PLEASE have a bit more interest in this vital policy issue from progressive economists? -- Sandwichman This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 07:47:05 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:47:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Where Did The Money Go and Will Jobs Also Disappear? Message-ID: <48E5EA1B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> I just posted my third Crisis Commentary http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/crisis-commentary-third-installment/ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Where Did The Money Go and Will Jobs Also Disappear? On Monday, September 29 the stock market lost more than $1 trillion, about as much money as the Gross Domestic Product for an entire month. The next day, two thirds of the value suddenly reappeared. Yet, for the most part the tumult left most people unaffected, at least for the moment. More important, will the evaporation of all of this wealth affect ordinary people? These wild swings reflect the lifecycle of fictitious capital, a subject described earlier. Here: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/notes-on-fictitious-capital/ http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/thoughts-on-fictitious-capital/ and here: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/notes-on-fictitious-capital/ Wall Street uses a somewhat related term, leverage, to describe the ability to magnify potential profits by investing borrowed money. When the economy begins leveraging, business borrows money to invest -- not necessarily in productive assets. Leveraging can continue as long as people feel confident enough to finance these investments. The government's modest limits on leverage have been systematically weakened, to the point where investment banks would be putting up as little as 3 cents, and even less, for each dollar invested. The riskiness of such practice should be obvious. A 3% drop in the investment would wipe out the bank's own share of the investment. The Federal Reserve also promoted increased leverage by holding interest rates low. Wall Street investors also played a role in increasing leverage and risk. Investors prefer companies with high profits. Few are willing to take the time or have the expertise to understand the risks that might make profits high today. Companies that choose the path of lower profits and lower risks are written off as stodgy and old-fashioned. Their stocks will flounder, reducing executive' bonuses. In Wall Street-talk, increasing leverage works so long as investors maintain a balance between fear and greed. By fear, Wall Street means a reluctance to take on too much risk. Although Wall Street normally applauds greed, it associates excess greed with a foolhardy approach toward risk. During euphoric times when fear of risk subsides, people put money in ridiculous schemes. In his delightful book, Charles Mackay, related tales of shady operators bilking early investors. "One projector set up a company to profit from a wheel for perpetual motion. Another projector proposed "A company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is." "Next morning, at nine o'clock, this great man opened an office in Cornhill. Crowds of people beset his door, and when be shut up at three o'clock, he found that no less than one thousand shares had been subscribed for, and the deposits paid. He was thus, in five hours, the winner of 2000 pounds. He set off the same evening for the Continent. He was never heard of again." [Mackay, Charles. 1852. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds] The newfound wealth during times of growing leverage can create more demand, which can increase jobs and wages. As noted in the previous commentaries, such has not been the case. Speculative wealth has not produced growth in wages for ordinary people or any significant growth in jobs. In fact, cutting jobs has been a major factor in sustaining the boom. A few years ago, the business press described this practice as financial engineering. One factor that contributed to the lopsided economic growth without jobs, which characterized the recent decades, was the practice of leveraged buyouts. Private equity companies, as they are known, buy up other companies using borrowed money, often based on the assets of the target companies. The private equity companies claim that they can bring on managerial efficiencies, making their takeover look attractive to potential investors. In reality, they charge their targets exorbitant fees. These takeovers generally put a significant burden on labor, cutting both wages and jobs, and often extracting significant value from pension plans. They turn around and sell these supposedly rejuvenated companies to an unsuspecting public, which fail to see the similarity between such investments and the perpetual motion machine that Mackay described. In describing the necessity of a bailout for finance, the alarmists, who are not necessarily wrong, point to the job losses associated with the corporate restructurings that will follow bankruptcies. The bailout, however, will also facilitate a continuation of the destructive financial practices have also caused significant hardship to labor. Obviously, a collapse will also harm workers and other ordinary people, but in the wake of a collapse the country will stand a better chance to restore some sanity to the economy. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 08:18:14 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:18:14 -0400 Subject: [A-List] "economic growth" [was: Problem with Dean Baker's "The Bailout Round II: Adult Version?"] Message-ID: <48E5F169.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Problem with Dean Baker's "The Bailout Round II: Adult Version?"] From: Eugene Coyle This thread veered off into the merits of GDP vs. GPI and so on. I want to put the conversation on a different track. Jim set me up with the following sentence copied from his final paragraph below: In the end, I think we should see "true" economic growth as being the growth of technical and scientific knowledge, which allows us to produce more with our labor. Yes, it "allows" us to produce more, but we (i.e. the US economy) won't produce more unless somebody buys more. If producing 500 cars took 100 workers before 2% productivity gains changed that to needing only 98 workers, two people are newly unemployed. Say's Law said they wouldn't be, and until about 40 years ago a rough (not fair) sharing of gains kept demand growing to keep up with productivity improvements. For the last several decades, more borrowing has replaced more income as the basis of offsetting productivity gains. Credit cards, student loans, easier mortgages, home improvement loans, six year car loans, etc. have been a desperate and now failed attempt to keep the buying growing. Productivity gains kill jobs. So growth needs, and is about, consumption. Growing consumption. But growing consumption is destroying the environment in multiple dimensions. Fish are disappearing, but the "democratization of sushi" expands. We can prattle all we want about the Genuine Progress Indicator (not that it isn't a useful discussion tool) but the idea of dematerializing consumption as a way to save both the economy and the environment at the same time is utopian. Utopian as in unattainable. So, what is it? More fiscal and monetary policy to power the treadmill to the end of the world, or offsetting gains in productivity (whether from "technical and scientific knowledge" or learning by doing) with shorter working time? Gene Coyle http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2008w39/msg00184.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 08:40:59 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:40:59 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Fewer People Entering U.S. Illegally, Report Says Message-ID: Some foreign proletarians are beginning to lose confidence in the subprime states of America. Will the foreign bourgeoisie? -- Yoshie October 3, 2008 Fewer People Entering U.S. Illegally, Report Says By GINGER THOMPSON A report released Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that fewer people are trying to enter the United States illegally and that there has been no growth over the last year in the number of illegal immigrants living here. The Pew center report, which is based on census data, showed that for the first time in nearly a decade, the number of people entering the country illegally was lower than the number arriving through legal channels. Experts said the loss of low-wage jobs in the American economy, combined with intensified enforcement at the border and at workplaces across the country, had caused those who might be considering an illegal border crossing to think twice before risking what has become an increasingly dangerous journey. The result has been a significant reversal after a decade of rapid growth in illegal immigration. Central banks from Mexico to Brazil have projected the biggest declines in remittances from the United States in more than 10 years. The Pew report found that illegal immigration to the United States had dropped to about 500,000 annually since 2005 from an average yearly rate of 800,000 from 2000 to 2004. Since 2000, the average number of legal immigrants entering the United States each year has remained steady at about 600,000 to 700,000. At a news conference on Thursday, the report's authors said some 58 percent of the illegal immigrants living in the United States are from Mexico, more than any other country by far. Migrant flows from Mexico have been erratic over much of the past decade, said Jeffrey S. Passel of the Pew center, peaking in 2000, dropping in 2002, and surging strongly since 2004. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 09:06:01 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:06:01 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Racist scapegoating in financial crisis Message-ID: <48E5FC9B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Another reform won from Democrats. Charles ^^^^^ a 31-year-old law passed during the Carter administration by a Democratic Congress, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, "intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations." Racist scapegoating in financial crisis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: PEN-L From: Louis Proyect (Windows/20080914) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Huffington Post, October 2, 2008 Conservatives Seek To Shift Blame For Crisis Onto Minority Housing Law by Thomas B. Edsall Blame for the current economic crisis has been laid on many doorsteps, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999; credit default swaps; hedge funds; the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000; Alan Greenspan; and Phil and Wendy Gramm. But it has fallen to right-wing pundit Ann Coulter to blaze a truly simple path through the maze of credit derivatives, collateralized loan obligations, tranches, securitization transactions, and Thomson Financial League Tables. This gentle lady spells out the source and origin of the current economic crisis: "THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY!" Coulter is putting forward an argument popular (who could be surprised?) among besieged conservatives, that "social engineering" is the root cause of the current economic crisis -- in the form of a 31-year-old law passed during the Carter administration by a Democratic Congress, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, "intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations." In Coulter's words, traditional yardsticks of a mortgage applicant's ability to make payments were replaced with "nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named 'Caylee';" the result, Coulter continues, is that "middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients." To make sure her meaning is clear, Coulter echoes a line from the famous anti-affirmative action "White Hands" commercial Jesse Helms used in his 1990 campaign against black challenger Harvey Gantt. The ad shows a pair of white hands crumpling a job rejection slip as the voiceover intones, "You needed that job, you were the best qualified. But they have to give it to a minority because of a racial quota." Coulter is in the forefront of a concerted drive to shift the partisan consequences of the collapse on Wall Street from helping Democrats to favoring the GOP. To this end, conservatives have initiated a racially explosive argument, shifting the blame for the current economic crisis to legislation designed up improve access to mortgage financing for African Americans, other minorities and residents of low-income neighborhoods generally. Story continues below The campaign is being conducted by such leading advocates of the right as Charles Krauthammer, Mona Charen, Jeff Jacoby, television hosts like Lou Dobbs, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and the Washington Times. Krauthammer, for example, makes the case that, "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." For those inclined to blame Democratic liberals, this argument is appealing. Neither Krauthammer nor Charen quotes any sources to back up their respective cases, and the only expert cited by Boston Globe columnist Jacoby is Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo is most famous as a defender of the Confederacy and for his anti-Abraham Lincoln books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe. The Community Reinvestment Act has, however, received some attention from more mainstream economists, including Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution. Litan told the Washington Post that when banks sought to merge, "they had to show they were making a conscious effort to make loans to subprime borrowers....If the CRA had not been so aggressively pushed, it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have to be honest about that." There are a host of experts who sharply dispute that blame for the current Wall Street crisis should be directed at the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, made the following case in a March 31 speech: "There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term." University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr, a specialist in banking and finance law, flatly rejected claims that the CRA was "a significant factor in the current crisis. CRA was enacted more than 30 years ago. It would be quite odd if this 30-year old law suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002-2007....Subprime mortgages were mostly made by mortgage brokers and lenders and securitized by investment banks -- institutions not covered by CRA," he told the Huffington Post, adding, "CRA only covers banks and thrifts, and these institutions mostly have not suffered to the same extent or kind from bad lending as the non-CRA-covered institutions at the core of the current crisis. The problem here is not CRA. It is what the late former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich called 'the giant hole in the supervisory safety net' -- bad lending by firms outside the banking sector's rules for prudential supervision, capital requirements, consumer protection and yes, the CRA." Along similar lines, University of Oregon economist Marc Thoma also cited for the Huffington Post the long delay between enactment of CRA and the current crisis and the fact that only 20 percent of subprime loans were made by CRA-regulated lenders, adding two other points: that "subprime loans grew twice as fast in institutions that did not have to meet the conditions of the CRA" and that the scope of coverage of CRA was reduced in 2004 under the Bush administration, "but even though fewer banks were subject to CRA restrictions, the growth of the subprime market continued unabated." This idea of faulting the CRA originated in the anti-regulation wing of the far right, and the goal is to blame government intervention for the current economic meltdown, and to score political points by blaming Democrats. While the preponderance of evidence suggests that the role of the CRA in the current meltdown was modest at most, that does not prevent it from becoming a useful wedge issue for a Republican presidential candidate on the ropes, and there is already some evidence that McCain could well be tempted to pounce on it. In an April interview with Larry Kudlow, the two had the following exchange: KUDLOW: Would you consider, by the way, rolling back the Community Reinvestment Act, which a lot of people say triggered this, mandating banks and other lenders to make substandard loans in the first place, and the creator of the subprime mortgages back in the middle '90s? Is it time to take a look at the Community Reinvestment Act? McCAIN: Absolutely, Larry. There were people who predicted that the Community Reinvestment Act might lead to reckless and unsound lending practices just to sort of fill a--you know, a amount of--I don't like to use the word "quota," but certain percentages of a--of a home--of the bank's lending practices. Yes, it has to be re-examined, it has to be judged by its effect, and we need to find out how this particular system affected the overall insolvency of the subprime lending issue. And I think it--I'm not saying it needs to be repealed, but it certainly needs to be re-examined and what its effects have been. And we'll be able to figure that out. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 09:32:45 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:32:45 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Ralph Nader on deregulation and the financial crisis Message-ID: <48E602E0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ralph Nader on deregulation and the financial crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- Counterpunch, October 2, 2008 Bailing Out the Casino Soulmates in Deregulation By RALPH NADER The current finger pointing by the deregulation crowd in Congress and their ideological soul mates in the media reminds me of the 1939 film classic The Wizard of Oz. It is as though these spin masters want us to pay no attention to the government officials behind the deregulation curtain. Indeed, the right-wing pundits and the revisionists in Congress are spending an inordinate amount of time falsely claiming that our nation?s current financial disaster stems from the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. The primary purpose of this modest law is to require banks to report on where and to whom they are making loans. Community organizations have used the data produced as a result of this law to determine if banks were meeting their lending obligations in the minority and lower-income communities in which they do business. Congress passed this law because too many lenders were discriminating against minority borrowers. ?Redlining? was the name given to the practice by banks of literally drawing a red line around minority areas and then proceeding to deny people within the red border home loans ? even if they were otherwise qualified. The law has been in place for 30 years, but the right-wing fringe claims it somehow is responsible for predatory lending practices that date back just to the beginning of this decade. Notice what these revisionists are not mentioning. No ?thank you? to former Senator Phil Gramm for pushing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.. This law was passed in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 - and designed to separate banking from securities activities. In 1999, when Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and in so doing repealed Glass-Steagall the banks strayed into rough waters by looking for fast money from risky investments in securities and derivatives. As predatory lending mushroomed out of control, the regulators -- key among them, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of Currency -- sat on their hands. The Federal Reserve took exactly three formal actions against subprime lenders from 2002 to 2007. Bloomberg news service found that the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which has authority over almost 1,800 banks, took three consumer-protection enforcement actions from 2004 to 2006. No ?tip of the hat? to the Bush Administration for preempting state regulators and Attorneys General from using state consumer laws to crack down on predatory and sub-prime lending by national banks. And, let us not forget the folks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Imagine allowing these two government sponsored enterprises--that were weakly regulated by HUD--to claim they were meeting the national housing goals by counting the purchase of subprime loans. Back in May of 2000, our associate Jonathan Brown warned that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to encourage Fannie and Freddie to meet the housing goals by purchasing subprime loans. Too bad our members of Congress and the regulators at HUD were infected with deregulatory zeal. Former Texas Senator and current UBS executive Phil Gramm -- would-be President John McCain's Treasury Secretary-in-waiting -- pushed through the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which deregulated the derivatives market. With help from his wife, Wendy, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who went on to a post on the Enron board of directors, Gramm removed the controls on Wall Street so it could innovate all sorts of exotic financial instruments. Instruments far riskier than advertised, and now at the core of the financial meltdown. The SEC, through its "consolidated supervised entities" program, decided that voluntary regulation would work for the investment banking sector. Not surprisingly, this was a scheme cooked up by Wall Street itself. The investment banks were permitted to double, triple and go 20 times (and more) down on their bets by using lots of borrowed money. They made minimal disclosures to the SEC about what they were doing, and the SEC didn't bother to review those disclosures adequately. Too bad for the investment banks -- and the rest of us -- they made lots of bad bets. The SEC has now closed the voluntary program, though now there aren't any major investment banks left (the two remaining ones have converted themselves into conventional banks). It is time to start paying very close attention to government officials behind the deregulation curtain. Let your Members of Congress know you are not willing to bailout the gamblers on Wall Street with a no-strings attached pile of taxpayer dollars. The time for regulation is upon us. Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 10:10:18 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:10:18 -0400 Subject: [A-List] No Debt Service Problems Likely in Argentina, Paper Finds In-Reply-To: <752492331.214253641@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org> References: <752492331.214253641@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org> Message-ID: Press Release No Debt Service Problems Likely in Argentina, Paper Finds Analysis Shows That Crisis Scenarios Are Unfounded For Immediate Release: October 3, 2008 Contact: Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460 Washington, D.C. -- A new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research examines Argentina's current debt, fiscal, and overall economic situation and finds that, contrary to a number of recent press reports and analyses, there is little or no reason to believe that Argentina is facing serious economic problems that could lead to a default on its sovereign debt. "These unwarranted crisis scenarios are nothing new," according to Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of the paper, "Argentina: The Crisis That Isn't." [LINK: ] "Most economists, the IMF, and the business press were wrong about the Argentine economy throughout most of last six years of Argentina's economic expansion. The latest 'Chicken Little' scenarios about Argentina fit a familiar pattern that makes the Argentine economy out to be in much worse shape than it actually is." The Argentine economy today has grown more than 60 percent since its recovery began six years ago, has trade and current account surpluses, and has declining levels of debt relative to GDP and other indicators. The paper notes that even under relatively pessimistic assumptions, Argentina would have only $2.1 billion in debt service that it would have to finance from savings or reserves, or through borrowing. "Contrary to scare stories, Argentina's situation today has almost nothing in common with the situation of 2001," Weisbrot said, referring to Argentina's economic crisis of end 2001-2002. The paper also suggests that as Argentina's debt burden declines after 2009, it will become clearer to "holdout" bondholders (who rejected the settlement that Argentina negotiated with about 75 percent of its creditors in 2005) that their continued efforts to block Argentina's access to credit are not likely to have much impact on Argentina's economy, and they have had no apparent impact so far. It is therefore likely that this problem will also be resolved, and Argentina will regain normal access to international credit markets. But in any case, the current discussion of default possibilities does not appear to be justified by the economic reality, current or projected. The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. ________________________________ Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 11:29:51 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:29:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] New Dollar Bill Message-ID: From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 11:42:01 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:42:01 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Michigan Association of REALTORS International Local Council Luncheon Message-ID: <48E6212B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> 11:30 a.m. ? 2:00 p.m. Michigan Association of REALTORS International Local Council Luncheon @ The Renaissance Club, 200 Renaissance Center, Suite 3600 Comment: Joyce RSVP on 9/11/08 to Amy daunt or Lindsay Macomber at the MAR offices at 517-372-8890. The event is sponsored by Bank of America. The luncheon is expected to bring together various local, state, and international leaders who have had an impact on the business community in Michigan and abroad. The Council promotes international real estate education, practices, and the development of technical standards and information exchanges?SE input 9/11/08. ^^^ Bank of America rep said B of Am is still selling same mortgage products it did in recent times This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 12:14:05 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:14:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Draft leaflet Message-ID: <48E628B0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Leaflet on financial turmoil Page history last edited by Anthony Boynton 2 days, 2 hours ago No Bail Out! Why not buy the banks? The country is mad as hell at the bailout of the banks being pushed down our throats by George W., John McCain, Barak Obama and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties. But what's the alternative? Just let private enterprise sort things out for the rest of us? Just let the markets melt down while the real economy continues to grind to a halt? Free enterprise does not seem to be doing a very good job at providing jobs, affordable housing, decent pay, medical care ...and things are getting worse by the day. What should be done? The government could start by simply buying up the shares of the banks which are bankrupt, are about to go bankrupt. For starters the tax payers get a bargain! The prices of bank stocks are near zero! Next the government could put a moratorium on all foreclosures. Then the government could regulate real estate prices, and the government owned banks could provide zero interest loans to people who need homes, and even to businesses having problems keeping open. Does this sound like socialism to you? Pretty good idea, don't you think? U.S. FINANCIAL MELTDOWN SPOTLIGHTS PROFIT SYSTEM'S ENDEMIC EXPIRATION AND THE IMPERATIVE OF ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY The collapse of the financial sectors is indicative of the abject failure of the capitalist economy. The inherent need of capitalist firms to expand their market shares, and accumulate new outlets for exploitation, has reached a point where capital concentration has created a roadblock to satisfying the system's own all-consuming needs. In seeking to prevent any reduction in their extraordinary profit margins or the implosion of the system itself, capitalist firms have sought to drastically increase their rate of exploitation of labor, natural resources, and public assets. Concurrently, they've come to rely on the sheer market manipulation of financial assets, which must ultimately rely on investment in new sources of exploitation or public resource dispossession, in order to represent any genuine value of their own. In the most recent culmination of this trajectory, the nation's top financial firms now seek a return on the fictitious assets they've invested in enormous campaign contributions to federal politicians, through a taxpayer bailout of hundreds of billions of dollars. In recent years, the leading recipients of the proposed bailout have attempted to domestically and internationally justify their "Washington consensus" on decimating social safety-nets, massive cuts to wages and benefits, and privatization of public services, in the name of mercilessly strict adherence to the "tough love" and "sacrifice" of the "free market." At the current point at which their ruthless dispossession of our resources through "free market" austerity has halted even their own capabilities to exploit and accumulate all they need for profitability, American workers are now called upon to forget the principles that the banks and robber barrens of advanced capitalism have so callously imposed upon working people in continuous escalation since the Reagan/Thatcher era. In demonstrating the cynical facade behind the unwaivering economic ideology they've peddled for decades, these same Wall Street power brokers who demanded the near complete de-regulation of the financial sector under "free market" principles, are now calling upon all tax-paying U.S. workers to "come together as Americans" and take "collective responsibility" for their boundless greed and ultimate financial failure under the very standards they themselves imposed. Congressional Democrats, through continuous pledges to reach a "bipartisan" solution to the financial meltdown, have predictably fallen over themselves to reaffirm their reliable role as one of the two great parties of capital. As Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed on September 26th, "We will not leave until legislation is passed that will be signed by the president. The markets [sic] need a message from us that we're acting." Barack Obama, whose $25 million dollars in campaign contributions from the financial industry in this election has exceeded the amount received by John McCain, has likewise urged bipartisan passage of the bailout package, "in the spirit of cooperation on behalf of the American people." Whether through the form of accumulating greater portions of the tax revenues paid by working people (bail-outs, corporate welfare, imperialist war, social-service cut-backs, privatization); through debt entrapment (predatory lending, adjustable-rate mortgages, loan-sharking impoverished nations); or through direct profit gouging at the point of production (wage/benefit/pension cuts, attacks on overtime and organized labor, race-to-the-bottom capital flight); the American ruling class has now become far too concentrated and far too desperate to apportion its various sources of surplus value or to give consideration to the consequences of its unmitigated macro-extraction. Following this exposure of decades of ruling class sophistry, there can no longer be any rational debate on the question of pursuing the "free market" as an alternative to the compelling urgency of economic democracy. The needs of the largest capitalist firms to wipe out competition has today led already to an effectively socialized centralization of economic power, but in the form of private ownership of an increasingly reckless and completely unaccountable ruling class of professional speculators. If we the people are now to publicly socialize the costs of our ruling class' disastrous practices, as our corporate politicians demand, what earthly justification can be given for handing the very pillars of our economic security back to their private and unaccountable ownership, once resurrected? The essential political question left to working people is whether to allow this ruling class to maintain its control and personal entitlement to every stratum of both the means and products of our livelihoods. Our fundamental choice comes down to whether we wish to maintain this cycle of catastrophic consequences from a system of production and finance based on socialized costs for working people and private profits for a ruling oligarchy - or whether the time has come to establish a publicly accountable system to take social ownership of such economic institutions themselves, based on democratic economic planning and controlled by the great majority of the population who work for a living and comprise the real economy in society. During the recent housing boom, speculators offered deceptively low interest rate loans on mortgages. As a result, millions bought houses they could not actually afford. Much of the funding for these loans came from some of the largest and most powerful financial institutions in the United States, and the world. For a brief moment, lending institutions and banks made huge profits, but then, as usual, the bubble burst, leaving the housing market, and, with it, the entire economy, incomplete disarray. With many of the largest banks and financial institutions on the brink of collapse, the proposed gigantic bail-out that could very well cost taxpayers over half a trillion dollars. This staggering giveaway will bring higher taxes and further cuts in essential social services, no matter which of the corporate candidates becomes president. Once again, working people are being coerced into rescuing the wealthy few from the disastrous consequences of their own insatiable rapaciousness. We reject the bail-out plan. Instead, we propose that the government take over the financial sector, and then delegate the distribution of home loans to a decentralized network of non-profit credit unions. These institutions are far less likely to push bogus loans than the financial institutions controlled by our corporate rulers. The federal government would also assume responsibility or forgiveness for defaulting mortgages while imposing a universal five year moratorium on all home foreclosures in the United States. In the short-run, the costs of this debacle would be borne by those who benefited from the scam. To accomplish this, we propose: 1.a steeply graduated income tax, and an estate tax levied at a rate of 90% for inheritances worth more than a million dollars. 2. An immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a drastic cut in military spending. These two proposals will provide the funds to prevent a financial collapse while also ensuring the needed expansion of vital social services, but such a program to counter the immediate crisis is not enough. Housing is too important to be left in the hands of avaricious speculators and developers. The federal government should begin building millions of units of low-density, high-quality low-cost housing, integrated ethnically and across income levels. These housing units should be constructed by a unionized and ethnically and gender integrated workforce, designed to be energy efficient, and located near mass transit. These projects should be owned by the state, but should be operated by resident councils with the authority to set policy and to elect, re-call, and supervise managers. We need to move rapidly to a socialist society, one in which housing is provided to all as a basic right, the financial sector and commanding heights of the economy are made publicly accountable through social ownership and worker control of the economy, and production is oriented toward the needs of working people, rather than maximizing the parasitic profits of an obsolete ruling class of multi-millionaires and billionaires. We, the majority who work for a living, can no larger afford to produce and relinquish all that maintaining the private profits for our ruling class entails! This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 12:22:21 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:22:21 -0400 Subject: [A-List] House Approves Bailout on Second Try + Markets Unexcited Message-ID: October 4, 2008 House Approves Bailout on Second Try By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN WASHINGTON ? The House of Representatives gave final approval on Friday to the $700 billion bailout for the financial system, reversing course to authorize what may be the most expensive government intervention in history. The crucial vote was 263-171, passing by a comfortable bipartisan margin. Most Democrats voted in favor (172 yeas to 63 nays), while a slighter majority of Republicans voted against (91 yeas to 108 nays). Every member of the House voted. (There is one vacancy, created by recent death of Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio.) At 1:21 p.m., applause and cheers echoed through the House chamber as the number of "aye" votes crossed the threshold needed for passage with just seconds remaining in the official 15-minute voting period. The Senate approved the plan on Wednesday night by a vote of 74 to 25, after adding a portfolio of popular tax provisions. The bill now heads to President Bush who is eager to sign it. Financial markets, already weighed down by another round of bleak economic data, including a report showing 159,000 jobs were lost in September, had a positive but hardly exuberant response to the House action. Ahead of the vote, the Dow Jones industrial average was up about 290 points but the market gave up almost all of those gains within 30 minutes after the final vote. How They Voted: Credit markets still tight after bailout approval By MADLEN READ ? 24 minutes ago NEW YORK (AP) ? The stranglehold on the credit markets remained tight Friday after the House approved a revised $700 billion financial bailout, with investors still dubious about the plan's ability to boost the faltering U.S. economy. Treasury bill demand was high, keeping the yield on the 3-month bill at around half a percent. Market participants have been regarding the rescue plan as a strong medicine for what's ailing the financial system, but not a cure-all. When the Treasury buys banks' risky assets, it should help alleviate investors' worries about the institutions' solvency and free them up to do more lending. But that process will be far from instantaneous, and borrowing could remain very expensive for some time. With the economy in such a weak state, lending to consumers and businesses will still appear risky until certain factors ? particularly employment and the housing market ? improve. The Labor Department said employers cut payrolls by 159,000 in September, the largest loss in more than five years, while unemployment remained at 6.1 percent. Layoffs are likely to keep piling up if it remains tough to find credit. Spectrum Yarns Inc., a North Carolina textile company, said it closed two plants and laid off 200 workers this week because it got turned down by a North Carolina bank, a New York finance company, and several private lenders. And it's going to get even harder for individuals to get home loans. Banks have gotten more stringent in their mortgage underwriting, and Wisconsin's affordable-housing agency recently suspended making loans for single-family homes because it was unable to sell tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds and raise capital. On Friday, the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, for 3-month dollar loans rose to 4.33 percent from 4.21 percent Thursday. That bank-to-bank lending rate has been rising all week, showing that banks are growing less and less willing to lend out their cash for longer than overnight. LIBOR is tied to many consumer rates like adjustable-rate mortgages. In one promising sign, overnight lending has gotten significantly cheaper ? LIBOR for overnight dollar loans plunged to a hair below 2 percent on Friday, the lowest rate in nearly four years, from 2.67 percent on Thursday. That overnight rate is now below the Fed's key bank-to-bank overnight lending rate, known as the target fed funds rate, of 2 percent. It appears that central banks' decision to ramp up their lending to financial institutions over the past couple weeks is having a positive effect. But that's little solace to borrowers who need a loan for longer than overnight. Over the past week, the amount of short-term corporate debt known as commercial paper on the market has plunged. And banks and investment firms have borrowed in record amounts from the Federal Reserve's emergency lending facility. Money market mutual funds, usually the biggest buyers of commercial paper, have run for safety lately after a money market fund "broke the buck" two weeks ago due to its exposure to Lehman. When a fund breaks the buck, it does not have enough assets to cover every dollar invested in it. Instead of commercial paper, they've been investing in Treasury bills. "There's really no theme except the theme of survival," said John Spinello, bond strategist at Jefferies & Co., referring to the constricted trading in the credit markets Friday. On Friday, the yield on the 3-month Treasury bill fell to 0.58 percent, down from 0.70 percent late Thursday. There has been no let-up in demand for T-bills, seen as the safest assets around, even though they are offering extremely weak returns. An upswing in the stock market drew some investors out of longer-term Treasurys Friday, however. The 2-year note fell 11/32 to 100 13/32, with a yield of 1.80 percent, up from 1.62 percent late Thursday. The 10-year note fell 1 to 102 2/32, and yielded 3.75 percent, up from 3.64 percent. The 30-year bond fell 1 6/32 to 104 22/32, and yielded 4.22 percent, up from 4.16 percent. (This version CORRECTS Corrects 4th graf to say Treasury buys assets, sted Fed. Stands for BC-Bonds.) From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 13:41:18 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:41:18 -0400 Subject: [A-List] recapitalization Message-ID: <48E63D21.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> For folks on this list not versed in the ways of finance: recapitalization means adding solid money to a bank's deposit base. Deposits are a tiny chunk of a bank's assets; loans are always much, much bigger, because that's what banks do - borrow short and lend long. That's why nationalization is a Good Thing (TM, Pat. Pending) - it means you add to the deposit base (shore up the dam) instead of bailing out bad debt (trying to drain the ocean). -- DRR ___________________________________ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 13:47:53 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:47:53 -0400 Subject: [A-List] A note from Kathryn Kolbert Message-ID: <48E63EAC.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> October 3, 2008 ========================== Dear Charles, Did you watch the vice presidential debate? I thought it was fascinating -- and fun to watch with a group of friends. Thanks to those of you who hosted or participated in one of our debate- watching parties or joined the People For staff and friends who live-blogged the debate. Here's what I thought were a few of the notable moments and telling contrasts. - At the end of the debate, when asked about an issue on which he had changed a long-held view, Joe Biden talked about coming to understand how important it is to consider the ideology of federal judicial nominees. He talked with pride about leading the fight to keep Robert Bork off the Supreme Court. People For the American Way is proud of our role in that victory too. And we're glad that Biden reminded viewers that the Court is on the ballot this fall. People For the American Way Action Fund is running radio ads in eight key states making that very point. And you can help People For the American Way reach more voters by supporting our Save the Court campaign. http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=6gSFZi9lXcv9lAl4NGPYGA.. - When Gwen Ifill asked about the powers of the vice presidency, Palin praised the "flexibility" of the Constitution on that point, while Biden forcefully denounced Cheney's unaccountable power-grabbing approach to the office, calling him "the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history." - As a mother, I was moved by the moment in which Joe Biden choked up while talking about being a single father worried about the wellbeing of his children. It was an authentic human moment, one with real depth, in contrast to the winking, folksy- on-steroids performance by Sarah Palin(saying things like, "you betcha" and "doggone it"). The bottom line for me is this: Did Palin help her ticket? Probably not much. Did she "stop the hemorrhaging" caused by her previous train-wreck performances in interviews? Yes. And that's why all the work we've done to expose her radical views is still so important. She bobbed and weaved, trying to sound reasonable and moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights -- when in reality she is as far to the right as anyone currently in public office. She said she would "counsel" a rape victim to "choose life" -- when in fact she'd change the law to deny a woman who was raped from having any choice in the matter. She's so "tolerant" that as governor she supported a special election to oppose gay couples from getting domestic partner benefits. With your help we'll keep exposing the truth about her record. And speaking of truth-telling -- there was some huge news in Washington this week that you might not have heard about with all the media focused on the financial crisis. The U.S. Justice Department released an investigative report on the political firings of U.S. Attorneys and the Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor to decide whether criminal prosecution is appropriate. People For members have energetically demanded accountability for the corruption within the Department of Justice. Thousands of you signed petitions demanding that Congress use its oversight powers to get to the truth. The appointment of a special prosecutor is a major defeat for Bush administration efforts to stonewall their way out of this one -- and a victory for the good guys! A strong progressive movement was never more necessary. Thank you for being part of it. All the best, Kathryn Kolbert, President Kathryn at pfaw.org P.S. A lot of state voter registration deadlines are fast approaching -- Monday is the final chance to register in a number of states -- and early voting is beginning. Make sure that you and your family and friends are ready and able to vote on November 4. Check to make sure you are registered, and if you are not, get registered! http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=6COGd3Af91gEJauwuQWfeA.. ------- People For the American Way depends on the support of its members. Help make sure America lives up to the promise of freedom and equality for all by funding the work of People For with a gift today. http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=TbvB6iH0KRqxvlteNMHcwQ.. ------- To ensure that People For e-mails are not diverted to your spam or bulk folders, please add alerts at pfaw.org to your address book and/or "safe list." People For the American Way 2008 2000 M Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 1-800-326-PFAW Friday Note -- A Message from Kathryn Kolbert http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=EAHZKrmxtIT0h-Fag71fgA.. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 3 14:18:14 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:18:14 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Poverty of Crisis Debate Message-ID: <48E645C9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: [A-List] Poverty of Crisis Debate From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" Leftists, especially Marxists, are fond of debates on crises. But our debates have often revolved around questions that are not exactly helpful to people in crisis. We tend to debate such questions as: What are the underlying causes of crisis -- overaccumulation, overproduction, underconsumption, or what? But the question that we should have been really debating, learning from historical examples, is: in case of a crisis, _how_ do we counter a financial blackmail of capital (e.g., if you don't give us $700 billion, we'll commit suicide bombing and take you all down)? As long as we cave to this blackmail and seek a solution on capital's terms, we'll remain social democrats. Thoughts? Yoshie ^^^^^^ CB: Bolsheviks might organize demonstrations on the geographic location of Wall street, for one. In general, more working class people than usual are probably open to discussions of the unfair nature of the capitalist finance system, and changing it , somehow, at the very least reforming it. The "in your face" nature of the $trillion bailout of the rich for _their_ misdeeds is an opportunity to emphasize who clearly is the ruling class. Any entity that can force the government to give it a trillion dollars ( !) is obviously ruling the government. It is just patent at this moment what the shape of the ruling class center, the state-monopoly power center in finance, is. Obviously, the President is not the top leader of America when he becomes, as right now, a subordinate and servant of the financial bourgeoisie, pleading, whining for the rich banks to be bailed out of losing money. Lets shout this loud before people's attention shifts, as Americans tend to have a short attention span This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From nmgoro at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 14:22:14 2008 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:22:14 -0300 Subject: [A-List] No Debt Service Problems Likely in Argentina, Paper Finds In-Reply-To: References: <752492331.214253641@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org> Message-ID: <2fa158550810031322w1bb29dfdx1b9598306c2222d4@mail.gmail.com> Weisbrot's report is as accurate as usual. Of course, in Argentina the media differ widely from this reasonable approach. Weisbrot, if ever allowed to sip a single idea in our media, would be discarded as an ignoramus. This is what we call "pedagogic colonizatio" of our people. 2008/10/3, Yoshie Furuhashi : > Press Release > > No Debt Service Problems Likely in Argentina, Paper Finds > > Analysis Shows That Crisis Scenarios Are Unfounded > > For Immediate Release: October 3, 2008 > Contact: Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460 > > Washington, D.C. -- A new paper from the Center for Eco From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 14:45:45 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:45:45 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Market Value of Islam Going Up? Message-ID: At any other time at least since 11 September 2001 (if not 4 November 1979), well-financed propaganda like Obsession ("a documentary about 'radical Islam's war against the West'"*), combined with general hatred of immigrants, would have become big news and a not insignificant factor in not just elections but politics in general in the USA. But I take comfort in the thought that even the dimmest bulbs in the middle of Middle America must be too appalled by the financial crisis to obsess over Muslims. As a matter of fact, the market value of Islam might even be going up just now among the financially insecure: "Islamic Banking Restrains Bankruptcy" ; "Islamic Banks Unaffected by Global Financial Crisis" ; "Non-Muslims Turn to Islamic Bank as a Safe Option" . -- Yoshie * Short Cuts Adam Shatz If you live in an American swing state you may have received a copy of 'Obsession' in your Sunday paper. 'Obsession' isn't a perfume: it's a documentary about 'radical Islam's war against the West'. In the last two weeks of September, 28 million copies of the film were enclosed as an advertising supplement in 74 newspapers, including the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. 'The threat of Radical Islam is the most important issue facing us today,' the sleeve announces. 'It's our responsibility to ensure we can make an informed vote in November.' The Clarion Fund, the supplement's sponsor, doesn't explicitly endorse McCain, so as not to jeopardise its tax-exempt status, but the message is clear enough, and its circulation just happened to coincide with Obama's leap in the polls. The Clarion Fund is a front for neoconservative and Israeli pressure groups. It has an office, or at least an address, in Manhattan at Grace Corporate Park Executive Suites, which rents out 'virtual office identity packages' for $75 a month. Its website, clarionfund.org, provides neither a list of staff nor a board of directors, and the group still hasn't disclosed where it gets its money, as required by the IRS. Who paid to make 'Obsession' isn't clear ? it cost $400,000. According to Rabbi Raphael Shore, the film's Canadian-Israeli producer, 80 per cent of the money came from the executive producer 'Peter Mier', but that's just an alias, as is the name of the film's production manager, 'Brett Halperin'. Shore claims 'Mier' and 'Halperin', whoever they are, are simply taking precautions, though it isn't clear against what. The danger (whatever it is) hasn't stopped Shore ? or the director, Wayne Kopping, a South African neocon ? from going on television to promote their work. The 60-minute film was first released in 2006 and shown during the mid-term elections on Fox News. Since then it has received top billing at 'Islamo-Fascism Awareness' week on American campuses, at Christian-Zionist conferences and at events organised by Republican politicians in Florida. It has found a powerful backer in the real estate magnate Sheldon Adelson, who describes himself as 'the world's richest Jew'. The Endowment for Middle East Truth, a neoconservative think tank in Washington DC which recently hosted a series of seminars named after Adelson and his wife, arranged distribution of 'Obsession', at a cost in the tens of millions. The makers of the film, like their subjects, are soldiers of God. Almost everyone associated with it or with Clarion has worked for Aish HaTorah, an 'education' group with offices in East Jerusalem and strong links to the settler movement. Clarion was incorporated in Delaware to the New York offices of Aish HaTorah and Rabbi Shore was the director, as well as the founder of its media organisation, Honest Reporting, which campaigns against a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine. It's illegal in the US for nonprofit organisations, or for foreign nationals, to try to influence the outcome of an election. The film's chief claim is that 2008 is like 1938, only worse, since there are more Muslims than Germans and they're more spread out geographically: 'They're not outside our borders, they are here.' Violent raptures and spectacular carnage unfold in slick montages set to throbbing Middle Eastern music: Pakistanis deliriously burning the American flag, Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks, Hizbullah chanting 'death to America', clerics praising the 'magnificent 19' and the murder of unbelievers, children training to become suicide bombers, the planes crashing into the towers. These images are interspersed with footage of Nazi rallies and Hitler's speeches. A chapter ? narrated by Martin Gilbert, Churchill's biographer ? is devoted to the Mufti's collaboration with Hitler. Scary Muslims are everywhere, and the umma stands more united than ever, driven by hatred of infidels and Jews and determined to conquer the West, a civilisation gone soft, weakened by self-doubt, political correctness bordering on treason, and, worst of all, a 'culture of denial'. Gilbert spells it out: In the 1930s, the danger of Nazism was there . . . but people thought, well, this is a German problem, it's a limited problem . . . And I think the same is true today . . . They don't see that Islamic fundamentalism is a global network and a global problem . . .because if you come to that conclusion ? and I'm sure it's the true conclusion ? then you have to do something about it. 'Obsession' doesn't say what we should do ? except steer well clear of dialogue and negotiation. Although there are interviews with the usual 'terrorism experts' ? Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz et al ? the film's portrayal of the region is mostly left to native informants like Nonie Darwish (a leader of Arabs for Israel and the daughter of a slain fighter from Gaza), Brigitte Gabriel (the Lebanese-Christian author of They Must Be Stopped) and Walid Shoebat, a 'former PLO terrorist' who operates under a pseudonym ? for security reasons, of course. Shoebat runs the Walid Shoebat Foundation, described on its website as an 'organisation that cries out for the Justice of Israel and the Jewish people'. He's made a career of recounting his journey from Islamic terror to Christian Zionism before audiences at Evangelical gatherings and the US Air Force Academy. It's not clear, though, that he ever laid a hand on anyone. According to a relative, 'the biggest act of terror he ever committed was to glue Palestinian flags on street posts.' What is very clear is that, for the makers of 'Obsession', having once hated Jews gives you privileged access to the Muslim mind, and not only if you're an ex-Muslim. Among the film's authorities on radical Islam is a former leader of the Hitler Youth, Alfons Heck, who says that 'what the Muslims do to their own children is even worse' than the things the Nazis did to young Germans ? as only a Nazi could know. If you didn't receive 'Obsession' with your paper, you can watch it on YouTube. It's been posted by a former Muslim whose screen identity is 'fuckmohammad'. Adam Shatz is an editor at the London Review. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 15:49:30 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:49:30 -0700 Subject: [A-List] IPS interview with Barack Obama Message-ID: <48E6936A.4000305@gmail.com> "Obama answered questions ranging from what U.S. relations would be like with Pakistan if he wins the White House, to how Washington could re-engage with Latin America as China's influence also grows in that part of the world, cutting the massive subsidies for big oil companies like ExxonMobil, and increasing U.S. foreign aid to bolster the floundering U.N. Millennium Development Goals..." In full: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44117 From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Oct 3 19:45:30 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:45:30 +0900 Subject: [A-List] We Have The Money Message-ID: <48E6CABA.4000001@attglobal.net> If Only We Didn't Waste It on The Defense Budget by Chalmers Johnson TomDispatch via Countercurrents (September 29 2008) There has been much moaning, air-sucking, and outrage about the $700 billion that the US government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon. On Wednesday, September 24th, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations measure.) The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is only a down-payment on the full yearly cost of these wars. (The rest will be raised through future supplementary bills.) It also included a 3.9% pay raise for military personnel, and $5 billion in pork-barrel projects not even requested by the administration or the secretary of defense. It also fully funds the Pentagon's request for a radar site in the Czech Republic, a hare-brained scheme sure to infuriate the Russians just as much as a Russian missile base in Cuba once infuriated us. The whole bill passed by a vote of 392-39 and will fly through the Senate, where a similar bill has already been approved. And no one will even think to mention it in the same breath with the discussion of bailout funds for dying investment banks and the like. This is pure waste. Our annual spending on "national security" - meaning the defense budget plus all military expenditures hidden in the budgets for the departments of Energy, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, the CIA, and numerous other places in the executive branch - already exceeds a trillion dollars, an amount larger than that of all other national defense budgets combined. Not only was there no significant media coverage of this latest appropriation, there have been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad, and the financial catastrophe on Wall Street. The only Congressional "commentary" on the size of our military outlay was the usual pompous drivel about how a failure to vote for the defense authorization bill would betray our troops. The aged Senator John Warner (R-Va), former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, implored his Republican colleagues to vote for the bill "out of respect for military personnel". He seems to be unaware that these troops are actually volunteers, not draftees, and that they joined the armed forces as a matter of career choice, rather than because the nation demanded such a sacrifice from them. We would better respect our armed forces by bringing the futile and misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end. A relative degree of peace and order has returned to Iraq not because of President Bush's belated reinforcement of our expeditionary army there (the so-called surge), but thanks to shifting internal dynamics within Iraq and in the Middle East region generally. Such shifts include a growing awareness among Iraq's Sunni population of the need to restore law and order, a growing confidence among Iraqi Shiites of their nearly unassailable position of political influence in the country, and a growing awareness among Sunni nations that the ill-informed war of aggression the Bush administration waged against Iraq has vastly increased the influence of Shiism and Iran in the region. The continued presence of American troops and their heavily reinforced bases in Iraq threaten this return to relative stability. The refusal of the Shia government of Iraq to agree to an American Status of Forces Agreement - much desired by the Bush administration - that would exempt off-duty American troops from Iraqi law is actually a good sign for the future of Iraq. In Afghanistan, our historically deaf generals and civilian strategists do not seem to understand that our defeat by the Afghan insurgents is inevitable. Since the time of Alexander the Great, no foreign intruder has ever prevailed over Afghan guerrillas defending their home turf. The first Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842) marked a particularly humiliating defeat of British imperialism at the very height of English military power in the Victorian era. The Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) resulted in a Russian defeat so demoralizing that it contributed significantly to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union in 1991. We are now on track to repeat virtually all the errors committed by previous invaders of Afghanistan over the centuries. In the past year, perhaps most disastrously, we have carried our Afghan war into Pakistan, a relatively wealthy and sophisticated nuclear power that has long cooperated with us militarily. Our recent bungling brutality along the Afghan-Pakistan border threatens to radicalize the Pashtuns in both countries and advance the interests of radical Islam throughout the region. The United States is now identified in each country mainly with Hellfire missiles, unmanned drones, special operations raids, and repeated incidents of the killing of innocent bystanders. The brutal bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, on September 20 2008, was a powerful indicator of the spreading strength of virulent anti-American sentiment in the area. The hotel was a well-known watering hole for American Marines, Special Forces troops, and CIA agents. Our military activities in Pakistan have been as misguided as the Nixon-Kissinger invasion of Cambodia in 1970. The end result will almost surely be the same. We should begin our disengagement from Afghanistan at once. We dislike the Taliban's fundamentalist religious values, but the Afghan public, with its desperate desire for a return of law and order and the curbing of corruption, knows that the Taliban is the only political force in the country that has ever brought the opium trade under control. The Pakistanis and their effective army can defend their country from Taliban domination so long as we abandon the activities that are causing both Afghans and Pakistanis to see the Taliban as a lesser evil. One of America's greatest authorities on the defense budget, Winslow Wheeler, worked for 31 years for Republican members of the Senate and for the General Accounting Office on military expenditures. His conclusion, when it comes to the fiscal sanity of our military spending, is devastating: "America's defense budget is now larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any point since the end of World War II, and yet our Army has fewer combat brigades than at any point in that period; our Navy has fewer combat ships; and the Air Force has fewer combat aircraft. Our major equipment inventories for these major forces are older on average than any point since 1946 - or in some cases, in our entire history." This in itself is a national disgrace. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on present and future wars that have nothing to do with our national security is simply obscene. And yet Congress has been corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that, by voting for more defense spending, they are supplying "jobs" for the economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions. If we cannot cut back our longstanding, ever increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left. _____ Chalmers Johnson is the author of three linked books on the crises of American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books. http://www.countercurrents.org/johnson290908.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From cbcox at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 3 20:57:19 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:57:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The Market Value of Islam Going Up? References: Message-ID: <48E6DB8F.CAB50B36@ilstu.edu> This is get-out-the vote material; it isnn't attempting to persuade anyonne to annythinng, merely to jazz up the loyal ones to turnn out and vote. U.S. elites -- economic, political, military, what-have-you have other thingns to think about now than expanding public support for the invasion of the Middle East. It will be stable for a while, since a 60 year objective has beenn achieved: U.s. bases in the middle of the Middle east, for good. On the "Crisis." Mao's propositionn remains primary: If you don't hit it it won't fall. An economic collapse does not lead to resistance (at least for many years) but to despair and apathy. Hence economic crises are no danger to capitalism as such, however much they hurt particular capitalists or even particular capitalist economies. If they get bad enough, they lead to increased repression, but only when there is some recovery or appearance of recovery can resistance be genrated. (In 1920-1940 in Europe that repression took fascist form only because of the threat of large revolutionary movements. Lacking such movements, an intensifying of run-of-the-mill repression in 'bourgeois' democracies is sufficient. (I would presume that such repression could be more successfully carried out by a Democratic Administration -- since the increased repression of the last 8 years has all (wrongly) been seen as merely a Bush phenomenon when it clearly has had bipartisa support. Carrol From sabri_oncu at yahoo.com Fri Oct 3 23:32:55 2008 From: sabri_oncu at yahoo.com (Sabri Oncu) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz Message-ID: <988268.93907.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> > If there is anyone more pessimistic on capitalism than MR, that will > have to be Nouriel Roubini. -- Yoshie I am more pessimistic than Nouriel, although less pessimistic than MR, and all my students at NYU know this. Because, our students know that Nouriel assigns zero probability to a depression, whereas I assign a non-zero probability. Best, Sabri From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 01:13:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 03:13:02 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz In-Reply-To: <988268.93907.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <988268.93907.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Sabri Oncu wrote: >> If there is anyone more pessimistic on capitalism than MR, that will >> have to be Nouriel Roubini. -- Yoshie > > I am more pessimistic than Nouriel, although less pessimistic than MR, > and all my students at NYU know this. Because, our students know that > Nouriel assigns zero probability to a depression, whereas I assign a > non-zero probability. Maybe I don't understand Roubini. Just a couple of days ago, he wrote this: "The next step of this panic could become the mother of all bank runs, i.e. a run on the trillion dollar plus of the cross border short-term interbank liabilities of the US banking and financial system as foreign banks as starting to worry about the safety of their liquid exposures to US financial institutions; such a silent cross border bank run has already started as foreign banks are worried about the solvency of US banks and are starting to reduce their exposure. And if this run accelerates - as it may now - a total meltdown of the US financial system could occur. We are thus now in a generalized panic mode and back to the risk of a systemic meltdown of the entire financial system. And US and foreign policy authorities seem to be clueless about what needs to be done next" (at ). If there is no run on the dollar, and if there is a political will, a Keynesian way to prevent the financial crisis from developing into a great depression is conceivable. However, Roubini appears to think that the USG doesn't know what it's doing, let alone mustering the will to do the right thing in cooperation with foreign central banks, and moreover he says that it's possible that a critical mass of foreigners will lose confidence in the USG. Then, a great depression is a distinct possibility based on his own logic. Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 01:20:01 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 03:20:01 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Market Value of Islam Going Up? In-Reply-To: <48E6DB8F.CAB50B36@ilstu.edu> References: <48E6DB8F.CAB50B36@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: > Hence economic crises > are no danger to capitalism as such, however much they hurt particular > capitalists or even particular capitalist economies. A financial crisis tends to become merely an opportunity for financial capital to blackmail the government for a bailout (as it just did), which then adds to public debt and becomes a pretext to cut social wages. But there have been exceptions. Argentina, for example. Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 01:53:53 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 03:53:53 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Six Weeks Message-ID: After having threatened Americans with a great depression if their representatives don't vote for the $700 billion bailout NOW, it turns out that the Treasury won't be able to BEGIN to put it into action for SIX WEEKS. In normal course, the market reacts more negatively to a left-wing program than a right-wing one, but this financial crisis is probably an exception. -- Yoshie October 4, 2008 For Treasury Dept., Now Comes Hard Part of Bailout By MARK LANDLER and EDMUND L. ANDREWS WASHINGTON ? It will be one of the world's largest asset management firms with an impressive $700 billion war chest. Nothing short of the global economy depends on its success. And the Treasury Department has barely a month to get it up and running. The bailout bill that President Bush quickly signed into law on Friday must do what financial experts have been unable to do for the last year ? put a dollar value on mortgage-related assets that no one wants, move them off the books of ailing banks and unlock the frozen credit markets. In signing the measure, Mr. Bush warned Americans not to expect instant results. "This will be done as expeditiously as possible, but it cannot be accomplished overnight. We'll take the time necessary to design an effective program that achieves its objectives ? and does not waste taxpayer dollars." Even after working feverishly over the last two weeks, the Treasury will not buy its first distressed asset from a bank for roughly six weeks, and almost certainly not until after the Nov. 4 elections. From nscchicago at igc.org Sat Oct 4 09:41:31 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:41:31 -0500 Subject: [A-List] [AmericanConscience] Robert Fisk's World: When it comes to Palestine and Israel, the US simply doesn't get it Message-ID: <000c01c92637$b66949a0$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here and this by Robert Fisk is good enough to share. My analogy about the debates so-called is that these people are put into a pit where they are to bat about these balloons. The balloons are Myths About America Thank you, Arif, for passing this along I'm guessing others did too. Excuse please the dupe di dupes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Arif Bhuiyan Subject: [AmericanConscience] Robert Fisk's World: When it comes to Palestine and Israel, the US simply doesn't get it Robert Fisk's World: When it comes to Palestine and Israel, the US simply doesn't get it Biden and Palin hid like rabbits from the centre of the Middle East earthquake Independent, Saturday, 4 October 2008 Palestinians ceased to exist in the United States on Thursday night. Both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin managed to avoid the use of that poisonous word. "Palestine" and "Palestinians" ? that most cancerous, slippery, dangerous concept ? simply did not exist in the vice-presidential debate. The phrase "Israeli occupation" was mercifully left unused. Neither the words "Jewish colony" nor "Jewish settlement" ? not even that cowardly old get-out clause of American journalism, "Jewish neighbourhood" ? got a look-in. Nope. Those bold contenders of the US vice-presidency, so keen to prove their mettle when it comes to "defence", hid like rabbits from the epicentre of the Middle East earthquake: the existence of a Palestinian people. Sure, there was talk of a "two-state" solution, but it would have mystified anyone who didn't understand the region. There was even a Biden jibe at George Bush for pressing on with "elections" ? again, the adjective "Palestinian" went missing ? that produced a Hamas victory. But Hamas appeared to exist in never-never land, a vast landscape that gradually encompassed all the vast and black deserts that stretch, in the imagination of US politicians, from the Mediterranean to Pakistan. "Pakistan's (nuclear) missiles can already hit Israel," Biden thundered. But what was he talking about? Pakistan has not threatened Israel. It's supposed to be on our side. Both vice-presidential candidates seemed to think that our ally in the "war on terror" was now turning into an ally of the axis of evil. Even Islam didn't get a run for its money. Indeed, one of the funniest reports of the week, yet another investigation of Obama's education, came from the Associated Press news agency. The would-be president, the Associated Press announced, had attended a Muslim school but hadn't "practised" Islam. What on earth did this mean, I asked myself? Would AP have reported, for example, that McCain had attended a Christian school but hadn't "practised" Christianity? Then I got it. Obama had smoked Islam but he hadn't inhaled! Travelling across the US this week ? from Seattle to Houston to Washington and then to New York ? I kept bumping into the results of America's White House-induced terror. A well-educated, upper-middle-class lady at a lunch turned to me and expressed her fear that Islam "wanted to take over America". When I suggested that this was pushing things a bit, she informed me that "the Muslims have already taken over France". How does one reply to this? It's a bit like being informed by a perfectly sane and rational person that Martians have just landed in Tennessee. So I used the old Fisk trick when confronted by ravers of the "admit George Bush did 9/11" school. I looked at my watch, adopted a shocked expression and shouted: "Gotta go!" But seriously. There was Biden on Thursday night, telling us that along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan ? he was referring, of course, to the old frontier drawn by Sir Mortimer Durrand which most Pushtuns (and thus all Taliban) regard as fictional ? "there have been 7,000 madrassas built ... and that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually (sic) intelligence". Seven thousand? Where on earth does this figure come from? Yes, there are thousands of religious schools in Pakistan ? but they're not all on the border. In another extraordinary bit of myth-making, Obama's man told us that "we kicked the Hizbollah out of Lebanon" ? which is totally untrue. And, of course, Israel ? a word that must be uttered, repeatedly, by all US candidates ? became the compass point of the entire Middle East, this "peace-seeking nation ... our strongest and best ally in the Middle East" (quoth Palin) of whom "no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend...than Joe Biden" (quoth Biden). Israel was "in jeopardy" if America talked to Iran, Palin revealed. "We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust." Thus was the corpse of Hitler dug up yet again ? just as McCain resurrected the shadow of the Second World War last week when he blathered on about Eisenhower's sense of responsibility before D-Day. That Israel can quite adequately defend herself with 264 nuclear warheads went, of course, unmentioned, because acknowledging Israel's real power undermines the image of a small and vulnerable country relying on America for its defence. Israelis deserve security. But where were the promises of security for Palestinians? Or the sympathy which Americans would immediately grant any other occupied people? Absent, needless to say. For we must gird ourselves for the next struggle against world evil in Pakistan. Biden actually demanded a "stable" government in Islamabad, which was a little bit hypocritical only a few days after US troops had crossed its sovereign border to shoot up a Pakistani house allegedly used by the Taliban. As General David Petraeus told The New York Times this week, "The trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction ... wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult." It's an odd situation. Obama and Biden want to close down Iraq and re-conquer Afghanistan. The Palin College of Clich?s characterised this as "a white flag of surrender in Iraq" while continuing to warn of the dangers of Iran, the name of whose loony president ? Ahmadinejad ? defeated McCain three times in last week's pseudo-debate. But it's the same old story. All we have learned in America these past two weeks, to quote Joan Littlewood's Oh! What a Lovely War, is that the war goes on. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisks-world-when-it-comes-to-palestine-and-israel-the-us-simply-doesnt-get-it-950812.html __._,_.___ Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9812 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081004/e1a24c0a/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081004/e1a24c0a/attachment.jpeg From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Oct 4 17:29:01 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:29:01 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Wall Street Meltdown Primer In-Reply-To: <6B44BBE9F4DB4B2181B9DBA67EEB9666@TonyPC> References: <6B44BBE9F4DB4B2181B9DBA67EEB9666@TonyPC> Message-ID: <48E7FC3D.4040304@attglobal.net> Very informative, Tony, thanks. Bill Tony B. wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony B. > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:50 PM > Subject: Wall Street Meltdown Primer > > > > Bello is mostly on here, though his accounting of the 1997 Asian > financial crisis may need some revision, i.e. There is substantial > evidence that the 'crisis' was a purely US state-manufactured one: The > Clinton Administration was demanding that Thailand and Indonesia fully > open their financial markets to US finance and capital sectors. When > they objected, Clinton's Commerce Secretary, Robert Rubin, instructed > America's giant hedge funds to launch a speculative attack on the Thai > baht. The devastation then spread to Indonesia and then South Korea. > Lesson learned. > > Tony > > > Published on Friday, September 26, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus > Wall Street Meltdown Primer > > by Walden Bello > > Many on Wall Street and the rest of us are still digesting the momentous > events of the last 10 days. Between one and three trillion dollars worth > of financial assets have evaporated. Wall Street has been effectively > nationalized. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are making > all the major strategic decisions in the financial sector and, with the > rescue of the American International Group (AIG), the U.S. government > now runs the world's biggest insurance company. At $700 billion, the > biggest bailout since the Great Depression is being desperately cobbled > together to save the global financial system. > > The usual explanations no longer suffice. Extraordinary events demand > extraordinary > explanations. But first... > > Is the worst over? > > No. If anything is clear from the contradictory moves of the last week - > allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse while taking over AIG, and > engineering Bank of America's takeover of Merrill Lynch - there's no > strategy to deal with the crisis, just tactical responses. It's like the > fire department's response to a conflagration. > > The $700 billion buyout of banks' bad mortgaged-backed securities is > mainly a desperate effort to shore up confidence in the system, > preventing the erosion of trust in the banks and other financial > institutions and avoiding a massive bank run such as the one that > triggered the Great Depression of 1929. > > Did greed cause the collapse of global capitalism's nerve center? > > Good old-fashioned greed certainly played a part. This is what Klaus > Schwab, the organizer of the World Economic Forum, the yearly global > elite jamboree in the Swiss Alps, meant when he said in an interview > earlier this year: "We have to pay for the sins of the past." > > Was this a case of Wall Street outsmarting itself? > > Definitely. Financial speculators outsmarted themselves by creating more > and more complex financial contracts like derivatives that would > securitize and make money from all forms of risk - including such exotic > futures instruments as "credit default swaps" that enable investors to > bet on the odds that the banks' own corporate borrowers would not be > able to pay their debts! This is the unregulated multi-trillion dollar > trade that brought down AIG. > > On December 17, 2005, when International Financing Review (IFR) > announced its 2005 Annual Awards - one of the securities industry's most > prestigious awards programs - it had this to say: "[Lehman Brothers] not > only maintained its overall market presence, but also led the charge > into the preferred space by...developing new products and tailoring > transactions to fit borrowers' needs...Lehman Brothers is the most > innovative in the preferred space, just doing things you won't see > elsewhere." > > No comment. > > Was it lack of regulation? > > Yes. Everyone acknowledges by now that Wall Street's capacity to > innovate and turn out more and more sophisticated financial instruments > had run far ahead of government's regulatory capability. This wasn't > because the government was incapable of regulating but because the > dominant neoliberal, laissez-faire attitude prevented government from > devising effective regulatory mechanisms. > > But isn't there something more that is happening? > > We're seeing the intensification of one of the central crises or > contradictions of global capitalism: the crisis of overproduction, also > known as overaccumulation or overcapacity. > > In other words, capitalism has a tendency to build up tremendous > productive capacity that outruns the population's capacity to consume > owing to social inequalities that limit popular purchasing power, thus > eroding profitability. > > But what does the crisis of overproduction have to do with recent events? > > Plenty. But to understand the connections, we must go back in time to > the so-called Golden Age of Contemporary Capitalism, the period from > 1945 to 1975. > This was a time of rapid growth both in the center economies and in the > underdeveloped economies - one that was partly triggered by the massive > reconstruction of Europe and East Asia after the devastation of World > War II, and partly by the new socio-economic arrangements > institutionalized under the new Keynesian state. Key among the latter > were strong state controls over market activity, aggressive use of > fiscal and monetary policy to minimize inflation and recession, and a > regime of relatively high wages to stimulate and maintain demand. > > So what went wrong? > > This period of high growth came to an end in the mid-1970s, when the > center economies were seized by stagflation, meaning the coexistence of > low growth with high inflation, which wasn't supposed to happen under > neoclassical economics. > > Stagflation, however, was but a symptom of a deeper cause: the > reconstruction of Germany and Japan and the rapid growth of > industrializing economies like Brazil, Taiwan, and South Korea added > tremendous new productive capacity and increased global competition. > Meanwhile social inequality within countries and between countries > globally limited the growth of purchasing power and demand, thus eroding > profitability. The massive increase in the price of oil aggravated this > trend in the 1970s. > > How did capitalism try to solve the crisis of overproduction? > > Capital tried three escape routes from the conundrum of overproduction: > neoliberal restructuring, globalization, and financialization. > > What was neoliberal restructuring all about? > > Neoliberal restructuring took the form of Reaganism and Thatcherism in > the North and structural adjustment in the South. The aim was to > invigorate capital accumulation, and this was to be done by 1) removing > state constraints on the growth, use, and flow of capital and wealth; > and 2) redistributing income from the poor and middle classes to the > rich on the theory that the rich would then be motivated to invest and > reignite economic growth. > > This formula redistributed income to the rich and gutted the incomes of > the poor and middle classes. It thus restricted demand while not > necessarily inducing the rich to invest more in production. > > In fact, neoliberal restructuring, which was generalized in the North > and South during the 1980s and 1990s, had a poor record in terms of > growth: global growth averaged 1.1% in the 1990s and 1.4% in the 1980s, > whereas it averaged 3.5% in the 1960s and 2.4% in the 1970s, when state > interventionist policies were dominant. Neoliberal restructuring > couldn't shake off stagnation. > > How was globalization a response to the crisis? > > The second escape route global capital took to counter stagnation was > "extensive accumulation" or globalization. This was the rapid > integration of semi-capitalist, non-capitalist, or precapitalist areas > into the global market economy. Rosa Luxemburg, the famous German > revolutionary economist, saw this long ago as necessary to shore up the > rate of profit in the metropolitan economies: by gaining access to cheap > labor, by gaining new, albeit limited, markets, by gaining new sources > of cheap agricultural and raw material products, and by bringing into > being new areas for investment in infrastructure. Integration is > accomplished via trade liberalization, removing barriers to the mobility > of global capital and abolishing barriers to foreign investment. > > China is, of course, the most prominent case of a non-capitalist area > that was integrated into the global capitalist economy over the last 25 > years. > > To counter their declining profits, many Fortune 500 corporations have > moved a significant part of their operations to China to take advantage > of the so-called "China Price" - the cost advantage of China's seemingly > inexhaustible cheap labor. By the middle of the first decade of the 21st > century, roughly 40-50% of the profits of U.S. corporations were derived > from their operations and sales abroad, especially China. > > Why didn't globalization surmount the crisis? > > This escape route from stagnation has exacerbated the problem of > overproduction because it adds to productive capacity. A tremendous > amount of manufacturing capacity has been added in China over the last > 25 years, and this has had a depressing effect on prices and profits. > Not surprisingly, by around 1997, the profits of U.S. corporations > stopped growing. According to one index, the profit rate of the Fortune > 500 went from 7.15% in 1960-69 to 5.3% in 1980-90 to 2.29% in 1990-99 to > 1.32% in 2000-2002. > > What about financialization? > > Given the limited gains in countering the depressive impact of > overproduction via neoliberal restructuring and globalization, the third > escape route became very critical for maintaining and raising > profitability: financialization. > > In the ideal world of neoclassical economics, the financial system is > the mechanism by which the savers or those with surplus funds are joined > with the entrepreneurs who have need of their funds to invest in > production. In the real world of late capitalism, with investment in > industry and agriculture yielding low profits owing to overcapacity, > large amounts of surplus funds are circulating and being invested and > reinvested in the financial sector. The financial sector has thus turned > on itself. > > The result is an increased bifurcation between a hyperactive financial > economy and a stagnant real economy. As one financial executive notes, > "there has been an increasing disconnect between the real and financial > economies in the last few years. The real economy has grown...but > nothing like that of the financial economy - until it imploded." > What this observer doesn't tell us is that the disconnect between the > real and the financial economy isn't accidental. The financial economy > has exploded precisely to make up for the stagnation owing to > overproduction of the real economy. > > What were the problems with financialization as an escape route? > > The problem with investing in financial sector operations is that it is > tantamount to squeezing value out of already created value. It may > create profit, yes, but it doesn't create new value. Only industry, > agricultural, trade, and services create new value. Because profit is > not based on value that is created, investment operations become very > volatile and the prices of stocks, bonds, and other forms of investment > can depart very radically from their real value. For instance, in the > 1990s, prices of stock in Internet startups skyrocketed, driven mainly > by upwardly spiraling financial valuations rooted in theoretical > expectations of future profitability. Share prices crashed in 2000 and > 2001 when this strategy got completely out of hand. Profits then depend > on taking advantage of upward price departures from the value of > commodities, then selling before reality enforces a "correction." > Corrections are really a return to more realistic values. The radical > rise of asset prices far beyond any credible value is what what fosters > financial bubbles. > > Why is financialization so volatile? > > With profitability depending on speculative coups, it's not surprising > that the finance sector lurches from one bubble to another, or from one > speculative mania to another. > And because it's driven by speculative mania, finance-driven capitalism > has experienced scores of financial crises since capital markets were > deregulated and liberalized in the 1980s. > > Prior to the current Wall Street meltdown, the most explosive of these > were the string of emerging markets crises and the U.S.tech stock > bubble's implosion in 2000 and 2001. The emerging markets crises > primarily included the Mexican financial crisis of 1994-95, the Asian > financial crisis of 1997-1998, the Russian financial crisis in 1998, and > the Argentine financial collapse that occurred in 2001 and 2002, but > they also rocked other countries including Brazil and Turkey. > > One of President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretaries, Wall Streeter > Robert Rubin, predicted five years ago that "future financial crises are > almost surely inevitable and could be even more severe." > > How do bubbles form, grow, and burst? > > Let's first use the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, as an example. > First, capital account and financial liberalization took place Thailand > and other countries at the urging of the International Monetary Fund > (IMF) and the U.S. Treasury Department. Then came the entry of foreign > funds seeking quick and high returns, meaning they went to real estate > and the stock market. This overinvestment made stock and real estate > prices fall, leading to the panicked withdrawal of funds. In 1997, $100 > billion fled the East Asian economies over the course of just a few weeks. > > That capital flight led to an IMF bailout of foreign speculators. The > resulting collapse of the real economy produced a recession throughout > East Asia in 1998. Despite massive destabilization, international > financial institutions opposed efforts to impose both national and > global regulation of financial system on ideological grounds. > > What about the current bubble? How did it form? > > The current Wall Street collapse has its roots in the technology-stock > bubble of the late 1990s, when the price of the stocks of Internet > startups skyrocketed, then collapsed in 2000 and 2001, resulting in the > loss of $7 trillion worth of assets and the recession of 2001-2002. > > The Fed's loose money policies under Alan Greenspan encouraged the > technology bubble. When it collapsed into a recession, Greenspan, to try > to counter a long recession, cut the prime rate to a 45-year low of one > percent in June 2003 and kept it there for over a year. This had the > effect of encouraging another bubble - in real estate. > > As early as 2002, progressive economists such as Dean Baker of the > Center for Economic Policy Research were warning about the real estate > bubble and the predictable severity of its impending collapse. However, > as late as 2005, then-Council of Economic Adviser Chairman and now > Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke attributed the rise in U.S. > housing prices to "strong economic fundamentals" instead of speculative > activity. Is it any wonder that he was caught completely off guard when > the subprime mortgage crisis broke in the summer of 2007? > > And how did it grow? > > According to investor and philanthropist George Soros: "Mortgage > institutions encouraged mortgage holders to refinance their mortgages > and withdraw their excess equity. They lowered their lending standards > and introduced new products, such as adjustable mortgages (ARMs), > 'interest-only' mortgages, and promotional teaser rates." All this > encouraged speculation in residential housing units. House prices > started to rise in double-digit rates. This served to reinforce > speculation, and the rise in house prices made the owners feel rich; the > result was a consumption boom that has sustained the economy in recent > years." > > The subprime mortgage crisis wasn't a case of supply outrunning real > demand. The "demand" was largely fabricated by speculative mania on the > part of developers and financiers that wanted to make great profits from > their access to foreign money that has flooded the United States in the > last decade. Big-ticket mortgages were aggressively sold to millions who > could not normally afford them by offering low "teaser" interest rates > that would later be readjusted to jack up payments from the new homeowners. > > But how could subprime mortgages going sour turn into such a big problem? > > Because these assets were then "securitized" with other assets into > complex derivative products called "collateralized debt obligations" > (CDOs). The mortgage originators worked with different layers of > middlemen who understated risk so as to offload them as quickly as > possible to other banks and institutional investors. These institutions > in turn offloaded these securities onto other banks and foreign > financial institutions. > > When the interest rates were raised on the subprime loans, adjustable > mortgage, and other housing loans, the game was up. There are about six > million subprime mortgages outstanding, 40% of which will likely go into > default in the next two years, Soros estimates. > > And five million more defaults from adjustable rate mortgages and other > "flexible loans" will occur over the next several years. These > securities, the value of which run into the trillions of dollars, have > already been injected, like virus, into the global financial system. > > But how could Wall Street titans collapse like a house of cards? > > For Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear > Stearns, the losses represented by these toxic securities simply > overwhelmed their reserves and brought them down. And more are likely to > fall once their books - since lots of these holdings are recorded "off > the balance sheet" - are corrected to reflect their actual holdings. > > And many others will join them as other speculative operations such as > credit cards and different varieties of risk insurance seize up. The > American International Group (AIG) was felled by its massive exposure in > the unregulated area of credit default swaps, derivatives that make it > possible for investors to bet on the possibility that companies will > default on repaying loans. According to Soros, such bets on credit > defaults now make up a $45 trillion market that is entirely unregulated. > It amounts to more than five times the total of the U.S. government bond > market. The huge size of the assets that could go bad if AIG collapsed > made Washington change its mind and intervene after it let Lehman > Brothers collapse. > > What's going to happen now? > > There will be more bankruptcies and government takeovers. Wall Street's > collapse will deepen and prolong the U.S. recession. This recession will > translate into an Asian recession. After all, China's main foreign > market is the United States, and China in turn imports raw materials and > intermediate goods that it uses for its U.S. exports from Japan, Korea, > and Southeast Asia. Globalization has made "decoupling" impossible. The > United States, China, and East Asia in general are like three prisoners > bound together in a chain-gang. > > In a nutshell...? > > The Wall Street meltdown is not only due to greed and to the lack of > government regulation of a hyperactive sector. This collapse stems > ultimately from the crisis of overproduction that has plagued global > capitalism since the mid-1970s. > > The financialization of investment activity has been one of the escape > routes from stagnation, the other two being neoliberal restructuring and > globalization. With neoliberal restructuring and globalization providing > limited relief, financialization became attractive as a mechanism to > shore up profitability. But financialization has proven to be a > dangerous road. It has led to speculative bubbles that produce temporary > prosperity for a few but ultimately end up in corporate collapse and in > recession in the real economy. > > The key questions now are: How deep and long will this recession be? > Does the U.S. economy need another speculative bubble to drag itself out > of this recession? And if it does, where will the next bubble form? Some > people say the military-industrial complex or the "disaster capitalism > complex" that Naomi Klein writes about will be the next bubble. But > that's another story. > > Copyright ? 2008, Institute for Policy Studies > > > From nscchicago at igc.org Sun Oct 5 00:13:27 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:13:27 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Chomsky Views Latin American Unity & the Bailout Message-ID: <005701c926b1$828d1240$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> From: Roberto Vargas Subject: Chomsky Views Latin American Unity & the Bailout Folks, excellent article by Noam Chomsky on the HEIGHTENED efforts in America Latina to unite socially, economically!/ Gracias a Chavez for leading the way!! saludos/Roberto Vargas VII Social Summit for the Latin American & Caribbean Unity By Noam Chomsky ZMagazine Septmber 30, 2008 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18958 CARACAS During the past decade, Latin America has become the most exciting region of the world. The dynamic has very largely flowed from right where you are meeting, in Caracas, with the election of a leftist president dedicated to using Venezuela's rich resources for the benefit of the population rather than for wealth and privilege at home and abroad, and to promote the regional integration that is so desperately needed as a prerequisite for independence, for democracy, and for meaningful development. The initiatives taken in Venezuela have had a significant impact throughout the subcontinent, what has now come to be called "the pink tide." The impact is revealed within the individual countries, most recently Paraguay, and in the regional institutions that are in the process of formation. Among these are the Banco del Sur, an initiative that was endorsed here in Caracas a year ago by Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz; and the ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean, which might prove to be a true dawn if its initial promise can be realized. The ALBA is often described as an alternative to the US-sponsored "Free Trade Area of the Americas," though the terms are misleading. It should be understood to be an independent development, not an alternative. And, furthermore, the so-called "free trade agreements" have only a limited relation to free trade, or even to trade in any serious sense of that term; and they are certainly not agreements, at least if people are part of their countries. A more accurate term would be "investor-rights arrangements," designed by multinational corporations and banks and the powerful states that cater to their interests, established mostly in secret, without public participation or awareness. That is why the US executive regularly calls for "fast-track authority" for these agreements - essentially, Kremlin-style authority. Another regional organization that is beginning to take shape is UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations. This continental bloc, modeled on the European Union, aims to establish a South American parliament in Cochabamba, a fitting site for the UNASUR parliament. Cochabamba was not well known internationally before the water wars of 2000. But in that year events in Cochabamba became an inspiration for people throughout the world who are concerned with freedom and justice, as a result of the courageous and successful struggle against privatization of water, which awakened international solidarity and was a fine and encouraging demonstration of what can be achieved by committed activism. The aftermath has been even more remarkable. Inspired in part by developments in Venezuela, Bolivia has forged an impressive path to true democratization in the hemisphere, with large-scale popular initiatives and meaningful participation of the organized majority of the population in establishing a government and shaping its programs on issues of great importance and popular concern, an ideal that is rarely approached elsewhere, surely not in the Colossus of the North, despite much inflated rhetoric by doctrinal managers. Much the same had been true 15 years earlier in Haiti, the only country in the hemisphere that surpasses Bolivia in poverty - and like Bolivia, was the source of much of the wealth of Europe, later the United States. In 1990, Haiti's first free election took place. It was taken for granted in the West that the US candidate, a former World Bank official who monopolized resources, would easily win. No one was paying attention to the extensive grass-roots organizing in the slums and hills, which swept into power the populist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Washington turned at once to undermining the feared and hated democratic government. It took only a few months for a US-backed military coup to reverse this stunning victory for democracy, and to place in power a regime that terrorized the population with the direct support of the US government, first under president Bush I, then Clinton. Washington finally permitted the elected president to return, but only on the condition that he adhere to harsh neoliberal rules that were guaranteed to crush what remained of the economy, as they did. And in 2004, the traditional torturers of Haiti, France and the US, joined to remove the elected president from office once again, launching a new regime of terror, though the people remain unvanquished, and the popular struggle continues despite extreme adversity. All of this is familiar in Latin America, not least in Bolivia, the scene of today's most intense and dangerous confrontation between popular democracy and traditional US-backed elites. Archaeologists are now discovering that before the European conquest, Bolivia had a wealthy, sophisticated and complex society - to quote their words, "one of the largest, strangest, and most ecologically rich artificial environments on the face of the planet, with causeways and canals, spacious and formal towns and considerable wealth," creating a landscape that was "one of humankind's greatest works of art, a masterpiece." And of course Bolivia's vast mineral wealth enriched Spain and indirectly northern Europe, contributing massively to its economic and cultural development, including the industrial and scientific revolutions. Then followed a bitter history of imperial savagery with the crucial connivance of rapacious domestic elites, factors that are very much alive today. Sixty years ago, US planners regarded Bolivia and Guatemala as the greatest threats to its domination of the hemisphere. In both cases, Washington succeeded in overthrowing the popular governments, but in different ways. In Guatemala, Washington resorted to the standard technique of violence, installing one of the world's most brutal and vicious regimes, which extended its criminality to virtual genocide in the highlands during Reagan's murderous terrorist wars of the 1980s - and we might bear in mind that these horrendous atrocities were carried out under the guise of a "war on terror," a war that was re-declared by George Bush in September 2001, not declared, a revealing distinction when we recall the implementation of Reagan's "war on terror" and its grim human consequences. In Guatemala, the Eisenhower administration overcame the threat of democracy and independent development by violence. In Bolivia, it achieved much the same results by exploiting Bolivia's economic dependence on the US, particularly for processing Bolivia's tin exports. Latin America scholar Stephen Zunes points out that "At a critical point in the nation's effort to become more self-sufficient [in the early 1950s], the U.S. government forced Bolivia to use its scarce capital not for its own development, but to compensate the former mine owners and repay its foreign debts." The economic policies forced on Bolivia in those years were a precursor of the structural adjustment programs imposed on the continent thirty years later, under the terms of the neoliberal "Washington consensus," which has generally had disastrous effects wherever its strictures have been observed. By now, the victims of neoliberal market fundamentalism are coming to include the rich countries, where the curse of financial liberalization is bringing about the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and leading to massive state intervention in a desperate effort to rescue collapsing financial institutions. We should note that this is a regular feature of contemporary state capitalism, though the scale today is unprecedented. A study by two well-known international economists 15 years ago found that at least twenty companies in the top Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses." Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries," they conclude from a detailed analysis. [Ruigrok and von Tulder] We might also take note of the striking similarity between the structural adjustment programs imposed on the weak by the International Monetary Fund, and the huge financial bailout that is on the front pages today in the North. The US executive-director of the IMF, adopt ing an image from the Mafia, described the institution as "the credit community's enforcer." Under the rules of the Western-run international economy, investors make loans to third world tyrannies, and since the loans carry considerable risk, make enormous profits. Suppose the borrower defaults. In a capitalist economy, the lenders would incur the loss. But really existing capitalism functions quite differently. If the borrowers cannot pay the debts, then the IMF steps in to guarantee that lenders and investors are protected. The debt is transferred to the poor population of the debtor country, who never borrowed the money in the first place and gained little if anything from it. That is called "structural adjustment." And taxpayers in the rich country, who also gained nothing from the loans, sustain the IMF through their taxes. These doctrines do not derive from economic theory; they merely reflect the distribution of decision-making power. The designers of the international economy sternly demand that the poor accept market discipline, but they ensure that they themselves are protected from its ravages, a useful arrangement that goes back to the origins of modern industrial capitalism, and played a large role in dividing the world into rich and poor societies, the first and third worlds. This wonderful anti-market system designed by self- proclaimed market enthusiasts is now being implemented in the United States, to deal with the very ominous crisis of financial markets. In general, markets have well-known inefficiencies. One is that transactions do not take into account the effect on others who are not party to the transaction. These so-called "externalities" can be huge. That is particularly so in the case of financial institutions. Their task is to take risks, and if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses to themselves will be covered. To themselves. Under capitalist rules, it is not their business to consider the cost to others if their practices lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do. In economists' terms, risk is underpriced, because systemic risk is not priced into decisions. That leads to repeated crisis, naturally. At that point, we turn to the IMF solution. The costs are transferred to the public, which had nothing to do with the risky choices but is now compelled to pay the costs - in the US, perhaps mounting to about $1 trillion right now. And of course the public has no voice in determining these outcomes, any more than poor peasants have a voice in being subjected to cruel structural adjustment programs. A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that cost and risk are socialized, while profit is privatized. That principle extends far beyond financial institutions. Much the same is true for the entire advanced economy, which relies extensively on the dynamic state sector for innovation, for basic research and development, for procurement when purchasers are unavailable, for direct bail-outs, and in numerous other ways. These mechanisms are the domestic counterpart of imperial and neocolonial hegemony, formalized in World Trade Organization rules and the misleadingly named "free trade agreements." Financial liberalization has effects well beyond the economy. It has long been understood that it is a powerful weapon against democracy Free capital movement creates what some international economists have called a "virtual parliament" of investors and lenders, who can closely monitor government programs and "vote" against them if they are considered irrational: for the benefit of people, rather than concentrated private power. They can "vote" by capital flight, attacks on currencies, and other devices offered by financial liberalization. That is one reason why the Bretton Woods system established by the US and UK after World War II instituted capital controls and regulated currencies. The Great Depression and the war had aroused powerful radical democratic currents, taking many forms, from the anti-fascist resistance to working class organization. These pressures made it necessary to permit social democratic policies. The Bretton Woods system was designed in part to create a space for government action responding to public will - for some measure of democracy, that is. John Maynard Keynes, the British negotiator, considered the most important achievement of Bretton Woods to be establishment of the right of governments to restrict capital movement. In dramatic contrast, in the neoliberal phase after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, the US Treasury now regards free capital mobility as a "fundamental right," unlike such alleged "rights" as those guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: health, education, decent employment, security, and other rights that the Reagan and Bush administrations have dismissed as "letters to Santa Claus," "preposterous," mere "myths." In earlier years the public had not been much of a problem. The reasons are reviewed by Barry Eichengreen in his standard scholarly history of the international monetary system. He explains that in the 19th century, governments had not yet been "politicized by universal male suffrage and the rise of trade unionism and parliamentary labor parties." Therefore the severe costs imposed by the virtual parliament could be transferred to the general population. But with the radicalization of the general public during the Great Depression and the anti-fascist war, that luxury was no longer available to private power and wealth. Hence in the Bretton Woods system, "limits on capital mobility substituted for limits on democracy as a source of insulation from market pressures." It is only necessary to add the obvious corollary: with the dismantling of the system from the 1970s, functioning democracy is restricted. It has therefore become necessary to control and marginalize the public in some fashion, processes that are particularly evident in the more business-run societies like the United States. The management of electoral extravaganzas by the Public Relations industry is one illustration. The primary victims of military terror and economic strangulation are the poor and weak, within the rich countries themselves and far more brutally in the South. But times are changing. In Venezuela, in Bolivia, and elsewhere there are promising efforts to bring about desperately needed structural and institutional changes. And not surprisingly, these efforts to promote democracy, social justice, and cultural rights are facing harsh challenges from the traditional rulers, at home and internationally. For the first time in half a millennium, South America is beginning to take its fate into its own hands. There have been attempts before, but they have been crushed by outside force, as in the cases I just mentioned and other hideous ones too numerous and too familiar to review. But there are now significant departures from a long and shameful history. The departures are symbolized by the UNASUR crisis summit in Santiago just a few days ago. At the summit, the presidents of the South American countries issued a strong statement of support for the elected Morales government, which as you know is under attack by the traditional rulers: privileged Europeanized elites who bitterly oppose Bolivian democracy and social justice and, routinely, enjoy the firm backing of the master of the hemisphere. The South American leaders gathering at the UNASUR summit in Santiago declared "their full and firm support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales, whose mandate was ratified by a big majority" -- referring, of course, to his overwhelming victory in the recent referendum. Morales thanked UNASUR for its support, observing that "For the first time in South America's history, the countries of our region are deciding how to resolve our problems, without the presence of the United States." A matter of no slight significance. The significance of the UNASUR support for democracy in Bolivia is underscored by the fact that the leading media in the US refused to report it, though editors and correspondents surely knew all about it. Ample information was available to them on wire services. That has been a familiar pattern. To cite just one of many examples, the Cochabamba declaration of South American leaders in December 2006, calling for moves towards integration on the model of the European Union, was barred from the Free Press in the traditional ruler of the hemisphere. There are many other cases, all illustrating the same fear among the political class and economic centers in the US that the hemisphere is slipping from their control. Current developments in South America are of historic significance for the continent and its people. It is well understood in Washington that these developments threaten not only its domination of the hemisphere, but also its global dominance. Control of Latin America was the earliest goal of US foreign policy, tracing back to the earliest days of the Republic. The United States is, I suppose, the only country that was founded as a "nascent empire," in George Washington's words. The most libertarian of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, predicted that the newly liberated colonies would drive the indigenous population "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains," and the country will ultimately be "free of blot or mixture," red or black (with the return of slaves to Africa after eventual ending of slavery). And furthermore, it "will be the nest, from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled," displacing not only the red men but the Latin population of the South. These aspirations were not achieved, but control of Latin America remains a central policy goal, partly for resources and markets, but also for broader ideological and geostrategic reasons. If the US cannot control Latin America, it cannot expect "to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world," Nixon's National Security Council concluded in 1971 while considering the paramount importance of destroying Chilean democracy. Historian David Schmitz observes that Allende "threatened American global interests by challenging the whole ideological basis of American Cold War policy. It was the threat of a successful socialist state in Chile that could provide a model for other nations that caused concern and led to American opposition," in fact direct participation in establishing and maintaining the terrorist dictatorship. Henry Kissinger warned that success for democratic socialism in Chile might have reverberations as far as southern Europe - not because Chilean hordes would descend on Madrid and Rome, but because success might inspire popular movements to achieve their goals by means of parliamentary democracy, which is upheld as an abstract value in the West, but with crucial reservations. Even mainstream scholarship recognizes that Washington has supported democracy if and only if it contributes to strategic and economic interests, a policy that continues without change through all administrations, to the present. These pervasive concerns are the rational form of the domino theory, sometimes more accurately called "the threat of a good example." For such reasons, even the tiniest departure from strict obedience is regarded as an existential threat that calls for a harsh response: peasant organizing in remote communities of northern Laos, fishing cooperatives in Grenada, and so on throughout the world. It is necessary to ensure that the "virus" of successful independent development does not "spread contagion" elsewhere, in the terminology of the highest level planners. Such concerns have motivated US military intervention, terrorism, and economic warfare throughout the post- World War II era, in Latin America and throughout much of the world. These are leading features of the Cold War. The superpower confrontation regularly provided pretexts, mostly fraudulent, much as the junior partner in world control appealed to the threat of the West when it crushed popular uprisings in its much narrower Eastern European domains. But times are changing. In Latin America, the source is primarily in moves towards integration, which has several dimensions. One dimension of integration is regional: moves to strengthen ties among the South American countries of the kind I mentioned. These are now just beginning to reach to Central America, which was so utterly devastated by Reagan's terror wars that it had mostly stayed on the sidelines since, but is now beginning to move. Of particular significance are recent developments in Honduras, the classic "banana republic" and Washington's major base for its terrorist wars in the region in the 1980s. Washington's Ambassador to Honduras, John Negroponte, was one of the leading terrorist commanders of the period, and accordingly was appointed head of counter-terrorist operations by the Bush administration, a choice eliciting no comment. But here too times are changing. President Zelaya declared that US aid does not "make us vassals" or give Washington the right to humiliate the nation, and has improved ties with Venezuela, joining Petrocaribe, and in July, joining the Alba as well. Regional integration of the kind that has been slowly proceeding for several years is a crucial prerequisite for independence, making it more difficult for the master of the hemisphere to pick off countries one by one. For that reason it is causing considerable distress in Washington, and is either ignored or regularly distorted in the media and other elite commentary. A second form of integration is global: the establishment of South-South relations, and the diversification of markets and investment, with China a growing and particularly significant participant in hemispheric affairs. Again, these developments undercut Washington's ability to control what Secretary of War Henry Stimson called "our little region over here" at the end of World War II, when he was explaining that other regional systems must be dismantled, while our own must be strengthened. The third and in many ways most vital form of integration is internal. Latin America is notorious for its extreme concentration of wealth and power, and the lack of responsibility of privileged elites for the welfare of the nation. It is instructive to compare Latin America with East Asia. Half a century ago, South Korea was at the level of a poor African country. Today it is an industrial powerhouse. And much the same is true throughout East Asia. The contrast to Latin America is dramatic, particularly so because Latin America has far superior natural advantages. The reasons for the dramatic contrast are not hard to identify. For 30 years Latin America has rigorously observed the rules of the Washington consensus, while East Asia has largely ignored them. Latin American elites separated themselves from the fate of their countries, while their East Asian counterparts were compelled to assume responsibilities. One measure is capital flight: in Latin America, it is on the scale of the crushing debt, while in South Korea it was so carefully controlled that it could bring the death penalty. More generally, East Asia adopted the modes of development that had enabled the wealthy countries to reach their current state, while Latin America adhered to the market principles that were imposed on the colonies and largely created the third world, blocking development. Furthermore, needless to say, development of the East Asian style is hardly a model to which Latin America, or any other region, should aspire. The serious problems of developing truly democratic societies, based on popular control of all social, economic, political and cultural institutions, and overturning structures of hierarchy and domination in all aspects of life, are barely even on the horizon, posing formidable and essential tasks for the future. These are huge problems within Latin America. They are beginning to be addressed, though haltingly, with many internal difficulties. And they are, of course, arousing bitter antagonism on the part of traditional sectors of power and privilege, again backed by the traditional master of "our little region over here." The struggle is particularly intense and significant right now in Bolivia, but in fact is constant in one or another form throughout the hemisphere. The problems of Latin America and the Caribbean have global roots, and have to be addressed by regional and global solidarity along with internal struggle. The growth of the social forums, first in South America, now elsewhere, has been one of the most encouraging steps forward in recent years. These developments may bear the seeds of the first authentic international, heralding an era of true globalization - international integration in the interests of people, not investors and other concentrations of power. You are right at the heart of these dramatic developments, an exciting opportunity, a difficult challenge, a responsibility of historic proportions. _____________________________________________ Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it. Submit via email: moderator at portside.org Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe Account assistance: portside.org/contact Search the archives: portside.org/archive -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 29811 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081005/e598d3e3/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081005/e598d3e3/attachment-0001.jpeg From sabri_oncu at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 02:23:01 2008 From: sabri_oncu at yahoo.com (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz Message-ID: <21171.39526.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Yoshie on Nouriel and depression: > Then, a great depression is a distinct possibility > based on his own logic. You are right, but Nouriel cannot say that, since if he does, he would ruin his career, whereas I don't care. What is there to ruin for me? Best, Sabri From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 08:07:55 2008 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:07:55 -0300 Subject: [A-List] [Spanish] Not a FAILURE but a VICTO RY of "the market" Message-ID: <2fa158550810050707r2bb41305pef1a5a72a6b5e541@mail.gmail.com> This is quite interesting, particularly for USAmericans and those trying to use the current situation with a socialist end in mind. The comrade below argues that the whole crisis is anything BUT a failure of the market. It is a VICTORY of the market. And as such it should be understood, which means in the end that THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET HAS FOR ALL OF US AND EVERYONE SO WE SHOULD MOVE TO GREENER PASTURES AND IT IS NOT TOO EARLY FOR THAT. Few words, clear concepts. Conclusions may (may?) be debatable, but I think that anyone interested in giving a clear idea of what is taking place in the USAmerican economy today can profit from what follows El 4/10/08, Ezequiel Beer escribi?: > > > > > > > > > > El ciento por ciento de los economistas vulgares se ha anotado en la lista > de los que dicen que la crisis en curso es una prueba del fracaso del > mercado. Se nota que no entendieron ni entender?n nada, porque ha ocurrido > lo contrario: el mercado se ha impuesto en toda la l?nea. En efecto, los > precios inflados de los activos acumulados durante el proceso ascendente de > la especulaci?n no correspond?an a los valores reales de los bienes que > dec?an representar como un contravalor. Bast? que alg?n deudor hipotecario > manifestara su incapacidad para pagar las cuentas onerosas que le hab?an > impuesto, para que el precio de esas hipotecas y de los t?tulos que se > emitieron en su nombre se fueran al piso. Hab?a un enorme capital que era > ficticio - que se hab?a valorizado m?s all? del valor real que reclamaba > representar. Cuando fue forzado a verificar su valor real en el mercado, ese > capital descubri? que lo cotizaban a la tercera parte de lo que dec?an sus > libros. > > La victoria del mercado es tan aplastante que el Estado interviene para > evitar que ese ajuste entre el capital ficticio y el capital real se haga > efectivo. De este modo, sin embargo, bloquea la salida a la crisis, que > depende de que los valores inscriptos se conviertan en valores reales. Esto > ocurrir?a, por ejemplo, si se descontara el 70% de los valores comprometidos > y las casas y sus hipotecas pasaran a valer 30 centavos de su valor > unitario. Los deudores podr?an pagar de este modo las deudas a costa, > naturalmente, de una enorme p?rdida de capital (ficticio) de los acreedores. > Claro que esto provocar?a un enorme reflujo de capital y una depresi?n de la > econom?a. Para evitarlo, el Estado deber?a expropiar a los capitalistas > (acreedores) y, concentrando los recursos de la econom?a, reiniciar un > proceso econ?mico sobre nuevas bases. Esa intervenci?n estatal tendr?a un > car?cter revolucionario. > > Pero si el mercado le ha recordado a las fuerzas productivas que se han > desarrollado en forma capitalista, que han ido m?s all? de sus propios > l?mites y que han generado un enorme capital ficticio, esto significa que la > organizaci?n social que se regula por medio del mercado ha cumplido su > tiempo ?til y que es un freno para el desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas. > El mercado capitalista, como forma hist?rica de organizaci?n social, > demuestra que ha llegado a su l?mite en el momento en que, precisamente, se > impone bajo la forma violenta del estallido econ?mico. > > El capital ha tratado, en toda su historia, de superar esas limitaciones del > mercado. El intervencionismo estatal ha sido uno de sus instrumentos. Pero > este intervencionismo estall? en las crisis de la d?cada del '70 y dio pas? > a otra clase de intervenci?n estatal, que se puede resumir en la > privatizaci?n en gran escala de todos los patrimonios p?blicos y de las > formas no capitalistas de producci?n (por ejemplo, la conversi?n en > asalariados de las profesiones liberales). La crisis actual es por lo tanto > una crisis de escala superior, porque sintetiza y hace estallar las > tentativas de salida precedentes: la del estatismo capitalista y la de la > privatizaci?n capitalista. > -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From michael.hudson at earthlink.net Sun Oct 5 08:11:16 2008 From: michael.hudson at earthlink.net (Michael Hudson) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:11:16 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz In-Reply-To: <21171.39526.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sabri has hit the nail on the head. Same with me. We're free to say what we think. People on Wall St and abroad don't want to hear the truth, but a fiction that helps promote their job (selling science fiction optimism about a happy parallel universe). It USED to be that they'd have an in-house realist, not for public consumption. (I played this role at Chase.) No more, I'm afraid. Michael On 10/5/08 4:23 AM, "Sabri Oncu" wrote: > Yoshie on Nouriel and depression: > >> Then, a great depression is a distinct possibility >> based on his own logic. > > You are right, but Nouriel cannot say that, since if he does, > he would ruin his career, whereas I don't care. What is there > to ruin for me? > > Best, > Sabri > > > > > > > > From nmgoro at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 10:09:55 2008 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:09:55 -0300 Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz In-Reply-To: References: <21171.39526.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2fa158550810050909o73c463c1v15d6e00424562290@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/5, Michael Hudson : > People on Wall St and abroad don't want to hear the truth, but a > fiction that helps promote their job (selling science fiction optimism about > a happy parallel universe). > It USED to be that they'd have an in-house realist, not for public > consumption. (I played this role at Chase.) No more, I'm afraid. > Are they doomed, then? This is the logical conclusion, Michael. Would you add your signature to a "Yes" anser to this question? -- N?stor Gorojovsky El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sun Oct 5 11:30:39 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:30:39 -0500 Subject: [A-List] [Spanish] Not a FAILURE but a VICTO RY of "the market" References: <2fa158550810050707r2bb41305pef1a5a72a6b5e541@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48E8F9BF.A99BF009@ilstu.edu> Any given caoutakust 'moment' or capitalist regime may go down in ruins but that does not touch capitalism itself. Capitalism as such will NEVER SELF-DESTRUCT (except perhaps in the sense of triggering an irreversible global warming and mass species extinction). It will ALWAYS rise from its own ashes. The only way to _replace_ capitalism is through a socialist revolution. If you don't hit it it won't fall, though it may take us all back to the stone age. Carrol From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sun Oct 5 08:20:12 2008 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:20:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN When Internet "Luv" Comes to Town Message-ID: <012757ac$39726$0cdc4306925926@your-6904db8205> WHEN INTERNET ?LUV? COMES TO TOWN - VULNERABLE PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE MNN. Oct. 6, 2008. We?ve come to realize that this whole ?love? scamming business on the internet is being studied and schemed by agents of the elite thugs. One category is the ?player? and the ?target?. ?Players? are predators of other human beings. They operate from their own unwritten "con manual" on how to carefully "profile" their targets, move in and get what they want. Intelligence agencies have scientifically studied this and converted it into internet relationships which lead to a map of how to subvert individuals and communities. The players have determined that there are basic personality types and traits of the targets, along with age, physical appearance, ethnicity, culture, income, etc. From this a player develops models of their targets, how they can play them and how they are likely to behave. A player learns how to spot these people when he enters a room like a bar or an internet ?chat room?. We are not denying that genuine relationships have developed on the net. Players with an agenda now do a lot of their hunting on the ?net? where they hide and reveal only what they want. Through high tech social networks in emails and correspondence they can make up any scenario the target is looking for. When they can?t get near the intended target, they go for someone close or on the periphery. Women in Western society are basically not liberated. They are mentally oppressed and lack self-esteem. This conditions them to feed into the lucrative cosmetic, fashion, self-help and image improvement industries. Women are conditioned to be compliant in male-female relationships which makes them vulnerable. This is just what the players want. Some players are looking for money and maybe a specific type of relationship. For example, women over 30 could be getting desperate to marry and are more likely to have some money saved up. They are often generous, want to please and crave attention. Socially excluded women are especially targeted when money is the main goal. Their self-esteem is often low. They are vulnerable to flattery and attention. If the player is presentable and overstates their credentials [and can?t prove them] and goes after a lonely, marginalized, unworldly, na?ve woman, he may be ?playing? the target. They know how to play out the dream using the target?s energy that they?ve carefully studied. After a short high powered internet romance, they meet. Friends and family usually can see through the player and try to warn the affected person, to no avail. The vulnerable party has been charmed, put into an enchanted state and can?t see the duplicity or danger. We hear stories about how creeps entice under-aged kids on the net. We need to protect them. The predator drives into town in a nice expensive vehicle, not a big old rusted ?pow wow? car with a supped-up sound system. The target sees nothing but wonderful qualities built up in their besotted imagination. For the players it's an energy field to be manipulated. They play into their victims' fantasies and act out what the target is seeking. Sometimes love is mutual and real in these ?Harmony.com? romances. For some being ?in love? is like a state of intoxication. Having sex can cause a euphoric and non-analytical state of mind. It opens a person up to being manipulated by a predator. Intelligence agents have different priorities but use the same strategies. They can work the target up to a point of defrauding them of their assets, gathering information or controlling or compromising their lives for monetary, political or military purposes. Since the days of ?Cointelpro? [U.S. Counter Intelligence Program], intelligence agents have been trained to infiltrate groups, movements and communities. They play roles developed by psychologists with considerable insight into human behavior. They recruit agents in the target communities to work with them. When an intelligence agent/player/predator is trying to infiltrate a movement, they will set their sights on the leaders, the outspoken ones and the passionate youth. If they cannot directly access their target, they go after their associates, even the family. Agents have been known to go all the way with their targets, even marrying and having children with them on long term assignments. Players and agents have personality profiles too. Primarily everybody says he is a "nice guy" and too good to be true! The clean cut one with a pleasant smile and a charming manner with the ladies is the better type. The surly scruffy types do not make good players except in other circumstances. Some women like their men wild and wooly! Their handlers realize that they have to take their agents, put them in dirty blue jeans and drag them up and down the road for a bit for some assignments. Intelligence agencies hire people to do this kind of work regardless of criminal record and background. They go after a personality type and then train them. After a while the player goes into the "poor me" syndrome as though everyone treated them badly, especially an ex-spouse. There are usually gaps in their personal history, things they don?t want to talk about or periods of time they can't or won?t explain. Some players can lead 2 or more lives in different places. Here are some traits of the ?player?: 1. They are charismatic, or at least charming; 2. They often have insider connections. They arrive informed as a result of their training and studying the profile of the target or community. 3. They situate themselves deep into the community. They show no fear of the law and its consequences because they are protected. They set up innocent people in compromising positions and entrap them into situations they can?t back out of. 4. They come into the community in many different ways like working in Indigenous businesses. These mysteriously begin to fall apart. Then the player is gone. In the end we are discredited. 5. They support any position in the community so long as they can get on the inside to exploit, escalate or heighten the outsiders? agenda. They subtly bait the person or group into confusion and chaos. It can be either short or long term. Then they disappear. Intelligence agencies use these strategies to sidetrack us and any legitimate social movements into dead ends, disinformation and wasted time. They gain the confidence of their target. They try to exploit human weaknesses like greed, dishonesty, and vanity, but also virtues like honesty, compassion or a na?ve expectation of good faith. Some drift into a community purporting to be ?Indian? or even former members of the American Indian Movement. Our so-called vulnerability goes back to how we treat animals that are part of our natural world since time immemorial. We Indigenous never domesticated them. There was a natural cycle of dependency on each other. We did not kill the young. This symbiotic relationship changed when the invaders came and started killing us and penning us up. The animals became afraid of human beings which they had never been before. Victimization is possible because of the imbalance that has been created between us and our environment which is supposed to be dependent on physical attraction as part of our natural world. This is being displaced. Colonists have developed controls over their domestic animals which they use as weapons to sic on their victims. To protect oneself is to know oneself. Players and agents have studied our vulnerabilities and will move in on the weak flank. So keep it covered. Stand as an equal in a relationship. Go to people in your life that you trust and respect. It could be your brother, your mom or your close friends. If they don't like your new found love that just came to town, they may see something you don't see. After all, love is blind. If the new ?luv? is for real, they will respect your wishes. Watch out if they try to influence you against your family and friends. When the player isolates the victim, that?s when they go in for the kill. Here?s where you do what you did before luv came to town! Is it possible to turn off the computer and find a face-to-face genuine relationship today? Iakoha'ko:wa & MNN Staff, Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com kittoh at storm.ca; katenies20 at yahoo.com; kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: The Canada has denied everything set out in our Statement of Claim filed in the Federal Court of Canada T-1309-08 for the ?Assault, Arrest & Illegal Detention? of Kahentinetha and Katenies on June 14, 2008 by their Cornwall Ontario border guards. They are filing a $20,000 demand for their costs. Your financial help is needed. Please send donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to ?MNN Mohawk Nation News?, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Posted by MNN Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com Go to MNN for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois From sabri_oncu at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 23:52:36 2008 From: sabri_oncu at yahoo.com (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [A-List] Nouriel Roubini and Barry Ritholtz Message-ID: <178741.36743.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Finally, Nouriel uttered the word depression: >>>>>> Thus, to avoid another Great Depression radical and unorthodox policy action needs to be taken now both in the US and in other advanced economies as the credit crisis and liquidity crisis is now becoming virulent even in Europe and other advanced economies. This credit crisis is both a crisis of confidence and illiquidity and a crisis of credit and solvency. But while the insolvent institutions should go bust we have now reached a point where many financial institutions and now non financial firms may become insolvent because of pure illiquidity; and this would lead to an extremely severe economic contraction similar to an economic depression rather than a mild recession. At this point the US, the advanced economies (and now likely even some emerging market economies) will experience an ugly recession and an ugly financial and banking crisis regardless of what we do from now on. What radical policy action can only do is preventing what will now be an ugly and nasty two-year recession and financial crisis from turning into a systemic meltdown and a decade long economic depression. The financial and economic conditions are extreme; thus extreme policy action is needed now to save the global economy from an ugly depression. <<<<<< Who knows, maybe I underestimated him. Best, Sabri ++++++++++++++++ Financial and Corporate System is in Cardiac Arrest: The Risk of the Mother of All Bank Runs Email PrintShare Nouriel Roubini | Oct 3, 2008 It is now clear that the US financial system - and now even the system of financing of the corporate sector - is now in cardiac arrest and at a risk of a systemic financial meltdown. I don't use these words lightly but at this point we have reached the final 12th step of my February paper on "The Risk of a Systemic Financial Meltdown: 12 Steps to a Financial Disaster" (Step 9 or the collapse of the major broker dealers has already widely occurred). Yesterday Thursday a senior market practitioner in a major financial institution wrote to me the following: Situation Report: So far as I can tell by working the telephones this morning: LIBOR bid only, no offer. Commercial paper market shut down, little trading and no issuance. Corporations have no access to long or short term credit markets -- hence they face massive rollover problems. Brokers are increasingly not dealing with each other. Even the inter-bank market is ceasing up. This cannot continue for more than a few days. This is the economic equivalent to cardiac arrest. Then we debated what is necessary to restart the system. I believe that the government will do another Hail Mary pass, with massive guarantees to the short-term commercial credit system and wide open short-term lending by the Fed (2 or 3 times expansion of the Fed balance sheet). If done on a sufficient scale this action will probably work for a while. But none of these financial measures affects the accelerating recession -- which will in turn place more pressure on the financial sector. Another senior professional in a major global financial institution wrote to me: Today, in our trading room, I could see the manifestations of a lending freeze, and the funding hiatus for banks and companies, with libor bid only, the commercial paper market closed in effect, and a scramble for cash - really really scary. Do you think this is treatable without a) a massive coordinated liquidity boost and easing of monetary policy and b) widespread nationalisation of some banks, gtess to others AND a good bank/bad bank policy where some get wiped along with their investors? The Treasury Tarp plan is an irrelevance if we are at a major funding crisis. And to confirm the near systemic collapse of the system of financing of both financial firms and corporate firms Warren Buffett declared yesterday, as reported by Bloomberg: the U.S. economy is ``flat on the floor'' after a cardiac arrest as companies struggle to secure funding and unemployment increases. ``In my adult lifetime I don't think I've ever seen people as fearful, economically, as they are now,'' Buffett said today in an interview with Charlie Rose to be broadcast tonight on PBS. ``The economy is going to be getting worse for a while.' ?The credit freeze is ``sucking blood'' from the U.S. economy, Buffett said. We are indeed at the cardiac arrest stage and at risk of the mother of all bank and non-ban runs as: - The run on the shadow banking system is accelerating as: even the surviving major broker dealers (Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs) are under severe pressure (Morgan losing over a third of its hedge funds clients); the run on hedge funds is accelerating via massive redemptions and a roll-off of their overnight repo lines; the money market funds are experiencing further withdrawals in spite of government blanket guarantee. - A silent run on the commercial banks is underway. In Q2 of 2008 the FDIC reported $4462bn insured domestic deposits out of $7036bn total domestic deposits; thus, only 63% of domestic deposits are insured. Thus $ 2574bn of deposits were not insured. Given the risk that many banks ? small, regional and national ? may go bust (as even large ones such as WaMu and Wachovia went recently bust) there is now a silent run on parts of the banking system. Deposit insurance formally covers only deposits up to $100000. Thus any individual, small or large business and/or foreign investor or financial institution with more than $100000 in a FDIC insured bank is now legitimately concerned about the safety of its deposits. Even if as likely the deposit insurance limit will be temporarily raised to $250000 by Congress there will still be a whopping $1.9 trillion of uninsured deposits (or 73% of total deposits); thus, a huge mass of uninsured deposits will remain at risk as even small businesses have usually more than $250K of cash while medium sized and large firms as well as any domestic and foreign financial institution or investor with exposure to US banks has average exposure in the millions of dollars. Particularly at risk are the cross border mostly short term interbank lines of US banks with their foreign counterparties that are estimated to be close to $800 billion. - A run on the short term liabilities of the corporate sector is also underway as the commercial paper market has effectively shut down with little trading and no issuance or rollover of such debt while corporations have no access to long or short term credit markets and they are therefore facing massive rollover problems (over $500 billion of rollover of maturing debts in the next 12 months). Indeed, the market for commercial paper plummeted $94.9 billion to $1.6 trillion for the week ended Oct. 1 (and down over $200 billion in the last three weeks). Especially banks and insurers were unable to find buyers for the short-term debt: financial paper accounted for most of the decline, plunging $64.9 billion, or 8.7 percent in the last week; but now even non-financial corporations are also experiencing a severe roll-off in the CP market. Discount rates for investment-grade non-financial commercial paper spiked to 599bp for 60 day maturities. More companies are borrowing against or tapping their revolving credit lines. This is largely due to the dislocation caused in the money markets by the failure of Lehman and the subsequent withdrawals from money market funds, which are some of the biggest providers of liquidity in the short term funding/commercial paper. Even the largest corporations are at severe stress: AT&T last week was forced to rely on overnight funding for its treasury operations, as lenders were unwilling to provide more long term financing due to fears in money market funds over investor redemption. The CEO said "It's loosened up a bit, but it's day-to-day right now. I mean literally it's day-to-day in terms of what our access to the capital markets looks like,'' Things are much worse for non-investment grade corporations and for small and medium sized businesses. As reported today by Bloomberg: Almost 100 U.S. corporate treasurers gathered for an emergency conference call yesterday to warn each other that banks are using any excuse to charge more to renew lines of credit. ``Capital is fleeing to safety,'' said Edward E. Liebert, treasurer of Rohm & Haas Co., who took part in the 90-minute call organized by the National Association of Corporate Treasurers. ``Interbank lending is not free-flowing any more,'' said Liebert, 56, chairman of the Reston, Virginia-based trade group. One bank charged a participant in the call 80 basis points to renew a routine $25 million credit line, according to Liebert, who wouldn't identify the speaker or the company. Rohm & Haas, based in Philadelphia and rated BBB by Standard & Poor's, is paying 8 basis points for a $750 million revolving line of credit provided by 13 banks, the treasurer said. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to vote on a $700 billion bailout bill passed by the Senate, global credit markets are being squeezed by banks afraid to lend to each other and to even some investment-grade corporate clients. Treasurers are struggling to keep credit lines open so they can pay employees, fund pension benefits and purchase raw materials. ``The banks are really starting to play hardball,'' said Jeff Wallace, managing partner at Greenwich Treasury Advisors, a financial consultant in Boulder, Colorado. ``They don't want to give out any more money to people because they don't have enough capital". Banks are demanding renegotiation of interest charges or lending terms when ``routine'' amendments are requested on lines of credit, said Thomas C. Deas Jr., treasurer of Philadelphia- based FMC Corp. and an association board member. - The money markets and interbank markets have shut down as - despite the Senate passing the bail-out bill - yesterday USD Overnight Libor was still at 268bp after reaching an all-time high of 6.88%; the USD 3m Libor-OIS spread widened to record 270 basis points; EUR 3m LIBOR-OIS spread is at record 130bp; the TED spread is at record 360bps (TED was 11bps one month ago); Money and credit markets are dysfunctional also in emerging markets ; and agency bond spreads are also at highs again. So we are now facing: - a silent run on the huge mass of uninsured deposits of the banking system and even a run on some insured deposits are small depositors are scared; - a run on most of the shadow banking system: over 300 non bank mortgage lenders are now bust; the SIVs and conduits are now all bust; the five major brokers dealers are now bust (Bear and Lehman) or still under severe stress even after they have been converted into banks (Merrill, Morgan, Goldman); a run on money market funds restrained only by a blanket government guarantee; a serious run on hedge funds; a looming refinancing crisis for private equity firms and LBOs); - a run on the short term liabilities of the corporate sector as the commercial paper market has totally frozen (and experiencing a roll-off) while access to medium terms and long term financings for corporations is frozen at a time when hundreds of billions of dollars of maturing debts need to be rolled over; - a total seizure of the interbank and money markets. This is indeed a cardiac arrest for the shadow and non-shadow banking system and for the system of financing of the corporate sector. The shutdown of financing for the corporate system is particularly scary: solvent but illiquid corporations that cannot roll over their maturing debt may now face massive defaults due to this illiquidity. And if the financing of the corporate sectors shuts down and remains shut down the risk of an economic collapse similar to the Great Depression becomes highly likely. So what needs to be done? Even several hundreds of billion dollars in emergency liquidity support to the financial system by the Fed and other central banks in the last week alone have not been enough to stop the seizure of liquidity in interbank markets and the shut down of financing for the corporate sector as counterparty risk is now extreme (no one trusts any more in this crisis of confidence even the most reputable and trustworthy financial and corporate counterparties). Thus, emergency times where we are at risk of a systemic meltdown require emergency measures. These include the following six ideas: - A temporary six-month blanket guarantee on all US deposits (not just those below $250k) combined with a rapid triage between insolvent banks that should be quickly closed and distressed but solvent ? conditional on liquidity and capital injections ? banks that should be rescued. To stop the silent run on the banking system you do need now such blanket guarantee on all (insured and uninsured) deposit regardless of their size. To minimize lender moral hazard from such action the blanket guarantee needs to be followed by a very rapid triage and shut-down of insolvent institutions to prevent such institutions from gambling for redemption, i.e. acquiring more deposits and making even more risky loans. To limit such moral hazard distortions one can also limit the extended guarantee only to current deposits: i.e. any new deposit above a $100k limit will not be insured. Of course all the currently uninsured deposits of such insolvent institutions will need to be made whole once such banks are shut down (otherwise the run on uninsured deposits would continue and accelerate). Once the rotten apples (insolvent banks) that are infecting the good apples (the solvent banks) are eliminated the blanket guarantee will be lifted as the uninsured depositors of surviving banks can be assured that the remaining banks (the good apples) will not go bust. Currently the silent run is triggered by investors and depositors not knowing which banks will go bust and which will survive as the bad apples are mixed in the same dark basket together with the good apples. The extra fiscal cost of bailing out the uninsured depositors of failed banks can be addressed with FDIC recapitalization or an increase in deposit insurance premia or by whacking further unsecured creditors of failed banks (as the government should have first claim on the remaining assets of failed banks if uninsured depositors are made whole in such banks). Anything short of this blanket guarantee cum triage will not be enough as the silent run on the banks will soon become a roaring tsunami of an open run. Solution a la Korea 1997 - where the cross border interbank run was solved via a bail-in rather than a bailout of the foreign cross border interbank creditors of Korean banks via an effectively forced conversion of short term interbank lines into one to three years claims guaranteed by the Korean government ? would be too risky as such effective capital controls and coercive stretching of maturities of cross border interbank lines would dramatically scare foreign investors placing funds in US banks. - Extension of the emergency liquidity support of the Fed (both TSLF and PDCF) to a broader range of institutions in the shadow banking system, especially those directly providing credit to the corporate sector. The TSLF and PDCF are already available to some non banks (the broker dealers that are primary dealers of the Fed). But two of such broker dealers are gone (Bear and Lehman) and the other three are under stress. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the other primary dealers and the banks that have access to the TSLF and PDCF (and discount window) have massively used these facilities in the last few weeks; but they are hoarding such liquidity and not relending it to other banks, to the thousands of the other members of the shadow banking system and to the corporate sector as they need such liquidity and don't trust any counterparty. Thus the transmission mechanism of credit policy (the non-traditional Fed liquidity lines) is completely shut down now. Thus, on an emergency basis the TSLF and PDCF need to be extended to other non-bank financial institutions, especially those directly providing credit to the corporate sector such as non-bank finance companies and leasing companies. To ensure that this liquidity support is effective the Fed may require the borrowing institutions to maintain their level of exposure to the corporate sector (avoid the roll off of commercial paper, of short term credits to corporate and alike). A similar requirement may need to be imposed on all other financial institutions (banks and non bank primary dealers) that are now shutting down or rolling off their exposure to the corporate sector. Of course a crucial triage of the corporate sector is also necessary: those firms that would have ended up into Chapter 11 or 7 even under less extreme financial conditions should not be rescued and thus allowed to go into bankruptcy court. - Some members of the shadow banking system will not receive such liquidity support of the Fed (hedge funds and private equity funds) as ? fairly or unfairly - there is no political sympathy for such institutions. This means that the demise of hundreds ? and possibly thousands ? of hedge funds will occur as redemptions and roll off of overnight repo financing for leveraged investments will cause a massive liquidity ? and thus solvency ? crisis for such institutions. If hundreds of smaller hedge funds collapse the systemic consequences would be limited (even if in the aggregate hedge funds provide significant financing to the corporate sector). If larger and systemically important hedge funds were at risk of failing the Fed will have to engineer a massive private sector bail-in of such hedge funds (a larger scale rescue a la LTCM) where the prime brokers of such funds are forced to maintain repo exposure to such funds rather than be allowed to shut off such exposure. This is a radical suggestion but the alternative of a Fed liquidity bailout of systemically important hedge fund is not politically feasible given the little sympathy that such funds enjoy in Congress. The refinancing crisis of private equity firms and their LBOs is a longer fuse run as covenant-lite clause and PIK toggles will postpone such financing crisis but make the harder the fall as zombie corporations that postpone restructuring will have a bigger collapse once the financing crisis eventually occurs. But since many of these LBOs should have never occurred in the first place any financing crisis for such buy-outs should be dealt with in bankruptcy court; no public funds should be used to rescue such LBOs and the reckless private equity firms that designed such schemes. - Direct lending to the business sector from the Fed via extension of the PDCF and TSLF to the non financial corporate sector. This could include Fed purchases of commercial paper from corporations and other forms of financing of the short term liabilities of the Administration to small businesses secured in appropriate ways. Given the collapse of the corporate CP market and the banking system reluctance to provide loans to the corporate sector (credits lines are being shut down) the only alternative to the Fed becoming directly the biggest emergency bank for the corporate sector would be to force the banking system to maintain its exposure to the corporate sector, possibly in exchange for further Fed provision of liquidity to the banking system. The former option may be better than the latter to deal with the looming illiquidity of the corporate sector. - Have a coordinated 100bps reduction in policy rates by all major advanced economies central bank and, possibly, even some emerging market economies central banks. While this policy rates may not directly resolve the insolvency issues in financial markets and in the corporate sector it may ease liquidity pressures and it would signal that global policy makers are serious about addressing together this most extreme liquidity and financial crisis. Also, some of the radical policy actions that have been suggested here for the US will most likely need to be undertaken also by European policy makers as the liquidity and credit crisis is now becoming global. - Radically redesign the Treasury TARP rescue plan ? possibly after its necessary approval today - to make it effective, efficient and fair. This implies that in addition to a more limited government purchase of toxic assets, you need: a) an emergency triage between insolvent and illiquid and undercapitalized but solvent banks should be made; b) a sharp reduction of the mortgage debt burden of the insolvent household sector; c) and a recapitalization of solvent banks to be done via public injection of preferred shares and matching contributions by current shareholders of the banks. Financial markets have already voted no to this plan (that is flawed in its current form) yesterday when after its passage in the Senate US and global equity markets plunged another 4% while money markets and credit markets seized up even further. The suggested policy actions are extreme and radical but the times and conditions in financial markets and the corporate sector are also extreme. Thus, to avoid another Great Depression radical and unorthodox policy action needs to be taken now both in the US and in other advanced economies as the credit crisis and liquidity crisis is now becoming virulent even in Europe and other advanced economies. This credit crisis is both a crisis of confidence and illiquidity and a crisis of credit and solvency. But while the insolvent institutions should go bust we have now reached a point where many financial institutions and now non financial firms may become insolvent because of pure illiquidity; and this would lead to an extremely severe economic contraction similar to an economic depression rather than a mild recession. At this point the US, the advanced economies (and now likely even some emerging market economies) will experience an ugly recession and an ugly financial and banking crisis regardless of what we do from now on. What radical policy action can only do is preventing what will now be an ugly and nasty two-year recession and financial crisis from turning into a systemic meltdown and a decade long economic depression. The financial and economic conditions are extreme; thus extreme policy action is needed now to save the global economy from an ugly depression. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 01:19:43 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:19:43 -0400 Subject: [A-List] A Strengthening Dollar Message-ID: A Strengthening Dollar (The Value of One Dollar, in Euros): October 6, 2008 In a Weak Climate, the Dollar Has Surprising Muscle By MARK LANDLER WASHINGTON ? Stock markets are swooning, credit markets remain frozen, and some foreign officials are predicting that the United States will lose its status as a financial superpower. And yet the dollar ? the most visible symbol of America's financial might ? is surging. Last week, the dollar rose to its highest level in more than a year against the euro, the Canadian dollar and several other currencies. It rose even after the Bush administration's rescue plan for banks had initially foundered in Congress and even in the wake of a dismal employment report on Friday. The dollar's surge seems counterintuitive. Previous financial panics ? in Asia, Russia and Mexico ? devastated the local currencies, as foreign investors stampeded for the door. The Thai baht, the Russian ruble and the Mexican peso were reliable barometers of confidence of foreigners in those emerging markets. As confidence crumbled, their exchange rates did, too. But the dollar is not like any other tender. As the de facto reserve currency of the world, it benefits from global upheaval, even those that originate in the United States. "It's ironic, given that we just messed up big time, the response of foreigners is to pour more money into us," said Kenneth S. Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard. "They're not sure where else to go." On Sept. 17, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers sent stock markets around the world reeling, foreign investors rushed to buy Treasury bills, driving down the yield to nearly zero. That reflected the fact that investors were flocking to the safety of the United States government, even if it meant their investments would lose money when adjusted for inflation. Indeed, the appeal of the United States reflects a lack of better options. Much has been made over the last few years about the rise of the euro as a rival to the dollar. But Europe hardly looks like a safe bet now, with its own crisis metastasizing. And unlike Americans, Europeans have not fashioned a coordinated response to the financial problems, despite a meeting of leaders over the weekend convened by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Japan's banks are far more stable than those in the United States or Europe, which has made the yen the only major currency to rise in value against the dollar in recent weeks. But Japan, and Asia as a whole, is weakening, along with the global economy. "It's like the world is full of sick people," said Ashraf Laidi, the chief currency analyst at CMC Markets, a trading firm. "The U.S. was the first to check into the hospital, and went into intensive care. But then other countries started to feel the chill, and now they're checking into the hospital." Currency traders, Mr. Laidi said, are betting that because the United States was the first to falter, it will be the first to recover. That perception has gained ground with the mounting problems in Europe, where more banks are failing by the day, and Germany and Ireland have guaranteed all deposits in an effort to stave off bank runs. The dollar has also been propped up the Federal Reserve, which has set up a network of currency swaps with the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England and other central banks to supply dollars to foreign banks. Acting on an unprecedented scale, the Fed expanded these swap lines by $330 billion, to $620 billion. The resilience of the dollar amid such turmoil is more than an economic novelty. As long as it retains its value, the dollar's strength makes it easier for the United States to finance the $700 billion bailout, because the cash will come from bonds sold largely to foreign investors. A rising currency also stems inflation ? a major preoccupation of the Fed before the latest crisis. Less inflation would make it easier for the Fed to lower interest rates, something the bank is now considering. But a stronger dollar has a downside: it makes American exports more expensive in foreign markets, which could damp one of the few parts of the American economic engine that is still humming. The dollar's greatest value, experts said, is as a symbol of the long-term creditworthiness of the United States. Its stability suggests that the United States is still viewed as a safer risk. "In talking to investors, policy makers and academics around the world, they have this confidence, not just in our economic system, but in our political system," Mr. Rogoff said. "They seem to have more confidence in our ability to solve our problems than we do." That confidence is not boundless, of course. If foreigners were finally to lose faith, experts said, they would seek to sell their American debt, the dollar would tumble and the cost of the bailout would increase. "We are in charge of the global currency, and if we make a hash out of that, there will be near- and long-term consequences," said Edwin M. Truman, a former Treasury department official. Mr. Truman just completed an overseas tour, during which he said foreign officials expressed bafflement to him about the political chaos in Washington. But he said that when he stopped at the Reserve Bank of Australia, he found no sense of panic about the dollar. Before this crisis entered its latest phase, with the bailout of Bear Stearns in March, the dollar had been on a long slide against the euro and other currencies. That reflected foreign concerns about the deteriorating American economy and the huge trade deficit. When the crisis ebbs, investors will focus on those issues again, and the dollar will resume its downward course, Mr. Laidi predicted. Even if the bailout succeeds in calming the market, it will greatly expand the debt of the United States ? a perennial cause of weakness in the dollar. For now, though, the global crisis remains a tonic for the currency of the country where it began. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 01:28:07 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:28:07 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Israelis Wary of a US Radar Base in the Negev Message-ID: Thursday, Oct. 02, 2008 Israelis Wary of a US Radar Base in the Negev By Tim McGirk and Aaron J. Klein / Jerusalem When a contingent of U.S. soldiers opens a radar facility on a mountaintop in the Negev desert next month, Israel will for the first time in its 60-year history have a permanent foreign military base on its soil. And despite the early warning that the American radar would provide if Iran launches a missile attack on Israel, some senior Israeli officials are nonetheless wary about its presence. Complained one top official, "It's a like a pair of golden handcuffs on Israel." From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 01:47:09 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:47:09 -0400 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Afghan_=91Dictator=92_Proposed_in_Leake?= =?windows-1252?q?d_Cable?= Message-ID: October 4, 2008 Afghan 'Dictator' Proposed in Leaked Cable By ELAINE SCIOLINO PARIS ? A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. That was not all. The best solution for the country, the ambassador said, would be installing an "acceptable dictator," according to the newspaper. "The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," the British envoy, Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as saying by the author of the cable, Fran?ois Fitou, the French deputy ambassador to Kabul. The two-page cable ? which was sent to the ?lys?e Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Encha?n?, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday issue ? said that the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country. "The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Sir Sherard was quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis." Within 5 to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to unite Afghanistan would be for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator," the cable said, adding, "We should think of preparing our public opinion" for such an outcome. Sir Sherard, as quoted, was critical of both American presidential candidates, who have vowed, if elected, to substantially increase American military support for Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. In the short run, "It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying. On Wednesday, General David D. McKiernan, the senior American military commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other support as soon as possible to counter the insurgency. British officials said that the comments attributed to Sir Sherard were distorted and did not reflect official British policy. "It's not for us to comment on something that is presented as extracts from a French diplomatic telegram, but the views it quotes are not in any way an accurate representation of the government's approach," said a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office, who, like other French and British officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules. The spokeswoman confirmed, however, that the two men did have a meeting, but said that the British ambassador's comments were taken out of context. But Sir Sherard, a British career Foreign Service officer who has served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel, is known for his frank talk, and other British officials who know him say that his words ring true. Mr. Fitou, meanwhile, is considered a responsible and precise diplomat who would be unlikely to misreport a conversation, a senior French official said. The cable did not say whether the two men spoke in English or French. French officials, who said they were deeply embarrassed about what they called a serious leak, criticized the broad dissemination of the cable and have started a leak investigation. The senior French official described it as a "diplomatic disaster" that could put French soldiers at more risk. Reached by telephone, Seyamak Herawy, a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai, attributed Afghanistan's problems, in part, to the "multiplicity in the viewpoints of the international community about Afghanistan." Claude Angeli, one of the executive editors of Le Canard Encha?n? and the author of the article, defended its publication. "This is not the first time we have been the target of a leak investigation," he said in a telephone interview. "The cable is authentic, and we reported its contents accurately." The pessimistic British analysis comes as France has increased its troops in Afghanistan amid concern over a further erosion of popular support for French troops present there. At the last NATO summit meeting in April, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he would send an additional 700 French soldiers to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing the total to about 3,000. He was criticized by the Socialist opposition, criticisms that grew louder after the deaths of 10 French soldiers in a Taliban ambush in August. The deaths represented the highest death toll suffered by France in a military attack since the bombing of a French barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 58 French paratroopers. In his cable to Paris, Mr. Fitou quoted the British ambassador as saying that the reinforcement of military troops "would have perverse effects: it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets" for the insurgents. The cable also quoted the British envoy as saying that despite public statements to the contrary, "the insurgency, although still incapable of a military victory, has the capacity to make life more and more difficult, including in the capital." Acknowledging that there is no option other than supporting the Americans in Afghanistan, the ambassador reportedly added, "but we must tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one." The American strategy, he is quoted as saying, "is destined to fail." Sarah Lyall contributed reporting from London, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 01:52:36 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:52:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Saudi Hosts Talks between Taliban and Karzai Govenment Message-ID: Source: Saudi hosts Afghan peace talks with Taliban reps * Story Highlights * King Abdullah hosted talks in city of Mecca at end of September, source says * Saudi Arabia has generally dealt with Afghanistan through Pakistan * Talks are the first aimed at bringing a negotiated settlement to the Afghan conflict * All parties agreed only solution to Afghan conflict is dialogue, not fighting By Nic Robertson CNN Senior International Correspondent LONDON, England (CNN) -- In a groundbreaking meeting, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group, according to a source familiar with the talks. The historic four-day meeting took place during the last week of September in the Saudi city of Mecca, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations. King Abdullah broke fast during the Eid al-Fitr holiday with the 17-member Afghan delegation -- an act intended to show his commitment to ending the conflict. Eid al-Fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting. Learn more about Ramadan ? Taliban leader Mullah Omar was not present, the source said. It marks a significant departure by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting some delegates who have until recently been their enemies. In the past, Saudi Arabia has generally dealt with Afghanistan through Pakistan. The desert kingdom's current foray marks a significant shift and appears to recognize the political weakness of Pakistan and the need to stem the growth of al Qaeda. The current round of talks is anticipated to be a first step in a long process. According to the source close to the talks, it has taken two years of behind-the-scenes meetings to get to this point. The talks took place between September 24 and 27 and involved 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a representative of former mujahadeen commander and U.S. foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar, and three others. It was the first such meeting aimed at bringing a negotiated settlement to the Afghan conflict and for the first time, all parties were able to discuss their positions and objectives openly and transparently, the source said. Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban leadership during its rule over Afghanistan in the 1990s, but that relationship was severed over Mullah Omar's refusal to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. While Mullah Omar was not present at the talks in Mecca, the source said the Taliban leader has made it clear he is no longer allied with al Qaeda -- a position that has never been publicly stated but emerged at the talks. It confirms what another source with an intimate knowledge of the Taliban and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past. During the talks, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan's conflict is through dialogue, not fighting. The source described the Mecca talks as an ice-breaking meeting where expectations were kept necessarily low. Further talks are expected in Saudi Arabia involving this core group and others. The reasons for Saudi Arabia's involvement are numerous, including having the trust of the United States and Europe to play a positive role at a time when the conflict appears to be worsening and the coalition's casualty toll is climbing. Also, Saudi Arabia may fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq. Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul. The Afghan sources wish to remain anonymous due to their political roles. Coalition commanders regularly accuse Iran of arming the Taliban, and Western diplomats privately suggest that Iran is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan, making it harder to bring peace. Saudi sources say perceived Iranian expansionism is one of Saudi Arabia's biggest concerns. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Oct 6 05:31:56 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:31:56 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Awards and Recognition Message-ID: <48E9F72C.6010202@attglobal.net> International Financing Review On December 17 2005, International Financing Review (IFR) announced its 2005 Annual Awards - one of the securities industry's most prestigiousawards programs. We are pleased to announce that Lehman Brothers was honored with several awards. The following are excerpts from IFR's 2005 Annual Awards edition: US Equity House of the Year "From the integration of debt and equity capital markets, to the inclusion of derivatives, tax and accounting specialists, Lehman Brothers has been a trailblazer in shaping the modern form of capital markets in the US." Lehman Brothers' 2005 U.S. league table improvement "reflects the contributions of a dedicated global finance solutions group that utilises tax, accounting, and derivatives expertise into capital-markets transactions". US Structured Equity House of the Year "From research to sales and trading, and ultimately to capital markets solutions, [Lehman Brothers'] measured approach was a valuable resource in 2005 in a convertible bond market that is dominated by technical hedge fund investors". "By sticking to its knitting of fundamental analysis across the capital structure, Lehman Brothers was a trusted advisor in a difficult market in 2005". European Leveraged Loan House of the Year "Far from playing safe, [Lehman Brothers] consistently strived to redefine the market, both in terms of pricing and innovation". "Lehman Brothers' impressive list of mandates demonstrates a franchise one would normally associate with the largest commercial banks ... The year's performance was far from anomalous. Lehman Brothers has led the largest or second largest sponsor-driven LBO in the market every year since 2002." North American Securitization House of the Year "As US interest rates have slowly risen, leaving little room for further growth in mortgage lending, [Lehman Brothers'] innovation in other structured finance sectors allowed it to grow". Lehman Brothers "managed to leverage off its intellectual capital and engage in fledgling and new securitised asset classes". US Dollar Bond House of the Year "[Lehman Brothers] not only maintained its overall market presence, but also led the charge into the preferred space by ... developing new products and tailoring transactions to fit borrowers' needs". "The crowning achievement of [Lehman Brothers'] efforts ... was the creation of its Enhanced Capital Advantaged Preferred Securities (ECAPS)". "Lehman Brothers is the most innovative in the preferred space, just doing things you won't see elsewhere". Lehman Brothers Associated With Eight Additional International Financing Review Awards The Firm was recognized in association with the following deal-related awards: - Financial Bond of the Year (Subordinated Debt) Lehman Brothers - 60-year ECAPS ($300 million) - Financial Bond of the Year (Senior Debt) Santander - $4 billion floating rate notes (joint lead manager) - European High Yield Bond of the Year TIM-Hellas - 1.3 billion Euro two-tranche bond (joint lead manager) - European IPO of the Year TomTom - 539 million Euro IPO (joint bookrunner) - European Securitization of the Year Whinstone Capital Management - GBP 423 million funded synthetic securitization of first loss risk (sole structurer and joint bookrunner) - North American Securitization of the Year Crown Castle - $1.9 billion securitization (joint bookrunner) - Corporate Borrower/North American Borrower of the Year Wal-Mart - $2.5 billion 30-year bond (joint lead manager) - Sovereign Borrower of the Year Turkey - 2 billion 20-year bond (joint bookrunner) International Securitisation Report Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Arranger of the Year Deal of the Year 3.7 billion Euro securitization of senior loan and real estate fund for the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance (joint arranger and placement agent) Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Deal of the Year Whinstone Capital Management - Northern Rock's GBP 423 million funded synthetic securitization of First Loss Risk Management (sole structurer and joint bookrunner) Latin Finance Best Cross-Border M&A Deal of the Year Bavaria's $7.1 billion merger with SABMiller (financial advisor) Posse Foundation Lehman Brothers Honored for its Contribution to Diversity On May 25 2005, Lehman Brothers received the Posse Foundation's first ever corporate "Posse Star" award, recognizing the Firm's contributions to developing young leaders of diverse backgrounds. Ted Janulis, Lehman Brothers' global head of Investment Management, accepted the award on behalf of the Firm. Lehman Brothers has a long and successful partnership with the Posse Foundation, and this summer, over forty Posse Scholars will intern at the Firm. The Posse Foundation is a leadership scholarship program which awards college scholarships to exceptional young leaders from public schools in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC. Project Finance North American Single Asset Power Deal of the Year La Paloma Generating Co.'s $580 million sale of the project to Complete Energy Holdings, LLC (financial advisor to La Paloma Creditor Group) Best Oil and Gas Deal of the Year Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas Company Limited II/3's $2.25 billion senior secured notes offering (joint bookrunner) Project Finance International Bond House of the Year Race for Opportunity Lehman Brothers Awarded a ?Gold Standard? for Commitment to Diversity Race for Opportunity, a UK-based organization focused on promoting the business case for racial diversity, awarded Lehman Brothers a "Gold Standard" in its annual evaluation of the progress in racial diversity at 180 private and public sector organizations in the UK. Overall, Lehman Brothers? racial diversity initiatives received a score of 83%, up from 56% in 2004. Race for Opportunity charts progress by evaluating a number of areas including leadership, policy and planning, and communication. Securities Industry Association Award for Innovative Leadership in Diversity Lehman Brothers' Partnership Solutions Group (PSG) was honored with the Securities Industry Association's (SIA) 2005 Innovative Leadership diversity award for employing a creative approach to diversity. The Firm won for PSG's commitment to develop strategic business opportunities with minority- and women-owned financial services firms. PSG exemplifies how diversity activities can be mutually beneficial by creating and cultivating relationships within potentially lucrative and growing markets. "The markets we serve are less homogeneous than ever" said James Gorman, SIA Incoming Chairman. "To stay on top, we need to make sure our industry looks like the world around us, which means getting our fair share of clients and employees who are diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender and sexual orientation. We honor Lehman Brothers for its effort in striving to meet these goals." At the core of Lehman Brothers' diversity strategy is a commitment to maintaining a diverse and inclusive workplace that reaches beyond internal practices and policies. The Partnership Solutions Group, established in May 2004, is an example of the Firm's diversity commitment applied to commercial activities. The transactions mentioned herein appear as a matter of record only. http://www.lehmanbrothers.com/who/awards/2005_detail.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Oct 6 06:05:45 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:05:45 +1100 Subject: [A-List] Exclusive book excerpt: A manifesto for principled Darfur activism -- and beyond | Links Message-ID: <48E9FF19.9020402@greenleft.org.au> /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ publishes -- with the authors' permission -- an exclusive excerpt from *Kevin Funk* and *Steven Fake*'s just published book, /Scramble for Africa: Darfur Intervention and the USA /(Black Rose Books). /In Scramble for Africa/ Kevin Funk and Stephen Fake provide a forensic and astute examination of the Bush administration's politically cynical and opportunist exploitation of the people of Darfur's terrible plight, using them as pawns to regain access to Sudan's oil riches and to promote the self-serving imperialist concept of ``humanitarian intervention''. Funk and Fake reveal the hypocrisy of Washington, which can in the same breathe declare the Sudan regime's slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Darfuris ``genocide'' while -- out the general public's earshot -- praise and collaborate the very same butchers as allies in its ``war on terror''. The mainstream ``Save Darfur'' movement's leadership also comes in for a similar investigation for its willingness to allow the interests of the people of Darfur to play second fiddle to Washington's foriegn policy double standards. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/667 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 07:35:02 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:35:02 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Invite: Bruce Springsteen in Ypsilanti Today Message-ID: <48E9DBC5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> We call Ypsilantii, Ypsitucky. John Henry Charles, This afternoon, please join the Obama campaign for a Vote for Change rally featuring a special acoustic appearance by Bruce Springsteen. Here are the details: Vote for Change Rally with Bruce Springsteen Oestrike Stadium Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI Monday, October 6th Gates Open: 3:00 p.m. Program Starts: 4:30 p.m. RSVP: http://mi.barackobama.com/springsteenMI The event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required; however an RSVP is strongly encouraged. For security reasons, do not bring bags and limit personal items. No signs or banners are permitted. Thanks, Obama for America This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 07:52:07 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:52:07 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall Street Journal Message-ID: <48E9DFC6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the Rescue Plan Socialism? The Far Left Says, 'No Way, Comrade' Wall Street Journal - USA During a transport workers union protest on Wall Street this week, members of the Socialist Party USA handed out fliers that screamed "NO to the Banker ... This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 10:57:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:57:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] U.S. Command for Africa Established Message-ID: <48EA0B46.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> U.S. Command for Africa Established "But concerns remain that whatever arena the Pentagon enters, it has more money, more personnel and more power than any other government organization, American or foreign." By THOM SHANKER October 5, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/africa/05command.html?ref=world WASHINGTON ? For decades, Africa was rarely more than an afterthought for the Pentagon. Responsibilities for American military affairs across the vast African continent were divided clumsily among three regional combat headquarters, those for Europe, the Pacific and the Middle East. Commanders set priorities against obvious threats, whether the old Soviet Union and then a resurgent Russia, a rising China or a nuclear North Korea, or adversaries along the Persian Gulf. If deployment of fighting forces is an indicator, that historic focus north of the equator endures. But since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a new view has gained acceptance among senior Pentagon officials and military commanders: that ungoverned spaces and ill-governed states, whose impoverished citizens are vulnerable to the ideology of violent extremism, pose a growing risk to American security. Last week, in a small Pentagon conference hall, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, inaugurated the newest regional headquarters, Africa Command, which is responsible for coordinating American military affairs on the continent. There are barely 2,000 American combat troops and combat support personnel based in Africa, and the new top officer, Gen. William E. Ward of the Army, pledges that Africa Command has no designs on creating vast, permanent concentrations of forces on the continent. ?Bases? Garrisons? It?s not about that,? General Ward said in an interview. ?We are trying to prevent conflict, as opposed to having to react to a conflict.? Already, though, analysts at policy advocacy organizations and research institutes are warning of a militarization of American foreign policy across Africa. Mr. Gates said the new command was an example of the Pentagon?s evolving strategy of forging what he called ?civilian-military partnerships,? in which the Defense Department works alongside and supports the State Department and the Agency for International Development, as well as host nations? security and development agencies. ?In this respect, Africom represents yet another important step in modernizing our defense arrangements in light of 21st-century realities,? Mr. Gates said. ?It is, at its heart, a different kind of command with a different orientation, one that we hope and expect will institutionalize a lasting security relationship with Africa, a vast region of growing importance in the globe.? Mr. Gates and General Ward said that this work to complement and support American security and development policies would include missions like deploying military trainers to improve the abilities of local counterterrorism forces, assigning military engineers to help dig wells and build sewers, and sending in military doctors to inoculate the local population against diseases. While that thinking has influenced the work of all of the military?s regional war-fighting commands, it is the central focus of Africa Command. And over the past two years, it has quietly become the central focus of the military?s Southern Command, once better known for the invasions of Grenada and Panama, but now converting itself to a headquarters that supports efforts across the United States government and within host nations to improve security and economic development in Latin America. A number of specialists in African and Latin American politics at nongovernmental organizations express apprehension, however, that the new emphasis of both these commands represents an undesirable injection of the military into American foreign policy, a change driven by fears of terrorists or desires for natural resources. Officials at one leading relief organization, Refugees International, warned of the risk that Africom ?will take over many humanitarian and development activities that soldiers aren?t trained to perform.? In a statement, Kenneth H. Bacon, the president of Refugees International, said that the creation of Africa Command was ?a sign of increased U.S. attention to Africa.? But he also said that it was ?important that Africom focus on training peacekeepers and helping African countries build militaries responsive to civilian control and democratic government.? Mr. Bacon, a Pentagon spokesman in the Clinton administration, added, ?The military should stick to military tasks and let diplomats and development experts direct other aspects of U.S. policy in Africa.? Refugees International released statistics showing that the percentage of development assistance controlled by the Defense Department had grown to nearly 22 percent from 3.5 percent over the past 10 years, while the percentage controlled by the Agency for International Development dropped to 40 percent from 65 percent. General Ward rejected criticisms that Africa Command would result in a militarization of foreign policy, and he said it was specifically structured for cooperative efforts across the agencies of the United States government. For example, a deputy commander at Africom is Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates, a career Foreign Service officer. And General Ward himself previously served in a combined diplomatic and military role, as director of efforts to help reform the Palestinian security services. But concerns remain that whatever arena the Pentagon enters, it has more money, more personnel and more power than any other government organization, American or foreign. ?If we can bring a capability that can be an assist to one of our interagency partners, then I think we ought to do that,? General Ward said. ?But I draw a distinction between leading that effort and supporting that effort. We don?t create policy. This is not the job of a unified command. We implement those aspects of policy that have military implications. And we support others.? Planners abandoned early intentions to base Africa Command in Africa, perhaps with a major headquarters and regional satellite offices. Owing to local sensitivities, security concerns and simple logistics of moving around the vast continent, which often requires routing through Europe, the command will for now have its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. General Ward said that in creating the Africa Command, he had been in close contact with his counterpart atop the military?s Southern Command, Adm. James G. Stavridis, who has received high marks from Pentagon leaders for converting the military presence in Central and South America. Where previously Southern Command emphasized direct military action, it now focuses on programs to train and support local forces, and assist economic development, health services and counternarcotics efforts. ?The more I look at this region over the two years I have been at Southcom,? Admiral Stavridis said in an interview, ?the more convinced I am that the approach we need to take for U.S. national security in the region is really an interagency approach. ?Think of the problems that afflict this region ? natural disasters, poverty, the narcotics trade, lack of medical care,? he said. ?Our thought at Southcom is, How can we be supportive of an interagency approach? How can we partner with other interagency actors, and then tie that together with our international partners?? Admiral Stavridis said Southern Command was ?very directly and consciously not taking the lead.? ?We are trying to be part of the team, to be a facilitator,? he added. But George Withers, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America, a nonprofit research and human-rights advocacy organization, said in a statement that ?while improved delivery of U.S. assistance is certainly an admirable goal,? putting Southern Command into a coordinating role on issues like corruption, crime or poverty ?drains authority from the State Department and resources from the Defense Department.? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 11:15:30 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:15:30 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Palin and feminism Message-ID: <48EA0F71.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Saturday, October 4, 2008 Laura Berman: Commentary Palin stirs emotion in women voters -clip- Palin raises some doubts But at the same event, a self-described conservative woman, a nurse, worried aloud about Palin's roundabout answers to some questions. "I had hoped she'd do a little better," she said. "I don't know if she doesn't know the answers to questions, or if she's been coached not to answer them." Palin's lack of sophistication about foreign policy and American history seem authentic, not stylistic, to me. Who would have coached her to fail to be able to recall a single U.S. Supreme Court case during Katie Couric's interview? At the Huron Valley-Sinai Hospital event I attended on Friday, a few female physicians, self-described Republicans, said they were troubled by Palin: Even if her debate performance had been a display of confidence and camera-savvy, her command of relevant facts struck these professional women as cue-card deep. "It's scary to imagine her becoming president if McCain is elected," said Patricia Doyon, of Waterford, who attended the Keego Harbor event. Women stand up for Obama And Palin has inspired suburban women who were quietly supporting Obama: Now they're active and out there. Suddenly, self-identified stay-at-home-moms like Angela Youngblood are planting mums and Obama-Biden signs. "I'm driving my minivan with four kids," says Youngblood, who hosted a debate and "Palin Bingo" party on Thursday night that drew 20 other women. (The bingo game challenged players to mark "darn right" and other favored phrases when the governor used them during the debate.) Youngblood, 34, was a Hillary Clinton supporter who didn't get revved up about Obama until Palin was nominated. "She really motivated me to get out there," Youngblood told me. On Friday morning, Palin expressed disappointment with the McCain camp's decision to pull out of Michigan. But between the Palin backlash, and the dire economy here, dialing down the McCain-Palin profile might help, not hurt, their campaign here. You can reach Laura Berman at (248) 647-7221 or lberman at detnews.com. Full at: http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081004/OPINION03/810040372/1409/METRO This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 11:17:36 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:17:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] A global downturn in the power of the west Message-ID: <48EA0FEF.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> A global downturn in the power of the west By Dominique Mo?si Published: October 5 2008 18:21 | Last updated: October 5 2008 18:21 It is not too early to assess the first geopolitical lessons of the current financial maelstrom. As the crisis unfolds, trends are emerging. The near _collapse of financial capitalism_ (http://www.ft.com/indepth/global-financial-crisis) both confirms and accelerates a revolution that was already under way in international politics. Who are the losers and who are likely to be the winners - that is, those who lose the least - in the present mess? In the language of Wall Street, the west is down and the state is up. Moreover, democracy itself risks falling into disrepute if solutions are not found to the crisis. First, the shock reinforces the relative decline of the US and the passage from a unipolar to a multipolar world. Whoever is its next president, America will not only have to face more diverse and complex challenges but will have fewer means with which to confront them. The interaction between the infectious greed of its financial class and its politicians? dereliction of duty has impoverished the country. The torch of history seems to be passing from west to east. It is true that China and India are also affected by the financial turmoil; _less so Japan_ (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/932f7720-8be0-11dd-8a4c-0000779fd18c.html) , a country whose financial conservatism is the product of bitter experience 20 years ago. But to paraphrase French President Fran?ois Mitterrand: growth is in the east and debts are in the west. Furthermore, fear is in the west and hope is in the east, so we are equipped in very different ways to face this crisis. The meltdown has also revealed the depth of an identity crisis, not just in America but also in Europe. Nationalisation may have been the initial American response to the crisis. But it is nationalism that is the main obstacle facing Europe. The temptation of the ?to each his own? mindset was present in Europe in the good times, but has become irresistible in bad times. Nicolas Sarkozy, French president of the European Union, may be mounting a brave and gallant fight to produce a ?European answer?, but his activism is not sufficient to hide deep divisions among member states. The gold medal for selfishness may once more be given to the Irish, who have followed the ingratitude of their No vote on the Lisbon treaty with absolute contempt towards the _search for a collective solution_ (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b514c10a-8f2e-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c.html) to the financial crisis. The European spirit is low and a ? European political will? is lacking. The financial crisis has also shaken Russia and demonstrated the gap between its ambition to recover cold war superpower status and its true means as a country whose wealth is solely based on energy. By contrast, thanks to the diversity of its resources, Brazil is likely to come out of the present morass stronger. Though they are affected too, the Emirates might engage in a shopping spree on the devalued jewels of western capitalism. On the African continent, only the energy-rich countries may emerge relatively unaffected, while the rest risk falling further. When the rich become less rich, the poor tend to become even poorer. As the west withers, the state is on the rise. On the eve of the last World Economic Forum in Davos in January, its president and founder Klaus Schwab asked ?what business can do to save the world?. The question has been reversed today: ?What can the state do to save the business of finance?? The present crisis has much more to do with the 1907 bankers? panic in America than with the Great Depression. At that time, the solution was found by John Pierpont Morgan, who convinced other bankers to provide a backstop for the crisis. Today it is the state that is called upon as the ultimate saviour of capitalism. However, while citizens of the western world are expressing their need for state protection, they are also increasingly cynical towards politics and politicians. Their fear is growing as their trust is diminishing. If state intervention were unsuccessful, the comments made by many African leaders - comparing the stability of authoritarian regimes with the chaotic condition of democratic ones - would be raised too in many western countries. The 1929 stock market crisis led to the second world war. If we fail to resolve it, the 2008 financial crisis will accelerate the comparative decline of the west as a force today and as a model for the rest of the world tomorrow. The writer is a senior adviser at France?s Institute for International Relations and author of the forthcoming ?The Geopolitics of Emotion?, to be published in Britain by Bodley Head This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 11:25:12 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] On Raymond Williams Message-ID: <48EA11B7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> LRB http://www.lrb.co.uk/ 31 July 2008 Upwards and Onwards http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n15/coll01_.html Stefan Collini Raymond Williams: A Warrior's Tale by Dai Smith When Raymond Williams died suddenly, aged 66, in January 1988, estimations of him were sharply divided. There were those who regarded him as a deservedly influential literary and cultural critic, a major socialist theorist and an exemplary instance of the union of intellectual seriousness and political purpose. There were others who thought he had for too long enjoyed an inflated reputation, that he was a muddy thinker and verbose writer who had been swept to a form of cultural celebrity by the vogue for working-class sentimentalism in the 1960s and lefter-than-thou self-righteousness in the 1970s. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n15/coll01_.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 11:27:00 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:27:00 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Bad decision Message-ID: <48EA1222.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Russia's last emperor Nicholas II October 1, 2008 Last tsar's family rehabilitated http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31214 Russia's Supreme Court has ruled that the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family were victims of political repression and should be rehabilitated. http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31214 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 13:36:24 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:36:24 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Stiglitz on the recent financial crisis Message-ID: <48EA3076.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811 Reversal of Fortune Describing how ideology, special-interest pressure, populist politics, and sheer incompetence have left the U.S. economy on life support, the author puts forth a clear, commonsense plan to reverse the Bush-era follies and regain America?s economic sanity. by Joseph E. Stiglitz November 2008 When the American economy enters a downturn, you often hear the experts debating whether it is likely to be V-shaped (short and sharp) or U-shaped (longer but milder). Today, the American economy may be entering a downturn that is best described as L-shaped. It is in a very low place indeed, and likely to remain there for some time to come. Virtually all the indicators look grim. Inflation is running at an annual rate of nearly 6 percent, its highest level in 17 years. Unemployment stands at 6 percent; there has been no net job growth in the private sector for almost a year. Housing prices have fallen faster than at any time in memory-in Florida and California, by 30 percent or more. Banks are reporting record losses, only months after their executives walked off with record bonuses as their reward. President Bush inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton; this year the federal government announced the second-largest budget deficit ever reported. During the eight years of the Bush administration, the national debt has increased by more than 65 percent, to nearly $10 trillion (to which the debts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should now be added, according to the Congressional Budget Office). Meanwhile, we are saddled with the cost of two wars. The price tag for the one in Iraq alone will, by my estimate, ultimately exceed $3 trillion. This tangled knot of problems will be difficult to unravel. Standard prescriptions call for raising interest rates when confronted with inflation, just as standard prescriptions call for lowering interest rates when confronted with an economic downturn. How do you do both at the same time? Not in the way that some politicians have proposed. With gasoline prices at all-time highs, John McCain has called for a rollback of gas taxes. But that would lead to more gas consumption, raise the price of gas further, increase our dependence on foreign oil, and expand our already massive trade deficit. The expanding deficit would in turn force the U.S. to continue borrowing gargantuan sums from abroad, making us even more indebted. At the same time, the higher imports of oil and petroleum-based products would lead to a weaker dollar, fueling inflationary pressures. Millions of Americans are losing their homes. (Already, some 3.6 million have done so since the subprime-mortgage crisis began.) This social catastrophe has severe economic effects. The banks and other financial institutions that own these mortgages face stunning reverses; a few, such as Bear Stearns, have already gone belly-up. To prevent America?s $5.2 trillion home financiers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from following suit, Congress authorized a blank check to cover their losses, but even that generosity failed to do the trick. Now the administration has taken over the two entities completely, a stunning feat for a supposedly market-oriented regime. These bailouts contribute to growing deficits in the short run, and to perverse incentives in the long run. Market economies work only when there is a system of accountability, but C.E.O.?s, investors, and creditors are walking away with billions, while American taxpayers are being asked to pick up the tab. (Freddie Mac?s chairman, Richard Syron, earned $14.5 million in 2007. Fannie Mae?s C.E.O., Daniel Mudd, earned $14.2 million that same year.) We?re looking at a new form of public-private partnership, one in which the public shoulders all the risk, and the private sector gets all the profit. While the Bush administration preaches responsibility, the words are addressed only to the less well-off. The administration talks about the impact of ?moral hazard? on the poor ?speculator? who borrowed money and bought a house beyond his ability to pay. But moral hazard somehow isn?t an issue when it comes to the high-stakes speculators in corporate boardrooms. (clip) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 13:38:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:38:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] From Subprime to Slump? Message-ID: <48EA310A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From Subprime to Slump? By Jon Amsden The collapse of Lehman Brothers has got the mainstream media hitting the panic button and talking of systemic crisis. But the crisis isn't just spreading to the real economy, it began there, argues Jon Amsden In May of this year, Brian Marks made a valiant attempt to tie together inflation, the current crisis in financial markets, and struggles of the world working class. Marks wrote: "The food and energy crises are key ways capital is trying to displace the costs of devaluation onto the working class. (Foreclosures, the manipulation of interest rates, and the outright bailout of banks with public money are other important measures). The transfer of workers' wealth through energy and food costs to the energy sector is then conveyed in a concentrated form to save (by buying up) the banks in crisis. That is where primitive accumulation meets fictitious capital." Marks argued that inflation is a special form of ?looting' whereby the capitalist class attempts to appropriate ?the wealth of the workers', for the purpose of ?propping up fictitious capital'. In a discussion on the Meltdown mailing list Ben Seymour queried Marks' logic on this point, noting that since inflation essentially devalues the workers' portion, at least in monetary terms, such would not be a particularly effective form of ?looting'. For Seymour, the very thing that is supposed by Marks to constitute an accelerated ?looting' of the working class, ?an escalation of the ongoing compulsion of work' which presumably increases the rate of surplus value extraction, is at the same time undermining or cancelling out the value extracted. Thus, crisis can increase the economic pressure on the working class, but the actual rate of exploitation is offset by the devaluation of the currency which measures the product and price of their labour power. We will visit the ?increased economic pressure' that inflation places on the working class a bit later on. In one respect, however, inflation can, in fact, be favorable to that part of the working class who may be net debtors. For example, Joe Sixpack has an outstanding credit card balance of $9,000 US. As the real value of this figure is diminished by inflation, Joe will have to contribute less value to pay it back than he received (on credit) in the first place. full: http://www.metamute.org/en/content/from_subprime_to_slump This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 14:10:11 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:10:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] What's the total amount of money in the whole world ? Message-ID: <48EA3861.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: "Julio Huato" < Chris wrote: > Whatever the measures, which can proliferate, > and interact in complex ways, > they are related to labor and the productivity of labor. > In the world. That relation is highly mediated, but you're right it's good to see through the mediations. I described in a recent post an exercise I used to conduct with my international finance students at Ramapo on the first day of class. That first day was my only chance to help the students see that producing wealth "the hard way" underlay the financial superstructure. After that, we'd go into arbitrage-derived parity conditions, forex derivatives, exposure, etc. So, without this discussion, the students would just take the trees for the forest. I just posted an edited version of this story on my blog: http://juliohuato.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/on-life-and-financial-markets/ _______________________________________________ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 14:12:40 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:12:40 -0400 Subject: [A-List] =?utf-8?q?What=E2=80=99s_the_total_amount_of_money_in_th?= =?utf-8?q?e_whole_world_=3F?= Message-ID: <48EA38F7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> What?s the total amount of money in the whole world ? - From: "Julio Huato" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sabri wrote: > Firstly, money has never been infinite and will never be. Because it > can be destroyed as easily as it can be created, and given the complex > financial system we are surrounded by, this has nothing to do with the > labor productivity. By lending and borrowing, Chris and I can create > money between the two of us with no difficulty, as long as the debtor > between the two of us is credible, that is, it is believed that the > debtor can make good on his debt, so that the creditor can use the > debt he owns to buy other stuff. > > Notice that I am talking about beliefs, not realities. Labor and > productivity are about realities, not about beliefs. > > When beliefs change and credibility is lost, money gets destroyed. In a sense, what Sabri says is correct. Money's creation and destruction (i.e. its flow or change in its stock) is unrelated to labor productivity, in that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether productivity goes up or down or stays the same. However, that's not what I'm talking about. The existing stock of money at a point in time is not unrelated to the existing amount of wealth in the economy. There's a *definite* economic relationship between them, which is captured by the notion of purchasing power, or its reciprocal (prices). And the existing amount of wealth in the economy is related to labor productivity. Sabri and I are emphasizing two different things. Sabri is saying that the dynamics of money (or, more generally, debt creation) follows its own logic. I'm saying yes, but financial assets are ultimately claims over real wealth (or its change, income). In a potluck party, people cannot eat (or waste) more than they collectively bring to the party. The relationship between the real wealth the assets claim and the assets themselves is captured by their prices. Those prices can never be infinite. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 14:14:00 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:14:00 -0400 Subject: [A-List] What's the total amount of money in the whole world ? Message-ID: <48EA3946.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> What's the total amount of money in the whole world ? -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sandwichman : As Benjamin Franklin explained, "time is money." The question that needs to be asked, then, is: "how much money and time is there in the whole world." On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Julio Huato wrote: > Chris wrote: > >> Whatever the measures, which can proliferate, >> and interact in complex ways, >> they are related to labor and the productivity of labor. >> In the world. > > That relation is highly mediated, but you're right it's good to see > through the mediations. I described in a recent post an exercise I > used to conduct with my international finance students at Ramapo on > the first day of class. That first day was my only chance to help the > students see that producing wealth "the hard way" underlay the > financial superstructure. After that, we'd go into arbitrage-derived > parity conditions, forex derivatives, exposure, etc. So, without this > discussion, the students would just take the trees for the forest. > > I just posted an edited version of this story on my blog: > > http://juliohuato.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/on-life-and-financial-markets/ > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 14:21:53 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:21:53 -0400 Subject: [A-List] ... applying the scientific approach to economics. Message-ID: <48EA3B20.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> .. applying the scientific approach to economics. The New York Times / October 1, 2008 Op-Ed Contributor This Economy Does Not Compute By MARK BUCHANAN Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France A FEW weeks ago, it seemed the financial crisis wouldn't spin completely out of control. The government knew what it was doing ? at least the economic experts were saying so ? and the Treasury had taken a stand against saving failing firms, letting Lehman Brothers file for bankruptcy. But since then we've had the rescue of the insurance giant A.I.G., the arranged sale of failing banks and we'll soon see, in one form or another, the biggest taxpayer bailout of Wall Street in history. It seems clear that no one really knows what is coming next. Why? Well, part of the reason is that economists still try to understand markets by using ideas from traditional economics, especially so-called equilibrium theory. This theory views markets as reflecting a balance of forces, and says that market values change only in response to new information ? the sudden revelation of problems about a company, for example, or a real change in the housing supply. Markets are otherwise supposed to have no real internal dynamics of their own. Too bad for the theory, things don't seem to work that way. Nearly two decades ago, a classic economic study found that of the 50 largest single-day price movements since World War II, most happened on days when there was no significant news, and that news in general seemed to account for only about a third of the overall variance in stock returns. A recent study by some physicists found much the same thing ? financial news lacked any clear link with the larger movements of stock values. Certainly, markets have internal dynamics. They're self-propelling systems driven in large part by what investors believe other investors believe; participants trade on rumors and gossip, on fears and expectations, and traders speak for good reason of the market's optimism or pessimism. It's these internal dynamics that make it possible for billions to evaporate from portfolios in a few short months just because people suddenly begin remembering that housing values do not always go up. Really understanding what's going on means going beyond equilibrium thinking and getting some insight into the underlying ecology of beliefs and expectations, perceptions and misperceptions, that drive market swings. Surprisingly, very few economists have actually tried to do this, although that's now changing ? if slowly ? through the efforts of pioneers who are building computer models able to mimic market dynamics by simulating their workings from the bottom up. The idea is to populate virtual markets with artificially intelligent agents who trade and interact and compete with one another much like real people. These "agent based" models do not simply proclaim the truth of market equilibrium, as the standard theory complacently does, but let market behavior emerge naturally from the actions of the interacting participants, which may include individuals, banks, hedge funds and other players, even regulators. What comes out may be a quiet equilibrium, or it may be something else. For example, an agent model being developed by the Yale economist John Geanakoplos, along with two physicists, Doyne Farmer and Stephan Thurner, looks at how the level of credit in a market can influence its overall stability. Obviously, credit can be a good thing as it aids all kinds of creative economic activity, from building houses to starting businesses. But too much easy credit can be dangerous. In the model, market participants, especially hedge funds, do what they do in real life ? seeking profits by aiming for ever higher leverage, borrowing money to amplify the potential gains from their investments. More leverage tends to tie market actors into tight chains of financial interdependence, and the simulations show how this effect can push the market toward instability by making it more likely that trouble in one place ? the failure of one investor to cover a position ? will spread more easily elsewhere. That's not really surprising, of course. But the model also shows something that is not at all obvious. The instability doesn't grow in the market gradually, but arrives suddenly. Beyond a certain threshold the virtual market abruptly loses its stability in a "phase transition" akin to the way ice abruptly melts into liquid water. Beyond this point, collective financial meltdown becomes effectively certain. This is the kind of possibility that equilibrium thinking cannot even entertain. It's important to stress that this work remains speculative. Yet it is not meant to be realistic in full detail, only to illustrate in a simple setting the kinds of things that may indeed affect real markets. It suggests that the narrative stories we tell in the aftermath of every crisis, about how it started and spread, and about who's to blame, may lead us to miss the deeper cause entirely. Financial crises may emerge naturally from the very makeup of markets, as competition between investment enterprises sets up a race for higher leverage, driving markets toward a precipice that we cannot recognize even as we approach it. The model offers a potential explanation of why we have another crisis narrative every few years, with only the names and details changed. And why we're not likely to avoid future crises with a little fiddling of the regulations, but only by exerting broader control over the leverage that we allow to develop. Another example is a model explored by the German economist Frank Westerhoff. A contentious idea in economics is that levying very small taxes on transactions in foreign exchange markets, might help to reduce market volatility. (Such volatility has proved disastrous to countries dependent on foreign investment, as huge volumes of outside investment can flow out almost overnight.) A tax of 0.1 percent of the transaction volume, for example, would deter rapid-fire speculation, while preserving currency exchange linked more directly to productive economic purposes. Economists have argued over this idea for decades, the debate usually driven by ideology. In contrast, Professor Westerhoff and colleagues have used agent models to build realistic markets on which they impose taxes of various kinds to see what happens. So far they've found tentative evidence that a transaction tax may stabilize currency markets, but also that the outcome has a surprising sensitivity to seemingly small details of market mechanics ? on precisely how, for example, the market matches buyers and sellers. The model is helping to bring some solid evidence to a debate of extreme importance. A third example is a model developed by Charles Macal and colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and aimed at providing a realistic simulation of the interacting entities in that state's electricity market, as well as the electrical power grid. They were hired by Illinois several years ago to use the model in helping the state plan electricity deregulation, and the model simulations were instrumental in exposing several loopholes in early market designs that companies could have exploited to manipulate prices. Similar models of deregulated electricity markets are being developed by a handful of researchers around the world, who see them as the only way of reckoning intelligently with the design of extremely complex deregulated electricity markets, where faith in the reliability of equilibrium reasoning has already led to several disasters, in California, notoriously, and more recently in Texas. Sadly, the academic economics profession remains reluctant to embrace this new computational approach (and stubbornly wedded to the traditional equilibrium picture). This seems decidedly peculiar given that every other branch of science from physics to molecular biology has embraced computational modeling as an invaluable tool for gaining insight into complex systems of many interacting parts, where the links between causes and effect can be tortuously convoluted. Something of the attitude of economic traditionalists spilled out a number of years ago at a conference where economists and physicists met to discuss new approaches to economics. As one physicist who was there tells me, a prominent economist objected that the use of computational models amounted to "cheating" or "peeping behind the curtain," and that respectable economics, by contrast, had to be pursued through the proof of infallible mathematical theorems. If we're really going to avoid crises, we're going to need something more imaginative, starting with a more open-minded attitude to how science can help us understand how markets really work. Done properly, computer simulation represents a kind of "telescope for the mind," multiplying human powers of analysis and insight just as a telescope does our powers of vision. With simulations, we can discover relationships that the unaided human mind, or even the human mind aided with the best mathematical analysis, would never grasp. Better market models alone will not prevent crises, but they may give regulators better ways for assessing market dynamics, and more important, techniques for detecting early signs of trouble. Economic tradition, of all things, shouldn't be allowed to inhibit economic progress. Mark Buchanan, a theoretical physicist, is the author, most recently, of "The Social Atom: Why the Rich Get Richer, Cheaters Get Caught and Your Neighbor Usually Looks Like You." Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 14:32:29 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:32:29 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Technological unemployment (was "economic growth" (was: Problem with Dean Baker's "The Bailout Round II: Adult Version?")) Message-ID: <48EA3D9B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jim Devine" > the very simple Harrod model of growth (a.k.a. Harrod-Domar) says that >> all else constant, technological change leads to falling employment. >> Thus, the real GDP needs to grow to absorb the unemployed. Tom ("Sandwichman") Walker writes: > Well, yes, "all else constant" that makes sense. Technology leads to > falling unemployment. a typo? Harrod's theory said the opposite: without growing demand for products, technical change leads to rising unemployment because it increases output per worker. > However, expanding real GDP is not the only > conceivable way of absorbing the unemployed.... > Ira Steward proposed a very different solution than simply growth of > real GDP: cutting the hours of work.... I'd expect that cutting the hours of work would increase output per worker (all else constant, of course). But it doesn't lead to a continuous increase in output per worker the way technical change does -- unless we continually decrease working hours. Good idea, but will capitalism allow it? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 14:39:53 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:39:53 -0400 Subject: [A-List] 'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Message-ID: <48EA3F58.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The New York Times has an interesting article about the way that the subprime mortgage industry pressured Fannie Mae into approving questionable loans. The article has 2 throw-away lines giving the Democrats some responsibility. Is there anything to this accusation? Duhigg, Charles. 2008. "Pressured to Take More Risk, Fannie Hit a Tipping Point." New York Times (5 October). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print Here are the two points in question: Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. The same year he took the top position, regulators sharply increased Fannie?s affordable-housing goals. Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers. ?When homes are doubling in price in every six years and incomes are increasing by a mere one percent per year, Fannie?s mission is of paramount importance,? Senator Jack Reed , a Rhode Island Democrat, lectured Mr. Mudd at a Congressional hearing in 2006. ?In fact, Fannie and Freddie can do more, a lot more.? Here is the entire text: ?Almost no one expected what was coming. It?s not fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable.?- Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive, Fannie Mae When the mortgage giant Fannie Mae recruited Daniel H. Mudd, he told a friend he wanted to work for an altruistic business. Already a decorated marine and a successful executive, he wanted to be a role model to his four children - just as his father, the television journalist Roger Mudd, had been to him. Fannie, a government-sponsored company, had long helped Americans get cheaper home loans by serving as a powerful middleman, buying mortgages from lenders and banks and then holding or reselling them to Wall Street investors. This allowed banks to make even more loans - expanding the pool of homeowners and permitting Fannie to ring up handsome profits along the way. But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie?s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans. So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives. For a time, that decision proved profitable. In the end, it nearly destroyed the company and threatened to drag down the housing market and the economy. Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae?s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation?s financial health, to the brink. Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers - more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data. ?We didn?t really know what we were buying,? said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie?s loan servicing department. ?This system was designed for plain vanilla loans, and we were trying to push chocolate sundaes through the gears.? Last month, the White House was forced to orchestrate a $200 billion rescue of Fannie and its corporate cousin, Freddie Mac . On Sept. 26, the companies disclosed that federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission were investigating potential accounting and governance problems. Mr. Mudd said in an interview that he responded as best he could given the company?s challenges, and worked to balance risks prudently. ?Fannie Mae faced the danger that the market would pass us by,? he said. ?We were afraid that lenders would be selling products we weren?t buying and Congress would feel like we weren?t fulfilling our mission. The market was changing, and it?s our job to buy loans, so we had to change as well.? Dealing With Risk When Mr. Mudd arrived at Fannie eight years ago, it was beginning a dramatic expansion that, at its peak, had it buying 40 percent of all domestic mortgages. Just two decades earlier, Fannie had been on the brink of bankruptcy. But chief executives like Franklin D. Raines and the chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard built it into a financial juggernaut by aiming at new markets. Fannie never actually made loans. It was essentially a mortgage insurance company, buying mortgages, keeping some but reselling most to investors and, for a fee, promising to pay off a loan if the borrower defaulted. The only real danger was that the company might guarantee questionable mortgages and lose out when large numbers of borrowers walked away from their obligations. So Fannie constructed a vast network of computer programs and mathematical formulas that analyzed its millions of daily transactions and ranked borrowers according to their risk. Those computer programs seemingly turned Fannie into a divining rod, capable of separating pools of similar-seeming borrowers into safe and risky bets. The riskier the loan, the more Fannie charged to handle it. In theory, those high fees would offset any losses. With that self-assurance, the company announced in 2000 that it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010. All this helped supercharge Fannie?s stock price and rewarded top executives with tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Raines received about $90 million between 1998 and 2004, while Mr. Howard was paid about $30.8 million, according to regulators. Mr. Mudd collected more than $10 million in his first four years at Fannie. Whenever competitors asked Congress to rein in the company, lawmakers were besieged with letters and phone calls from angry constituents, some orchestrated by Fannie itself. One automated phone call warned voters: ?Your congressman is trying to make mortgages more expensive. Ask him why he opposes the American dream of home ownership.? The ripple effect of Fannie?s plunge into riskier lending was profound. Fannie?s stamp of approval made shunned borrowers and complex loans more acceptable to other lenders, particularly small and less sophisticated banks. Between 2001 and 2004, the overall subprime mortgage market - loans to the riskiest borrowers - grew from $160 billion to $540 billion, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. Communities were inundated with billboards and fliers from subprime companies offering to help almost anyone buy a home. Within a few years of Mr. Mudd?s arrival, Fannie was the most powerful mortgage company on earth. Then it began to crumble. Regulators, spurred by the revelation of a wide-ranging accounting fraud at Freddie, began scrutinizing Fannie?s books. In 2004 they accused Fannie of fraudulently concealing expenses to make its profits look bigger. Mr. Howard and Mr. Raines resigned. Mr. Mudd was quickly promoted to the top spot. But the company he inherited was becoming a shadow of its former self. ?You Need Us? Shortly after he became chief executive, Mr. Mudd traveled to the California offices of Angelo R. Mozilo , the head of Countrywide Financial, then the nation?s largest mortgage lender. Fannie had a longstanding and lucrative relationship with Countrywide, which sold more loans to Fannie than anyone else. But at that meeting, Mr. Mozilo, a butcher?s son who had almost single-handedly built Countrywide into a financial powerhouse, threatened to upend their partnership unless Fannie started buying Countrywide?s riskier loans. Mr. Mozilo, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment, told Mr. Mudd that Countrywide had other options. For example, Wall Street had recently jumped into the market for risky mortgages. Firms like Bear Stearns , Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs had started bundling home loans and selling them to investors - bypassing Fannie and dealing with Countrywide directly. ?You?re becoming irrelevant,? Mr. Mozilo told Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors. ?You need us more than we need you,? Mr. Mozilo said, ?and if you don?t take these loans, you?ll find you can lose much more.? Then Mr. Mozilo offered everyone a breath mint. Investors were also pressuring Mr. Mudd to take greater risks. On one occasion, a hedge fund manager telephoned a senior Fannie executive to complain that the company was not taking enough gambles in chasing profits. ?Are you stupid or blind?? the investor roared, according to someone who heard the call, but requested anonymity. ?Your job is to make me money!? Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. The same year he took the top position, regulators sharply increased Fannie?s affordable-housing goals. Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers. ?When homes are doubling in price in every six years and incomes are increasing by a mere one percent per year, Fannie?s mission is of paramount importance,? Senator Jack Reed , a Rhode Island Democrat, lectured Mr. Mudd at a Congressional hearing in 2006. ?In fact, Fannie and Freddie can do more, a lot more.? But Fannie?s computer systems could not fully analyze many of the risky loans that customers, investors and lawmakers wanted Mr. Mudd to buy. Many of them - like balloon-rate mortgages or mortgages that did not require paperwork - were so new that dangerous bets could not be identified, according to company executives. Even so, Fannie began buying huge numbers of riskier loans. In one meeting, according to two people present, Mr. Mudd told employees to ?get aggressive on risk-taking, or get out of the company.? In the interview, Mr. Mudd said he did not recall that conversation and that he always stressed taking only prudent risks. Employees, however, say they got a different message. ?Everybody understood that we were now buying loans that we would have previously rejected, and that the models were telling us that we were charging way too little,? said a former senior Fannie executive. ?But our mandate was to stay relevant and to serve low-income borrowers. So that?s what we did.? Between 2005 and 2007, the company?s acquisitions of mortgages with down payments of less than 10 percent almost tripled. As the market for risky loans soared to $1 trillion, Fannie expanded in white-hot real estate areas like California and Florida. For two years, Mr. Mudd operated without a permanent chief risk officer to guard against unhealthy hazards. When Enrico Dallavecchia was hired for that position in 2006, he told Mr. Mudd that the company should be charging more to handle risky loans. In the following months to come, Mr. Dallavecchia warned that some markets were becoming overheated and argued that a housing bubble had formed, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations. But many of the warnings were rebuffed. Mr. Mudd told Mr. Dallavecchia that the market, shareholders and Congress all thought the companies should be taking more risks, not fewer, according to a person who observed the conversation. ?Who am I supposed to fight with first?? Mr. Mudd asked. In the interview, Mr. Mudd said he never made those comments. Mr. Dallavecchia was among those whom Mr. Mudd forced out of the company during a reorganization in August. Mr. Mudd added that it was almost impossible during most of his tenure to see trouble on the horizon, because Fannie interacts with lenders rather than borrowers, which creates a delay in recognizing market conditions. He said Fannie sought to balance market demands prudently against internal standards, that executives always sought to avoid unwise risks, and that Fannie bought far fewer troublesome loans than many other financial institutions. Mr. Mudd said he heeded many warnings from his executives and that Fannie refused to buy many risky loans, regardless of outside pressures . ?You?re dealing with massive amounts of information that flow in over months,? he said. ?You almost never have an ?Oh, my God? moment. Even now, most of the loans we bought are doing fine.? But, of course, that moment of truth did arrive. In the middle of last year it became clear that millions of borrowers would stop paying their mortgages. For Fannie, this raised the terrifying prospect of paying billions of dollars to honor its guarantees. Sustained by Government Had Fannie been a private entity, its comeuppance might have happened a year ago. But the White House, Wall Street and Capitol Hill were more concerned about the trillions of dollars in other loans that were poisoning financial institutions and banks. Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, leaned on Fannie and Freddie to buy and hold those troubled debts, hoping that removing them from the system would help the economy recover. The companies, eager to regain market share and buy what they thought were undervalued loans, rushed to comply. The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies? lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans. Some in Congress praised the move. ?I?m not worried about Fannie and Freddie?s health, I?m worried that they won?t do enough to help out the economy,? the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank , Democrat of Massachusetts, said at the time. ?That?s why I?ve supported them all these years - so that they can help at a time like this.? But earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. grew concerned about Fannie?s and Freddie?s stability. He sent a deputy, Robert K. Steel, a former colleague from his time at Goldman Sachs, to speak with Mr. Mudd and his counterpart at Freddie. Mr. Steel?s orders, according to several people, were to get commitments from the companies to raise more money as a cushion against all the new loans. But when he met with the firms, Mr. Steel made few demands and seemed unfamiliar with Fannie?s and Freddie?s operations, according to someone who attended the discussions. Rather than getting firm commitments, Mr. Steel struck handshake deals without deadlines. That misstep would become obvious over the coming months. Although Fannie raised $7.4 billion, Freddie never raised any additional money. Mr. Steel, who left the Treasury Department over the summer to head Wachovia bank, disputed that he had failed in his handling of the companies, and said he was proud of his work . As the housing crisis worsened, Fannie and Freddie announced larger losses, and shares continued falling. In July, Mr. Paulson asked Congress for authority to take over Fannie and Freddie, though he said he hoped never to use it. ?If you?ve got a bazooka and people know you?ve got it, you may not have to take it out,? he told Congress. Mr. Mudd called Treasury weekly. He offered to resign, to replace his board, to sell stock, and to raise debt. ?We?ll sign in blood anything you want,? he told a Treasury official, according to someone with knowledge of the conversations. But, according to that person, Mr. Mudd told Treasury that those options would work only if government officials publicly clarified whether they intended to take over Fannie. Otherwise, potential investors would refuse to buy the stock for fear of being wiped out. ?There were other options on the table short of a takeover,? Mr. Mudd said. But as long as Treasury refused to disclose its goals, it was impossible for the company to act, according to people close to Fannie. Then, last month, Mr. Mudd was instructed to report to Mr. Lockhart?s office. Mr. Paulson told Mr. Mudd that he could either agree to a takeover or have one forced upon him. ?This is the right thing to do for the economy,? Mr. Paulson said, according to two people with knowledge of the talks. ?We can?t take any more risks.? Freddie was given the same message. Less than 48 hours later, Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Paulson ended Fannie and Freddie?s independence, with up to $200 billion in taxpayer money to replenish the companies? coffers. The move failed to stanch a spreading panic in the financial world. In fact, some analysts say, the takeover accelerated the hysteria by signaling that no company, no matter how large, was strong enough to withstand the losses stemming from troubled loans. Within weeks, Lehman Brothers was forced to declare bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch was pushed into the arms of Bank of America , and the government stepped in to bail out the insurance giant the American International Group . Today, Mr. Paulson is scrambling to carry out a $700 billion plan to bail out the financial sector, while Mr. Lockhart effectively runs Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Raines and Mr. Howard, who kept most of their millions, are living well. Mr. Raines has improved his golf game. Mr. Howard divides his time between large homes outside Washington and Cancun, Mexico, where his staff is learning how to cook American meals. But Mr. Mudd, who lost millions of dollars as the company?s stock declined and had his severance revoked after the company was seized, often travels to New York for job interviews. He recalled that one of his sons recently asked him why he had been fired. ?Sometimes things don?t work out, no matter how hard you try,? he replied. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 6 15:17:18 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:17:18 -0400 Subject: [A-List] [Spanish] Not a FAILURE but a VICTO RY of "the market" Message-ID: <48EA481C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: Carrol Cox Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:30:39 -0500 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any given caoutakust 'moment' or capitalist regime may go down in ruins but that does not touch capitalism itself. Capitalism as such will NEVER SELF-DESTRUCT (except perhaps in the sense of triggering an irreversible global warming and mass species extinction). It will ALWAYS rise from its own ashes. The only way to _replace_ capitalism is through a socialist revolution. If you don't hit it it won't fall, though it may take us all back to the stone age. Carrol ^^^^ CB: Yes, no such thing as automatic revolution. The current situation gives the opportunity to raise class consciousness in the working class as to the dominance of the federal state power by Wall Street. Everybody can see that Paulson's one vote is more to Bush and Congress than the total tens of millions of votes of the population. Paulson is Bush's boss. He can demand 700 million dollars and get it without point a gun to anybody's head. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Oct 6 15:20:44 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:20:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] NEPAL: Minister for Land Reform resigns from maoist-led coalition government Message-ID: > Already, the sticky web of class-dominance logic inside the > bourgeois parliamentary system ensnares the Nepali maoists, > tighter and tighter... and so already they are making dire > tactical mistakes -- based on their faulty strategy of a > two-stage revolution -- and in which they follow in the > footsteps of endless stalinist parties as popular front > coalition junior-partners, and a multitude of sleazy > social-democrat governments forever beholden to capitalist > masters. > > At least one komrad has drawn the proper conclusion soon > enuff; and taken the courageous conclusion -- and acted on > it. > > > - -- grok. > > > > > - ----- Forwarded message > > > > > > > > WHY I RESIGNED FROM THE MINISTRY > > - - Matrika Yadav > > > > We are still going through a transitional situation. A > tripartite struggle is still carrying on. The different > powers are vigorously struggling to defend their own class > interests. The regressive, status quo and the progressives > are the major tendencies here. We cannot consolidate the old > state power by forgetting our commitments, our class > interests and the dreams of the martyrs. > > Our expectation and priority is to end discrimination and > inequality through a proper debate. However, the regressive > and status quo reactionaries are trying to stop and pull the > society towards a regressive direction by hook or by crook. > The brutal repression of the homeless and the poor peasants > in Mirchaiya of Siraha district is a symbolic action to > strengthen the feudalistic-comprador and bureaucratic > system. Reactionaries are trying to foil the Maoist > government by showing it is unable to champion the cause of > the poor. > > A handful is in favour of chasing the homeless people from > their huts. They are shouting loudly that it would better > for minister Matrika not to lead the campaign to > re-establish the homeless there. These people have > concentrated or tried to concentrate the attention of the > people not on the issue, but on the person. I have been > involved in politics for many years, with a dream to do > something in favour of poor and homeless people. I never > dreamt of being a minister or prime minister in my life. I > still firmly hold on to our ultimate goal. I don't want to > be a minister at the cost of giving up the interests of the > proletarian class. > > I have not diverted from my goal of helping the poor, > whether I am in the post of minister or not. I didn't want > to stay on the post of minister by forsaking the interests > of our own proletarian class. The homeless poor people had > settled on the confiscated land of a feudal landlord under a > slogan given by our party. However, those poor homeless > people were harassed and chased by a home administration > with the help of the police, without providing any > alternative for them to live. Our party is leading the > government, but homeless poor people are being chased from > their huts. Then, I could not stand by and watch all these > brutal activities of the administration. I felt dishonoured > for being helpless. I couldn't even endure it, then, I came > out to the reach of the people. > > I asked the home minister not to chase the poor people from > their huts without providing any alternative. However, he > did not listen to my humble request. He occupied the land > and chased the people forcefully. The Home minister pushed > the poor into a sea of trouble for the defence of the > monarchical-feudalist. I am confident that our party should > not be against the interests of homeless people. > > We are able to write about scientific land-reform in the > interim constitution because of our initiative. The Prime > minister has repeatedly talked and promised to work in > favour of the homeless and the land-less. He repeated it > when he responded in the Constitution Assembly about the > policy and programme of the government. > > But, in the same evening, the home administration and the > police rained Lathis over the heads of the homeless and shed > blood and tears. It was unbearable for me. I went to the > field quickly and told the homeless to stay in their huts > until and unless an alternative place or occupation is given > to them. How could I live in a luxurious building and tour > in an official facilitated vehicle of minister at that time? > I am the leader of those poor and homeless people. I cannot > change my ideas and apply the anti-people agendas of UML and > Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum. Due to these reasons, I resigned > from the post of Minister for Land Reform and Management. > > The incident of Mirchaiya of the Siraha district had not > happened according to my wish. I had only opposed the brutal > repression that took place under the order of the Home > Minister. The Mirchaiya incident is only a representative > incident to have come to the surface. If the anti-people > plan and conspiracies succeed here, brutal repressions will > follow all over the country. We cannot easily escape from > this incident simply by accusing the Home Minister Bamdev > Gautam, because the coalition government is under the > leadership of our party. Therefore, we will get more > complaints from the people than the other parties. People > expected more from our party and nothing from the UML and > MJF. > > We cannot forget our commitments that we have made before > the people. The post of minister is nothing before the > great ultimate goal and commitment of our party among the > people. In the name of running the government and being a > minister, we should not and cannot consolidate the power of > feudalistic, comprador and bureaucrat order in the state. I > can work and help the exploited classes, regions, gender and > marginalized so far as the ideology, party and leadership is > correct and the government works in favour of them. If the > ideology, party, party leadership and the government will be > against the people, there will be no relationship with the > people. > > > - ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > > > - -- > *** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! *************************************** > * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts & get organized * > * Fight the Man! * thru these sites & movements * > ******************************************************************** > * http://earthrights.org EarthRights International * > * http://www.rawa.org Revolutionary Assoc. of Women of Afghanistan * > * http://www.quintessenz.at quintessenz * > * http://www.qPis.org Public Intelligence Service * > * http://www.privacyinternational.org Privacy International * > * http://www.humanrightsfirst.org Human Rights First * > * http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/bnd_xmas Buy-Nothing Xmas * > **** NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK: "Law & Order" == Police State **** > GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFI6VAsXo3EtEYbt3ERAsv+AJ4pM82AevctjpK9abIbA0/z0MTs2ACfb5cT > GZSXqcsr1jAt+S4Iugc6nO8= > =pILD > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Oct 6 15:31:12 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:31:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall Street Journal In-Reply-To: <48E9DFC6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48E9DFC6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: ...Is it too much to expect that some of our fellow comrades comprehend that when we 'leftist' writers use the term 'socialism for the wealthy'...we're speaking sardonically? T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" To: ; Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:52 AM Subject: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall Street Journal > > Ruthless Critic of All that Exists > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is the Rescue Plan Socialism? The Far Left Says, 'No Way, Comrade' > Wall Street Journal - USA > > During a transport workers union protest on Wall Street this week, > members of the Socialist Party USA handed out fliers that screamed "NO > to the Banker ... > > > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. > www.surfcontrol.com > > From billyoc at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 16:20:05 2008 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:20:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall Street Journal In-Reply-To: (Tony B.'s message of "Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:31:12 -0400") References: <48E9DFC6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <87bpxx9xii.fsf@t22.Belkin> "Tony B." writes: > ...Is it too much to expect that some of our fellow comrades > comprehend that when we 'leftist' writers use the term 'socialism for > the wealthy'...we're speaking sardonically? Not at all, but I don't think it's your fellow comrades that the flier is aimed at. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Oct 6 18:31:49 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:31:49 +0900 Subject: [A-List] All Fall Down Message-ID: <48EAADF5.7080803@attglobal.net> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (October 06 2008) God knows what manner of deals went down this past weekend in the Hamptons wine cellars and below-decks among the Chesapeake Bay sailboat fleet. All these hidey-holes must have been dank and fetid with the sweat of mortal fear. Will the US Government declare itself a subsidiary of General Electric? Will Vlad Putin be roped in to save Goldman Sachs? Meanwhile, the whole noisome rat maze of international counter-party deals was taking on sewer water and rodents of every nationality were seen leaping for daylight all over the fusty old motherlands of Europe. A cascading collapse of international finance is underway. While many fixers may jump heroically into the tumbling wreckage hoping to rescue this-and-that, the outcome by Friday is liable to be an unrecognizable smoldering landscape of the G-7's hopes and dreams. Some big questions for the week: will the Euro survive as a currency? Will the rush into the US dollar continue even as the US financial system dematerializes in a Fibonacci fever of accelerating de-leveraged infinitude? Will the remaining Big Boyz, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan succumb to the counter-party hemorrhagic fever? Will great rows of lesser banking dominoes now start clacking onto their faces? Will all fifty states follow the leads of California and Massachusetts and line up at the US Treasury's hand-out window. Will the entity that calls itself the civilized world be left at week's end with anything resembling money? Your guess is as good as mine. We've entered the realm of phase change, where everything is slipping and nothing has settled. The final result, when the dust settles - and that may not be for weeks to come - will certainly be a poorer western world. Will it be so poor that it can no longer afford to import anything? Including oil from the land of the date palm? If so, we are really in for a rough ride, poised as we are at the edge of the heating season here in the temperate regions. Notice, by the way, that the $700 billion just approved by congress to bail out Wall Street is exactly the same sum of money that we send to the oil exporting nations this year. Will millions stop receiving paychecks due to the turmoil in banking? It's certainly possible, starting with the poor drones in Mr Schwarzenegger's motor vehicle bureau and eventually ranging to every payroll office in the land. Will Sarah Palin's fellow Six-packers line up around the parking lagoons of the suburban banks trying desperately to withdraw the last seventy bucks in their checking accounts? (And will their thoughts in the event be: this economy is fundamentally sound ...) Will the supermarket shelves of chipoltle-flavored crunchy snacks and power drinks go empty as truckers refuse to deliver their loads without up-front payment? And how long does it take a hungry public to turn mean? We could see a parallel problem in the motor fuel supply sector. So far, gasoline shortages have only appeared in parts of the Southeast USA, due to interruptions caused by two hurricanes. If the oil tankers quit offloading now for lack of credible payment, then the whole nation will get an interesting lesson in the shortcomings of the suburban development pattern. The candidates' debate Tuesday night should be interesting. I don't expect too much give-and-take on the subject of East Ossetia this time around. Even at this point, the current crack-up in world finance makes the 1929 crash and the events of the 1930s look in comparison like an orderly small town auction of somebody's grandmother's effects. Back in that sepia day, America had plenty of everything except ready cash. We had, especially, plenty of our own oil, and - you're not going to believe this but it's true - the stuff was selling for as little as ten cents a barrel, it was so abundant. And yet still, America in the 1930s plunged into a dark depression of inactivity, loss of confidence, and impoverishment. This time around, things could get more disorderly. Personally, I think we may be beyond the reach even of fascist authoritarianism, because unlike the programmed industrial masses of the 1930s, we are unused to regimentation, to lining up at the factory gates and the movie theaters. Back then, society was so regimented that everybody wore uniforms in-and-out of the military. Look at movies from the 1930s. Every man-jack wore either a necktie and hat or overalls. The industrial masses behaved like termites. Once unemployment hit, they were waiting to be told what to do, to line up for something. It worked fabulously for Hitler, who took every advantage of this mentality. Luckily, the US went for Roosevelt (both FDR and Hitler entered office the same winter of 1933, by the way). FDR was more like everybody's kindly Uncle Frank, and his reassuring persona enabled Americans to suck up their bad luck and altered circumstances. Many of them retreated to the family farm (which still existed then) and waited things out - and, anyway, the melodrama of the Great Depression soon resolved in the Second World War when Hitler's love of regimentation led him into military misadventure. He shouldn't have picked a fight with someone who had so much petroleum - end-of-story. Okay, what happens here and now? To this point (9 am Monday October 6 2008) events have been proceeding under a veneer of still-just-barely-credible authority. We (as represented by congress) have allowed Mr Paulson to advance and activate his remedies. As things unspool further, he will be out of credibility, perhaps in a few days, and it's unlikely that his successor will have any either. Mr Bernanke has simply gone AWOL. Notice, he has vanished from the media landscape. We may soon be hearing the declaration of various "emergency" measures involving the allocation of food and the rationing of oil products. The Big Bailout of last week may be partially rescinded as it becomes obvious that it has had no effect - I believe about half the $700 billion has already been allocated, which is to say: lost. I realize these things sound pretty extreme. But forces have been set in motion and momentum rules. One thing for sure: the American public is about to undergo a severe mood adjustment. There will be fewer American Idol fans and worshippers of Donald Trump by the close of business on Friday. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/10/all-fall-down.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Oct 6 21:35:18 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:35:18 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Analysis: BRIC States Can Diversify Forex Reserves, Dump Dollar Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:22 PM Subject: [stopnato] Analysis: BRIC States Can Diversify Forex Reserves, Dump Dollar http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Will-the-BRIC-nations-spread-a-new-Yellow-Fever-12037-3-1.html Commodity Online (India) October 6, 2008 Will the BRIC nations spread a new Yellow Fever? By Madhurima MUMBAI - What will happen if Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) nations with huge foreign exchange plan to diversify their foreign exhange reserves and reduce their holdings in dollar-denominated assets? The chances are that money could flow into gold and gold will turn bullish. Brazil, Russia, India and China have accumulated huge foreign exchange reserves over the years. With the future of US dollar uncertain and likely to depreciate further, gold could be the beneficiary, according to a report by Quantum Gold Fund. If Bric nations allocate one percent of their foreign exchange assets to gold, that would create an additional demand for 1000 tonnes of gold which is sufficient to turn the gold market bullish. Already various reports suggest that US financial crisis has had far reaching impact all over the globe. "Governments across the globe can print currencies at will, in an attempt to tide over current problems they face. These can give temporary relief. But is it a long term solution? Definitely not. "However, Gold is the only asset which cannot be produced in the desired quantities at will. Gold has an intrinsic value and is widely accepted as a monetary asset. Hence under these circumstances, Gold would certainly be a preferred asset for diversification by the BRIC Countries or for that matter by all kinds of investors across the globe," Quantum Gold Fund said in its report. As per the data available for the first quarter of 2008, only 1.6% of the total foreign exchange reserves of BRIC countries was invested in gold. Foreign exchange reserves of the BRIC Countries stood at US Dollar 2.7 trillion at the end of the first quarter of 2008. If BRIC countries diversify their assets into gold, many other countries can also be expected to follow a similar trend and increase allocations of their foreign exchange reserves to gold. The annual fresh supply of gold from mines across the world is less than 2,500 tonnes per annum. Besides, no significant gold discoveries have been made during this decade. The demand for gold in 2007 was around 3,500 tonnes. Central banks who have been making up for the shortfall have been seen selling lesser and lesser each year, over the past few years. What would a 5% additional diversification by BRIC countries do to gold demand? - an additional demand for 5,000 tonnes of gold. Imagine the impact on gold prices. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Biz Resources Y! Small Business Articles, tools, forms, and more. 10 Day Club on Yahoo! Groups Share the benefits of a high fiber diet. Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups!. __,_._,___ From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 23:38:16 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 01:38:16 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Oil Prices Fall Below $90 a Barrel Message-ID: October 7, 2008 Oil Prices Fall Below $90 a Barrel By CLIFFORD KRAUSS HOUSTON ? Oil prices fell below $90 a barrel on Monday for the first time since February because of the economic slowdown, even though production in the Gulf of Mexico had not fully recovered from hurricane destruction three weeks ago. The price decline of recent weeks, from a record high for crude oil of $147.27 a barrel during the trading day on July 11, has been breathtaking for energy analysts and traders, some of whom had predicted during the summer that the price would cross the $200 threshold by 2010 or sooner. Now, amid weakening global demand, prognosticators are talking about prices going down to $70 or even lower. "The buying frenzy that engulfed the oil market in the beginning of the year is about to go into reverse," declared Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading, in a note to investors on Monday, "and the myths that oil bulls tried to feed us are coming apart at the seams." Economic worries are overshadowing any relief consumers might feel at the gasoline pump, where the average national price for a gallon of regular unleaded dropped 2 cents from Sunday, to $3.50, according to AAA, the automobile club. That is still a high price by historical standards, but it is down 15 cents from a month ago, and well below the record peak of $4.11 a gallon on July 17. Gasoline prices are bound to go lower, experts say, as oil prices fall. West Texas intermediate crude for November delivery fell 6 percent to close at $87.81 in New York trading on Monday. What makes the sudden drop in oil and gasoline prices all the more surprising is that it comes at a time when oil company executives are realizing that damage to oil platforms and underwater pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico from Hurricane Ike is more serious than originally thought. The federal Minerals Management Service reported on Monday that 46.2 percent of oil production and 40.6 percent of natural gas production were still shut down. Most platforms were shut down for safety reasons before Hurricane Gustav entered the gulf in late August and then remained shut as the more powerful Ike struck last month. Fifty-two of 3,800 production platforms were destroyed, and 73 additional platforms had moderate to considerable damage. Eight pipeline systems that transport oil and gas output onshore and five onshore natural gas processing plants suffered damage, and several more oil pipeline systems are still undergoing damage assessments. Nearly all of the 15 gulf refineries that were shut down by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike are operating normally again, although a few are still struggling to repair damage from flooding. The gulf accounts for about 25 percent of the nation's domestic oil production and 15 percent of natural gas output. Government and industry officials say as much as a quarter of the gulf's oil production could still be out in a month. "If this had happened during a brisk economy, it might have been haunting, but we are far from a brisk economy," said Tom Kloza, senior oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. "As long as demand remains flat," he added, normal gulf output at this time of year "is not needed." The disruption caused shortages at gasoline stations around the Southeast for several weeks, and gasoline prices in Atlanta remain about a half-dollar higher than the national average. But shortages have eased, as gasoline flowing through the Colonial pipeline connecting the gulf to the Southeast is returning to normal levels. The reason that prices are going down despite falling gulf production is the steady drop in gasoline demand. A recent report by the Energy Department showed that consumption in July was the lowest in 11 years for the month, traditionally one of the heaviest for driving. Demand is also declining rapidly in Europe and other industrial regions because of high fuel prices and the global economic slowdown. "The financial contagion that is spreading to Europe is raising concerns about a slowdown in oil demand on the Continent that could perhaps eclipse what has already happened in the U.S.," wrote Addison Armstrong, an energy analyst at Tradition Energy, on Monday. "Oil traders are on watch of any signs that Chinese demand could follow suit." From tboyle at rosehill.net Mon Oct 6 18:23:57 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:23:57 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Naomi Klein lectures the Chicago School (DemocracyNOW this morning) Message-ID: From http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein AMY GOODMAN: The credit crunch is spreading to financial markets around the world. Nearly 160,000 jobs were lost here in the United States in September. That?s not including losses directly resulting from the financial meltdown. Wall Street might be breathing a little easier since Congress passed the more-than-$700-billion bailout plan Friday, but there are no signs of an easy or quick recovery. Today we take a look back at the economic philosophy that championed the kind of deregulation that led to this crisis. We spend the hour with investigative journalist and author Naomi Klein, bestselling author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Naomi Klein spoke at the University of Chicago last week, invited by a group of faculty opposed to the creation of an economic research center called the Milton Friedman Institute. It has a $200 million endowment and is named after the University?s most famous economist, the leader of the neoliberal Chicago School of Economics. NAOMI KLEIN: When Milton Friedman turned ninety, the Bush White House held a birthday party for him to honor him, to honor his legacy, in 2002, and everyone made speeches, including George Bush, but there was a really good speech that was given by Donald Rumsfeld. I have it on my website. My favorite quote in that speech from Rumsfeld is this: he said, ?Milton is the embodiment of the truth that ideas have consequences.? So, what I want to argue here is that, among other things, the economic chaos that we?re seeing right now on Wall Street and on Main Street and in Washington stems from many factors, of course, but among them are the ideas of Milton Friedman and many of his colleagues and students from this school. Ideas have consequences. More than that, what we are seeing with the crash on Wall Street, I believe, should be for Friedmanism what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for authoritarian communism: an indictment of ideology. It cannot simply be written off as corruption or greed, because what we have been living, since Reagan, is a policy of liberating the forces of greed to discard the idea of the government as regulator, of protecting citizens and consumers from the detrimental impact of greed, ideas that, of course, gained great currency after the market crash of 1929, but that really what we have been living is a liberation movement, indeed the most successful liberation movement of our time, which is the movement by capital to liberate itself from all constraints on its accumulation. So, as we say that this ideology is failing, I beg to differ. I actually believe it has been enormously successful, enormously successful, just not on the terms that we learn about in University of Chicago textbooks, that I don?t think the project actually has been the development of the world and the elimination of poverty. I think this has been a class war waged by the rich against the poor, and I think that they won. And I think the poor are fighting back. This should be an indictment of an ideology. Ideas have consequences. Now, people are enormously loyal to Milton Friedman, for a variety of reasons and from a variety of sectors. You know, in my cynical moments, I say Milton Friedman had a knack for thinking profitable thoughts. He did. His thoughts were enormously profitable. And he was rewarded. His work was rewarded. I don?t mean personally greedy. I mean that his work was supported at the university, at think tanks, in the production of a ten-part documentary series called Freedom to Choose, sponsored by FedEx and Pepsi; that the corporate world has been good to Milton Friedman, because his ideas were good for them. But he also was clearly a tremendously inspiring teacher, and he had a gift, like all great teachers do, to help his students fall in love with the material. But he also had a gift that many ideologues have, many staunch ideologues have?and I would even use the word ?fundamentalists? have?which is the ability to help people fall in love with a perfect imagined system, a system that seems perfect, utopian, in the classroom, in the basement workshop, when all the numbers work out. And he was, of course, a brilliant mathematician, which made that all the more seductive, which made those models all the more seductive, this perfect, elegant, all-encompassing system, the dream of the perfect utopian market. Now, one of the things that comes up again and again in the writings of University of Chicago economists of the Friedman tradition, people like Arnold Harberger, is this appeal to nature, to a state of nature, this idea that economics is not a political science or not a social science, but a hard science on par with physics and chemistry. So, as we look at the University of Chicago tradition, it isn?t just about a set of political and economic goals, like privatization, deregulation, free trade, cuts to government spending; it?s a transformation of the field of economics from being a hybrid science that was in dialogue with politics, with psychology, and turning it into a hard science that you could not argue with, which is why you would never talk to a journalist, right? Because that?s, you know, the messy, imperfect real world. It is beneath those who are appealing to the laws of nature. Now, these ideas in the 1950s and ?60s at this school were largely in the realm of theory. They were academic ideas, and it was easy to fall in love with them, because they hadn?t actually been tested in the real world, where mixed economies were the rule. Now, I admit to being a journalist. I admit to being an investigative journalist, a researcher, and I?m not here to argue theory. I?m here to discuss what happens in the messy real world when Milton Friedman?s ideas are put into practice, what happens to freedom, what happens to democracy, what happens to the size of government, what happens to the social structure, what happens to the relationship between politicians and big corporate players, because I think we do see patterns. Now, the Friedmanites in this room will object to my methodology, I assure you, and I look forward to that. They will tell you, when I speak of Chile under Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin and the Chicago Boys, China under Deng Xiaoping, or America under George W. Bush, or Iraq under Paul Bremer, that these were all distortions of Milton Friedman?s theories, that none of these actually count, when you talk about the repression and the surveillance and the expanding size of government and the intervention in the system, which is really much more like crony capitalism or corporatism than the elegant, perfectly balanced free market that came to life in those basement workshops. We?ll hear that Milton Friedman hated government interventions, that he stood up for human rights, that he was against all wars. And some of these claims, though not all of them, will be true. But here?s the thing. Ideas have consequences. And when you leave the safety of academia and start actually issuing policy prescriptions, which was Milton Friedman?s other life?he wasn?t just an academic. He was a popular writer. He met with world leaders around the world?China, Chile, everywhere, the United States. His memoirs are a ?who?s who.? So, when you leave that safety and you start issuing policy prescriptions, when you start advising heads of state, you no longer have the luxury of only being judged on how you think your ideas will affect the world. You begin having to contend with how they actually affect the world, even when that reality contradicts all of your utopian theories. So, to quote Friedman?s great intellectual nemesis, John Kenneth Galbraith, ?Milton Friedman?s misfortune is that his policies have been tried.? AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, author of the bestselling book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. We?ll come back to her speech at the University of Chicago in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to Naomi Klein, bestselling author of The Shock Doctrine, talking at the University of Chicago on Wednesday about the current economic crisis and the legacy of Milton Friedman. NAOMI KLEIN: This process of measuring an elegant perfect, beautiful, inspiring ideology against a messy reality is a painful process, and it?s a process that anyone who has tried to free themselves from the confines of fundamentalist thinking, from ideological constraints, has faced. My grandparents, for instance, were pretty hardcore Marxists. In the ?30s and ?40s, they believed fervently in the dream of egalitarianism that the Soviet Union represented. They had their illusions shattered by the reality of gulags, of extreme repression, hypocrisy, Stalin?s pact with Hitler. I bring this up, because the left has been held accountable for the crimes committed in the name of its extreme ideologies, and I believe that it?s actually been a very healthy process for the left, one that isn?t over, that is continuing. But I think that the process of having to examine the unacceptable compromises that were made in the name of hard ideology, that they are paying off in the way the left today is being reborn and re-imagined. You know, the most left-wing place on the planet at the moment is, interestingly enough, the first place where Chicago School ideology made that leap from the textbook into the real world, and that?s Latin America. And that happened for a very specific reason, as you know. This?in the 1950s, there was great concern at the State Department about the fact that Latin America, then as now, as it seems to do, was moving to the left. There was concern about what they called the ?pink economists,? the rise of developmentalism, import substitution, and, of course, socialism. And, of course, this was a concern because it greatly affected American and European interests, because the crux of the argument of import substitution was that countries like Chile and Argentina, Guatemala, should stop exporting their raw natural resources to the north and then importing expensive processed goods to the south, that it didn?t make economic sense, that they should use the same tools of protectionism, of state supports, that built the economies of Europe and North America. That was that crazy radical idea, and it was unacceptable. So, this plan was cooked up?it was between the head of USAID?s Chile office and the head of the University of Chicago?s Economics Department?to try to change the debate in Latin America, starting in Chile, because that?s where developmentalism had gained its deepest roots. And the idea was to bring a group of Chilean students to the University of Chicago to study under a group of economists who were considered so extreme that they were on the margins of the discussion in the United States, which, of course, at the time, in the 1950s, was fully in the grips of Keynesianism. But the idea was that there would be?this would be a battle to the?a counterbalance to the emergence of left-wing ideas in Latin America, that they would go home and counterbalance the pink economists. And so, the Chicago Boys were born. And it was considered a success, and the Ford Foundation got in on the funding. And hundreds and hundreds of Latin American students, on full scholarships, came to the University of Chicago in the 1950s and ?60s to study here to try to engage in what Juan Gabriel Valdes, Chile?s foreign minister after the dictatorship finally ended, described as a project of deliberate ideological transfer, taking these extreme-right ideas, that were seen as marginal even in the United States, and transplanting them to Latin America. That was his phrase?that is his phrase. But today, we see that these ideas are reemerging in Latin America. They were suppressed with force, overthrown with military coups, and then Chile and Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil all became, to varying degrees, laboratories for the ideas that were taught in the classrooms of the University of Chicago. But now, because there was never a democratic consent for this, the ideas are reemerging. But one of the things that?s interesting about the new left in Latin America is that democracy is at the very center. And, you know, the first thing that Rafael Correa did when he was elected president of Ecuador, for instance?well, the first thing he did was give an interview. They said, ?What can we expect of your economic program?? He said, ?Well, let?s put it this way: I?m no fan of Milton Friedman?s.? And then he called a constituent assembly. He created an incredibly open political process to rewrite the country?s constitution. And that?s what happened in Bolivia, and that?s what?s happened in many Latin American countries, because democracy is being put at the center of these projects, because there has been a learning process of looking at the mistakes that the left has made in the past, the ends-justify-the-means mistakes. So, I think all ideologies should be held accountable for the crimes committed in their names. I think it makes us better. Now, of course, there are still those on the far left who will insist that all of those crimes were just an aberration?Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot; reality is annoying?and they retreat into their sacred texts. We all know who I?m talking about. But lately, particularly just in the past few months, I have noticed something similar happening on the far libertarian right, at places like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation. It?s a kind of a panic, and it comes from the fact that the Bush administration adapted?adopted so much of their rhetoric, the fusing of free markets and free people, the championing of so many of their pet policies. But, of course, Bush is the worst thing that has ever happened to believers in this ideology, because while parroting the talking points of Friedmanism, he has overseen an explosion of crony capitalism, that they treat governing as a conveyor belt or an ATM machine, where private corporations make withdrawals of the government in the form of no-bid contracts and then pay back government in the form of campaign contributions. And we?re seeing this more and more. The Bush administration is a nightmare for these guys?the explosion of the debt and now, of course, these massive bailouts. So, what we see from the ideologues of the far right?by far right, I mean the far economic right?frantically distancing themselves and retreating to their sacred texts: The Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose. So that?s why I?ve taken to calling them right-wing Trotskyists, because they have this?and mostly because it annoys them, but also because they have the same sort of frozen-in-time quality. You know, it?s not, you know, 1917, but it?s definitely 1982. Now, the left-wing Trots don?t have very much money, as you know. They make their money selling newspapers outside of events like this. The right-wing Trots have a lot of money. They build think tanks in Washington, D.C., and they want to build a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago. Now, this brings up an interesting point. It?s an interesting point about the think tanks, in general, which has to do with the fact that it does seem to take so much corporate welfare to keep these ideas alive, which would seem to be a contradiction of the core principle of free market ideology?I mean, and particularly now, in the context of the Milton Friedman Institute. I mean, I could see it in the ?90s, but now, is the world really clamoring for this? Is there really a demand that you are supplying here? Really? I think this points to a larger issue, and this comes up?has come up for me again and again in talking about this ideology, this ideological campaign. You know, is it?is it really fueled by true belief, and?or is it just fueled by greed? Because it?s not?the thoughts are so very profitable. So they are distinctive in that way, distinctive from other ideologies. And, of course, you know, certainly we know that religion has been a great economic partner in imperialism. I mean, this isn?t an entirely new phenomenon. But this is a question that comes up a lot. And I think it?s very difficult to answer, and it?s clear, certainly at this school, that much of it is fueled by belief, by true belief, by falling in love with those elegant systems. But I think we also need to look particularly at this moment, who this ideology benefits directly economically, keeping it alive in this moment, and how, even in this moment, when everybody is saying, you know, this is the end of market fundamentalism, because we?re seeing this betrayal of the basic tenets of the non-interventionist government by the Bush administration?you know, I believe this is a myth and that the ideology has just gone dormant, because it?s ceased to be useful. But it will come roaring back, and I?ll talk a little bit more about that. But, you know, I was interested that yesterday the Heritage Foundation, which has always been a staunch Friedmanite think tank, that they came out in favor of the bailout. They came out in favor of the bailout; they said it was vital. And what?s interesting about that is, of course, the bailout is creating a crisis in the economic?in the public sphere. It?s taking a private crisis, a crisis on Wall Street, which of course isn?t restricted to Wall Street, and it will affect everyone, but it is moving it, moving those bad debts, onto the public books. And now the Bush administration has already left the next administration, whoever it is, with an economic crisis on their hands, but with this proposed transfer, they?re dramatically increasing that crisis. So, we can count, I would argue, on the Heritage Foundation refinding their faith, refinding their faith when it becomes necessary and useful to once again argue that the way to revive the American economy is to cut taxes, cut regulation, to stimulate the economy?and, by the way, we can?t afford Social Security; we?re going to have to privatize it, because we?ve got this terrible debt and deficit on our hands. So, the ideology is far from dead, and what we are, I think, seeing with this proposed monument to Friedmanism is really a way of entrenching it and making sure that it is always available to come back, to come roaring back. So, I said I would talk a little bit about Friedmanism and the links to the current crisis. And, you know, it?s pretty direct. Milton Friedman is pretty much accepted as the godfather of deregulation. And this was?this ideology was the rationale for turning the financial sector into the casino that we see today. You know, Milton Friedman was clear about this. He believed that ?history took a wrong turn,? and that?s a quote; it?s a quote from a letter he wrote to Augusto Pinochet. He said, ?History took a wrong turn in your country, as well as mine.? And he was referring to the responses to the Great Depression. In Chile, it was the rise of import substitution and developmentalism. But in the United States, he was of course referring to the New Deal. And I think that the Chicago School of Economics is properly understood as a counterrevolution against the New Deal, against regulations like Glass-Steagall, that was put in place in 1934 after having seen people lose their life savings to the market crash, and it was a firewall, a very simple, sensible law that said if you want to be an investment bank, if you want to gamble, gamble with your investors? money, but the government isn?t going to help you because it?s your own risk. You can fail. And if you want to be a commercial bank, then we will help you. We will offer insurance to make sure that those savings are safe, but you have to restrict the risks that you take. You cannot gamble. You cannot be an investment bank. And a firewall was put up between investment banks and consumer banks. And now we look at the way in which this crisis is supposedly being solved, and what we see, actually, is a wave of mergers in the banking sector, a wave of mergers with the banks getting bigger and bigger until ultimately?you know, the Financial Times was predicting today that eventually the United States will have three big banks, just like Japan does. That?s where it?s heading. And, of course, all of those banks will be too big to fail. So they all have this implicit guarantee; it?s not just Fannie and Freddie. It?s any function that is too important to fail has this implicit guarantee. Phil Gramm is the person, you know, on the legislative side who did the most to create the legislative context for what we?re seeing right now in the financial sector. You know, I think everyone knows that Phil Gramm, most famously, recently is the one who said that America was in a mental recession and a bunch of whiners and all of that. And so, he?s not officially an adviser to McCain, but there is talk that if he were to win the elections, he would be Treasury Secretary. You know, I point?I bring him up because Phil Gramm was a Milton Friedman fanatic. I think you know this. In 1999, the same year that he led the charge to strike down Glass-Steagall, he also?Phil Gramm?pressed Congress to get the Medal of Honor for Friedman. When he ran in the?when he made his 1996 presidential run, McCain was the co-chair of his campaign. Phil Gramm was asked, ?If you had to rely on a single person as your foremost economic policy adviser, who would it be?? And he replied, ?Dr. Milton Friedman.? So we see the connections between deregulation and Friedmanism. I also think there?s something else at play in the kind of politicians that are attracted to this particular ideology. You know, Reagan was the first really to embrace it, and Nixon was the great disappointment to Friedman. I?m sure you all know that. You know, he writes in his memoir that when Nixon was elected, he was euphoric. I mean, he couldn?t imagine an American president more closely aligned ideologically than Richard Nixon. But Richard Nixon insisted on governing, and he wanted to win elections, and he imposed wage and price controls. And Milton Friedman sort of had a bit of a temper tantrum and declared him the most socialist president in modern American history. But, you know, it was?so it was really Reagan who campaigned, you know, with his copy of Capitalism and Freedom on the campaign trail, who was the first person to really put Friedmanism into practice. And I raise this because, you know, one of the things that we hear about McCain is that he doesn?t really know about economics, and so I think that makes us inclined not to take his economic ideas seriously, not to think he would be a really serious economic force. I think just the opposite. And I think if you look at his campaign platform, you see just the opposite. He wants to privatize Social Security. He is saying that in the first 100 days they?ll look at every single government program, and they will either reform it or shut it down if it is not serving taxpayers. I mean, they are talking about a sort of hundred-day economic shock therapy period. And I think it?s the fact that he doesn?t know about economics, and that Sarah Palin, I suspect, knows a little less, that actually makes them so dangerous. And I don?t?you know, I don?t think it is?not to be too flippant?I?m sure that I?ve, you know, offended everyone, so I may as well just say bad things about Ronald Reagan?but I do think that, you know, that it isn?t a coincidence that, you know, a movie star president champions these ideas, or a body-builder governor, you know, who says, ?Dr. Friedman changed my life??I don?t know if you?ve seen Arnold Schwarzenegger?s introductions to Freedom to Choose, but they?re good. You should. YouTube them. But the appeal of these ideas, I think, to politicians who are actually in over their head on economics?and, by the way, this goes for military dictators, too, like Pinochet?who get control over a country and are totally clueless about how to run an economy, is that it lets them off the hook completely. It says government is the problem, not the solution. Leave it to the market. Laissez-faire. Don?t do anything. Just undo. Get out of the way. Leave it to us. AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein is author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, speaking at the University of Chicago against the naming of the economics institute there after its most famous economist, Milton Friedman. We?ll come back to the conclusion of her address in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We go back to the final portion of Naomi Klein?s address at the University of Chicago last week, invited by a faculty group opposed to the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, a research center honoring the ideals of the late Chicago School economist. NAOMI KLEIN: This crisis moment, of course, is going to play out in a lot of different ways. And, you know, the other major contribution?another major contribution of Friedmanism to the policy framework is not just deregulation, but privatization, of everything. And, you know, in Capitalism and Freedom, he lays out his wish list, everything from the post office to national parks. So I think it?s interesting to think about how this crisis will effect future plans for privatization. And, in fact, it already is, because the next big bubble?and, by the way, this idea of bubbles is intimately connected to the idea of governments who think that their role is simply to create the context for maximum profit seeking?I mean, that you just get out of the way; anything that makes money is good, even if, you know, it?s entirely divorced from the real economy, if it inflates?your GDP is still going up. And the next big bubble?they went from dotcom to housing?is projected to be infrastructure. The crisis, you know?and this is where Friedmanism becomes a kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because you neglect the public sphere and?because you have tax cuts and because you?ve derided the public sphere, and we certainly saw this in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, which was not a natural disaster; it was a disaster borne of a collision between heavy weather and a weak infrastructure. But then, that was used to rationalize really just erasing the public sphere altogether, closing Charity Hospital, the only hospital that treats the uninsured in New Orleans, closing down the public housing projects. Richard Baker, Republican congressman, said, ?We couldn?t clean out the housing projects, but God did.? Milton Friedman?and I start the book with this story?wrote a piece; it was one of his last pieces of writing, his last major policy recommendation. He wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal, saying that it was an opportunity, the fact that parents and teachers and children were scattered across the United States after Hurricane Katrina, an opportunity to radically remake the education system. Now, that?and, of course, turned into a voucher system. Now, that neglect of public sphere that we saw in New Orleans is, of course, a national crisis. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that there is a deficit, an infrastructure deficit of between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion, just to bring the roads and bridges up to safety standards. And the solution, up until very recently, that was being held up, was public-private partnerships, was privatization of essential infrastructure. You know this in Chicago, because the airport is one of the ones on the block. But one interesting thing that happened today is that the biggest?the biggest test case for infrastructure privatization is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which was on the verge of being handed over to a consortium of private companies on a seventy-five-year lease, and that deal fell through today. And I think part of the reason why it fell through is because one of the companies leading the consortium was Citigroup. And the idea of putting more essential services, more things that are far too important to fail, in the hands of the same people that have made such a mess of the financial sector suddenly seems like insanity. But on the other hand, the economic pressures on states, on the federal government, is only going to increase, right? Because it seems inevitable that those private debts are going to be transferred onto the public books. So, nothing can be taken for granted in this moment. The other way where we?the other place where I think we see the legacy of Friedmanism in this moment is in the backlash to the Wall Street bailout, the backlash that essentially killed the bill in Congress, although it?s clear that it?s going to be revived. People got very, very frightened yesterday when the stock market had its worst day, and they called their Congress people with another message. And I just want to say, on that front, that it?s easy to conclude from that that people are just untrustworthy, and they shouldn?t really have a say in the economy, which is, I think, probably what Milton Friedman would say. And this was part of the impulse toward specialization and treating everything economic as hard science, because that means, you know that it?s out of reach of democracy. It?s not subject to any debate; these are hard rules. Now, I think that the sort of volatility we?ve seen on the?in the markets the past few days is at least partially the result of the incredible recklessness of the Bush administration in dangling a $700 billion bailout, just free money, saying we?re going to do this, before they had any guarantee that they were going to be able to do it. So, of course, the stock market rallies at the prospect of free money. Why wouldn?t it? And then, when it falls through, of course, it dips. And I?m not saying this is all planned, but this sort of rollercoaster we?ve been on has just been part of this pattern of incredibly poor management, poor government, that infuses every aspect of this crisis. And this, of course, is also part of the ideology, because the Bush administration, far from being an aberration, is really the culmination of the idea that government is the problem, not the solution. I think they really believe that and totally abdicate it, their responsibility to manage, to govern. The popping of the housing bubble was a surprise to no one. But the only preparation was a two-and-a-half-page plan presented by Henry Paulson that said, ?Give me $700 billion, and don?t ask any questions.? That is not preparing, right? This was laissez-faire in action, a really scary kind of laissez-faire. But the anger is, of course?the anger at Wall Street, this sort of?you know, there was a vindictive quality to a lot of what the Congress people heard from their constituents: ?Why should we bail them out? Look at what they?ve done to us.? And it was Main Street versus Wall Street. And this is?you know, this is another failure of Friedmanism, because the idea of the ownership society was that class-consciousness was supposed to disappear, right? Because union members were not going to think of themselves as workers, because everybody owned a piece of the stock market, and everybody was going to have a mortgage, so they would think like owners, they would think like bosses, they would think like landlords, not like tenants, not like workers. Class is suddenly back in America, with a vengeance, and it is the result of this class war that was waged from this school. Now, interestingly, there is another Chicago boy, and Barack Obama is responding to the market crisis by turning his campaign really into a referendum; though he wouldn?t call it a referendum on Friedmanism, he seems to be turning it into a referendum on Friedmanism. He?s saying that essentially what we?re seeing on Wall Street is the culmination of an ideology of deregulation and trickle-down economics?give a lot at the top and wait for it to trickle down to the people at the bottom?and that is precisely what has failed. And what?s interesting is that the more he says that, the higher his ratings go in the polls. So I think we can see a couple of scenarios for the future. One, McCain wins, and it?s economic shock therapy. You know, the thesis of The Shock Doctrine is that we?ve been sold a fairy tale about how these radical policies have swept the globe, that they haven?t swept the globe on the backs of freedom and democracy, but they have needed shocks, they have needed crises, they have needed states of emergencies. It doesn?t necessarily have to be an outright military coup, which are the conditions in which this ideology had its first laboratories. It can just be a bad-enough economic crisis, a bad-enough hyperinflation crisis, in an electoral democracy that allows politicians to say, ?Sorry about everything we said during the campaign. Sorry about the usual ways in which we make decisions, debate discussion. We?re going to have to haul up, form an emergency economic team and impose shock therapy,? usually with the help of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Milton Friedman understood the utility of crisis. And this is a quote?you know, I use it a lot, but I?ll use it now again, because I think it?s important?which he has at the beginning of the 1982 edition of Capitalism and Freedom: "Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.? Now, because I?ve been studying the utility of crisis for this free market project, which I consider to be very anti-democratic, it?s really attuned me to looking for the ideas that are lying around. And I?ve been paying really close attention to people like Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, the Republican Study Committee, these past few weeks. And I have an ?ideas lying around? file, which are the ideas that they are floating right now in the midst of this economic crisis. And a lot of them are familiar, but the point is is that they?re being repackaged now as the way out of this economic crisis. So, it?s suspending the capital gains tax, getting rid of the post-Enron regulations, getting rid of mark-to-market accounting. In other words, more deregulation and less money in the public coffers. And it is interesting that the way in which this bill?the way the senators were trying to get the bailout bill through the Senate, after it had failed to go through Congress, was by adding tax cuts, a package of $118 billion worth of tax cuts. Some of them are good, some of them are not. But it?s a deepening of this crisis. So, we know that the crisis is coming, and the question is, how are we going to respond? I think there needs to be better ideas lying around. I think the Milton Friedman Institute is about keeping the same old ideas that have been recycled so many times, that actually make these public crises worse, making sure that they are the ones that are ready and available whenever the next crisis hits. I think that is what?at its core, that?s what so many of the right-wing think tanks are for, and that?s what the Institute is for. And I think that is a waste of the fine minds at this university. I think it is a waste of your minds, your creativity, because all of these crises?climate change, the casino that is contemporary capitalism?all of these crises do demand answers, do demand actions. They are messages, telling us that the system is broken. And instead of actual solutions, we?re throwing ideology, very profitable ideology, at these problems. So we need better ideas lying around. We need better ideas responding to what a Barack Obama presidency would absolutely face. As soon as he comes to office, ?Yes, you can? turns into ?No, you can?t; we?re broke.? No green jobs, no alternative energy, no healthcare for everyone. You know, his plan for?to give healthcare to every child in America costs $80 billion. Bailing out AIG cost $85 billion. They?re spending that money. They?re spending those promises. So, the people who are going to say, ?No, you can?t,? who are going to use this crisis to shut down hope, to shut down possibility, are ready. And I think it would be so wonderful to have the brilliant young economists of the University of Chicago?I don?t know if any of them bothered to come out tonight?but to have your minds at work meeting this crisis. We need you. We need open minds. We need flexible minds, as creative as possible. The Milton Friedman Institute, in its name and essence, is about trying to recapture a moment of ideological certainty that has long passed. It has long passed because reality has intervened. It was fun when it was all abstract. It was fun when it was all in the realm of promise and possibility. But we are well past that. Please, don?t retreat into your sacred texts. Join us in the real world. AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. She was speaking at the University of Chicago against the naming of the economics institute there, the Milton Friedman Institute, invited by a group of faculty. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 38029 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081006/78c6ad8d/attachment.txt From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Oct 6 22:20:53 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:20:53 +1100 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Financial crisis; climate change; Nepal; Peru; Canada; Venezuela; red postie; Bolivia; India Message-ID: <48EAE3A5.4020306@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links./* * * * The financial crisis: A socialist perspective By Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin September 30, 2008 -- The Bullet -- 'They say they won't intervene. But they will.' This is how Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, responded to Paul O'Neill, the first treasury secretary under George W. Bush, who openly criticised his predecessor's interventions in the face of what Rubin called 'the messy reality of global financial crises.'[1] The current dramatic conjuncture of financial crisis and state intervention has proven Rubin more correct than he could have imagined. But it also demonstrates why those, whether from the right or the left, who have only understood the era of neoliberalism ideologically - i.e. in terms of a hegemonic ideological determination to free markets from states - have had such a weak handle on discerning what really has been going on over the past quarter century. Clinging to this type of understanding will also get in the way of the thinking necessary to advance a socialist strategy in the wake of this crisis. * Read more Climate change -- the case for public ownership By Trent Hawkins Arising out of the UK Climate Camp in August 2008 there has developed an interesting debate between Ewa Jasiewicz, an activist in Britain, and well-known radical columnist George Monbiot about the role of so-called "state solutions" to climate change. Jasiewicz's article, published on the Guardian website[i] and entitled "Time for a Revolution", was an attack on Monbiot for a "controversial presentation [at climate camp] ... in which he endorsed the use of the state as a partner in resolving the climate crisis". * Read more Nepal: Prachanda in New York -- A Maoist vision for a new Nepal `A Maoist Vision for a New Nepal' -- MP3 recordings of a talk by Nepal's Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), followed by questions and answers, presented to the India China Institute of New School University, New York City, on September 26, 2008. The MP3 audio clips were first presented on the Hegemonik site, and are posted here with permission * Read more Peru: Hugo Blanco -- My arrest By Hugo Blanco Cuzco, Peru, October, 3 2008 -- First, I would like to express my profound gratitude to all of the people and institutions who, upon hearing of my arrest, demanded my liberation.* Every one of those was important. But among those that touched me most, I should mention the pronouncement made by my Canadian brothers and sisters with whose support I am able to continue publishing Lucha Ind?gena the call from the Conacami (The Peruvian National Confederation of Communities Affected by Mines) with whom I share the anxious desire for a political project that emanates from the indigenous, campesino and grassroots organisations; and the support of Wilbert Rozas, the mayor who instituted the indigenous communities' municipal government and went immediately to Paruro after learning of my arrest. Thanks to this solidarity, I was quickly--though temporarily--released. * Read more Canadian election: Left and labour movement discuss way forward A selection of articles from Canadian socialists discussing the October 14 federal election and the debates and discussions in the Canadian and Quebec left and labour movements on electoral tactics. * Read more The global financial crisis: implications for Asia By Reihana Mohideen The Wall Street crisis seems light years away from the side streets of Manila's urban poor slums. For the labouring masses in the Philippines the capitalist system has been in crisis for some time now, unable to deliver life's basic necessities: jobs and a living wage; affordable quality healthcare and education; and food security. According to official National Statistics Office data poverty levels have increased between 2003 and 2006, and 2008 is expected to be the worst year since the 1998 Asian economic crisis. Between April 2007 and April 2008 the labour force grew by only 81,000, while the number of unemployed rose by 249,000, i.e. triple the increase in the labour force. In 2008 the number of employed persons fell by 168,000 and there was no employment generation in April of this year. Jobs were being lost at a time when prices and inflation were skyrocketing. * Read more France: `Red postie' Olivier Besancenot makes international headlines * Read more Racism, domination and revolution in Bolivia By Adolfo Gilly September 22, 2008 -- Mexico -- "The problem in Bolivia is that the country is undergoing a process of reforms, without abandoning the democratic framework, but both the opposition and the government act as if they were facing a revolution", stated Marco Aurelio Garc?a, a close international affairs advisor to [Brazil's president] Lula, according to an article by Jos? Natanson in the newspaper Pagina 12. Allowing myself to not take this declaration literally, but instead in an ironic sense, Marco Aurelio Garc?a, an intelligent and well-informed man, can't help but realise that if the two protagonists of the Bolivian confrontation believe that they are dealing with a revolution, this belief is the best confirmation that, in effect, it is. The vice-president of Bolivia, ?lvaro Garc?a Linera, on the other hand, has said that what is happening is "an increase in elites, an increase in rights, and a redistribution of wealth. This, in Bolivia, is a revolution." * Read more Walden Bello: A primer on the Wall Street meltdown By Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South [Read more on the capitalist economic crisis HERE .] September 25, 2008 -- The Wall Street meltdown is not only due to greed and to the lack of government regulation of a hyperactive sector. It stems from the crisis of overproduction that has plagued global capitalism since the mid-seventies. * Read more Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela: An echo of US propaganda Statement by the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network September 30, 2008 -- As a broad network of organisations and individuals that has closely studied the significant changes in Venezuelan society since 1998 - including organising eight study tours to Venezuela involving more than 150 Australians from diverse backgrounds -- we are obliged to respond to the biases, distortions and lies contained in the Human Rights Watch report A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, released in September 2008. * Read more India: What happens to a dream deferred? Does it explode? * Read more Australia's Socialist Alliance urges a 10-point plan to cut atmospheric CO2 September 25, 2008 -- The Australian federal government's climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, has released his recommendations for medium-term cuts to Australian greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. * Read more * * * /Links/ seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14604 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/ef29b37f/attachment.txt From rasherrs at eircom.net Tue Oct 7 06:42:19 2008 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:42:19 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Analysis: BRIC States Can Diversify Forex Reserves, Dump Dollar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9287a$23590ed0$6a0b2c70$@net> Hi The growing recessionary conditions pertaining in the global capitalist economy will be used as a feeble pretext by the bourgeoisie to make sharp cut-backs of all sorts in order to increase the exploitation of the working class. The working class is to be made pay for the downturn in the global economy. The working class have now to pay for the bloated returns made by many elements among the bourgeoisie. The working class needs to politicize and organize itself in order to be able to successfully resist attempts to solve the downturn at the expense of the working class. The working class must on the basis of communist politics develop an action programme around which to engage in combat against the ruling class. Paddy Hackett From nscchicago at igc.org Tue Oct 7 08:36:07 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:36:07 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Weekly News Update / Immigrant Rights Message-ID: <006a01c9288a$109f6810$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here, good morning, friends. The wnu Links are out of the mainstream what people need to know. Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador Immigrant Rights reports US has institutionalized system of raids as if serving higher purpose. Bigotry is in the drivers seat. And it has unleashed gestapo policy it cannot control. Raids as a norm. TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/955a75f5/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/955a75f5/attachment.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Weekly News Update" Subject: Links but no Update for October 5, 2008 (CORRECTED) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:52:38 -0400 Size: 4263 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/955a75f5/attachment.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Weekly News Update" Subject: INB 9/5/08: Another Construction Raid in Hawai'i; More "Fugitive" Raids Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:00:06 -0400 Size: 13645 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/955a75f5/attachment-0001.eml From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 10:01:22 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:01:22 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Fed to Start Buying Commercial Paper Message-ID: Release Date: October 7, 2008 For release at 9:00 a.m. EDT The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), a facility that will complement the Federal Reserve's existing credit facilities to help provide liquidity to term funding markets. The CPFF will provide a liquidity backstop to U.S. issuers of commercial paper through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that will purchase three-month unsecured and asset-backed commercial paper directly from eligible issuers. The Federal Reserve will provide financing to the SPV under the CPFF and will be secured by all of the assets of the SPV and, in the case of commercial paper that is not asset-backed commercial paper, by the retention of up-front fees paid by the issuers or by other forms of security acceptable to the Federal Reserve in consultation with market participants. The Treasury believes this facility is necessary to prevent substantial disruptions to the financial markets and the economy and will make a special deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in support of this facility. The commercial paper market has been under considerable strain in recent weeks as money market mutual funds and other investors, themselves often facing liquidity pressures, have become increasingly reluctant to purchase commercial paper, especially at longer-dated maturities. As a result, the volume of outstanding commercial paper has shrunk, interest rates on longer-term commercial paper have increased significantly, and an increasingly high percentage of outstanding paper must now be refinanced each day. A large share of outstanding commercial paper is issued or sponsored by financial intermediaries, and their difficulties placing commercial paper have made it more difficult for those intermediaries to play their vital role in meeting the credit needs of businesses and households. By eliminating much of the risk that eligible issuers will not be able to repay investors by rolling over their maturing commercial paper obligations, this facility should encourage investors to once again engage in term lending in the commercial paper market. Added investor demand should lower commercial paper rates from their current elevated levels and foster issuance of longer-term commercial paper. An improved commercial paper market will enhance the ability of financial intermediaries to accommodate the credit needs of businesses and households. Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) Terms and Conditions (57 KB PDF) From michael.hudson at earthlink.net Tue Oct 7 10:20:25 2008 From: michael.hudson at earthlink.net (Michael Hudson) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:20:25 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Ukraine problems Message-ID: Zavtra No. 40 October 2, 2008 MAIN AXIS OF ADVANCE Ukraine as the focus of the United States' attention in the post-Soviet zone Author: Sergei Glaziev UKRAINIAN CARD IN AMERICA'S GEOPOLITICAL GAME: WILL UKRAINE INSTEAD OF IRAN BECOME THE NEXT FLASH POINT? Fomenting severance of ties between Ukraine and Russia has traditionally been the main axis of American politics in the post- Soviet zone. Unfortunately, the Russian leadership grossly underestimated seriousness of Washington's maniacal obsession with the idea of driving a wedge between Moscow and Kiev. Moscow never even bothered to compose a strategy of dealing with Ukraine despite critical importance of some Ukrainian enterprises for the Russian industry. With the exception of a single clumsy attempt to interfere with a presidential campaign in Kiev, the Russian leadership remains unforgivably passive with regard to Ukraine, its interest in the neighbor state limited to purely commercial projects of oil and gas transportation. Unlike Moscow, Washington spares neither time nor effort to win the Ukrainian leadership over. Career intelligence officers, analysts, political technologists using the US Embassy in Ukraine as cover, foundations and trusts sponsoring Ukrainian intellectual elite, agents of influence in the upper echelons of state never permit the anti-Russian campaign to lose momentum. Undisguised, constant, and deep interference with Ukrainian domestic affairs couldn't help being productive (or disruptive). American secret services control secretariat of the Ukrainian president and the president himself. They essentially run the Ukrainian Security Service and foreign and defense ministries. They wield clout with the Ukrainians in key positions making economic decisions of paramount importance. What with the crisis of the global financial system fomented by the collapse of the American financial structure, Washington objectively needs escalation of international tension to retain its global leadership. The United States has never hesitated to launch regional wars to secure its own positions. It did so in Yugoslavia when Europe was introducing the euro and in Iraq during the previous financial crisis when Arab oil exporters threatened to convert their dollar assets into other hard currencies. Despite what experts might be thinking, it is Ukraine and not Iran that may become another flash point on the map of the world. First, Iran is too strong for the Pentagon at this point. Second, American aggression against Iran may stir an anti-American revolution throughout the Islamic world. Third, a conflict in Ukraine will serve as a constant irritant for Russia whose weakening is the prime objective of American politics. Last but not the least, this latent aggression has been the main axis of American advance into the post-Soviet zone for literally years. Its escalation into an open form will only require a formal excuse, something like Victor Yuschenko's hollering for help in the midst of a financial and political crisis. Even inciting a civil war in Ukraine, the United States itself will run no risks at all. On the contrary, a conflict between Ukraine and Russia will become another step towards realization of Zbigniew Brzezinski's geopolitical strategy, that of reducing Russia's role in international affairs to that of a regional power at best. Also conveniently, it will allow Washington to apply even more pressure to the European Union. With the Crimea (and perhaps some other regions of Ukraine) going up in flames of a conflict, European powers will be compelled to back the United States with its policy - and that will give NATO the much needed second breath. Even if Ukraine disintegrates, Washington will only benefit from it by forcing another conflict on Europe and isolating Russia from the European Union. Like in Georgia, presidential power in Ukraine is controlled from Washington and this state of affairs offers the US Administration a perfect opportunity for organization of a controllable conflict. The United States is absolutely safe even though the scope and consequences of this conflict may exceed those of the Georgian or even Yugoslavian escapades. Regardless of what Ukraine comes to - civil war, disintegration, and so on - Washington will be spared any losses. It will employ the services of the Ukrainians themselves, Poles, Turks, and other Russophobes. Like in the Balkans several years ago, Washington will force its European allies to meet the bill and deal with the resulting mess. As for the Ukrainian leadership, it has its own motives to escalate tension. Yuschenko's chances to retain presidency are essentially nonexistent. Never a man to blanch from dirty tricks in power struggle, he will certainly do everything to remain in the driver's seat. Yuschenko needs but an excuse to stage a coup and usurp state power, something that will be easily accepted by his NATO patrons and a certain part of the Ukrainian establishment. Political destabilization augmented by the financial crisis may become his alibi. The shape of Ukraine's external account serves as mute evidence of an inevitable crisis of the national financial system fomented by the rapid growth of the trade balance deficit. Official Kiev has been using foreign credits to recompense for it until recently but this option is no longer available. The situation being what it is, the grivna strengthening policy the Ukrainian authorities promote cannot help fomenting a financial crisis within the following six months. It will devalue the grivna, leave major banks in Ukraine broke, cause a stock market crash, send inflation soaring sky-high, and make a laugh of the population's real income. Socioeconomic deterioration and the forthcoming presidential election will force on the Ukrainian leadership some dramatic and radical moves aimed at usurpation of state power. If the Rada is dissolved, Yuschenko will certainly try to wreck the early parliamentary election in order to proclaim presidential dictatorship which the United States will hail and back. Yuschenko's political adversaries will be condemned as traitors who provoked the crisis in the first place. The crisis itself will be chalked off to high gas tariffs to enable Washington to don the mantle of savior through getting the International Monetary Fund to give Ukraine a stabilization loan. In return for Ukraine's commitment to join NATO and hand over its foreign, financial, and defense policy to Washington, of course. As for the discontent of the population and protests of the opposition, official Kiev will channel the former into an anti- Russian campaign and crush the latter. To legitimize this mistreatment of the opposition, the Ukrainian authorities won't even hesitate to provoke ethnic conflicts with some casualties - somewhere in the Crimea, the Carpathian Mountains, or in Odessa. Some provocations in Sevastopol should be expected as well, anything to draw the Russian Armed Forces into the conflict. Putschists will do what they can to make the conflict as vicious as possible to justify their inevitable decision to proclaim martial law in the Crimea and other regions of Ukraine, crush the opposition, arrange a referendum to amend the Constitution, and keep presidency in Yuschenko's hands. Organizers of the putsch will need aid from NATO to crush the opposition and stifle protests. To elicit this aid, they will arrange provocations to force the Russian Black Sea Fleet to react or at least do something that may be presented to the sympathetic West as the Russians' inadequate reaction. The Americans may recommend their Ukrainian pals to sink a couple of ships with all hands and pin the blame on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Or they will come up with something else to create the illusion of the Russian military invasion into the Crimea to annex the peninsula. With the Rada dissolved, Yuschenko will invite American and NATO contingents into Ukraine claiming that so dramatic a development is necessitated by the grave emergency. There are no doubts at all that the United States and Europe will use the crisis to tighten their grip on Ukraine and take over. Expansion of foreign capitals into Ukraine will be smooth and easy, facilitated by the conditions already set in place. Leading Ukrainian banks and enterprises cannot survive without foreign credits anymore. Ukraine will lose economic sovereignty in return for new loans necessary to finance state expenditures and develop a thoroughly anti-Russian army. Economic depression will settle for years, accompanied by spreading impoverishment and mass immigration. Ukraine's return to Russia on the other hand will put into motion a wholly different scenario. Cheap oil and gas and Russian credits will make the worst consequences of the crisis easier to negotiate, shorten duration of the crisis itself, and ease the way out of it. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Oct 7 10:31:36 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:31:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Rachel Maddow Message-ID: <48EB56A8.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Rachel Maddow Born Rachel Anne Maddow April 1, 1973 (1973-04-01) (age 35) Occupation Radio host TV host Partner Susan Mikula Rachel Anne Maddow (born April 1, 1973) is an American television host, radio personality, and liberal political pundit. She is the host of The Rachel Maddow Show on Air America Radio and a television show of the same name on MSNBC.[1] [edit] Education A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, California, Maddow later obtained a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[2] She then received a Rhodes Scholarship in 1995 and used it to obtain a D.Phil. in political science from Lincoln College, Oxford University.[3] Maddow was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.[4] [edit] Radio career Maddow got her first radio hosting job at WRNX (100.9 FM, Holyoke, Massachusetts) when the station held a contest for a new on-air personality.[5] She was hired to co-host WRNX's then premier morning show, The Dave in the Morning Show. She later went on to host Big Breakfast on WRSI, in Northampton, Massachusetts, for two years. She left the show to join the newly created Air America in March 2004.[3] There she hosted Unfiltered along with Chuck D and Lizz Winstead until its cancellation on March 31, 2005.[6] Two weeks later (April 14), her own two-hour-long program, The Rachel Maddow Show, began airing; it was expanded to three hours on March 10, 2008. It aired live from New York from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. ET on weekdays, with David Bender filling in the third hour for the call-in section when Maddow is on TV assignment. On September 8, 2008, TRMS returned to a two-hour format as Maddow began her nightly MSNBC show. [edit] Television career Maddow was a regular panelist on MSNBC's Tucker. During and after the November 2006 election, she was a frequent guest on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, which has since been discontinued. In January 2008, Maddow was given the position of MSNBC political analyst and was a regular panelist MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory and MSNBC's election coverage, as well as a frequent contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.[3] On April 4, 2008, Maddow was the substitute host for Countdown with Keith Olbermann, her first time hosting a program on MSNBC. Maddow described herself on air as "nervous," but Keith Olbermann complimented her work and she was brought back to host "Countdown" on May 16, 2008. That day, Countdown was the highest rated news program in the key 25?54 year old demographic.[7] For her success, Olbermann awarded Maddow the 3rd ranking in his regular segment, "World's Best Persons" on the following Monday, calling her "World's Best Pinch-Hitter."[8] Maddow filled in again on Countdown for eight-and-a-half broadcasts while Olbermann was on vacation in July 2008 (including the latter half of the July 21 show).[9] Maddow has also filled in for David Gregory as host of Race for the White House.[3] It was announced on August 19, 2008, that Maddow would take over the 9 pm ET time slot on MSNBC on September 8, 2008, replacing Dan Abrams.[10] The name of her show is The Rachel Maddow Show.[11] Since its debut, the show has drawn strong ratings, even topping Countdown to be the highest rated show on MSNBC on several occasions.[12][13] [edit] Personal life Maddow lives in Manhattan and Western Massachusetts with her partner, artist and accountant Susan Mikula.[14][15] The couple met in 1999, when Mikula hired Maddow, who was then working on her doctoral dissertation, for yard work at her home.[14] Maddow says that she does not own a television.[16] [edit] References This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Oct 7 10:32:45 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:32:45 -0400 Subject: [A-List] http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/ Message-ID: <48EB56ED.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Oct 7 11:54:35 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:54:35 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism Message-ID: <48EB6A1B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism ^^^^^ CB: Well, that's partly right. ^^^^^ http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/2172131/face-it-marx-was-partly-right-about-capitalism.thtml The Spectator Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism Rowan Williams Wednesday, 24th September 2008 Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, says that the financial world needs fresh scrutiny and regulation. In our attitude to the market, we run the risk of idolatry Readers of Anthony Trollope will remember how thoughtless and greedy young men in the Victorian professions can be lured into ruin by accepting ?accommodation bills? from their shifty acquaintances. They make themselves liable for the debts of others; and only too late do they discover that they are trapped in a web of financial mechanics that forces them to pay hugely inflated sums for obligations or services they have had nothing to do with. Their own individual credit-worthiness, their own circumstances, even their own personal choices are all irrelevant: the debt has acquired a life of its own, quite independent of any real transaction they are involved in. A prescient student of Trollope would have seen that he is identifying an endemic feature of the world of borrowing and lending. A lender takes a calculated risk in offering the use of their money to someone else, and rates of interests express the recognition of this - and the rewards that may be secured for taking such a risk. But it is not too difficult to see how the notional gain involved here can be used as security against a further risk. And so the transaction moves further and further from the original transaction with its realistic assessment of levels of risk within the context of measurable standards of credit-worthiness. Any face-to-face element, any direct calculation of what and who is reasonably worth trusting (which assumes some common frame of reference), fades away. Like Trollope?s hapless young clerics and feckless young landowners, individuals find that their own personal financial decisions and calculations have nothing to do with what is happening to their resources, in a process for which a debt is simply someone else?s wholly disposable asset. It is a sort of one-syllable nursery parable of what the last couple of weeks have illustrated in the world of global finance and, of course, a reminder that what we have been witnessing is not just the product of a couple of irresponsible decades. Trading the debts of others without accountability has been the motor of astronomical financial gain for many in recent years. Primitively, a loan transaction is something which enables someone to do what they might not otherwise be able to do - start a business, buy a house. Lenders identify what would count as reasonable security in the present and the future (present assets, future income) and decide accordingly. But inevitably in complex and large-scale transactions, one person?s debt becomes part of the security which the lender can offer to another potential customer. And a particularly significant line is crossed when the borrowing and lending are no longer to do with any kind of equipping someone to do something specific, but exclusively about enabling profit - sometimes, as with the now banned practice of short-selling, by effectively betting on the failure of a partner in the transaction. This crisis exposes the element of basic unreality in the situation - the truth that almost unimaginable wealth has been generated by equally unimaginable levels of fiction, paper transactions with no concrete outcome beyond profit for traders. But while we are getting used to this sudden vision of the Emperor?s New Clothes, there are one or two questions that, in government as in society at large, we at last have a chance to ask. Some of these are elementary and practical. Given that the risk to social stability overall in these processes has been shown to be so enormous, it is no use pretending that the financial world can maintain indefinitely the degree of exemption from scrutiny and regulation that it has got used to. To grant that without a basis of some common prosperity and stability, no speculative market can long survive is not to argue for rigid Soviet-style centralised direction. Insecure or failed states may provide a brief and golden opportunity for profiteering, but cannot sustain reliable institutions. Without a background of social stability everyone will eventually suffer, including even the most resourceful, bold and ingenious of speculators. The question is not how to choose between total control and total deregulation, but how to identify the points and practices where social risk becomes unacceptably high. The banning of short-selling is an example of just such a judgment. Governments should not lose their nerve as they look to identify a few more targets. Behind all this, though, is the deeper moral issue. We find ourselves talking about capital or the market almost as if they were individuals, with purposes and strategies, making choices, deliberating reasonably about how to achieve aims. We lose sight of the fact that they are things that we make. They are sets of practices, habits, agreements which have arisen through a mixture of choice and chance. Once we get used to speaking about any of them as if they had a life independent of actual human practices and relations, we fall into any number of destructive errors. We expect an abstraction called ?the market? to produce the common good or to regulate its potential excesses by a sort of natural innate prudence, like a physical organism or ecosystem. We appeal to ?business? to acquire public responsibility and moral vision. And so we lose sight of the fact that the market is not like a huge individual consciousness, that business is a practice carried on by persons who have to make decisions about priorities - not a machine governed by inexorable laws. And this is part of the same mindset that turns the specific, goal-related transactions of borrowing and lending into a process producing pseudo-things, paper assets - but pseudo-things that (when matters do not go well) cause real and crippling damage to actual persons and institutions. The biggest challenge in the present crisis is whether we can recover some sense of the connection between money and material reality - the production of specific things, the achievement of recognisably human goals that have something to do with a shared sense of what is good for the human community in the widest sense. Of course business is not philanthropy, securing profit is a legitimate (if not a morally supreme) motivation for people, and the definition of what?s good for the human community can be pretty widely drawn. It?s true as well that, in some circumstances, loosening up a financial regime to allow for entrepreneurs and innovators to create wealth is necessary to draw whole populations out of poverty. But it is a sort of fundamentalism to say that this alone will secure stable and just outcomes everywhere. Fundamentalism is a religious word, not inappropriate to the nature of the problem. Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, if about little else. And ascribing independent reality to what you have in fact made yourself is a perfect definition of what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures call idolatry. What the present anxieties and disasters should be teaching us is to ?keep ourselves from idols?, in the biblical phrase. The mythologies and abstractions, the pseudo-objects of much modern financial culture, are in urgent need of their own Dawkins or Hitchens. We need to be reacquainted with our own capacity to choose - which means acquiring some skills in discerning true faith from false, and re-learning some of the inescapable face-to-face dimensions of human trust. _______________________________________________ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Oct 7 12:50:34 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:50:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Majority shareholders Message-ID: <48EB773B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> "I wonder how he sleeps at night." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: "Progressive Economics" Please forgive my egotism, but I couldn't resist this, as it may have some political relevance. Michael From: xulin dong Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:05:31 +0800 To: Michael Hudson hi michael, good news. the chinese version of your sup-imp'ism made the best-sellers list immediately after its release. i am leaving for ny later today and will arrive 8pm wedenesday. i will call u to arrange a meeting upon arrival. cheers, From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Oct 7 14:41:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:41:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall Street Journal Message-ID: <48EB9149.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: "Tony B." Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:31:12 -0400 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Is it too much to expect that some of our fellow comrades comprehend that when we 'leftist' writers use the term 'socialism for the wealthy'...we're speaking sardonically? T. ^^^^^ CB: Yes, humor. However, given the sardonically challenged general population, probably better to start with "baby steps", not sophisticated jokes as we speak to masses of US workers. More like "this is Mussolini style fascism, monopoly corporatism, wherein the Boss can march right up to the President, his subordinate , demand $ 700 billion , and get it ! " Now that's Power ! Workers of the World, just watch and read the news, and see the system and its true power relations exposed. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Oct 7 14:49:51 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:49:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Israelis Wary of a US Radar Base in the Negev Message-ID: <48EB9330.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:28:07 -0400 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, Oct. 02, 2008 Israelis Wary of a US Radar Base in the Negev By Tim McGirk and Aaron J. Klein / Jerusalem When a contingent of U.S. soldiers opens a radar facility on a mountaintop in the Negev desert next month, Israel will for the first time in its 60-year history have a permanent foreign military base on its soil. ^^^ CB: If Israel can't trust the US, they are in trouble. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 16:05:55 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:05:55 -0700 Subject: [A-List] US Federal Reserves... Are there any? Message-ID: <48EBDD43.9050708@gmail.com> I was just perusing a news article: WASHINGTON (AFP) "The US Federal Reserve said it would buy up short-term commercial paper or company debt in an effort to kick-start credit flows and ease a squeeze in bank lending, a move it described as "necessary to prevent substantial disruptions to the financial markets and the economy." http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/newsmlmmd.7c707d44f54ce620e495c02492429a33.1c1.html My confusion stems from this chart from the Fed, published at the time of the Bear Stearns buyout: http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee241/photobastard/non-borrowedreservesofdepositoryins.jpg It appears the Federal Reserve has none... Reserves that is... Leigh From nscchicago at igc.org Tue Oct 7 14:38:11 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:38:11 -0500 Subject: [A-List] CUBA THE CUBAN FIVE AND IFCO Pastors for Peace Message-ID: <00aa01c928bc$a63e6740$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here, friends, and we see from attached more information update and appeal on solidarity CUBA. The Cuban Five - now 10 years, 10 years! The Cuba Caravan, IFCO Pastors for Peace, Lucius Walker and the US courts. Take a stand, friends, good standing with you. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1391 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/2badc4ce/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/2badc4ce/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: abeltranjurisdr at aol.com Subject: [PeaceNoWar] Treatment of Cuban Five: 'It's A Form of Torture' Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:36:56 -0400 Size: 27010 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/2badc4ce/attachment-0002.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Kaufman" Subject: [LASolidarity] Update on Legal Threat to IFCO and Rev. Lucius Walker Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:10:08 -0400 Size: 13648 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/2badc4ce/attachment-0003.eml From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Oct 7 19:03:34 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:03:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism In-Reply-To: <48EB6A1B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48EB6A1B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: "The mythologies and abstractions, the pseudo-objects of much modern financial culture, are in urgent need of their own Dawkins..." Ironically, Dawkins' selfish gene theory is, in fact, largely based in and drawn from the individualistic ethos of capitalist ideology. Though likely argued by others, I wrote essays over almost 20 years ago tracing the near one-to-one mapping between Dawkins' reductionist selfish gene hypothesis (now entirely deconstructed, e.g. see 'Phenotypes' 1994, by C. D. Rollo) and capitalist motifs. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:54 PM Subject: [A-List] Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism ^^^^^ CB: Well, that's partly right. ^^^^^ http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/2172131/face-it-marx-was-partly-right-about-capitalism.thtml The Spectator Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism Rowan Williams Wednesday, 24th September 2008 Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, says that the financial world needs fresh scrutiny and regulation. In our attitude to the market, we run the risk of idolatry Readers of Anthony Trollope will remember how thoughtless and greedy young men in the Victorian professions can be lured into ruin by accepting ?accommodation bills? from their shifty acquaintances. They make themselves liable for the debts of others; and only too late do they discover that they are trapped in a web of financial mechanics that forces them to pay hugely inflated sums for obligations or services they have had nothing to do with. Their own individual credit-worthiness, their own circumstances, even their own personal choices are all irrelevant: the debt has acquired a life of its own, quite independent of any real transaction they are involved in. A prescient student of Trollope would have seen that he is identifying an endemic feature of the world of borrowing and lending. A lender takes a calculated risk in offering the use of their money to someone else, and rates of interests express the recognition of this - and the rewards that may be secured for taking such a risk. But it is not too difficult to see how the notional gain involved here can be used as security against a further risk. And so the transaction moves further and further from the original transaction with its realistic assessment of levels of risk within the context of measurable standards of credit-worthiness. Any face-to-face element, any direct calculation of what and who is reasonably worth trusting (which assumes some common frame of reference), fades away. Like Trollope?s hapless young clerics and feckless young landowners, individuals find that their own personal financial decisions and calculations have nothing to do with what is happening to their resources, in a process for which a debt is simply someone else?s wholly disposable asset. It is a sort of one-syllable nursery parable of what the last couple of weeks have illustrated in the world of global finance and, of course, a reminder that what we have been witnessing is not just the product of a couple of irresponsible decades. Trading the debts of others without accountability has been the motor of astronomical financial gain for many in recent years. Primitively, a loan transaction is something which enables someone to do what they might not otherwise be able to do - start a business, buy a house. Lenders identify what would count as reasonable security in the present and the future (present assets, future income) and decide accordingly. But inevitably in complex and large-scale transactions, one person?s debt becomes part of the security which the lender can offer to another potential customer. And a particularly significant line is crossed when the borrowing and lending are no longer to do with any kind of equipping someone to do something specific, but exclusively about enabling profit - sometimes, as with the now banned practice of short-selling, by effectively betting on the failure of a partner in the transaction. This crisis exposes the element of basic unreality in the situation - the truth that almost unimaginable wealth has been generated by equally unimaginable levels of fiction, paper transactions with no concrete outcome beyond profit for traders. But while we are getting used to this sudden vision of the Emperor?s New Clothes, there are one or two questions that, in government as in society at large, we at last have a chance to ask. Some of these are elementary and practical. Given that the risk to social stability overall in these processes has been shown to be so enormous, it is no use pretending that the financial world can maintain indefinitely the degree of exemption from scrutiny and regulation that it has got used to. To grant that without a basis of some common prosperity and stability, no speculative market can long survive is not to argue for rigid Soviet-style centralised direction. Insecure or failed states may provide a brief and golden opportunity for profiteering, but cannot sustain reliable institutions. Without a background of social stability everyone will eventually suffer, including even the most resourceful, bold and ingenious of speculators. The question is not how to choose between total control and total deregulation, but how to identify the points and practices where social risk becomes unacceptably high. The banning of short-selling is an example of just such a judgment. Governments should not lose their nerve as they look to identify a few more targets. Behind all this, though, is the deeper moral issue. We find ourselves talking about capital or the market almost as if they were individuals, with purposes and strategies, making choices, deliberating reasonably about how to achieve aims. We lose sight of the fact that they are things that we make. They are sets of practices, habits, agreements which have arisen through a mixture of choice and chance. Once we get used to speaking about any of them as if they had a life independent of actual human practices and relations, we fall into any number of destructive errors. We expect an abstraction called ?the market? to produce the common good or to regulate its potential excesses by a sort of natural innate prudence, like a physical organism or ecosystem. We appeal to ?business? to acquire public responsibility and moral vision. And so we lose sight of the fact that the market is not like a huge individual consciousness, that business is a practice carried on by persons who have to make decisions about priorities - not a machine governed by inexorable laws. And this is part of the same mindset that turns the specific, goal-related transactions of borrowing and lending into a process producing pseudo-things, paper assets - but pseudo-things that (when matters do not go well) cause real and crippling damage to actual persons and institutions. The biggest challenge in the present crisis is whether we can recover some sense of the connection between money and material reality - the production of specific things, the achievement of recognisably human goals that have something to do with a shared sense of what is good for the human community in the widest sense. Of course business is not philanthropy, securing profit is a legitimate (if not a morally supreme) motivation for people, and the definition of what?s good for the human community can be pretty widely drawn. It?s true as well that, in some circumstances, loosening up a financial regime to allow for entrepreneurs and innovators to create wealth is necessary to draw whole populations out of poverty. But it is a sort of fundamentalism to say that this alone will secure stable and just outcomes everywhere. Fundamentalism is a religious word, not inappropriate to the nature of the problem. Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, if about little else. And ascribing independent reality to what you have in fact made yourself is a perfect definition of what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures call idolatry. What the present anxieties and disasters should be teaching us is to ?keep ourselves from idols?, in the biblical phrase. The mythologies and abstractions, the pseudo-objects of much modern financial culture, are in urgent need of their own Dawkins or Hitchens. We need to be reacquainted with our own capacity to choose - which means acquiring some skills in discerning true faith from false, and re-learning some of the inescapable face-to-face dimensions of human trust. _______________________________________________ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Oct 7 19:05:51 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:05:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall StreetJournal In-Reply-To: <87bpxx9xii.fsf@t22.Belkin> References: <48E9DFC6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <87bpxx9xii.fsf@t22.Belkin> Message-ID: Yeh....perused that one a tad too quickly. T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill O'Connor" To: "The A-List" Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall StreetJournal > "Tony B." writes: > >> ...Is it too much to expect that some of our fellow comrades >> comprehend that when we 'leftist' writers use the term 'socialism for >> the wealthy'...we're speaking sardonically? > > Not at all, but I don't think it's your fellow comrades that the flier > is aimed at. > > From hliu at mindspring.com Tue Oct 7 19:36:12 2008 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry CK Liu) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:36:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Best seller list in China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EC0E8C.9070401@mindspring.com> Michael, You might mentioned that I was the person who arranged for your book to be translated and published in China and also played a key role in suggesting that a new edition of Super Imperilaism be republished and helpedd edit on your new prologue in it. Henry Michael Hudson wrote: >Please forgive my egotism, but I couldn't resist this, as it may have some >political relevance. > Michael >From: xulin dong >Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:05:31 +0800 >To: Michael Hudson > > >hi michael, > >good news. the chinese version of your sup-imp'ism made the best-sellers >list immediately after its release. > >i am leaving for ny later today and will arrive 8pm wedenesday. i will call >u to arrange a meeting upon arrival. > >cheers, > > > > > > From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Oct 7 22:42:19 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:42:19 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Cassandra's View Message-ID: <48EC3A2B.8020804@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (October 01 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society ?As I mentioned in last week's post, I took the opportunity this year to travel to Sacramento to attend the annual conference hosted by ASPO-USA - the acronym-impaired may want to know that this is the US branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, the largest and most respected organization in the peak oil field. It was, as the Grateful Dead might have put it, a long strange trip, and ever since my return I have been wondering just how to talk about the experience on The Archdruid Report. That the conference needed to be discussed here I had no doubt. Some of the presentations at the conference were profoundly insightful. Others were profoundly obtuse - and this very fact is worth noting, as a marker of the extent to which intelligent people with the best intentions in the world can still miss the most crucial implications of the systemic crisis facing the industrial world just now. Still, inspiration chooses its own path; it wasn't until I unpacked a book I'd found in a very different place the day before the conference, and flipped idly through its pages, that I knew how to say what needed to be said. Perhaps the most surprising personal discovery I made at the conference was that while many people there had encountered these essays, most of them apparently thought that the word "archdruid" in the title was a cute internet handle rather than a job description. I am in fact the elected head of a Druid order {1}, and in that capacity I travel now and then to events hosted by other Druid organizations around the country. It so happened that the ASPO conference took place just after one such event, a harvest festival for Sacramento's Pagan community, celebrating the autumn equinox. That's where I was on the two days prior to the conference, celebrating the coming of autumn with Sacramento's Druids and Pagans in a sunny, pleasant park east of town. That's where I wandered into a bookstall in the row of vendors, and bought a copy of an old favorite, Bulfinch's Mythology (1855); and it was as I paged through the volume, thinking mostly of the challenges involved in finding a place for it on my already overcrowded bookshelves, that I found a reference to the old story of Cassandra. Most people nowadays have heard the name, but those of my readers who had what passes for an education in the American public schools may not be familiar with the story. Cassandra was a daughter of Priam, the last king of Troy; Apollo gave her the gift of prophecy in an attempt to seduce her but, when she refused him, put a curse on her so that nobody would believe her predictions. She thus had to watch helplessly as all her warnings were ignored and her father's city plunged headlong into the catastrophe of the Trojan War. When Troy fell to the Greeks, the Greek commander Agamemnon took her home with him as a captive. In a scene portrayed with stunning force in Aeschylus' play Agamemnon, she foresaw his murder - and her own - at the hands of Agamemnon's estranged wife; no one believed her then, either, and captor and captive died together. The crowning irony is that Apollo's curse has lost none of its power today; more often than not, when someone is described as "a Cassandra" these days, the phrase implies that the dire events that person predicts will not happen. In terms of the original tale, though, the whole cast of Cassandra's story was present and accounted for at the ASPO conference last week. The event took place in an expensive hotel across the street from the California state capitol, with skyscrapers filling in for the fabled towers of Troy, and King Priam played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did not attend the conference but prefers a penthouse suite in the same hotel to the less private comforts of the governor's mansion up the street. Lunches, finger food for breaks, and hors d'oeuvres for the evening receptions all tended toward the overly precious, and the uniformed hotel staff bustled about like servants at a Bronze Age royal court. In this setting, the presentations and talk at the conference took on a surreal quality, as though the global civilization we were discussing - the one running out of cheap and easily available fossil fuels - was on some other planet. I'm not at all sure how many of the attendees took the time to connect the energy that provided climate-controlled air, fluorescent lighting, PowerPoint slideshows and overabundant snacks for the conference with the sinking lines on graphs that tracked our world's rapidly depleting oil, coal, and natural gas reserves. I'm even less sure how many of them traced out those graphs to their logical conclusions and thought through the likely impacts on their own lives; even in peak oil circles, this is surprisingly uncommon. Some of the presentations, certainly, showed no trace of such reflections. To my mind, at least, the most pathetic of them - and I use this word with its full meaning of "evoking pathos", not in its current sense as a general-purpose insult - was offered by Christer Lindstrom, a pleasant Swedish businessman who wants to solve peak oil by building countless millions of little four-seat computer-guided monorail cars to replace today's urban automobiles. No hint of the fantastic capital expenditures needed to build a new transportation grid in cities sprawled across three continents, no reference to the immense burden on the electric grid such a project would impose, darkened his presentation. Instead, we watched pretty computer graphics and video footage of prototypes circling a little test track in Uppsala. In a world blessed with cheap abundant energy, some such thing might be worth considering. Still, one of the core implications of peak oil is precisely that the huge projects of the recent past - the interstate highways and the Apollo programs - are slipping out of reach as the surplus energy that made them possible depletes out from under us. Ignore this essential point, and it's easy to come up with technological fixes that will solve the peak oil problem; applying them to the real world is another matter. None of the other presentations were quite so detached from the realities of our predicament, but some came close, clinging to a model of business as usual that has already been outstripped by events. Other presenters showed a clearer grasp of the situation. Among them were geologist Ken Verosub, who provided a crisp summary of the fundamentals of petroleum science and the steep and ongoing decline in American oil reserves; David Hughes, another geologist, who put coal into the energy picture and showed the dubious figures behind claims that coal - currently being used at the same rate per capita as in 1910, and itself subject to drastic depletion - can replace our declining oil supplies; and engineer Robert Rapier, familiar to readers of The Oil Drum {2}, who sorted out sales hype from reality in the biofuels industry. What set these presentations and others apart from the more facile ones, at least from my viewpoint, is that the former recognized that we are long past the point of ready answers. The cry for solutions is a common one, and understandably popular. Still, thinking of peak oil as a problem we can solve by some grand project, or combination of projects, misses some of the most crucial features that define the crisis of the contemporary industrial world. The essence of that crisis is that we no longer have the resources or the time to bring about changes in our infrastructure or technology large enough to make a significant difference on a national or international scale. We threw away that opportunity when the industrial world abandoned the steps toward sustainability taken in the 1970s. The quarter century from 1980 to 2005, when energy was cheaper and more abundant than ever before in human history, could have been used to launch the transition to sustainability, but that opportunity was wasted - along with all those billions of barrels of oil - and all the wishful thinking in the world will not bring either one of them back. The Limits to Growth (1972), the most insightful (and thus the most vilified) of the warnings issued during the Seventies, outlines the resulting predicament in detail. One of the central themes of that study was that constructive change had to happen while there was still a surplus of energy and other resources to fuel it. By the time significant shortfalls begin, all available resources are already committed to current needs, and any attempt to free up resources for some new project comes into conflict with the demands of existing economic sectors. The US government may be in a position to loan Wall Street $700 billion it doesn't have - in today's economic world, money is so close to a mass hallucination that it's not surprising to see it wished into being so casually - but actual resources such as fossil fuels, trained labor forces, and time are not so flexible. The recent troubles set in motion by attempts to promote ethanol production show how the resulting limits work. Diverting corn to ethanol production boosted US gasoline supplies over the short term, but sent food prices soaring, sparking inflation across a wide range of products and causing a cascade of problems elsewhere in the economy. This was a relatively modest example, because ethanol production for motor fuel used existing pipelines, gas stations, and other infrastructure; something on the scale of an attempt to replace gasoline with hydrogen - which would require a completely new infrastructure from top to bottom - could draw down remaining resource stocks so drastically that, pursued with enough misplaced enthusiasm, it could drive an economic collapse all by itself. Thus a focus on grand solutions is self-defeating, even when those solutions are not as obviously beside the point as Lindstrom's dream of a mini-monorail in every garage. We need to start with a close look at the resources that are actually available for change in the real world, with all its political, economic, and cultural complexities. We need to recognize that the apportioning of resources to any economic sector, however absurd it seems, has a constituency that backs it and can be counted on to fight against attempts to divert it. We need to accept that no one is likely to agree cheerfully to cuts in their standard of living unless they themselves see a very good reason for the change - and after so many decades of predictions of imminent doom by purveyors of apocalyptic fantasies, another round of warnings just isn't cutting it. These hard limits sketch out the range of action available to today's industrial societies in the first years of the age of peak oil. They do not make a cheerful picture; Cassandra's view never does, and this is why clear assessments of unpleasant realities so often get pushed aside in favor of grand, elegant, and optimistic visions flawed only by the minor fact that they are unworkable in the real world. I don't claim to know whether this habit will one day bring down Sacramento's towers in flames, as it did the towers of Troy; still, as those towers shrank in the rear window a week ago, the possibility was hard to dismiss out of hand. Links: {1} http://www.aoda.org/ {2} http://www.theoildrum.com/ _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/cassandras-view.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 08:01:56 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:01:56 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Recapitalisation Message-ID: <48EC8515.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Recapitalisation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: "[PEN Progressive Economics" From: "Chris Burford" < Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:29:25 +0100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So to the east of the Atlantic the formulas underpinning recapitalisation seem to be about replacing old discounted capital with current capital backed by national tax income. This is used to stabilise mass accommodation even though the value of the mortgages is discounted, and to guarantee the value of private deposits. The BBC business editor, Robert Peston, has also come up with his own plan to use national coordination of state pension funds, to buy preference stakes in recapitalised banks. This is not the death of market capitalism, which will have considerable scope to make profits again once economic circulation resumes on what has in reality become a smaller capital base. Meanwhile that restructuring could entail major formal socialisation of a large part of the economy with a substantial wave of increased social accountability, eg financial executives treated as members of the privileged intelligentsia, rather than as Capital Incarnate. The job to recover from depression will have been done - destruction of a significant proportion of old capital. Chris Burford This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From nscchicago at igc.org Tue Oct 7 18:59:03 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:59:03 -0500 Subject: [A-List] HAITI LETTERS TO SEND INTERCONNECT Message-ID: <002a01c928e1$197b3f70$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> (Here's Haiti Looking at You) Tom Baker here and HAITI. The Letters are to get rid of MINUSTAH The web-zine Interconnect has first hand reports as to the ravaging of hurricanes. And everyone knows it is all so more severe due to dictators dirty dealing with their friends. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1015 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/78355154/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 3815 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/78355154/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Peter and Gail Mott Subject: INTERCONNECT Newsletter Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Size: 80291 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/78355154/attachment-0002.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Diana Bohn Subject: [LASC-CC] Haiti MINUSTAH letters to send to Solidarity partners Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:20:42 -0700 Size: 400082 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081007/78355154/attachment-0003.eml From michael.hudson at earthlink.net Wed Oct 8 09:07:57 2008 From: michael.hudson at earthlink.net (Michael Hudson) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:07:57 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Best seller list in China In-Reply-To: <48EC0E8C.9070401@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Yes, indeed, Henry, you're right. I was rushing through a new article for Counterpunch, coming off a radio interview, and just wrote something very fast. I think it was your popularization of the term Dollar Hegemony that prepared the population mentally to accept the concept that America was exporting dollar IOUs in exchange for tangible imports and payments for military adventures. I also was told that your book had preceded mine by quite a few months on China's best seller list, further preparing the market. So now that I have my wits more about me, I can make these points here. It was truly a joint project. Michael On 10/7/08 9:36 PM, "Henry CK Liu" wrote: > Michael, > > You might mentioned that I was the person who arranged for your book to > be translated and published in China and also played a key role in > suggesting that a new edition of Super Imperilaism be republished and > helpedd edit on your new prologue in it. > > Henry > > Michael Hudson wrote: > >> Please forgive my egotism, but I couldn't resist this, as it may have some >> political relevance. >> Michael >> From: xulin dong >> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:05:31 +0800 >> To: Michael Hudson >> >> >> hi michael, >> >> good news. the chinese version of your sup-imp'ism made the best-sellers >> list immediately after its release. >> >> i am leaving for ny later today and will arrive 8pm wedenesday. i will call >> u to arrange a meeting upon arrival. >> >> cheers, >> >> >> >> >> >> > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 09:07:48 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:07:48 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Krugman Message-ID: <48EC9485.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Krugman On the Rachel Maddow show last night, Paul Krugman said that the bailout is not working. http://www.rachelmaddow.com/ Charles -------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gar Lipow" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ken hanly wrote: >> I don't see how the bailout could work. It is to take until the New Year until the bailout starts bailing. Who knows what will happen in the intervening months. I thought the crisis was now and that is why action had to be so fast. But no immediate action takes place just preparations to do something next year.< > > it's supposed to help expectations become more optimistic. And by the way, expectations ARE part of what has to be done. Yeah this is a bursting bubble represents real losses. But you not everything is toxic and some of the toxic stuff has real value. So the point of this was to manage expectations so the exchange value of stuff that does have use value does not drop to zero. In that sense, the bailout can work or fail long before the first dollar is spent. On the bright side, we know that the absolute maximum number of the days the stock market can drop this far is 19. Because, thanks to limited liability, the value of stocks can't drop below zero. In fact given the quality of the paper printing used in producing stock certificates, they will always retain some use value as decorative wall paper. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 09:16:58 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:16:58 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Wall Street - Cold, Flat, and Broke Message-ID: <48EC96AC.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Wall Street - Cold, Flat, and Broke October 06, 2008 C R Sridhar http://desicritics.org/2008/10/06/114033.php ?Dreamed about AIG and the stock market, woke up with the urge to stock up on canned goods and shotguns.? - Michele Catalano of Long Island, an angry blogger. The month of September was cruel for Wall Street. Stormy winds blew away the venerable institutions of Wall Street and they collapsed one by one like a pack of cards. Lehman Brothers, the 158-year investment global investment bank, went belly up. Merrill Lynch was swallowed up by Bank of America. American International Group (AIG), a $1 trillion insurance company, had to be rescued by $85 billion dollar deal by the Federal Government on the ground that it was too big to fall. Capturing the mood of panic in Wall Street Mike Whitney, a widely quoted freelance writer, wrote ?Lehman gone; Merrill Lynch swallowed up; AIG Going? Who?s Next for Madam Defarge??1 Madam Defarge and the tumbrels were kept busy while heads rolled in the basket in a grisly fashion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggies of Mortgage lenders, became terminally ill requiring a massive bail out at a cost estimated to be in the region of $5.3 trillion. Washington Mutual went bust followed by Wachovia. Earlier in March, Bear Stearns became insolvent after bad bets turned into bad debts requiring Fed intervention. The concept of Wall Street investment banking was blown sky high when the remaining Goliaths Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs haemorrhaged sustaining huge losses and took the unprecedented step to covert themselves into low risk and tightly regulated commercial banks. The pervasive mood of despair and anger of Main Street was reflected by the black humour on Wall Street, one of the most popular being-?Question-What is the difference between a pigeon and an investment banker? Answer- Only a pigeon can make a deposit on a BMW.? The dour looking, Harvard educated economist Nouriel Roubini was one of the early sceptics to predict the financial meltdown in Wall Street when he dropped the bombshell way back in 2006 that US would be heading towards the most serious financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression. His dark prophecies were met with derision and disbelief earning him the epithet- the prophet of doom. But Roubini had the last laugh when the US financial system melted down as he had predicted and he became an instant celebrity on media channels. A bipartisan blunder One of the contributing factors for the financial meltdown was the reckless financial deregulation that led to financial concentration and inefficient markets. The perception of regulation as hampering the animal magnetism of Wall Street bankers was a dangerous delusion that fostered the irrational drive to take unacceptable risks. As the economist Arthur MacEwan explains-?When financial firms are not regulated, they tend to take on more and more risky activities. When markets are rising, risk does not seem to be very much of a problem; all?or virtually all?investments seem to be making money. So why not take some chances? Furthermore, if one firm doesn?t take particular risk?put money into a chancy operation?then one of its competitors will. So competition pushes them into more and more risky operations.?2 Moreover, the extent of deregulation reached dangerous levels with the repeal of Glass- Steagall Act of 1933, which was passed after the financial debacle of 1929. This act separated investment banking from commercial banking and protected the investors from risky speculation of investment banking. Thus a commercial bank could not be in both insurance and/or investment business. Hectic lobbying for Wall Street by Phil Gramm -the Republican Senator from Texas and the economic advisor for John McCain - and Robert Rubin in the Clinton administration were the guiding forces for the repeal of the act. This repeal became law when it received President Clinton?s assent in 1999. In 2000 another nail was driven in the regulatory coffin when Gramm introduced the Commodity Futures Modernisation Act, which excluded the scrutiny of counter derivatives, credit derivatives, credit defaults, and swaps, by regulatory agencies. Many economists hold the view that the repeal of the Glass ?Steagal Act was instrumental in causing the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. The crucial point is to note that Wall Street enjoyed the support of both the Republicans and the Democrats for the repeal of the act. Even today both the presidential candidates Obama and McCain receive campaign money from Wall Street bankers and executives. This prompted Ralph Nader, the consumer activist, to acidly comment that there are no significant differences between Democrats and Republicans on major issues pertaining to Wall Street. A flawed business model The reward system is skewed in favour of brokers who make money for their Wall Street employer and not how well the client portfolios perform. As Pam Martens, an insider of Wall Street, says ?A Wall Street broker receives remuneration that rises from approximately 30 to 50 per cent of the gross commission based on their cumulative trading commissions with zero regard to how well the clients? accounts have done.? This attitude is responsible in her words for ? the industry to be irreconcilably incentivized to corruption just as brokers have been socialized to silence.? This is on account of the fact that the broker receives more commission on investing junk bonds in client portfolios rather than investing in safe treasuries. The other questionable practice is housing a trading desk inside the same company that is supposed to give unbiased research to the public. As Pam Martens points out ?For example, let?s say that XYZ Brokerage buys a big stake in ABC Company on its proprietary trading desk (the desk that trades for profits for the firm) on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday afternoon, it could almost guarantee profits for itself by issuing a research report upgrading the stock. Conversely, it could short the stock on Wednesday and issue a negative report to drive down the price on Thursday, also guaranteeing itself a profit. Other than a fictional Chinese Wall, there is absolutely nothing to stop this type of public looting.?3 Perils of a casino economy While greed, corruption, and an excessively deregulated financial market offer interesting explanations about the systemic collapse of Wall Street, they remain unsatisfactory as they not explain or explore the deeper malaise afflicting the US economy. For a rigorous and conceptually sound analysis, one must turn to the series of extraordinary essays written by Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy in Monthly Review during 1970 and 1980?s. The main thrust of the articles was to show that the general economic tendency of mature capitalism is toward stagnation. The main challenge of capitalist economy is surplus capital, which has diminishing opportunities for profitable investment. Deploying investment in the mature productive economy yields fewer returns as the markets are saturated. A number of strategies such as military spending, government spending, consumer spending, exploitation of third world economies as sources of cheap labour, raw materials and markets are used to counter stagnation in capitalist economies but do not resolve the problem of stagnation. As the authors point out ?The tendency to stagnation is inherent in the system, deeply rooted and in continuous operation. The counter-tendencies, on the other hand, are varied, intermittent, and (most important), self-limiting.?4 The problem of surplus capital finding suitable avenues for profitable return is sometimes solved by key inventions and technologies, which provide economic stimuli. The invention of automobile in the ?early twentieth century led eventually to huge developments that transformed the U.S. economy, even aside from the mass ownership of automobiles: the building of an extensive system of roads, bridges, and tunnels; the need for a network of gas stations, restaurants, automotive parts and repair shops; the efficient and inexpensive movement of goods from any location to any other location.? But the new information technologies such as computers, software, and the Internet do not appear to provide the same epoch making long-term economic stimuli as automobiles did.5 In the productive economy, money is used to purchase raw materials, machines, and labour to produce commodities, which are sold, with the capitalist receiving back money (M-C-M). While in speculation, money makes more money directly, represented as M?M. A significant change in the way banks and financial institutions operate today as opposed to the past lies in the fact that the massive borrowed money goes into speculative finance and very little is invested in the productive economy. There is practically no stimulatory effect on the economy as there are few jobs created as there are relatively fewer people employed in the speculative economy. The profits generated by speculation are rarely invested in factories or the service sector but finds its way for financing more risky financial schemes creating speculative bubbles. This sorry state of affairs is evident when one examines the failed financial institutions of Wall Street. One common denominator linking these institutions is that all were under capitalised and over leveraged. As Mike Whitney points out ?when Bear Stearns went down, it was levered at a ratio of 26 to 1. When Carlyle capital blew up, it was levered at 32 to 1. And when Fannie and Freddie were finally taken over by the US Treasury; the two behemoths were levered at 80 to 1, which is to say that they had a one dollar cushion for every $80 they had loaned out.? With huge quantity of money sloshing around the world and being invested into financial speculation there has been an explosion of speculation. One mind-boggling figure is ?the daily trading on the world currency markets, which has gone from $18 billion a day in 1977, to the current average of $1.8 trillion a day! That means that every twenty-four days the dollar volume of currency trading equals the entire world?s annual GDP!? Moreover, ?Today financial analysts frequently pretend that finance can levitate forever at higher and higher levels independently of the underlying productive economy. Stock markets and currency trading (betting that one nation?s currency will change relative to another) have become little more than giant casinos where the number and values of transactions have increased far out of proportion to the underlying economy.?6 This flight of investment from the productive economy to the casino economy is made worse by the availability of easy credit to persons who are least credit worthy. Many Americans who had little financial stability to buy houses took on mortgages, which were attractive on the face of it but carried a heavy debt burden. As real wages declined for the American household, it took on more debts for meeting the consumption needs. Total household debt stood at the end of March 2006 at 11.8 trillion. Prudence in lending money to credit worthy persons was thrown to the winds as the banks encouraged people to borrow more and spend more. As the report in Wall Street Journal says ?The banks are more aggressive because they rarely keep the loans they make. Instead, they sell them to others, who then repackage, or securitize, the loans and sell them to investors in exotic-sounding vehicles, such as CLOs, or collateralized-loan obligations. Every week brings announcements of billions of dollars in new CLOs, created by traditional money-management and hedge funds, which then sell them to other investors.?7 The toxic power of optimism The belief in alchemy led mankind in the futile quest of converting base metal into gold. The bankers and traders in Wall Street were the practitioners of the alchemy of finance, which was the elusive quest of converting junk bonds into real wealth. There was an incorrigible optimism and conviction that ordinary people were meant to be rich. There was also goodwill for the captains of finance whose investment schemes were magic wands to transport investors to prosperity. Such a feeling of trust, as Galbraith reminds us, is essential for the boom. The media played its role by lulling us into a false feeling of comfort by assuring that the fundamentals of the economy was strong and invincible. Critical views were suppressed in debates as the effusions of malcontents. A financial disaster was merely technical correction and there was more money to be made in depressed stock prices. As the financial pillars collapsed in Wall Street last month, a pie hit the glum faces of the financial analysts. The malcontents were right. As Galbraith again reminds us wisely-?when people are cautious, questioning, misanthropic, suspicious, or mean, they are immune to speculative enthusiasms.?8 In the aftermath of the melt down, the sceptics were rehabilitated quickly and became instant celebrities on talk shows. They taught us an important lesson, which the financier Bernard Baruch learned during the Great Depression: ? Any one taken as a individual is tolerable sensible and reasonable- as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead.? Plus ?a change, plus c'est la m?me chose. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 09:18:34 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:18:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Community Reinvestment Act at fault -- NOT Message-ID: <48EC970C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Community Reinvestment Act at fault -- NOT From: Slate Magazine / moneybox Subprime Suspects The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008, at 2:08 PM ET We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks-which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities-to make more efforts to do so. The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-which in turn pressured banks and other lenders-to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster." Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities? These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper-economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd. Here's why. The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt. Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities-unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the least-subprime housing markets in the nation. Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all. That's what we've learned from several decades of microlending programs, at home and abroad, with their very high repayment rates. And as the New York Times recently reported, Nehemiah Homes, a long-running initiative to build homes and sell them to the working poor in subprime areas of New York's outer boroughs, has a repayment rate that lenders in Greenwich, Conn., would envy. In 27 years, there have been fewer than 10 defaults on the project's 3,900 homes. That's a rate of 0.25 percent. On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white guys, such as Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros. or Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they have a lot more borrowing capacity. And here, again, it's difficult to imagine how Jimmy Carter could be responsible for the supremely poor decision-making seen in the financial system. I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of leveraged loans-loans banks committed to private-equity firms that wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies, and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill Clinton's fault? Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them-frequently using borrowed capital. At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mica asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis." Lending money to poor people doesn't make you poor. Lending money poorly to rich people does. Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek. You can e-mail him at moneybox at xxxxxxxxxx He is the author of Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy. [are they?? He may have changed his views in light of recent events.] Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/ Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 09:24:12 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:24:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Community Reinvestment Act at fault -- NOT Message-ID: <48EC985D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> there's a somewhat deeper issue here; while blaming the CRA is clearly asinine talking points, in my opinion, the whole project of looking for micro explanations of what was clearly a macro phenomenon is screwed. If you run a current account deficit then (by accounting identity), domestic consumption/investment is growing faster than domestic saving. If domestic consumption/investment is growing faster than domestic saving, then, in nearly any normal situation in the financial sector, banking sector loans will grow faster than banking sector deposits. The financial sector intermediates the current account deficit - that's a large part of its purpose in a globalised financial sector. If you run such a situation in large size and for a prolonged period, banking sector loans will exceed banking sector deposits by a very great amount, and the banking sector will have large balances relative to GDP which are funded on global wholesale markets. Thus far, we've basically established it all via accounting identities or very obvious behavioural equations. The question now is whether you close the model by taking banking sector behaviour as exogenous and saying that the current account deficit is the residual (the result of the banks' decision to expand lending), or whether you close the model by taking the current account as exogenous and saying that the loan and deposit growth is the residual (ie that the debt buildup is the result of the current account deficit). Frankly, it's much more in the tradition of mainstream economics to say that the banking sector is the residual and the model should be closed by looking at the causes of the current account deficit (basically, tax cuts and war). I'm quite surprised that so many people have decided on a very non-standard, somewhat post-Keynesian closure of the model where the decisions of the banking sector drove the whole shebang and shooting match. None of which is to excuse particular individual decisions on lending and structuring, btw; just to say that these are equivalent to the no doubt obvious fact that many of those made unemployed during the Depression were the lazier and less productive workers - that is, it's probably true, but it's missing the point as to why there were so many unemployed. best dd This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 10:19:06 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:19:06 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Community R Act Message-ID: <48ECA53C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Isn't singling out the CRA and its mid-90s amendment just another example of selective right-wing demonization? One might just as easily point to the Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 which deregulated - and annihilated - the S&Ls and further integrated local real estate financing into the global captial markets. Or to the 1968 Congressional legislation that split the FNMA into two entities, and created the GNMA which did much to ramp up the secondary mortgage market, along with the creation of the FHLMC in 1970. Or for that matter, the creation of the FHLB in 1932 or the FHA in 1934. The nauseating line being spewed by right-wing scum on their websites and through their medida organs is the rawest, racist bile and represents a new low, even the proponents of such nonsense. Although . . . . I have to admint that the thought that while no one was paying any attention the wretched of the Earth managed to pull the plug on the Empire of Capital, if only temporarily, is as heartwarming and hopeful as any I've had since the end of the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, it's not true. (by MR) > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 10:22:24 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:22:24 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Europe Crisis Response Is `Meaningless' Guarantee, Little Else Message-ID: <48ECA601.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Europe Crisis Response Is `Meaningless' Guarantee, Little Else By Brian Swint and Francois de Beaupuy Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- European finance ministers failed to agree on steps to shore up the banking system hours after their countries' leaders pledged do whatever was needed to restore confidence as the continent's stocks fell the most since 1987. There appeared to be little support for suggestions from France and Italy that Europe create a U.S.-style bank rescue fund at yesterday's monthly meeting of euro-area finance ministers in Luxembourg. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde both have suggested a plan modeled after the $700 billion U.S. fund approved by Congress last week. The meeting ended yesterday without consensus on anything beyond a reiteration of a promise by heads of state to protect deposits. ``We all agreed that we want to do all we can to avoid financial institutions of systemic importance failing,'' Luxembourg Finance Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said after leading the meeting. ``We reinforced arrangements concerning deposit protection.'' Officials in countries across Europe, mostly acting unilaterally, are rushing to rescue banks on the brink of collapse as the global credit squeeze bears down on the continent. Europe's Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index had its steepest decline in two decades yesterday and the euro fell below $1.35 against the dollar for the first time in more than a year. `Going Their Own Way' ``As far as I can tell, everyone's going their own way,'' said Peter Dixon, an economist at Commerzbank AG in London. ``They can give blanket guarantees. They're almost meaningless, because depositors weren't going to lose money anyway. But it does take some of the heat out of the system.'' Before yesterday's meeting, European Union leaders pledged to protect depositors from losing their savings to bolster confidence as share prices tumbled. EU countries ``will take whatever measures are necessary to maintain the stability of the financial system,'' the 27 EU member countries said in a joint statement that was released by Berlusconi's office. ``We will continue to take the necessary measures to protect the system so that individual depositors in our countries' banks do not suffer any loss of money.'' That statement followed earlier pledges by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to guarantee savings accounts. Bailout Fund Berlusconi two days ago said Italy would propose that EU governments contribute 3 percent of gross domestic product to a bailout fund to guarantee deposits at European banks. He said that other leaders were warming up to the idea. Italy didn't present the proposal at yesterday's meeting. France's Lagarde floated a similar proposal last week, telling the German newspaper Handelsblatt that a ``rescue package'' was needed to help ``smaller'' European states ``threatened with a banking failure.'' Germany shot down that idea, and Henri Guaino, a special adviser to Sarkozy, later distanced the president from Lagarde's proposal, saying in a telephone interview that ``France has neither studied nor proposed a plan of that type.'' Differences between Germany and France were apparent again yesterday. ``Coordination between all of us is very important,'' said Lagarde said at yesterday's Luxembourg meeting. In Berlin, Merkel stressed that ``each member country must tackle its own problems and we can't risk creating new dangers to the banking system.'' Limiting Fallout The finance ministers yesterday achieved little beyond what the leaders of Europe's four biggest economies did this past weekend. At that summit, Germany, the U.K., France and Italy also failed to agree on a unified response, pledging instead to work together to limit the economic fallout, ease accounting rules and seek tougher financial regulations. ``We have discussed recapitalization, liquidity, also minimum deposits,'' Luxembourg Economy Minister Jeannot Krecke said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. ``We have some kind of agreement on the deposits.'' Even that agreement was undermined by discord over a plan by Ireland to protect not only deposits in six local banks but also loans they have taken. The German government criticized the Irish measure as distorting the European market, with Deputy Finance Minister Joerg Asmussen calling it ``a rescue umbrella that discriminates in the internal market.'' Discrimination The European Central Bank said the Irish government should have ``properly'' informed the EU before announcing the bank- guarantee plan. And EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes asked Ireland to expand the measure to include non-Irish banks to comply with EU rules that prohibit discriminating in favor of domestic institutions. ``We've seen negative consequences if a country goes off on its own with unilateral action,'' EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs Joaquin Almunia said in Luxembourg. ``We need a clear, coordinated, European approach.'' The debate followed rescues of major European institutions in recent days. Amsterdam- and Brussels-based Fortis, Dexia SA, which is based in Brussels and Paris, and Hypo Real Estate Holding AG of Germany required lifelines to avoid collapse. The Stoxx 600 sank 7.6 percent to 241.6 yesterday, the steepest retreat since October 1987. Europe's plunge helped erase about $2.5 trillion from global equities as investors disregarded the U.S. Treasury plan to revive credit markets with a $700 billion bank bailout. To contact the reporters on this story: Brian Swint in Luxembourg at bswint at xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Francois de Beaupuy in Luxembourg at fdebeaupuy at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 11:11:47 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:11:47 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Sarah Palin lowered the standards for female candidates and political discourse | Message-ID: <48ECB195.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Michelle Goldberg: Sarah Palin lowered the standards for female candidates and political discourse | Flirting her way to victory Sarah Palin's farcical debate performance lowered the standards for both female candidates and US political discourse Michelle Goldberg guardian.co.uk, Friday October 03 2008 18:30 BST Sarah Palin winks during the vice-presidential debate on Thursday in St Louis, Missouri. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night. By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said. And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity. It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise. In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try and determine whether a candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished. There is indeed something mesmerising about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example, is how she responded to Biden's comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate. Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick - and dishonesty. Asked what her achilles heel is - a question she either didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?" None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described "fuckin' redneck". Palin is a woman who can't even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk. All comments (72) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Oct 8 15:01:14 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:01:14 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Maverick Message-ID: <48ECE75D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Maverick A maverick is an unbranded range animal, especially a motherless calf; it can also mean a person who thinks independently; a lone dissenter; a non-conformist or rebel. People Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803?1870), Texas cattleman from whom the term maverick originated Samuel Maverick (colonist) (1602?1670), English colonist in Massachusetts Maury Maverick (1895?1954), US congressman from Texas, coined the word "gobbledygook" Maury Maverick, Jr. (1921?2003), Texas politician, activist and columnist Maverick Matt, ring name of Matt Bentley, American professional wrestler Organizations and products Maverick (chocolate), a discontinued chocolate bar manufactured by Nestle in the UK Maverick (magazine), a South African business magazine Maverick (entertainment company), an American entertainment company with several divisions: Maverick Records, a record label Maverick Films, a film production company Maverik Lacrosse, a lacrosse equipment and apparel company, based in Mineola, New York Ford Maverick, the name of 4 different automobiles made by the Ford Motor Company Maverick (cigarette), made by the Lorillard Tobacco Company Maverick REV-6, a Nerf gun in the N-Strike series Sports Dallas Mavericks, an NBA basketball team from Dallas, Texas, US Mid-Missouri Mavericks, a minor league baseball team from Columbia, Missouri, US Mavericks, the mascot of Mesa State College in Colorado, US Mavericks, the mascot of University of Texas at Arlington in Texas, US Mavericks, the mascot of Minnesota State University, Mankato in Minnesota, US Mavericks, the mascot of University of Nebraska, Omaha, US Film and television Maverick (TV series), an American television series from 1957?1962, set in the American Old West starring James Garner and Jack Kelly Maverick (film), a 1994 film based on the television series, starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, and James Garner Maverick, the callsign of the main character in the film Top Gun, played by Tom Cruise Places Maverick (MBTA station), a subway station in Boston, Massachusetts, US Mavericks (location), a famous surfing location in Northern California, US Maverick County, Texas, US Music Maverick (album), by George Thorogood The Mavericks, a country music band Computers MaverickCrunch, a floating point math coprocessor by Cirrus Logic for ARM architectures Maverick Framework, an MVC framework for Java Other uses Maverick (book), an autobiography of Ricardo Semler's Brazilian company Maverick (comics), or David North, a character in Marvel Comics Maverick (roller coaster), at Cedar Point amusement park Maverick (Mega Man), characters in the Mega Man X video game series AGM-65 Maverick, a guided air-to-surface missile This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 8 17:57:46 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:57:46 -0400 Subject: [A-List] NATO Commanders To Draw Up Plans To Confront Russia Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:22 AM Subject: [stopnato] NATO Commanders To Draw Up Plans To Confront Russia http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/3146941/Nato-commanders-to-draw-up-plans-to-defend-ex-Soviet-bloc-members-from-Russia.html Daily Telegraph October 7, 2008 Nato commanders to draw up plans to defend ex-Soviet bloc members from Russia -Gen Craddock has already proposed that Estonia, the Baltic state that has a 20 per cent Russian speaking minority, should be the first country to undergo a formal military risk assessment. -Prior to the Russian incursion in Georgia, Nato members had refused to draw up plans to fight the Russian military in Eastern Europe. Nato's top military commander has demanded the authority to draw up detailed military plans to defend former Soviet bloc members for the first time since the alliance expanded eastward By Damien McElroy Russia's offensive in Georgia in August exposed the dangers of the Western alliance's lack of contingency plans against an invasion on its eastern flanks. Political leaders from the Baltics and Eastern Europe have subsequently demanded that Nato fulfil the requirements implied by its "Chapter 5" commitment to defend the territorial integrity of all its members. General James Craddock, Nato's Supreme Commander, has asked for the political authority to draw up contingency defence plans at a Nato meeting in Budapest later this week. France and Germany have signalled opposition to the move but Gen Craddock has the strong backing of America and Britain. But even US officials acknowledge there is a risk that the move will cause a rift within Nato. "This becomes politicised very quickly," a Pentagon official said. Gen Craddock has already proposed that Estonia, the Baltic state that has a 20 per cent Russian speaking minority, should be the first country to undergo a formal military risk assessment. The Budapest meeting on Thursday and Friday is likely to provide a key indication of the Nato membership appetite to take a robust stance towards Russia. Relations with the Kremlin have steadily deteriorated as Nato accepted a series of its neighbours as members. Prior to the Russian incursion in Georgia, Nato members had refused to draw up plans to fight the Russian military in Eastern Europe. The majority feared that news of the decision would unnecessarily offend the Kremlin. The fighting in Georgia, which alongside Ukraine, has been accepted as a future Nato member, raised the stakes for advocates of expansion. A decision on granting a firm membership date to Georgia and Ukraine has been brought forward but deep divisions between Washington and Berlin could yet wreck a December summit. Pentagon officials said a date would bolster Nato's credibility. "We do want to send a message to the Russians that their actions will not affect our commitment to our colleagues and our allies," said one official. Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, signalled that Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defence, would lobby for a tougher line during a visit to Europe this week. "It would be a real mistake to view the secretary's trip as a move to inflame relations with Russia," he said. "The purpose is to work with our allies on common goals. But while we are not looking for the opportunity to exacerbate the tensions that have developed, we are also not going to neglect our responsibilities in that part of the world." =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Sell Online Start selling with our award-winning e-commerce tools. Dog Fanatics on Yahoo! Groups Find people who are crazy about dogs. Yahoo! Groups Everyday Wellness Zone Check out featured healthy living groups.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 8 17:59:51 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:59:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] NATO, US Kill Thousands Of Afghan Civilians In Last Three Years Message-ID: <5E17C88DC58646D793097B4C2B81777E@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:27 AM Subject: [stopnato] NATO, US Kill Thousands Of Afghan Civilians In Last Three Years http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI3vuvC-SOmTbaRC_fDTM4XjIyng Agence France-Presse October 7, 2008 3,200 Afghan civilians killed by NATO, US action since 2005: study -"By relying upon aerial close air support attacks, US/NATO forces spare their pilots and ground troops but kill lots of innocent Afghan civilians. "Air strikes are 4-10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as are ground attacks." KABUL - Up to 3,200 civilians have been killed in NATO and US action in Afghanistan since 2005 but compensation payouts have been far lower than in other global cases, according to research by a US professor. The use of air power is growing, raising risks for civilians, University of New Hampshire professor Marc W. Herold says in research released on the anniversary of the October 7, 2001 launch of the invasion of Afghanistan. .... Herold says other groups tracking the civilian cost of the war, such as Human Rights Watch, underestimate the tolls while international military and media attach low value to Afghan life in the accounting of events. Herold, who runs the Afghan Victim Memorial Project, says his research shows between 2,699 and 3,273 civilians were killed in direct action by international forces in Afghanistan from 2005 to so far this year. His figures, which he says are also underestimates because civilians are sometimes labelled militants by the military and unknown numbers of injured dying, are based on media and nongovernment organisation reports and other research. "By relying upon aerial close air support attacks, US/NATO forces spare their pilots and ground troops but kill lots of innocent Afghan civilians. "Air strikes are 4-10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as are ground attacks," he says. Herold says the US military gives families of its victims at most 2,500 dollars as a condolence payment - not "compensation" which would admit wrong-doing. Canadian per person condolence payments to Afghans since 2006 range from 1,100-9,000 dollars, he says. This compares to 1.85 million paid for victims of the 1988 bombing of a flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and 150,000 dollars per victim of a 1999 US bombing on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade that killed three Chinese and wounded 23 other people. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Share Photos Put your favorite photos and more online. Yahoo! Groups Everyday Wellness Zone Check out featured healthy living groups. Curves on Yahoo! A group for women to share & discuss food & weight loss.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 8 18:03:44 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:03:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] China Suspends US Military Ties Over Taiwan Arms Build-Up Message-ID: <61B36797FB85474187ACF6BDDD6CFF74@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:14 AM Subject: [stopnato] China Suspends US Military Ties Over Taiwan Arms Build-Up http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=89720 Azeri Press Agency October 7, 2008 China postpones military cooperation with US Beijing - China has postponed military cooperation with the United States to protest a planned $6.5 billion package of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, APA reports. Representative of the People's Republic of China said Washington's recent act would seriously damage China-US relations. The US government notified Congress of the plan to sell arms to Taiwan. Pentagon plans to sell Patriot missiles and Apache attack helicopters to Taiwan. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE A Good Credit Score is 700 or above. See Yours in 2 easy steps for $0. Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Share Photos Put your favorite photos and more online. 10 Day Club on Yahoo! Groups Share the benefits of a high fiber diet. Yahoo! Groups Wellness Spot A resource for living the Curves lifestyle.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 8 18:06:28 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:06:28 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Post-2006 Lebanon Takeover: US Sets Up Joint Military Commision Message-ID: <4B09A100D8D245869AF5DB8FBB08B9F7@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:25 PM Subject: [stopnato] Post-2006 Lebanon Takeover: US Sets Up Joint Military Commision http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2684450.html Associated Press October 6, 2008 Lebanon, US set up joint military commission By ZEINA KARAM -U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying the Lebanese army was given nearly $400 million in military assistance. BEIRUT, Lebanon - The United States and Lebanon on Monday set up a joint military commission to bolster military cooperation - a move that follows the first visit by the newly elected Lebanese president to Washington. The development comes against the backdrop of a Syrian troop buildup along Lebanon's northern border and follows bombings blamed on Islamic militants in the two neighboring Mideast countries. The United States is a backer of Lebanon's army and has pledged more help since President Michel Suleiman's September meeting with President Bush. At the time, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying the Lebanese army was given nearly $400 million in military assistance. A further $60 million worth of aid, including helicopters, ammunition and Humvees, is awaiting Congress' approval. A joint statement Monday by the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the Lebanese army said the commission will provide an annual opportunity to discuss military cooperation. It also said the two sides signed three new military contracts worth $63 million in U.S. grants to the Lebanese army for secure communications, ammunition and infantry weapons. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr and U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Mary Beth Long led the commission's inaugural session Monday. Long arrived in Beirut Sunday, joining U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Near East Affairs David Hale who has held separate talks with Lebanese politicians for several days. The United States increased its military aid to Lebanon since the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel in an effort to bolster the government. Also, fighting last year between Lebanese troops and al-Qaida-inspired Sunni Muslim militants in northern Lebanon in which hundreds died marked a turning point in U.S. military support. During the three-month battle, the U.S. and its Arab allies airlifted to the Lebanese army equipment and ammunition, especially heavy artillery shells - instrumental in crushing the militants at the time. .... [T]he recent Syrian border build-up has Lebanese anti-Syrian politicians worried that Damascus could intervene militarily in Lebanon [to crack] down on Sunni extremists, particularly after the Sept. 27 car bombing in Damascus which killed 17 people. That attack was also blamed on Islamic militants. Syrian President Bashar Assad has said the deployment is aimed at cracking down on smugglers and told Suleiman in a telephone call Sunday that it was in line with a U.N. resolution requiring the tightening of the border. Still, the State Department on Monday said it was concerned by the Syrian military activity. "Any intervention by Syrian troops into Lebanon would be unacceptable," deputy spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington. "The recent terrorist attacks that took place in Tripoli and Damascus should not serve as a pretext for further Syrian military engagement." [See above for the Pentagon's taking over Lebanon's entire military apparatus under the guise of combating terrorism.] .... --- Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee from Washington contributed to this report. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group All-Bran 10 Day Challenge Join the club and feel the benefits. Find helpful tips for Moderators on the Yahoo! Groups team blog. Real Food Group Share recipes and favorite meals w/ Real Food lovers.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 8 18:10:07 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:10:07 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Venezuela Wants International Oil Bank With OPEC, Russia, South America Message-ID: <04724CA4D3B44E59AFF82B40F9627F63@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 6:51 PM Subject: [stopnato] Venezuela Wants International Oil Bank With OPEC, Russia, South America http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B41E7192A-1C0A-4B33-9B02-3A14314F3283%7D)&language=EN Prensa Latina October 8, 2008 Chavez: Creation of Intl Oil Bank Caracas - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again suggested the creation of a bank of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries OPEC or an international oil-producing bank composed by two or three nations. "We already told Energy and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez to announce the initiative at OPEC?s extraordinary meeting," Chavez expressed when delivering the lecture: Answers of the South to the world economic crisis, in session until Saturday. In case they do not agree, we would then create a bank with two or three countries, Chavez expressed, mentioning Iran, Ecuador, Russia and Bolivia as possible members. "We have been saying this for years. We are going to create in Latin America the necessary and sufficient structures to keep our reserves safe. "It is necessary to do it in a progressive way," Chavez highlighted. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Best of Y! Groups Discover groups that are the best of their class. Real Food Group Share recipes and favorite meals w/ Real Food lovers. Find helpful tips for Moderators on the Yahoo! Groups team blog.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Oct 8 19:13:09 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:13:09 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Brasscheck TV: Fraud, bribery and threats of violence Message-ID: > - ----- Forwarded message from Brasscheck TV ----- > > From: Brasscheck TV > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 01:30:34 -0400 > Subject: Brasscheck TV: Fraud, bribery and threats of violence > > Do you wonder how the Wall Street Welfare plan > (aka the bailout plan) ever passed Congress. > > In most Congressional offices opposition > by voters ran 10 to 20 to 1 AGAINST it. > > And for good reason. > > The bailout is a total and complete fraud. > > It does nothing to solve the root problem which > is a severe crisis of confidence in the banking > industry. > > Instead it gives George Bush dictatorial powers, > through his Secretary Treasury, over three > quarters of a TRILLION dollars in tax payer > money. > > (Part of the bill gave Bush $100 billion in > his own personal discretionary fund.) > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/441.html > > The banking crisis is real, but there was > a much simple, cheaper solution. > > Go behind the scenes and hear about the > fraud, bribery and even threats of violence > that were used get this corrupt piece of > legislation passed... > > Legislation which never had a public hearing > and likely no one who voted "yes" for it ever > read: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/441.html > > - - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how this independent news service grows. > Thanks. > > > - - Brasscheck From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 21:04:05 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:04:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] U.S. May Take Ownership Stake in Banks Message-ID: October 9, 2008 U.S. May Take Ownership Stake in Banks By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MARK LANDLER WASHINGTON ? Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials. Treasury officials say the just-passed $700 billion bailout bill gives them the authority to inject cash directly into banks that request it. Such a move would quickly strengthen banks' balance sheets and, officials hope, persuade them to resume lending. In return, the law gives the Treasury the right to take ownership positions in banks, including healthy ones. The Treasury plan, still preliminary, resembles one announced on Wednesday in Britain. Under that plan, the British government would offer banks like the Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and HSBC Holdings up to $87 billion to shore up their capital in exchange for preference shares. It also would provide a guarantee of about $430 billion to help banks refinance debt. The American recapitalization plan, officials say, has emerged as one of the most favored new options being discussed in Washington and on Wall Street. The appeal is that it would directly address the worries that banks have about lending to one another and to other customers. This new interest in direct investment in banks comes after yet another tumultuous day in which the Federal Reserve and five other central banks marshaled their combined firepower to cut interest rates but failed to stanch the global financial panic. In a coordinated action, the central banks reduced their benchmark interest rates by one-half percentage point. On top of that, the Bank of England announced its plan to nationalize part of the British banking system and devote almost $500 billion to guarantee financial transactions between banks. The coordinated rate cut was unprecedented and surprising. Never before has the Fed issued an announcement on interest rates jointly with another central bank, let alone five other central banks, including the People's Bank of China. Yet the world's markets hardly seemed comforted. Credit markets on Wednesday remained almost as stalled as the day before. Stock prices, which had plunged in Europe and Asia before the announcement, continued to plummet afterward. And stock prices in the United States went on a roller-coaster ride, at the end of which the Dow Jones industrial average was down 189 points, or 2 percent. The gloomy market response sent policy makers and outside experts on a scramble for additional remedies to stabilize the banks and reassure investors. There is no shortage of ideas, ranging from the partial nationalization proposal to a guarantee by the Fed of all lending between banks. Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, on Wednesday refined his proposal ? revealed in a debate with the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, the night before ? to allow millions of Americans to refinance their mortgages with government assistance. As Washington casts about for Plan B, investors are clamoring for the Fed to lower interest rates to nearly zero. Some are also calling for governments worldwide to provide another round of economic stimulus through expensive public works projects. Yet behind the scramble for solutions lies a hard reality: the financial crisis has mutated into a global downturn that economists warn will be painful and protracted, and for which there is no quick cure. "Everyone is conditioned to getting instant relief from the medicine, and that is unrealistic," said Allen Sinai, president of Decision Economics, a forecasting firm in Lexington, Mass. "As hard as it is for investors and jobholders and politicians in an election year, this crisis will not end without a lot more pain." One concern about the Treasury's bailout plan is that it calls for limits on executive pay when capital is directly injected into a bank. The law directs Treasury officials to write compensation standards that would discourage executives from taking "unnecessary and excessive risks" and that would allow the government to recover any bonus pay that is based on stated earnings that turn out to be inaccurate. In addition, any bank in which the Treasury holds a stake would be barred from paying its chief executive a "golden parachute" package. Treasury officials worry that aggressive government purchases, if not done properly, could alarm bank shareholders by appearing to be punitive or could be interpreted by the market as a sign that target banks were failing. At a news conference on Wednesday, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., pointedly named the Treasury's new authority to inject capital into institutions as the first in a list of new powers included in the bailout law. "We will use all the tools we've been given to maximum effectiveness," Mr. Paulson said, "including strengthening the capitalization of financial institutions of every size." The idea is gaining support even among longtime Republican policy makers who have spent most of their careers defending laissez-faire economic policies. "The problem is the uncertainty that people have about doing business with banks, and banks have about doing business with each other," said William Poole, a staunchly free-market Republican who stepped down as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on Aug. 31. "We need to eliminate that uncertainty as fast as we can, and one way to do that is by injecting capital directly into banks. I think it could be done very quickly." Mr. Paulson acknowledged that the flurry of emergency steps had done little to break the cycle of fear and mistrust, and he pleaded for patience. "The turmoil will not end quickly," Mr. Paulson told reporters on Wednesday. "Neither the passage of this law nor the implementation of these initiatives will bring an immediate end to the current difficulties." Mr. Paulson will play host to finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 7 countries this Friday. But he cautioned against expecting a grand plan to emerge from the gathering. More likely, the participants will compare notes about the measures they are adopting in their own countries. David H. McCormick, Treasury's under secretary for international affairs, said there was no "one size fits all" remedy for the crisis, though countries were cooperating through the coordinated cuts in interest rates, with guarantees on bank deposits and in regulations. At the Federal Reserve in Washington, officials insisted they had not run out of options and made it clear they were willing to do whatever it took to shore up the economy. Fed officials increasingly talk about the challenge they face with a phrase that President Bush used in another context: "regime change." This regime change refers to a change in the economic environment so radical that, at least for a while, economic policy makers will need to suspend what are usually sacred principles: minimal interference in free markets, gradualism and predictability. In the last month, both the Treasury and the Fed took extraordinary steps toward nationalizing three of the biggest financial companies in the country. Last month, the Treasury took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were on the brink of collapse. A week later, the Fed took control of the American International Group, the failing insurance conglomerate, in exchange for agreeing to lend it $85 billion. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced that it would lend A.I.G. an additional $37.8 billion. But neither the individual corporate bailouts nor the Fed's enormous emergency lending programs ? including up to $900 billion through its Term Auction Facility for banks ? have succeeded in jump-starting the credit markets. "The core problem is that the smart people are realizing that the banking system is broken," said Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics. "Nobody knows who is holding the tainted assets, how much they have and how it affects their balance sheets. So nobody is willing to believe that anybody else isn't insolvent, until it's proven otherwise." From kaliyuga at wildblue.net Wed Oct 8 21:24:56 2008 From: kaliyuga at wildblue.net (MARGARET WYLES) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:24:56 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Same speech, different speakers.... Message-ID: <82b839ea0810082024s58b0d88dm175d3b8817512a11@mail.gmail.com> ...as though they were reading a telegram from their masters. Must have been a mixup somewhere. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/439.html I was under the impression that Canada and Australia were sovereign countries. I guess not. This video shows the heads of both these states reading the same exact statement - word for word - supporting the invasion of Iraq. Who wrote this thing? Who distributed it? Who compelled these obvious puppets to read it? The Queen? The CIA? Who runs these people. Note: Canada's Harper was not yet Prime Minister when he made this speech selling out his country for god knows who - but he is now. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Oct 8 21:55:17 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:55:17 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Other Bail-Out Message-ID: <48ED80A5.5020909@attglobal.net> Another set of corporations is pressing for public money. Governments should let them die. by George Monbiot The Guardian (October 07 2008) While all eyes were fixed on the banking bail-out, a bucketload of public money was quietly sloshed into the pockets of another undeserving cause. Last week, George Bush agreed to lend $25 billion to US car manufacturers. It's a soft loan, which will cost the government $7.5 billion {1}. Few people noticed; fewer fought it. The House of Representatives approved the measure by 370 votes to 58. The great corporate bail-out is spreading like the plague. It has already crossed the Atlantic. Yesterday European car makers demanded that the EU hand them forty billion Euros ($54bn) in cheap loans to match the US subsidy {2}. Where will the public spending spree end? The motor companies in both Europe and the US claim they need these loans to help them go green. They will invest the money in a new generation of environmental technologies, which will allow them to meet the efficiency standards their governments are setting. There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents ... but how strange this green enthusiasm seems, now that there's the smell of public money in the air. For the past ten years the car manufacturers have driven every useful green initiative into the wall. In 1998 European car makers promised to show that they could cut their greenhouse gases voluntarily. By the end of 2008, they pledged, they would reduce the average emissions produced by their cars from 190 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre to 140. How well have they done? By the end of last year they had cut average pollution to 158g/km across Europe {3} and 165g/km in the UK {4}: they will miss their target by some forty per cent. Discerning, only ten years too late, that lobby groups' promises are worth as much as a share in Lehman Brothers, in 2006 the European Commission announced that it would set compulsory standards: by 2012 all manufacturers would have to reduce their average carbon dioxide emissions to 120g/km. It looked like progress, until you remembered that 120g was the target proposed by the EU in 1994, to be met by 2005 {5}. It was repeatedly delayed by industry lobbying. Last year the 2012 target fell to the same forces. Angela Merkel, lobbying on behalf of companies like DaimlerChrysler and BMW, demanded that the European Commission put the brakes on {6,7}. (Ironically it was Merkel, as the idealistic young German environment minister, who first proposed the target of 120g by 2005 {8}.) The commission agreed to revise the figure to 130g, and to cover the gap by raising the contribution from biofuels. Since then we've seen hard evidence that most biofuels, as well as spreading starvation, produce more greenhouse gases than petrol {9, 10, 11}, but the policy remains unchanged. Now the pollutocrats are whinging that they can't meet the 130g target either. A month ago they persuaded the European Parliament's industry committee to take up their case: it proposed postponing the target until 2015, reducing the fines if they don't comply and allowing manufacturers to offset eco-innovations against the target even if these don't actually reduce emissions {12}. These invertebrates, in other words, proposed to grant official approval to industry greenwash. Fortunately this scam was rejected two weeks ago by the parliament's environment committee {13}. In the US, manufacturers have still not reached the standard (an average of 27.5 miles per gallon) that they were supposed to have met, under the Energy Policy Conservation Act, by 1985 {14}. The average car sold in the States today is less efficient than the 1908 Model T Ford {15, 16}. What makes this dithering so frustrating is that to be talking, in 2008, about targets of 130 or 120 grams per kilometre is a bit like discussing whether modern computers should have ten rows of sliding beads or 100. In 1974 a stripped-down 1959 Opel T-1 managed 377 miles to the US gallon (160 kilometres per liter) {17}, which equates to fifteen grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre {18}. There is no technical reason why the maximum limit for mass-produced cars shouldn't be 50g/km. Nor is there a good commercial reason. A poll by the Newspaper Marketing Agency shows that eighty per cent of car buyers say economy is now more important to them than performance {19}. The car industry's technological failure results entirely from lobbying by the companies now demanding public money to go green. They want to squeeze every last drop from existing technologies before switching to better models. Their sabotage of green technology has been both subtle and comprehensive. The film Who Killed The Electric Car? shows how the manufacturers, working with oil companies and corrupt officials, sank California's attempt to change vehicle technologies {20}. Having bumped off battery power, they persuaded the federal government to pour money instead into hydrogen vehicles, aware that the technological hurdles are so high that a cheap, mass-produced model might never be possible. Electric cars, by contrast, have been ready for the mass market for almost a century. The $1.2 billion that the US government is spending on research and development for hydrogen cars {21} - like the two billion Euros pledged to the same quest by the European Union {22, 23} - is a subsidy for avoiding technological change. Now, after so much procrastination, the car makers have the flaming cheek to demand public money to pursue the policies they have spent fifty years and millions of dollars crushing. Of course, the "green loans" they are soliciting are nothing of the kind. Funding better environmental performance is simply an excuse for bailing out another failing industry. As a result of the credit crunch and high oil prices, new car registrations in the UK fell by 21% last month {24}. In the US, sales by the major manufacturers have declined this year by between twenty 20 and 35 per cent {25}. There is no need to spend a penny of public money on greening the motor industry. As a recent report by the House of Commons environmental audit committee shows, you could achieve the same outcome by creating a bigger differential between vehicle tax bands: it proposes that people buying the least efficient cars should pay around GBP 2000 more per year than those buying the most efficient {26}. This would kill the market for gas guzzlers and force the industry to make the changes it has long resisted. But the government has taken all the flak a good tax policy would have generated for very little gain. Its controversial new vehicle tax banding will save a mere 0.16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year {27}: a drop in the acidifying ocean. At scarcely greater political cost it could have hammered emissions and generated much of the money it needs to revolutionise public transport. Again there has been a historical slide: between 1920 and 1948 cars were taxed at one GBP per horsepower {28}: in real terms (and in some cases in nominal terms {29}) a far higher rate for gas guzzlers than today's. But subsidies are what governments pay when regulation doesn't happen. If you don't have the guts to force companies to do something, you must bribe them instead. It's a fair guess that European car makers will still fail to meet their environmental targets, even if they get the money they're demanding. The greenest thing governments could do is to allow these foot-dragging, planet-eating spongers to go under. www.monbiot.com References: {1} Bernard Simon, 25th September 2008. House clears $25bn for carmakers. Financial Times. {2} ACEA (the European Automobile Manufacturers Association), 6th October 2008. European auto industry calls on EU to help sustain changeover to low-emission car fleet. http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/european_auto_industry_calls_on_eu_to_help_sustain_changeover_to_low_emissi {3} European Federation for Transport and Environment, August 2008. Reducing CO2 Emissions from New Cars: A Study of Major Car Manufacturers' Progress in 2007. {4} Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, 18th March 2008. Average UK new car CO2 emissions fell 1.4% in 2007. http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news/866/bulletin/ {5} European Federation for Transport and Environment, 26th August 2008. BMW leaps ahead on new car CO2 emissions, others still stalling. http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2008/8/BMW-leaps-ahead-on-new-car-CO2-emissions-others-still-stalling/ {6} George Parker and Andrew Bounds, 31st January 2007. Brussels climbdown on car emissions. Financial Times. {7} European Commission, 7th February 2007. Commission plans legislative framework to ensure the EU meets its target for cutting CO2 emissions from cars. Press release. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/155&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en {8} European Federation for Transport and Environment, 26th August 2008, ibid. {9} Joseph Fargione, Jason Hill, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, Peter Hawthorne, 7th February 2008. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science. Doi 10.1126/science.1152747. {10} Timothy Searchinger, Ralph Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, Fengxia Dong, Amani Elobeid, Jacinto Fabiosa, Simla Tokgoz, Dermot Hayes, Tun-Hsiang Yu, 7th February 2008. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change . Science. Doi 10.1126/science.1151861. {11} PJ Crutzen, AR Mosier, KA Smith and W Winiwarter, 1 August 2007. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 7, pp11191?11205. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf {12} European Federation for Transport and Environment, 16th September 2008. MEPs' call for ?phased' CO2 limits amounts to a postponement, IEEP study shows. http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2008/9/MEPs-call-for-phased-CO2-limits-amounts-to-a-postponement-IEEP-study-shows/ {13} European Federation for Transport and Environment, 25th September 2008. MEPs stand up for fuel-efficient cars. http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2008/9/MEPs-stand-up-for-fuel-efficient-cars/ {14} Kathy Gill, 28th April 2006. CAFE (Fuel Efficiency) Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/energy/i/cafe_standards.htm {15} The estimated average fuel efficiency for cars, including SUVs and pickups, in the US in 2008 is 20.8 mpg. http://epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s08003.pdf {16} In 1908 the Ford Model T ran at 25mpg. Detroit News, 4th June 2003, cited by Want to Know, 11th July 2005. http://www.wanttoknow.info/050711carmileageaveragempg {17} See http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/souped_down_old.php {18} According to Audi, 100km/l equates to 23.8gCO2/km. http://www.audi.com/etc/medialib/cms4imp/audi2/company/financial_information/pdf_0803.Par.0103.File.pdf {19} Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, 27th September 2008. Survey shows more buyers want low emission cars. http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news/1013/survey-shows-more-buyers-want-low-emission-cars/ {20} http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ {21} Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, no date given. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Research and Development Funding in the President's 2007 Budget. http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/1pger_hydrogenfueliniative.pdf {22} No author, 16th August 2003. The clean green energy dream. New Scientist: Energy Special ? Hydrogen. {23} The allocation for the current Framework Programme is E470m. European Union, 10th October 2007. The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative. Press release. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/404&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en {24} BBC Online, 6th October 2008. New car registrations fall by 21%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7654648.stm {25} Suzy Jagger, 2nd October 2008. US carmakers forced to wait for $25bn ?green' loan. The Times. {26} House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 4th August 2008. Vehicle Excise Duty as an environmental tax. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/907/907.pdf {27} ibid. {28} ibid. {29} The top standard rate of vehicle excise duty from 2010 will be GBP 455. The Mercedes-Benz SL is 604hp; the Lamborghini Murcielago is 640. http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/top10/index.cfm/action/highhorsepower/vehicleclass/sprt/listtype/9 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/10/07/the-other-bail-out/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From joejoehead at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 21:30:54 2008 From: joejoehead at yahoo.com (Joe) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [A-List] Remove from list please Message-ID: <985824.60704.qm@web53010.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Tony B. To: A-List Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 8:03:44 PM Subject: [A-List] China Suspends US Military Ties Over Taiwan Arms Build-Up ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:14 AM Subject: [stopnato] China Suspends US Military Ties Over Taiwan Arms Build-Up http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=89720 Azeri Press Agency October 7, 2008 China postpones military cooperation with US Beijing - China has postponed military cooperation with the United States to protest a planned $6.5 billion package of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, APA reports. Representative of the People's Republic of China said Washington's recent act would seriously damage China-US relations. The US government notified Congress of the plan to sell arms to Taiwan. Pentagon plans to sell Patriot missiles and Apache attack helicopters to Taiwan. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar MARKETPLACE A Good Credit Score is 700 or above. See Yours in 2 easy steps for $0. Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Share Photos Put your favorite photos and more online. 10 Day Club on Yahoo! Groups Share the benefits of a high fiber diet. Yahoo! Groups Wellness Spot A resource for living the Curves lifestyle.. __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3080 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081008/478d5f90/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 10:40:04 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:40:04 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Iceland could go bankrupt Message-ID: <48EDFBA4.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Iceland: the land of cool turns bitter Roger Boyes The Times of London October 9, 2008 The doughty Icelanders know that they have only squatters' rights on their volcanic island. White steam hisses and spumes its way through the thin crust of the earth; nature seems to be constantly irritated. Now, though, the feeling on this tiny, angry island goes beyond physical geography. The eruption in the global financial markets has hit Icelanders in an elemental way. Across the world, banks are going under or being given expensive life-jackets. In Iceland, which has let its banks run free, the country itself could go under. Even the Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, admits as much: "There is a very real danger, fellow citizens, that the Icelandic economy in the worst case could be sucked into the whirlpool, and the result could be national bankruptcy." Suddenly an island with a population of 300,000, seen for the past decade as the essence of cool - a successful nation where people couldn't stop partying - is on the brink of becoming a failed state. That naturally worries the world - and Britain more than most, as Icelanders have bought into institutions such as Hamleys and Moss Bros, Karen Millen, House of Fraser, Whistles, Woolworth's and West Ham United. But for Icelanders it represents a psychological and moral crisis. Who to blame? How to survive? What did the islanders give up when they chased the money, forgot their roots and turned themselves into a Nordic Tiger? "We're furious. Livid," says Svanur, who runs the Kaffibarin pub in downtown Reykjavik, over strong black coffee at the counter of his bar. The pub is famous for being once co-owned by Damon Albarn, the lead singer of Blur, one of several rock stars who thought that they had found peace on the island. "These people have been gambling with our life savings. What we need now is for a foreign bank to come in and give us proper banking services." That view is shared around the pub, which is abuzz with gossip. "They've all taken flight - run away to the Cayman Islands," sneers an electrical engineer. Around the corner at the Hotel 101 bar, once a bustling hang-out for Reykjavik's globalised money class, there is no one to be seen. With its long, purple-lit table, it looks rather like an overdesigned mausoleum. "It's Monday night, what do you expect?" says the churlish barman. "Actually," I say, "it's Tuesday." The barman shrugs and stops the photographer from taking shots of empty seats. Why? "Orders from the owner." Who, for the time being, is Ingibj?rg P?lmad?ttir, wife of J?n Asgeir J?hannesson, owner of the Baugur investment group and one of the tycoons who has been prudently absent from the island for a while. So how did the Hotel 101 - named after Reykjavik's most exclusive postcode - come to be the watering-hole of a financial elite? For centuries Iceland had a fish-based economy, even fighting a war with Britain to keep its lucrative cod trawling grounds. Then it began exporting aluminium, and then, after free-market reforms introduced by the Thatcherite Prime Minister Dav?d Oddsson, it rapidly privatised its banking sector and moved into the business of financial engineering - to such an extent that a handful of Icelandic banks, expanding aggressively, have ended up with liabilities more than eight times the national GDP. That gold rush, at the beginning of this century, has spun the illusion of wealth. Dorrit Moussaieff, the jet-setting jewellerydesigner wife of President ?lafur Ragnar Grimsson, set the tone, with her coterie of girlfriends - Rannveig Rist, the general manager of Alcan Iceland; Tinna Gunnlaugsd?ttir of Iceland's National Theatre; artists and gallery owners - all regulars at the now eerilly silent 101. But it wasn't just a wealthy elite who surfed the Zeitgeist. Ordinary Icelanders were swiftly freed from the idea that they belonged to an impoverished society where the key question about a future bride was: is she a good housekeeper? In the past five years, people's average wealth has grown by 45 per cent - and the money has gone into houses and cars, financed by 100 per cent loans based on a spread of foreign currencies. Now the krona is plummeting, loans are ballooning and thousands are defaulting. The only good news is for foreign visitors, for whom beer has at last become affordable. Some, like Kristian, who has worked in the fishing industry since he was 16, when he shipped fish to Germany, are philosophical about it all. Bad years, good years; boom and bust - that is nothing new for a fishing nation. "We've just forgotten about it - how we used to eat haddock and cod-tail because the fleshy, good cod had to be exported," says the 53-year-old, seated on Reykjavik's tidy harbourside. Grizzled and articulate, he now drives a delivery van for some of his old trawlerman friends. "The priorities went askew in the past few years - we thought we could have jam on our bread every day of the week." In fact, even the fishing industry has changed. "There were always secure jobs on the fleets, on the dockside and in the processing factories," says Kristian. "Now all processing is done at sea, the fisherman returns maybe once every 45 days and the fish is already frozen, ready to be exported." The effect: Reykjavik no longer smells of fish and seagulls no longer wheel around the docks in hungry squadrons. The capital has become almost genteel. The old town district has a freshly painted feel - a Max Mara shop looks like an overdressed intruder between wooden-slatted houses - and the rather bleak 1970s Reykjavik, with its architectural nods to Slough, has all but disappeared. Money has allowed a makeover. There are only a few tell-tale signs of trouble - the hole where the foundations for a new Landsbanki headquarters were to be sunk has been quietly filled and tarred over to form part of a car park. And the new Landsbanki-sponsored opera house looks as if it may not be finished. If there are still Vikings in this Iceland, they are the financial marauders setting out for Britain - not to pillage and plunder, but to snap up a chunk of French Connection. But now, suddenly, Icelanders have grasped that such activities do not represent the future of the island and, indeed, they could be its downfall. The new Vikings have been thriving on the cronyism and back-scratching culture of Reykjavik. Since the beginning of the 20th century banks and government have worked hand in glove. If a minister slipped into Opposition, he was more or less guaranteed a post as a bank director. The privatisation of the banks was supposed to end all that, but it merely continued by other means. Professor Thorvaldur Gylfason of Reykjavik University has been predicting disaster for years - on his desk sit wooden blind and deaf monkeys, representing central bank policymakers - and has been shunned for his efforts. "We have Thai-style croneyism that has failed the system," he says. "The Government is not on top of the situation. It is in denial and has not been truthful about the system." At the heart of this almost cabal-like approach to running the country is the sheer smallness of the capital city. Its two best schools, a classical grammar school and a business-orientated one, generate the elite. There is a fierce rivalry between them, but at the same time there is elaborate bonding going on. So the vice-chairman of the imperilled Landsbanki turns out to be an extremely good friend of the head of the central bank. The controls, insofar as they ever existed, are subverted by this shared intimacy: once the two men shared secrets about kissing girls, now they are running the economy. Talking to the young students in Kaffibarin, one might think that Iceland is preparing for a revolution. "They should be hounded down wherever they are," says one firebrand, "brought back from the Cayman Islands or wherever they are hiding and brought to trial." The business and political class are seen as traitors. Yet the anger is not simply a call for swift and sharp justice. Icelanders are returning to their sense of being islanders, rather than global players who can throw weight around in London and beyond. Islanders, when they return to their roots, know that they have to accept geographical limitations. On some Antarctic islands there is a breed of butterfly that cannot take off - it has learnt that it is safer not to fly than to risk the storm winds. One middle-aged Icelander, asked why he didn't just leave if he was so unhappy, looked at me with unblinking eyes: "And what if I went to Denmark or wherever and got lost? Who would look for me?" Secondly, Iceland remains a deeply Protestant country. Some of the people's anger is turned against themselves. "We went along for the ride, didn't we?" says the thirtysomething actress S?lveig Arnarsd?ttir, who is dressed in a striking red seaman's coat to shield her from the Atlantic wind. "It's right to be worried now about the people who will lose their jobs or who are bending under their debts. I've got a house that was essentially owned by the banks; now it's owned by the Government, so maybe that's not a tragedy. But we have to think again about our obsession with money." She and her friend Gudr?n Gudmundsd?ttir, one of Iceland's leading human rights activists, agree that the new Vikings, the financial bounty-hunters who have gained such clout, are part of a culture that is too testosterone-driven. "A third of our members of parliament are women," says Arnarsd?ttir, "but guess what - Parliament has had almost no say in what has been going on between these men in suits." Gudmundsd?ttir agrees: "We have to open up boards of companies to women." Across the social spectrum, Icelanders agree: life has to change. You can't wish away global capitalism but you can change the way that elites manage that capital. The alternative is to see your country disappear down the plughole. "Running off to get a loan from Putin - why did they do that?" says an astonished Professor Gylfason. "Maybe they just thought that the Russians wouldn't tie the cash to changing the financial management of the country." Whatever the reason, the kids in the still-just-cool clubs of Reykjavik know the metaphor that applies to their reckless rulers: they are dancing on the edge of the volcano. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/article4909177.ece This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 10:42:25 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:42:25 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Global realignment Message-ID: <48EDFC31.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> A key excerpt from Medvedev's latest speech: "Russia will actively encourage this recovery process in the international financial system, and not only in the G8. It is clear now that acting through the G8 alone is not enough, and I am pleased to see that many of our American colleagues are starting to say this too. What I mean is that we need to get other key world economies engaged in this process too: China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and maybe others too. At any rate, Europe must not become the weak and vulnerable link here. Globalization must be accompanied by an increased role of states as guarantors of successful national development. Collective global management structures, meanwhile, will act as arbiters ensuring the compatibility of the different economic strategies." http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/text/speeches/2008/10/08/2159_type82912type82914_207457.shtml This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 10:49:53 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:49:53 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Russia calls for joint action on financial crisis Message-ID: <48EDFDF1.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Russia calls for joint action on financial crisis http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Russia/idUSTRE4961UR20081007 Tue Oct 7, 2008 MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called for urgent international measures to tackle the global financial crisis in a video statement published on the Kremlin.ru website on Tuesday. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Russia/idUSTRE4961UR20081007 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 10:55:15 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:55:15 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Iceland: Cuba of the North Message-ID: <48EDFF33.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Iceland, ?the little Cuba of the north?, grateful for Russian support Posted by inthesenewtimes on October 8, 2008 http://inthesenewti mes.com/2008/ 10/08/iceland- the-little- cuba-of-the- north-grateful- for-russian- support/ `Iceland is turning into the little Cuba of the north, said Ragnar Hannes Gudmundsson, 38, who has worked at Kaupthing Bank hf, Iceland?s largest lender. ?The Soviet Union supported Cuba decades ago and now they are saving us. Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) - For Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the financial crisis that is costing his government $200 billion may also provide an unexpected opportunity to expand his country?s influence. Rejected by its Western allies, Iceland yesterday said it was in talks to borrow 4 billion euros ($5.4 billion) from Russia to shore up its financial system. It would be the first time Russia has extended financial assistance to a NATO country. ?This is a case of using foreign aid to pursue geopolitical objectives, said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib Financial Corp. in Moscow. ?This is good economics because it shows Russia?s in a strong financial position: it can afford to lend 4 billion euros to someone else. Even with the ruble near an 18-month low and the stock market suffering its worst rout since the 1998 default, Russia has weathered the global credit crunch with $563 billion in currency reserves, the world?s third-largest amount. That financial muscle is giving Putin a weapon to challenge the U.S., which is grappling with its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Iceland sought the loan after nationalizing two of the country?s largest banks and lending 500 million euros to a third. The request comes as the country?s financial system is near collapse. `Very Big Help? ?If it goes through, this will be a very, very big help for us,? said central bank chief David Oddsson, who complained that other European nations had failed to rescue Iceland. ?We haven?t got so much help from our very good friends in the Western hemisphere; this decision by the Russian government to take up negotiations is very much welcome, Oddsson told Bloomberg Television. Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said Russia?s reaction to the request was ?positive. Ordinary Icelanders seemed grateful, too. ?Iceland is turning into the little Cuba of the north, said Ragnar Hannes Gudmundsson, 38, who has worked at Kaupthing Bank hf, Iceland?s largest lender. ?The Soviet Union supported Cuba decades ago and now they are saving us. Russia?s ability to dip into its reserves - it has pledged almost $200 billion to boost liquidity and reduce borrowing costs - is in stark contrast to the situation it faced nine years ago: Reserves then stood at just $12.5 billion. Default and Devaluation When Putin took over as president on Dec. 31, 1999, he inherited a government that had defaulted on $40 billion of debt and devalued the ruble in August 1998, wiping out millions of people?s savings and pushing Russia to the edge of bankruptcy. Since then, the economy has grown almost 7 percent a year on average, fueled by high oil prices. Now, the prospects for Russia are clouding as crude prices fall on concern of a global economic slowdown. Oil futures have declined 40 percent from the record $147.27 reached July 11. Russia depends on oil and gas for more than two-thirds of its export earnings. Russia halted trading today on its stock markets after the ruble-denominated Micex Index slumped 14 percent in the first 35 minutes of trading and the dollar-denominated RTS Index plunged 11 percent in the first half hour. The RTS has dropped two- thirds this year, the sixth-worst among 88 national equity indexes tracked by Bloomberg, a sell-off exacerbated by the five-day war in Georgia in August. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev yesterday announced $36 billion of loans for banks on top of a $150 billion support package pledged in September for companies and lenders. Demonstrating Influence If Russia can support its stock market and preserve growth, the current financial crisis represents a chance to demonstrate ?influence in the world economy and the diminishing influence of the U.S,? said Sergei Markov, an adviser to the Kremlin who is a lawmaker in the ruling United Russia party. Both Putin, 56, and Medvedev, 43, have criticized the U.S. for spreading financial contagion around the world. U.S. ?irresponsibility? led to the global credit squeeze, which may reduce Russian growth to as little as 5.7 percent this year, according to the finance ministry, Putin told a cabinet meeting Oct. 1. A day later, Medvedev said at a forum in St. Petersburg that the financial crisis showed that the time when one economy and one currency dominated the world economy was ?over.? Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said the talks on a loan between Iceland and Russia highlighted a weakening role for the U.S. ?I have to say that the news on today?s Bloomberg that Iceland was negotiating a $5.4 billion stabilization loan with Russia did not fill me with a sense of comfort about the political implications and the ways in which the world is moving,? Summers said yesterday at a seminar in Buenos Aires. Medvedev Speech Medvedev, who today will address an international financial forum hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Evian, France, has called for talks on the global financial situation to include major developing nations. Russia, which belongs to the Group of Eight club of industrialized countries, has argued for the body to expand. Russia hosted a summit of the so-called BRIC countries, along with Brazil, India and China, in May as part of an effort to develop them as an economic and political counterweight to the U.S. and Western Europe. ?The world is changing to Russia?s benefit,? said Markov, who heads the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow. He added that by lending to Iceland, Russian leaders also wanted to counter the damage to their country?s reputation in the West from the conflict with U.S.-allied Georgia. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 11:24:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:24:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] insty-book on The Crisis References: Message-ID: <48EE061C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> >> Doug Henwood : Let me alert you to an 'instant book' from Vox, 'Rescuing our Jobs and Savings: What G7/8 Leaders can do to Solve the Global Credit Crisis': For immediate release, PM Thursday 9 October 2008 RESCUING OUR JOBS AND SAVINGS We are in the throes of what is almost certainly the most serious economic and financial crisis of our lifetimes. The crisis is no longer a US crisis, or even a US and European crisis; it is a global crisis. It has spread from the financial sector to the real economy. It is not just investment portfolios and retirement accounts at risk: continued turmoil will soon start to destroy jobs. There is a need for urgent action. The policy response needs to be decisive. It needs to be global. With this sense of urgency in mind, we have assembled a group of leading economists to offer priorities for crisis response. The authors are: Alberto Alesina, Michael Burda, Charles Calomiris, Roger Craine, Stijn Claessens, J Bradford DeLong, Douglas Diamond, Barry Eichengreen, Daniel Gros, Luigi Guiso, Anil K Kashyap, Marco Pagano, Avinash Persaud, Richard Portes, Raghuram G Rajan, Guido Tabellini, Charles Wyplosz and Klaus Zimmermann. The dozen essays present a remarkable consensus on a few points: we need immediate, coordinated global action that includes recapitalisation of the banks. The book is available for free download here: http://www.voxeu.eu/index.php?q=node/2340 Romesh Vaitilingam ___________________________________ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 11:53:09 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:53:09 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Take that Moral Majority Message-ID: <48EE0CC6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Thursday, October 09, 2008 Ahmadinejad blames lack of piety for credit crunch http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\10\09\story_9-10-2008_pg4_15 TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday blamed a lack of attention to religion and God for the crisis in global financial markets. "Their economy is collapsing... the reason for their defeat is that they have abandoned faith in God and piety," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech in the northeastern city of Bojnurd. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\10\09\story_9-10-2008_pg4_15 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 12:40:16 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:40:16 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Bulldog President Message-ID: <48EE17D0.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> McCain reminds of a pitbull without lipstick. Palin seems to be inspired by Teddy Roosevelt. TR's Bull Moose Party is where she belongs. Rumor has it she will be going to Africa on a safari next week, to strengthen her foreign policy credentials. The two of them aspire to the bully pulpit as their natural home. Bully for them ! If it was 1908 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog Popular mascot Main article: List of Bulldog mascots Because of its tenacity, the bulldog is a symbol of the United Kingdom in general and England in particular and is a popular mascot of dozens of universities and high schools throughout the United States of America. The bulldog is the unofficial mascot of the United States Marine Corps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt " He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance.[" Theodore Roosevelt (IPA: /?ro?z?v?lt/;[2] October 27, 1858 ? January 6, 1919), also known as T.R., and to the public (but never to friends and intimates) as Teddy, was the twenty-sixth President of the United States. A leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Party, he was a Governor of New York and a professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier. He is most famous for his personality: his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" personality. Originating from a story from one of Roosevelt's hunting expeditions, Teddy bears are named after him. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt prepared for and advocated war with Spain in 1898. He organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment ? the Rough Riders ? during the Spanish-American War. Returning to New York as a war hero, he was elected governor. An avid writer, his 35 books include works on outdoor life, natural history, the American frontier, political history, naval history, and his autobiography.[3] In 1901, as Vice President, the 42-year-old Roosevelt succeeded President William McKinley after McKinley's assassination by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. He is the youngest person to become President.[4] He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance.[5][6] As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions. In 1910, he broke with his friend and anointed successor William Howard Taft, but lost the Republican nomination to Taft and ran in the 1912 election on his own one-time Bull Moose ticket. He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in 1912, and the conservative faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades. Roosevelt negotiated for the U.S. to take control of the Panama Canal and its construction in 1904; he felt the Canal's completion was his most important and historically significant international achievement. He was the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize, winning its Peace Prize in 1906, for negotiating the peace in the Russo-Japanese War. Historian Thomas Bailey, who disagreed with Roosevelt's policies, nevertheless concluded, "Roosevelt was a great personality, a great activist, a great preacher of the moralities, a great controversialist, a great showman. He dominated his era as he dominated conversations....the masses loved him; he proved to be a great popular idol and a great vote getter."[7] His image stands alongside Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln on Mount Rushmore. Surveys of scholars have consistently ranked him from third to seventh on the list of greatest American presidents. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 13:14:20 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:14:20 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Great Repudiation? Message-ID: Mandel on Economics October 2, 2008, 5:00PM EST Shared Sacrifice Will Ease the Credit Crunch Foreign lenders will have to take a haircut while American consumers spend less and taxpayers take a hit by Michael Mandel Is the U.S. heading for another Great Depression? Probably not?but we are about to go through a period future generations may call the Great Repudiation. The root cause of today's crisis lies not in the housing market but in America's foreign debt. Over the past four years the U.S. private sector has borrowed an astonishing $3 trillion from the rest of the world. The money, directly and indirectly, came from countries such as China, Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, which ran huge trade surpluses with America. Foreign investors trusted their funds to U.S. financial institutions, which used much of the money for mortgage loans. But American families took on a lot more debt than they could comfortably afford. Now no one is sure how much of that towering sum the U.S. is going to pay back?and all the uncertainty is roiling the financial markets. The Washington bailout debate boils down to this question: Who is going to bear the burden of the $3 trillion mistake? Will low- and middle-income borrowers have to cut back on spending to pay their mortgage bills? Will taxpayers have to chip in big bucks to pay for defaults on those debts? Or will Washington act in a way that imposes large losses on foreign investors?in effect, repudiating some of the debt? The best outcome is shared sacrifice among borrowers, taxpayers, and foreign investors?but that result may be politically difficult to achieve. FINDING A FAIR PLAN Since mid-2004, American households have taken on a bit more than $3 trillion in mortgage debt. The official statistics are very fuzzy, but it looks like at least one-third of the debt, and perhaps half, was financed with foreign money. As a result, foreign investors are sitting on an enormous mountain of mortgage-related securities. The value of those securities, though, depends on both economic and political factors. Real wages have dropped for most U.S. workers since 2004. To make good on their mortgages, many low- and middle-income families would have to sharply cut their spending, hurting both the domestic economy and countries that export to the U.S. A better solution is for borrowers, U.S. taxpayers, and foreign investors to share the burden of the excess debt. The question, though, is finding the fair division of pain. So far the U.S. government has taken over Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), a move that provides a taxpayer guarantee to investors, many of them foreign, who own securities issued or backed by those companies. The Paulson bailout plan, too, would devote up to $700 billion of taxpayer money to buying up bad securities, with non-U.S. investors some of the major beneficiaries. Given the hostility to the Paulson plan, however, it's unlikely we will see more money to prop up the prices of securities. The next step in Washington could be legislation to benefit homeowners?say, by allowing bankruptcy courts to reduce mortgage debt, which they cannot do now. Alternately, the government could let more homeowners default and more financial institutions go under. In either case, the value of mortgage-related securities would drop, with foreign investors taking much of the hit. The global response to such a move depends a lot on how it's presented by the leaders in Washington. It's unseemly for the world's richest country to refuse to pay some of its debts. That's especially true since much of the money came from poorer countries such as China. In the worst case, the losses by foreign investors would lead to an unwillingness to invest in the U.S. while fueling anti-American sentiment around the world. U.S. politicians are accustomed to playing to a domestic audience. But in the end, making the case for shared global sacrifice may be the biggest task facing the next President. Mandel is chief economist for BusinessWeek. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 13:47:11 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:47:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism Message-ID: <48EE277F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> "The mythologies and abstractions, the pseudo-objects of much modern financial culture, are in urgent need of their own Dawkins..." Ironically, Dawkins' selfish gene theory is, in fact, largely based in and drawn from the individualistic ethos of capitalist ideology. Though likely argued by others, I wrote essays over almost 20 years ago tracing the near one-to-one mapping between Dawkins' reductionist selfish gene hypothesis (now entirely reconstructed, e.g. see 'Phenotypes' 1994, by C. D. Rollo) and capitalist motifs. Tony ^^^ CB: Thanks for the reference. Yeah, my thought is that the "selfish gene" theory is the one of the latest Social Darwinist ideas. Before that was sociobiology. Sahlins critiqued that in The Use and Abuse of Biology An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology Marshall D. Sahlins http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=20259 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 14:45:31 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:45:31 -0400 Subject: [A-List] UN General Assembly votes Kosovo secession illegal Message-ID: <48EE352B.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Statement of the Day *"Perhaps 48 countries did recognize Kosovo independence, but it may be worth mentioning that the other 144 did not."* /Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa's Ambassador to the UN, in response to American ambassador during General Assembly's debate about Serbian initiative/ // How they voted UN logo *IN FAVOR* of the Serbian resolution requesting ICJ to rule on [il]legality of unilateral secession of its southern Kosovo and Metohija province (77 UN member states): Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Timor-Leste, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe. *AGAINST* Serbian initiative (6 countries): Albania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States of America. / Serbia Wins Majority Support in United Nations Oct 8th, 2008 | By De-Construct.net | In Current , Kosovo-Metohija Crisis http://de-construct.net/e-zine/?p=3175 UN General Assembly US and Albania, Part of a Painfully Small World Minority Serbian resolution requesting an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on "whether the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo is in accordance with international law" was accepted in the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, with 77 countries voting in favor and 6 against (Albania, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States of America). 74 countries abstained but, according to the General Assembly voting regulations, Serbia needed a simple majority, where only the votes 'for' and 'against' are being counted, while the abstentions are not taken into account. "We are surprised with the number of states which voted for the resolution. We support the International Court of Justice opinion, but an advisory opinion cannot affect Kosovo independence", Britain's UN Ambassador John Sawers said after the vote. Previously, Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic urged the representatives of the United Nations to support Serbia's ICJ intiative. Jeremic: Voting Against Means Secessionists Always Win Sending the resolution to the court, Jeremic told the UN General Assembly, would reduce tensions in the region and in the rest of the world. "The Republic of Serbia believes that sending this question to the ICJ would prevent the Kosovo crisis from serving as a deeply problematic precedent in any part of the globe where secessionist ambitions are harbored," Jeremic said explaining Serbia's request. "We also believe that the ICJ advisory opinion would provide politically neutral, yet judicially authoritative guidance, to many countries still deliberating on how to approach UDI in line with international law," Jeremic added. He stated that Serbia believes "that recourse to the Court would strengthen the rule of law in international relations, and make the proposed course of action a symbol of the world community's resolve to take the UN Charter as its guide". "Supporting this resolution would also serve to reaffirm a fundamental principle: the right of any member State of the United Nations to pose a simple, basic question - on a matter it considers vitally important - to the international court," Jeremic set out, noting that to vote against would be in effect a vote to deny the right of any country - now or in the future - to seek judicial recourse through the UN system. Serbia wins majority Jeremic underscored that "to vote against would also mean accepting that nothing could be done when secessionists in whichever part of the globe assert the uniqueness of their cause, and claim exception to the universal scope of the international legal order". Serbian Foreign Minister said that: "All member States have on numerous occasions confirmed their confidence in the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. We must therefore have full confidence that the Court will perform its duty in an exemplary fashion without any special directives." "The question posed is amply clear and refrains from taking political positions on the Kosovo issue. The answer to come, in the form of an advisory opinion, will be based on international law, in accordance with the ICJ's Statute and Rules of Procedure," Jeremic pointed out. Jeremic expressed belief that "the draft resolution in its present form is entirely non-controversial. It represents the lowest common denominator of the positions of the member States on this question, and hence there is no need for any changes or additions." "Let us adopt it and allow the Court to act freely and impartially within the framework of its competencies. We are confident that the ICJ will know what to do, and that it will take into account the opinions of all interested member States and international organizations," Jeremic concluded his address, noting also that "the most prudent way to proceed today is to adopt our resolution without opposition, as was the decision on the inclusion of this item in the agenda at the General Committee." Severe Blow to the Separatists and their Western Sponsors After Jeremic's address, UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto opened the debate. European Union, which aims for a united foreign policy, once again failed to reach a consensus with the UK and France abstaining, while Slovakia, Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Romania voted in favor. In the discussion that preceded the voting, Serbia was supported by Panama, Cuba, Mexico, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Algeria, Egypt, South Africa? The United States and Albania voiced their opposition to the adoption of the resolution, while Turkey abstained. Great Britain criticized Serbian initiative, claiming it was "politically motivated". US representative Rosemary DiCarlo said her country will vote against, since Washington considers Kosovo Albanian separatists' declaration to have been "in line with international law". "United States are fully supporting the International Court of Justice, but in regards to the resolution before us, we believe the advisory opinion is unnecessary and unhelpful, and therefore we shall vote against it", the US ambassador said, stressing that 48 countries have recognized Pristina separatists' declaration. "Perhaps 48 countries did recognize Kosovo independence, but it may be worth mentioning that the other 144 did not," South Africa's Ambassador to the UN Dumisani Kumalo said, emphasizing his country supports Serbian initiative. The plenary session, despite Great Britain's insistence, was not attended by the Pristina war criminals, butchers, narcodealers and separatists. Even though mafia state on Serbian territory was recognized only 24 hours ago by one more EU member - Portugal, East River diplomats believe adoption of the Serbian resolution will represent a "severe psychological blow to the further recognitions", being that the states which have not formed a clear stand on the issue are expected to await the ICJ opinion prior to making any moves. According to /Tanjug/, the prevailing view of the UN delegates is that recent events in Georgia have made Western position more precarious, since predictions of opponents of imposed severing of southern Serbian province have proved correct - amputation of Kosovo province did create a precedent, encouraging secessionist movements throughout the world. / This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 15:15:05 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:15:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Bank run Message-ID: <48EE3C19.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Bank run http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run A poster for the 1896 Broadway melodrama The War of Wealth depicts a typical 19th-century bank run in the U.S. 2007 bank run on Northern Rock, a UK bankA bank run (also known as a run on the bank) occurs when a large number of bank customers withdraw their deposits because they believe the bank is, or might become, insolvent. As a bank run progresses, it generates its own momentum, in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: as more people withdraw their deposits, the likelihood of default increases, and this encourages further withdrawals. This can destabilize the bank to the point where it faces bankruptcy.[1] A banking panic or bank panic is a financial crisis that occurs when many banks suffer runs at the same time. A systemic banking crisis is one where all or almost all of the banking capital in a country is wiped out.[2] The resulting chain of bankruptcies can cause a long economic recession.[3] Much of the Great Depression's economic damage was caused directly by bank runs.[4] The cost of cleaning up a systemic banking crisis can be huge, with fiscal costs averaging 13% of GDP and economic output losses averaging 20% of GDP for important crises from 1970 to 2007.[2] Several techniques can help to prevent bank runs. They include temporary suspension of withdrawals, the organization of central banks that act as a lender of last resort, the protection of deposit insurance systems such as the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,[1] and governmental bank regulation.[5] These techniques do not always work: for example, even with deposit insurance, depositors may still be motivated by beliefs they may lack immediate access to deposits during a bank reorganization.[6] Contents [hide] 1 Theory 2 Systemic banking crises 3 Prevention 3.1 Individual banks 3.2 Collective prevention 4 History 4.1 Recent incidents 4.2 Examples of systemic banking crises 5 See also 6 References [edit] Theory Main article: Diamond-Dybvig model Banks retain only a fraction of their deposits as cash (see fractional-reserve banking). The remainder is invested in securities and loans. No bank has enough reserves on hand to cope with more than the fraction of deposits being taken out at once. Diamond and Dybvig developed an influential model to explain why bank runs occur and why banks issue deposits that are more liquid than their assets. They view the bank as an intermediary between borrowers who prefer long-maturity loans and depositors who prefer liquid accounts.[7][1] In their model, business investment requires expenditures in the present to obtain returns that take time in coming, for example, spending on machines and buildings now for production in future years. A business or entrepreneur that needs to borrow to finance investment will want to give their investments a long time to generate returns before full repayment, and will prefer long maturity loans, which offer little liquidity to the lender. The households and firms who have the money to lend to these businesses may have sudden, unpredictable needs for cash, so they require fast access to their money in the form of liquid demand deposit accounts, that is, accounts with shortest possible maturity. Since borrowers need money and depositors fear to make these loans individually, banks provide a valuable service by aggregating funds from many individual deposits, portioning them into loans for borrowers, and spreading the risks both of default and sudden demands for cash.[1] If only a few depositors withdraw at any given time, this arrangement works well. Depositors' unpredictable needs for cash are unlikely to occur at the same time; that is, by the law of large numbers banks can expect only a small percentage of accounts withdrawn on any one day because individual expenditure needs are largely uncorrelated. A bank can make loans over a long horizon, while keeping only relatively small amounts of cash on hand to pay any depositors who may demand withdrawals.[1] However, if many depositors withdraw all at once, the bank itself (as opposed to individual investors) may run short of liquidity, and depositors will rush to withdraw their money, forcing the bank to liquidate many of its assets at a loss, and eventually to fail. If such a bank calls in its loans early, this may force businesses to disrupt their production, or individuals to sell their homes, causing further losses to the larger economy.[1] A bank run can occur even when started by a false story. Even depositors who know the story is false will have an incentive to withdraw, if they suspect other depositors will believe the story. The story becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.[1] Indeed, Robert K. Merton, who coined the term self-fulfilling prophecy, mentioned bank runs as a prime example of the concept in his book Social Theory and Social Structure.[8] The Diamond-Dybvig model provides an example of an economic game with more than one Nash equilibrium, where it is logical for individual depositors to engage in a bank run once they suspect one might start, even though that run will cause the bank to collapse.[1] [edit] Systemic banking crises A bank run affects just one bank. A banking panic or bank panic is a financial crisis that occurs when many banks suffer runs at the same time. In a systemic banking crisis, all or almost all of the banking capital in a country is wiped out.[2] Systemic banking crises are associated with substantial fiscal costs and large output losses. Frequently, emergency liquidity support and blanket guarantees have been used to contain these crises, not always successfully. Although fiscal tightening may help contain market pressures if a crisis is triggered by unsustainable fiscal policies, expansionary fiscal policies are typically used. In crises of liquidity and solvency, central banks can provide liquidity to support illiquid banks. Depositor protection can help restore confidence, although it tends to be costly and does not necessarily speed up economic recovery. Intervention is often delayed in the hope that recovery will occur, and this delay increases the stress on the economy.[2] Some measures are more effective than others in containing economic fallout and restoring the banking system after a systemic crisis. These include establishing the scale of the problem, targeted debt relief programs to distressed borrowers, corporate restructuring programs, recognizing bank losses, and adequately capitalizing banks. Speedy intervention appears to substantially decrease stress on the economy. Programs that are targeted, that specify clear quantifiable rules that limit access to preferred assistance, and that contain meaningful standards for capital regulation, appear to be more successful. Government-owned asset management companies are largely ineffective due to political constraints.[2] A silent run occurs when the implicit fiscal deficit from a government's unbooked loss exposure to zombie banks is large enough to deter depositors of those banks. As more depositors and investors begin to doubt whether a government can support a country's banking system, the silent run on the system can gather steam, causing the zombie banks' funding costs to increase. If a zombie bank sells some assets at market value, its remaining assets contain a larger fraction of unbooked losses; if it rolls over its liabilities at increased interest rates, it squeezes its profits along with the profits of healthier competitors. The longer the silent run goes on, the more benefits are transferred from healthy banks and taxpayers to the zombie banks.[9] The cost of cleaning up after a crisis can be huge. In systemically important banking crises in the world from 1970 to 2007, the average net recapitalization cost to the government was 6% of GDP, fiscal costs associated with crisis management averaged 13% of GDP (16% of GDP if expense recoveries are ignored), and economic output losses averaged about 20% of GDP during the first four years of the crisis.[2] [edit] Prevention Several techniques can be used to help prevent bank runs. [edit] Individual banks Some prevention techniques apply to individual banks, independently of the rest of the economy. A bank can take deposits from depositors who do not observe common information that might spark a run. For example, in the days before deposit insurance, it made sense for a bank to have a large lobby and fast service, to prevent a line of depositors from extending out into the street, causing passers-by to infer that a bank run is occurring.[1] A bank can temporarily suspend withdrawals to stop a run. In many cases the threat of suspension prevents the run, which means the threat need not be carried out.[1] Bank regulation or other constraints can impose a reserve ratio requirement, which limits the proportion of deposits which a bank can lend out, making it less likely for a bank run to start.[5] This practice sets a limit on the fraction in fractional-reserve banking; in the extreme and hypothetical case, full-reserve banking requires a reserve ratio of 100%. [edit] Collective prevention Some prevention techniques apply across the whole economy, though they may still allow individual institutions to fail. These techniques create moral hazard, since they reduce incentives for banks to avoid making risky loans; the goal is for the benefits of collective prevention to outweigh the costs of excessive risk-taking.[10] Central banks act as a lender of last resort. To prevent a bank run, the central bank guarantees that it will make short-term loans to banks, to ensure that, if they remain economically viable, they will always have enough liquidity to honor their deposits.[1] Deposit insurance systems insure each depositor up to a certain amount, so that depositors' savings are protected even if the bank fails. This removes the incentive to withdraw one's deposits simply because others are withdrawing theirs.[1] However, depositors may still be motivated by fears they may lack immediate access to deposits during a bank reorganization.[6] [edit] History The run on the Montreal City and District Savings Bank. The Mayor addressing the crowd. Printed in 1872 in the Canadian Illustrated News.Bank runs first appeared as part of cycles of credit expansion and its subsequent contraction. In the 16th century onwards, English goldsmiths issuing promissory notes suffered severe failures due to bad harvests plummeting parts of the country into famine and unrest. Other examples are the Dutch Tulip manias (1634-1637), the British South Sea Bubble (1717-1719), the French Mississippi Company (1717-1720), the "Post Napoleonic Depression" (1815-1830) and the Great Depression (1929-1939). Bank runs have also been used to blackmail individuals or governments; for example in 1830 when the British Government under the Duke of Wellington overturned a majority government under the orders of the king, George IV, to prevent reform (the later 1832 Reform Act), he angered reformers and so a run on the banks was threatened under the rallying cry "To stop the Duke go for gold!". Many of the recessions in the United States were caused by banking panics. The Great Depression contained several banking crises consisting of runs on multiple banks from 1929 to 1933; some of these were specific to regions of the U.S.[3] Much of the Depression's economic damage was caused directly by bank runs,[4] and institutions put into place after the Depression have prevented runs on U.S. commercial banks since the 1930s,[7] even under conditions such as the U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s.[11] The Depression's bank runs left a lasting mark on the American psyche, exhibited in sometimes disturbing images such as the bleak scenes where the fictional hero George Bailey contemplates suicide in the movie It's a Wonderful Life.[12] [edit] Recent incidents In 1999, a bank run happened in Malaysia where Bank Negara Malaysia (the Malaysian central bank) had to take control of MBf Finance Berhad, the biggest finance company in Malaysia during that time. Many of the finance company's 120 branches saw runs on their deposits, totalling about 17 billion Ringgit (US$4.49 billion).[13] In 2001, during the Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002), a bank run and corralito was experienced in Argentina. There are various theories into the cause.[14] This contributed towards the bank runs in neighbouring Uruguay during the 2002 Uruguay banking crisis. In early August 2007, the American firm, Countrywide Financial suffered a bank run as a consequence of the subprime mortgage crisis.[15] On 13 September 2007, the British bank Northern Rock arranged an emergency loan facility from the Bank of England, which it claimed was the result of short-term liquidity problems. The bank's defenders claimed its cash shortage was the result of over-exposure to the failing US sub-prime mortgage market, while its critics argued that it was the result of Northern Rock's own careless lending practices. A run began the following day, Friday, with reports of its internet banking site being overloaded,[16] and long queues outside branches that day, Saturday morning and the following Monday.[17] News reports on 17 September stated that an estimated ?2 billion GBP of retail deposits had been withdrawn by customers since the bank had applied for emergency funds. [18] On Tuesday, 11 March 2008, a bank run began on the securities and banking firm Bear Stearns. While Bear Stearns was not an ordinary deposit-taking bank, it had financed huge long-term investments by selling short-maturity bonds (Asset Backed Commercial Paper), making it vulnerable to panic on the part of its bondholders. Credit officers of rival firms began to say that Bear Stearns would not be able to make good on its obligations. Within two days, Bear Stearns's capital base of $17 billion had dwindled to $2 billion in cash, and Bear Stearns told government officials that it saw little option other than to file for bankruptcy the next day. By 07:00 Friday, the Federal Reserve decided to lend Bear Stearns money, the first time since the Great Depression that it had lent to a nonbank. Stocks sank, and that day JPMorgan Chase began an effort to buy Bear Stearns as part of a government-sponsored bailout. The deal was arranged by Sunday in an effort to calm markets before overseas markets opened.[19] On 11 July 2008, U.S. mortgage lender IndyMac Bank was seized by federal regulators. IndyMac had been a stressed institution for months[20]. The bank was capital-constrained and possibly heading for regulatory intervention[21]. However, both regulators and the bank itself blamed its troubles on a letter from Sen. Charles E. Schumer questioning its viability.[22][23] Following the public release of the letter on June 26, IndyMac customers withdrew amounts averaging $100 million a day from the bank, or a total of $1.3 billion in cash.[23] The run caused a liquidity crisis which forced IndyMac to announce it was halting new loan submissions, closing its retail and wholesale lending divisions, and laying off 3,800 employees. On 25 September 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision was forced to shut down Washington Mutual, the largest savings and loan in the United States and the sixth-largest overall financial institution, on a Thursday due to a massive run. Over the previous 10 days, customers had withdrawn $16.7 billion in deposits. This is currently the biggest bank failure in American financial history. Normally, banks are seized on Fridays to allow the FDIC the weekend to prepare the failed bank for takeover by another bank. However, WaMu's size led regulators to shut it down on a Thursday.[6][24][25] On 6 October 2008, Landsbanki, Iceland's second largest bank, was put into government receivership. The Icelandic government used emergency powers to dismiss the board of directors of Landsbanki and took control of the failed institution.[26] Prime Minister Geir Haarde also rushed measures through parliament to give the country's largest bank, Kaupthing, a ?400m loan. In addition, Iceland pleaded with Russia to extend 3bn in credit as western countries refused to help.[27] With over 5bn in savings held by Britains in Landsbanki, the Icelandic collapse threatens private citizens in England as well as companies in Iceland.[28] [edit] Examples of systemic banking crises This article or section may require cleanup because it is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (September 2008) Panic of 1907 Great Depression US savings and loan crisis of 1980s-1990s Swedish banking crisis (1990s) Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002) US subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Oct 9 15:40:53 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:40:53 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Stem Cells Message-ID: <48EE4225.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Thursday, October 9, 2008 Scientists make stem cells from testes cells Karen Kaplan / Los Angeles Times Scientists have converted cells from human testes into stem cells that grew into muscle, nerve cells and other kinds of tissue, according to a study published Wednesday in the online edition of Nature. The stem cells offer another potential alternative to embryonic stem cells for researchers who aim to treat diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's by replacing damaged or malfunctioning cells with custom-grown replacements. Scientists also have derived flexible adult stem cells from skin, amniotic fluid and menstrual blood. The new cells were created from sperm-making cells obtained from testicular biopsies of 22 men. They are theoretically superior to traditional embryonic stem cells because they can be obtained directly from male patients and used to grow replacement tissues that their bodies won't reject, Sabine Conrad of the University of Tuebingen in Germany and her colleagues wrote. Advertisement The cells also have an ethical advantage in that they do not require the destruction of human embryos. Experiments in mice suggested that reproductive cells were good candidates for making stem cells, said Renee Reijo Pera, director of the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Center at Thursday, October 9, 2008 Laura Berman Visionary sets sights on stem cell research Alfred Taubman lends hand, wallet to effort to relax state's laws Alfred Taubman, Bloomfield Hills billionaire, is delivering his own October surprise week. On Tuesday, he delighted the University of Michigan with a $22 million bequest to the Taubman Institute for Medical Research, doubling his original gift during a symposium on stem cell research there. On Friday, Bill Clinton -- the former president -- will appear at a fundraiser at the Taubman Air Terminal at Oakland International Airport -- accepting Taubman's invitation to raise money for Cure Michigan. At 84, he's pulling out all the stops. In the days when he was building his retailing empire, he was known for ferociously high standards, a deliberative style of risk-taking, and an eye for the next fashion or merchandising trend. Advertisement It was Taubman who discovered a jeans store in San Francisco and put The Gap in his malls, extending the company's reach nationwide. It was Taubman who bet on The Limited, then a regional Ohio chain, making it and its offshoots a national brand, and who transformed Sotheby's, a creaky British auction house, into an art world powerhouse. Now, retired from retailing but not the least bit retired from life, the shopping mall pioneer is focused on the medical frontier of embryonic stem cell research. In his eyes, so often visionary, the future is clear: Eliminating the now stringent barriers to such research is vital to Michigan's ability to participate fully in 21st century medical research. You can thank, or curse, Taubman for Proposal 2, the ballot proposal that would remove the severe restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that now require the state's scientists to do such work in other states or not at all -- or face a $10 million fine and up to 10 years in prison. The proposal's backers include Dr. John "Joe" Schwarz, a former Republican congressman and state senator, and other philanthropists, notably Cynthia and Edsel Ford. But it is Taubman whose commitment is matched by his willingness, and ability, to bankroll the successful petition drive for the proposal and, now, to assume much of the burden of the public campaign costs to change Michigan's law. He's not trying to burnish his legacy or wipe out the past, including his 2001 conviction for price-fixing while he was the chairman of Sotheby's. ("I'm not sorry because I didn't do it," he says of the crime. The nine months he spent in prison was "a complete waste.") It's a role that's been assumed in other states by other moguls and philanthropists frustrated by tight federal funding and restrictive research laws. Now, "he's the guyin Michigan," says Sean Erickson, the much-honored scientist who heads the U-M stem cell biology center. "A lot of people have done a lot, there are other names, but I don't think anyone has done as much as Alfred Taubman to make a difference on this issue here." He's convinced that he's involved in a historic moment, equivalent to the discovery of antibiotics, one that will cure disease and forever change the way medicine is practiced. "Before antibiotics, the doctors could treat you with aspirin, and that was it. Antibiotics changed the world. Now, embryonic stem cell research is going to do the same thing." says Taubman. Why is an 84-year-old man so engaged in this issue? He credits his physician, Dr. Eva Feldman, the U-M neurologist, who now heads the Taubman Institute in Ann Arbor. Her brilliance, fierce work ethic, and dedication ("I call her at 5:30 a.m. and she's at work; I call her at 7 p.m., and she's still there.") are part of it. But he's also steeped himself in the science. The opposition, MiCause, is being funded by the Michigan Catholic Conference and Michigan Right-to-Life, both groups who contend that life begins at conception and oppose allowing scientists to develop new stem cell lines. But publicly, they're attacking the ballot issue by suggesting it will raise taxes (the proposal has no such provision) and open the door to cloning. (Cloning is banned by law in Michigan.) "When you cut through the verbiage, which is copious," says Schwarz, the co-chair of the Proposal 2 backers, "the opposition's objections are religious. We're the foot soldiers in the war against disease -- and they're the conscientious objectors in that war." Taubman is not only a foot soldier; he's also funding the war chest. Taubman never was a traditionalist. His home is crowded with the works of 20th century modern masters -- not pretty pictures, but challenging paintings and sculptures by artists who used bold strokes and vivid colors that challenge the viewer. He is, always has been, a man with an eye for the way the world is going -- and that eye has made him a billionaire. "When I look at a chair," he says, nodding at the Josef Hoffman chair in his study, another museum-quality piece, "I see not only how to make it different, but better." The certainty is that stem cell research is mainstream in most of the United States. Restless, ambitious, intellectually curious still, Taubman is betting that he can help Michigan understand that this research will create jobs and cure disease. "It will cure diabetes, heart disease, ALS," he says. "I believe in it." This man, a self-made billionaire from Pontiac, has tried to realize his own potential. In embryonic cells that can be transformed, almost magically, he sees another kind of potential. "I'm betting on it," he says, and laughs. "It's a big bet." You can reach Laura Berman at (248) 647-7221 or lberman at detnews.com. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Oct 9 18:06:16 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:06:16 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Dennis Kucinich on the Democrats' Bailout Betrayal Message-ID: <48EE9C78.3020304@attglobal.net> by Chris Hedges Truthdig (October 05 2008) The passing of the $850-billion bailout pulled the plug on the New Deal. The Great Society is now gasping for air, mortally wounded, coughing up blood. It will not recover. It was murdered by the Democratic Party. We are on our own. And don't expect any help from Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who lobbied hard for the bill and voted for it. Ignore their rhetoric. Look coldly at the ballots they cast against us. We, as citizens, have only a handful of representatives left in Washington, most of whom were left sputtering in rage and frustration on the House floor. The sad irony is that some of them were Republican. "This was the largest single act of class warfare in the modern history of this country", Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, who led the fight in the House against the bailout, told me by phone from Cleveland. "It is a direct attack on the American people's ability to be able to stabilize their homes and their neighborhoods. This single vote will define the careers of everyone. We are back to taxation without representation, to markets that are openly rigged." "We buried the New Deal", he said of the vote. "Instead of Democrats going back to classic New Deal economics where we prime the pump of the economy and start money circulating among the population through saving homes, creating jobs and building a new infrastructure, our leaders chose to accelerate the wealth of the nation upwards. They did so in a way that was destructive of free-market principles. They ripped away all the familiar moorings. We are in an uncharted sea where the traditional roles of the political parties are being switched. The Democrats have unfortunately become so enamored and beholden to Wall Street that we are not functioning to defend the economic interest of the broad base of the American people. It was up to the Republicans to protect not just a so-called free market but the American taxpayer and attempt to block this. This is an outrage. This was democracy's Black Friday." Obama arrived on the Senate floor Brutus-like to thrust a knife into the back of the working and middle class. He lobbied hard for the bill. He did so, according to some who met with him on Capitol Hill, because he feared that if he opposed the bailout and it triggered a market collapse it could cost him the election. Better to placate the thieves on Wall Street than stand up for the masses of enraged and swindled citizens. Obama's betrayal is the betrayal of the Democratic Party. The Democrats gave us the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which ripped down the firewalls that were put in place by the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. The 1933 act, designed to prevent the kind of meltdown we are now experiencing, established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It set in place banking reforms to stop speculators from hijacking the financial system. With Glass-Steagall demolished, and the passage of NAFTA, the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, tumbled gleefully into bed with corporations and Wall Street speculators. They achieved fundraising parity with the Republicans. They used institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a welfare gravy train. The Democrats, including Obama, are as compromised as the Republicans. Obama's voting record in the Senate is in line with the corrupt Democratic mainstream, including Biden, who works on behalf of corporations and especially the credit card industry. Obama knows where power lies in the United States. It is not with the citizens, who with ratios of 100 to 1 pleaded with their representatives in Washington not to loot the national treasury to bail out Wall Street investment firms. Power lies with the corporations. These corporations, not us, pick who runs for president. You cannot be a candidate without their blessing and money. These corporations, including the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation, determine who gets to speak and what issues candidates can or cannot challenge, from universal, not-for-profit, single-payer health care to Wall Street bailouts to NAFTA. If you do not follow the corporate script you become as marginal and invisible as Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney. Obama has always served his corporate masters. He opposed Representative John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and supported continued funding for the war. He voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He did not support an amendment that was part of a bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at thirty percent. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872, which allows mineral companies to rape federal land for profit. He did not back the single-payer health care bill HR 676, sponsored by Kucinich and John Conyers. He advocates the death penalty and nuclear power. He backed the class-action "reform" bill - the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) - that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms, which make up Obama's second-biggest single bloc of donors. CAFA would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits. Workers, under CAFA, would no longer have redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporations. CAFA moves these cases into corporate-friendly federal courts dominated by Republican judges. Obama's support for the bailout, however, is his most egregious betrayal. He had a brief, shining moment to prove he could lead, to capitalize on a popular revolt that cut across the political spectrum. He never attempted to address or mobilize the aspirations and passions of the vast majority of Americans. He was as craven, servile and cowardly as the party he represents. He returned to the campaign trail after Friday's vote as a slick and polished sales representative for our corporate state, telling us to calm down and accept the inevitable. "Some of the most powerful speeches against this were given by members of the Republican Party who are on the political right", Kucinich said. "They did a superb job in poking holes in the underlying assumptions of the bailout. They say what they believe. Give me somebody who says what they believe and I can figure out how to get them to a new place. When people say one thing and do another it is very hard to be able to move a debate." So let us honor, in our moment of defeat, the handful of elected officials who valiantly defied their party leaderships in the House to stage a remarkable revolt that at first succeeded. Kucinich is one. There were others - Brad Sherman, Marcy Kaptur, Peter DeFazio, Lloyd Doggett and Robert C "Bobby" Scott. They are about all that is left of the old Democratic Party, the party that once looked out for the poor and the working class. Send them a note of thanks. They deserve it. And if you live in their districts make sure you get to the polls in November. They did not sell you out. "We had two take-it-or-leave-it propositions and the second one was worse than the first", Kucinich said, referring to the plan that came loaded with pages of tax cuts. "Tax cuts are antithetical to a bailout. We never solved the problem. There were never any hearings on the bill. This premise, that we could prop up the stock market with a $700-billion investment and create some liquidity, was flawed. The problem is that banks do not want to loan to each other. It is not a liquidity problem. Banks are afraid they are going to collapse in short selling. There is a war going on between security firms and banks. Banks are under assault. They are not loaning. The dynamic is driven by the Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Fed." The root of the financial crisis, as critics of the bailout plan point out, is that millions of homeowners cannot pay their mortgages. The bailout, as the market decline on Friday following the vote illustrated, does not address the crisis. It solves nothing for the ten million Americans who face foreclosure. It solves nothing for the growing numbers of unemployed and underemployed. It may well be the equivalent of tossing $850 billion of taxpayer money (including $150 billion in tax cuts) into a furnace and watching passively as our economy continues its plunge. "We face a perfect financial storm", Kucinich warned. "The elements are the deficit spending for the war of three to four trillion dollars, the trillion and more tax cuts, the war itself and the lack of serious investment in the country. We are being hollowed out. We are going to see more unemployment and more people losing their homes. With $700 billion we could have made a real investment in the country, in jobs, in infrastructure and in homes. Instead, we got robbed." _____ A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Copyright (c) 2008 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081006_dennis_kucinich_on_the_democrats_bailout_betrayal/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Oct 9 13:19:06 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:19:06 -0500 Subject: [A-List] EL SALVADOR SOUTH AFRICA AND UPSIDE DOWN WORLD Message-ID: <00b801c92a43$ed3f16c0$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here. CISPES delegation to El Salvador to investigate "political conditions, human rights abuses, the potential for fraud and intervention in the 2009 Salvadoran elections, and the role that the US government has played in the cited injustices." This is their report. South Africa Is Suffering Racism. Mineworkers Union there reports on huge workers rally to speak out Upside Down World has several brief but in depth reports, ie., I think it's thorough but not too long You might note the story from Haiti on NGOs. The "NGO-ization" is a phenomenum people should stay hip to. TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2036 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/07aa2350/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/07aa2350/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Ben Dangl" Subject: [LASolidarity] UpsideDownWorld: Political and Social Crisis in Paraguay; Plan Colombia and the Asylum Lottery; Alternatives to Transnational Mining; Back to the Trenches in Bolivia and More Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:45:50 -0400 Size: 27558 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/07aa2350/attachment-0003.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Anisa Abd el Fattah" Subject: [AmericanConscience] South African Mineworkers rally against racism Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:31:55 -0400 Size: 23270 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/07aa2350/attachment-0004.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Burke Stansbury" Subject: [LASolidarity] Report by Delegation to El Salvador Calls into Question U.S. Government Role Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:18:17 -0400 Size: 58967 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/07aa2350/attachment-0005.eml From tboyle at rosehill.net Thu Oct 9 14:30:47 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:30:47 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The Great Repudiation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is so ironic, I just have to respond. > It's unseemly for the world's richest country to refuse to pay some of its debts. > That's especially true since much of the money came from poorer countries... Surely Mr. Mandel, and Business Week, understand that nobody intends to pay the debt. Taking advantage of suckers is the essence of American business. Invariably, our "trading partners" draw some benefits from this, but such benefits are purely incidental to American companies or consumers. The Chinese people have worked their asses off, the last 20 years for their aristocracy. Is anybody surprised when that aristocracy loots the country and sells it to Americans at bargain prices? The rulers of China have no "costs of goods sold". So why would those rulers worry about depreciation of the dollar? The deal is free, to them. And surely, nobody would expect American companies like Walmart, or consumers to complain-- they scooped up their windfall and never looked back, and they're not about to look back now. And the American financial sector, in their eagerness to recycle the sino-dollars practically force-fed them into the property sector---anybody could see it happening years ago. OK now I'll predict America's next move: Another big military invasion someplace like Afghanistan and Pakistan, or perhaps Latin America. There are too many people in the U.S. who profit from the looting and pillaging, setting up business cronies and dictatorships, forcing convulsion and cataclysm, forcing global instability and flight into the $US dollar, forcing global arms purchases. Todd http://rosehill.net diagram of the MICC At 12:14 PM 10/9/2008, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > >Mandel on Economics October 2, 2008, 5:00PM EST >Shared Sacrifice Will Ease the Credit Crunch >Foreign lenders will have to take a haircut while American consumers >spend less and taxpayers take a hit > >by Michael Mandel > >Is the U.S. heading for another Great Depression? Probably not?but we >are about to go through a period future generations may call the Great >Repudiation. > >The root cause of today's crisis lies not in the housing market but in >America's foreign debt. Over the past four years the U.S. private >sector has borrowed an astonishing $3 trillion from the rest of the >world. The money, directly and indirectly, came from countries such as >China, Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, which ran huge trade >surpluses with America. Foreign investors trusted their funds to U.S. >financial institutions, which used much of the money for mortgage >loans. > >But American families took on a lot more debt than they could >comfortably afford. Now no one is sure how much of that towering sum >the U.S. is going to pay back?and all the uncertainty is roiling the >financial markets. > >The Washington bailout debate boils down to this question: Who is >going to bear the burden of the $3 trillion mistake? Will low- and >middle-income borrowers have to cut back on spending to pay their >mortgage bills? Will taxpayers have to chip in big bucks to pay for >defaults on those debts? Or will Washington act in a way that imposes >large losses on foreign investors?in effect, repudiating some of the >debt? The best outcome is shared sacrifice among borrowers, taxpayers, >and foreign investors?but that result may be politically difficult to >achieve. > >FINDING A FAIR PLAN > >Since mid-2004, American households have taken on a bit more than $3 >trillion in mortgage debt. The official statistics are very fuzzy, but >it looks like at least one-third of the debt, and perhaps half, was >financed with foreign money. As a result, foreign investors are >sitting on an enormous mountain of mortgage-related securities. > >The value of those securities, though, depends on both economic and >political factors. Real wages have dropped for most U.S. workers since >2004. To make good on their mortgages, many low- and middle-income >families would have to sharply cut their spending, hurting both the >domestic economy and countries that export to the U.S. > >A better solution is for borrowers, U.S. taxpayers, and foreign >investors to share the burden of the excess debt. The question, >though, is finding the fair division of pain. So far the U.S. >government has taken over Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), a >move that provides a taxpayer guarantee to investors, many of them >foreign, who own securities issued or backed by those companies. The >Paulson bailout plan, too, would devote up to $700 billion of taxpayer >money to buying up bad securities, with non-U.S. investors some of the >major beneficiaries. > >Given the hostility to the Paulson plan, however, it's unlikely we >will see more money to prop up the prices of securities. The next step >in Washington could be legislation to benefit homeowners?say, by >allowing bankruptcy courts to reduce mortgage debt, which they cannot >do now. Alternately, the government could let more homeowners default >and more financial institutions go under. In either case, the value of >mortgage-related securities would drop, with foreign investors taking >much of the hit. > >The global response to such a move depends a lot on how it's presented >by the leaders in Washington. It's unseemly for the world's richest >country to refuse to pay some of its debts. That's especially true >since much of the money came from poorer countries such as China. In >the worst case, the losses by foreign investors would lead to an >unwillingness to invest in the U.S. while fueling anti-American >sentiment around the world. > >U.S. politicians are accustomed to playing to a domestic audience. But >in the end, making the case for shared global sacrifice may be the >biggest task facing the next President. > >Mandel is chief economist for BusinessWeek. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6638 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/1bfcbfac/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Thu Oct 9 18:12:45 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:12:45 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson Wed. Oct 8th one hour audio Message-ID: Listen to this Guns and Butter Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28790 "The New Kleptocracy" with economist Dr. Michael Hudson on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's "Plan" passed by Congress on October 3, 2008. We discuss what is being purchased, the congressional vote, what this means for the oligarchs, and what this means for the rest of us. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 587 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/fcfdf3d0/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Thu Oct 9 11:18:27 2008 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:18:27 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Can Free Trade be Fair? Lessons from the Peru-U.S. FTA Message-ID: <20081009171705.6886F3E47AC@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6544 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/483894f2/attachment.txt From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 18:53:05 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:53:05 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson Wed. Oct 8th one hour audio In-Reply-To: <6tceqh$23ic7h@ipo4smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <6tceqh$23ic7h@ipo4smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <48EEA771.1070207@gmail.com> Can anyone inform me of the copyright status of this audio? Can it be re-distributed via Creative Commons licensing? Leigh Todd Boyle wrote: > Listen to this > Guns and Butter Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 > http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28790 > > *"The New Kleptocracy" with economist Dr. Michael Hudson on Treasury > Secretary Hank Paulson's "Plan" passed by Congress on October 3, > 2008. We discuss what is being purchased, the congressional vote, > what this means for the oligarchs, and what this means for the rest of > us.* From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 19:11:51 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:11:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] NYT: Nuclear Aid By Russian To Iranians Suspected Message-ID: What with the global financial crisis and other problems that should be consuming all attention of world leaders, I thought that they wouldn't have time for Iran, but. . . . -- Yoshie October 10, 2008 Nuclear Aid By Russian To Iranians Suspected By ELAINE SCIOLINO PARIS ? International nuclear inspectors are investigating whether a Russian scientist helped Iran conduct complex experiments on how to detonate a nuclear weapon, according to European and American officials. As part of the investigation, inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency are seeking information from the scientist, who they believe acted on his own as an adviser on experiments described in a lengthy document obtained by the agency, the officials said. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is under way, said that the document appeared authentic, without explaining why, but they made it clear that they did not think the scientist was working on behalf of the Russian government. Still, it is the first time that the nuclear agency has suggested that Iran may have received help from a foreign weapons scientist in developing nuclear arms. The American and European officials said the new document, written in Farsi, was part of an accumulation of evidence that Iran had worked toward developing a nuclear weapon, despite Iran's claims that its atomic work over the past two decades has been aimed solely at producing electrical power. In February, in a closed-door briefing at the agency's headquarters in Vienna, its chief nuclear inspector presented diplomats from dozens of countries with newly declassified evidence ? documents, sketches and even a video ? that he said raised questions about whether Iran had tried to design a weapon. Among the data presented by Olli Heinonen, the chief inspector, were indications that the Iranians had worked on exploding detonators that are critical for the firing of most nuclear weapons. When the Iranian envoy at the briefing called the charges "groundless" and protested that the tests were for conventional arms, Mr. Heinonen replied that the experiments were "not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon," two participants said. He called the shape and timing involved in the firing systems and detonators "key components of nuclear weapons." At the same time, Mr. Heinonen acknowledged that the agency "did not have sufficient information at this stage to conclude whether the allegations are groundless or the data fabricated." The new document under investigation offers further evidence of such experiments, the Western officials said. Iranian officials have said repeatedly that the documents the agency is using in its investigation of Iran's past nuclear activities are fabrications or forgeries, and that any experiments were not related to nuclear weapons. Iran has said the same about the new evidence, although the agency has not shown the full document to government officials in Tehran. Instead, Iran has been given only five pages of excerpts that have been translated from Farsi into English. The Western officials said that the conditions under which the inspectors obtained the document prohibited them from revealing it in full to the Iranians, out of fear that doing so could expose the source of the document. These restrictions present a problem for Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency's director general, who is pressing Iran to reveal its past nuclear activity. "I cannot accuse a person without providing him or her with the evidence," he said last year. Although officials would not say how they had obtained the new document, it was first publicly mentioned in an agency report in May as one of 18 documents presented to Iran in connection with suspected nuclear weapons studies. At the time it was described as a "five-page document in English" about experiments with a complex initiation system to detonate a large amount of high explosives and to monitor the detonation with probes. There was no indication that the document was a translation of a much longer, more comprehensive document in Farsi. The original, Farsi document is described by officials familiar with it as a detailed narrative of experiments aimed at creating a perfectly timed implosion of nuclear material. According to experts, the most difficult challenges in developing nuclear weapons are creating the bomb fuel and figuring out how to compress and detonate it. That was followed by an agency report last month that revealed that Iran might have received "foreign expertise" in its detonator experiments. A senior official with links to the agency said then that a foreign government was not involved. He ruled out the involvement of Libya and the remnants of the network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani metallurgist who built the world's largest black-market sales operation for nuclear technology. But he would not comment further. European and American officials now say that the "foreign expertise" was a reference to the Russian scientist, but they offered only scant details. They said that the scientist was believed to have helped guide Iranians in the experiments, but that he did not write the document. Nor is he thought to have been affiliated with the civilian electric power plant that is being rebuilt by Russia at the Iranian port of Bushehr, and which Russia has agreed to fuel with nuclear material, the officials said. Russia says it opposes any effort by Iran to obtain a weapon, but cooperation by Russian companies and individuals with some aspects of Iran's nuclear program dates back years. In the late 1990s, Russia's scientific and technical elite, reeling from the collapse of the Soviet Union, forged ties to Iran, which paid hard currency for aid in weapons and technical programs. Western experts say the help extended to Tehran's atomic efforts, but there was never any proof in those years of a Russian link to nuclear weapons development. "The Iranians were very active in recruiting and paying Russian scientists to provide them with assistance in their nuclear program," said Gary S. Samore, a National Security Council official during the Clinton administration who now directs studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He said he had no recollection of Russian aid in the design of Iranian nuclear arms but added that it could have happened. "It's plausible to me that they at some point paid a Russian nuclear expert to provide assistance," he said in an interview. Asked about the potential contribution of the Russian scientist in detonator experimentation, a senior Russian official who has long followed Iran's nuclear program said, "It is difficult for me to add anything." William J. Broad contributed reporting from New York, and David E. Sanger from Washington. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Oct 9 19:18:47 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Same speech, different speakers.... In-Reply-To: <82b839ea0810082024s58b0d88dm175d3b8817512a11@mail.gmail.com> References: <82b839ea0810082024s58b0d88dm175d3b8817512a11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <586FE24339AC4263B48D937BA46F9455@TonyPC> ..The 'scandal' (in apostrophes because the media duly noted it...and then bowed before the Harper's rationalizing apologia) ..has already come and gone. In reply to the question of our sovereignty: What sovereignty? Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "MARGARET WYLES" To: "The A-List" Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:24 PM Subject: [A-List] Same speech, different speakers.... > ...as though they were reading a telegram from their masters. Must > have been a mixup somewhere. > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/439.html > > I was under the impression that Canada and Australia were sovereign > countries. > > I guess not. > > This video shows the heads of both these states reading the same exact > statement - word for word - supporting the invasion of Iraq. > > Who wrote this thing? > > Who distributed it? > > Who compelled these obvious puppets to read it? > > The Queen? The CIA? Who runs these people. > > Note: Canada's Harper was not yet Prime Minister when he made this > speech selling out his country for god knows who - but he is now. > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Oct 9 19:36:25 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:36:25 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Russia: Complicit Ban Ki-Moon Aids NATO In Sidelining United Nations Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:39 PM Subject: [stopnato] Russia: Complicit Ban Ki-Moon Aids NATO In Sidelining United Nations http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31619 Russia Today October 9, 2008 UN and NATO team up behind Russia's back -Russia's representative in NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said that in the document there is not a single word on the UN's leading role in ensuring stability in the world. "NATO should fully acknowledge the UN's universal role and not try to substitute UN functions," NATO and the United Nations have signed a new cooperation accord on prerogatives for UN member states - but have angered Russia by not telling them about it in advance. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow supports the cooperation of regional organisations with the UN, but stressed the importance of making these sorts of developments more transparent. "We knew that the UN and NATO secretariats were drawing up an agreement," he said. "And we assumed that before the signing, its draft should be shown to the member states. But it never happened." He said that the agreement had been signed secretly during the ministerial week of the UN General Assembly. The Russian minister said that he discussed the problem with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. "I did not hear any reasonable explanations. It surprised me," said Lavrov. The text of the agreement contains a provision on prerogatives of member states. That includes cooperation in maintaining international security on the basis of the UN Charter and certain international directives. According to the Russian minister, decisions of that level should be made by member states, not organizations' secretariats. "We asked the leadership of the two secretariats what it might mean. We're awaiting answers," said Lavrov. Russia's representative in NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said that in the document there is not a single word on the UN's leading role in ensuring stability in the world. "NATO should fully acknowledge the UN's universal role and not try to substitute UN functions," he said. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=33563&cid=45&p=09.10.2008 Voice of Russia October 9, 2008 Russia shocked by UN-NATO cooperation deal Briefing journalists in Moscow on Thursday, a Russian Foreign Minister spokesman bristled at a recent move by NATO's and UN's secretariats to ink a bilateral cooperation agreement without a preliminary go-ahead by Russia, known to be a UN permanent member. Cautioning against riding roughshod over Moscow interests, Andrei Nesterenko stressed that a big question mark currently hangs over the professional skills of some UN officials, who try to involve the UN Secretary-General in covert activities. Earlier, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, voiced frustration about the fact that the NATO-UN agreement was clinched without all UN member states reading the draft. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Learn to live a full life with these healthy living groups on Yahoo! Share Photos Put your favorite photos and more online. Curves on Yahoo! A group for women to share & discuss food & weight loss.. __,_._,___ From kaliyuga at wildblue.net Thu Oct 9 20:31:08 2008 From: kaliyuga at wildblue.net (MARGARET WYLES) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 18:31:08 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Same speech, different speakers.... In-Reply-To: <586FE24339AC4263B48D937BA46F9455@TonyPC> References: <82b839ea0810082024s58b0d88dm175d3b8817512a11@mail.gmail.com> <586FE24339AC4263B48D937BA46F9455@TonyPC> Message-ID: <82b839ea0810091931p6b189482p6b2287f2b73d1dd2@mail.gmail.com> On 10/9/08, Tony B. wrote: > ..The 'scandal' (in apostrophes because the media duly noted it...and then > bowed before the Harper's rationalizing apologia) ..has already come and > gone. > > In reply to the question of our sovereignty: What sovereignty? > > Tony > It seems they feel confident enough that they can just shove this in our faces and bold face lie with seemingly no worry about getting caught or any consequences if they were. Kind of like the criminal who first starts lying about whether they've done the deed or not and eventually has the confidence (or is it sense of desparation) to say. "I murdered her. So what? Whatcha gonna DO about it?" There is a lot of anger out there, but everyone is shadow boxing with any number of Matrix agents, unable to locate with any certainty the true cause for their anger. Is it the Wall Street goons? The 'politicians? or just the Democrats? Spending endless time delineating the differences in style between Obama and McCain, like counting the angels on the head of a pin, all while their bank accounts are being looted. The good news is that, because of these mistakes on their part and the technology of the internet to capture and publicize these kinds of things, I have to think the masses are starting to awaken. As to sovreignty, those were not my words, but a quote from the link. Geeze, I know THAT much! M From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 04:32:45 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:32:45 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Iran Uses Price Power in $2 Billion Gas Deal + Oil's Drop Squeezes Producers Message-ID: The Iranians have so far lucked out* in the global financial crisis, though the crisis will eventually affect their economy, too, through diminished oil demand.** Now they can concentrate on their always exciting domestic struggle without undue foreign interference: e.g., "Iran Fires Central Banker," ; "'Looting' of Iran's Central Bank Assets Hit," ; "Iran's Bazaar Traders in Revolt against New Tax," ; "Iran Shopkeepers Strike over VAT Introduction," ; "Ahmadinejad's Economic Conundrum," ; "Ahmadi-Nejad Opens Coffers to Shield Poor," ; "Ahmadinejad Details Stipend Measure," ; "Larijani: No to Inflationary Measures," ). Yoshie * OCTOBER 10, 2008 Iran Uses Price Power in $2 Billion Gas Deal By ROSHANAK TAGHAVI TEHRAN, Iran -- Oil prices may be softening, but the price of natural gas is climbing sharply in the Persian Gulf, thanks to the booming economies of the Arab petro-states. Iran looks set to squeeze the region's highest wholesale gas prices from the United Arab Emirates as part of a 25-year, $2 billion natural-gas export deal between the two countries. Crescent Petroleum, based in the emirate of Sharjah, has offered to pay about $5 per million British thermal units for Iranian gas, according to a person familiar with the matter. Unlike oil prices, gas prices vary widely from region to region. The price offered by Crescent is almost four times what the U.A.E. pays for gas from Qatar. And it is more than five times the average weighted regional gas price for the Middle East and North Africa. Iran's new pricing power comes as its regime tries to kick-start stalled gas-development plans. It also comes amid a growing energy gap in the booming economies of the Arab petro-states. A shortage of clean-burning natural gas to fuel economic expansion in the U.A.E. has the country scrambling for new sources. Gulf countries experienced sharp economic growth as oil prices climbed. The U.A.E. in particular has developed into a real-estate and industrial powerhouse. The U.A.E. is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' fourth-largest oil producer. But it has become increasingly dependent on natural gas to fuel new power plants and desalination plants, and to provide feedstock for new industries. The country is struggling to secure new supplies, both domestic and overseas. "Natural gas is a fuel of choice for clean and efficient power generation" in the U.A.E., said Majid Jafar, Crescent's executive director. The U.A.E. isn't the only Gulf country looking for more gas. In a report released Tuesday, Moody's Investors Service said "fuel supply and resulting power shortages" were the biggest risks to long-term growth in the Persian Gulf region. The price agreement would be a small victory for Iran's struggling oil and gas industry, hobbled for years by international sanctions. Iran has spent around $1.5 billion on the project, building a 174-mile undersea pipeline linking Iran's Salman offshore gas field to Crescent's gas-processing facilities in Sharjah. As part of the deal, another Sharjah-based company, Dana Gas PJSC, will transport and process the Iranian gas. A joint venture between the two Sharjah companies will market the gas. Iran sits atop the world's second-largest gas reserves, but ambitious plans for liquefied-natural-gas export facilities have faltered. Only a few big oil companies have the know-how to build such facilities. Sanctions have halted any technology transfer. At the same time, Iran hasn't developed its reserves efficiently enough to meet its own consumption. The country imports roughly 5% of its gas needs from Turkmenistan. Crescent, Dana and National Iranian Oil Co. signed the deal in April 2001. Original export plans were delayed because construction of offshore processing platforms for the deal weren't completed by Iranian contractors until earlier this year, Mr. Jafar said. First exports could begin within months. But fresh corruption allegations from Iran's government threaten more delays. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested in September that the deal was tainted by behind-the-scenes dealing, but he wasn't specific. Nevertheless, Mr. Ahmadinejad said he would endorse the deal as long as it was based on regional market prices. Crescent said it "categorically denies any wrongdoings or corruption." Write to Roshanak Taghavi at Roshanak.Taghavi at dowjones.com ** Oil's Drop Squeezes Producers Economies of Iran, Venezuela Vulnerable as Crude Price Falls but Demand Stays Low By NEIL KING JR. and SPENCER SWARTZ Big oil-producing countries are showing signs of distress as the global credit crunch and falling crude prices begin to squeeze government budgets and delay projects. Fears that the boom days are fading appear strongest in Iran and Venezuela, whose governments have come to rely on oil prices to prop up otherwise shaky economies. Both countries this week led a chorus within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries calling for an emergency meeting of the cartel, now set for Nov. 18, to weigh a production cut. Crude-oil Futures: The global economic crisis is eating into oil demand, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, and helping drive down crude prices. Some forecasters said that despite a strong thirst for oil in Asia and the Middle East, global oil consumption could flatten out next year, potentially ending nearly a decade of steady demand growth. In early afternoon trading, benchmark crude for November delivery fell $1.59, or 1.8%, to $87.36, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Crude has plunged around $60 a barrel from its July high, and analysts said signs of a deep recession among industrialized countries could move prices down further. Oil exporters have racked up cash surpluses as prices soared to historic highs. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter, is expected to record $138 billion this year, up from $95 billion last year. But government spending also has soared within OPEC and among other big producers such as Russia, based in part on the expectation that oil prices would remain high. Standard & Poor's said last week that Venezuela's budget balance "could deteriorate quickly" if crude prices fall sharply. The nationalization of a number of industrial companies is expected to cost the government around $6 billion, or about 2% of gross domestic product, in 2008, according to Standard & Poor's. PFC Energy, a Washington consultancy, estimates that Venezuela needs an oil price of nearly $95 a barrel to assure macroeconomic stability, three times what they needed in 2000. By contrast, Saudi Arabia requires an oil price of $55 a barrel, more than double from eight years ago, according to PFC estimates. PFC believes Iran's price threshold to be similar to Saudi Arabia's. But the International Monetary Fund warned recently that Iran will have to cut state subsidies and shave government spending if oil prices stay below $90 a barrel. Russia also could face cutbacks, as its budget for 2009 counts on a price of $82 a barrel for Russian Urals crude, which sells at a discount to the U.S. benchmark. For much of this year, the oil-driven economies of the Persian Gulf have been largely buffered from the financial turmoil in the U.S. and Europe. But that appears to be changing. Investors in the six Gulf states, which include OPEC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar, have taken a pounding this year, amassing almost $350 billion in stock-market losses since January, according to Zawya Dow Jones estimates. Those losses go some way in explaining why credit in some areas is drying up. Consultants at Medley Global Advisors said big Middle East power and water projects, vital to meeting the region's electricity demand, are facing financing delays and rising capital costs. Some petrochemical projects, which provide raw materials to make plastics and fertilizers, also are under pressure. "The global credit crunch has seen the number of international banks lending to the power and water sector decline," said Medley energy director Bill Farren-Price. The financial turmoil doesn't appear to have affected big state-run oil-exploration projects in the Gulf, largely because national companies such as Saudi Arabian Oil Co., or Aramco, typically finance these projects with cash. But signs are emerging in other OPEC countries that energy projects could get caught in the financial fallout. The industry's efforts to pump more oil and natural gas already are suffering from high costs, technical challenges and political barriers. A senior Nigerian oil official said the financial environment has weakened the West African government's ability to tap local and foreign banks to help bankroll its share of oil and natural-gas projects with energy companies such as Royal Dutch Shell PLC. Nigeria's joint-venture projects with foreign companies are important to the government's goal of boosting production to four million barrels a day over the next decade or so. Libya's National Oil Co. also may have to delay or scupper some projects if financing problems worsen, said company chief Shokri Ghanem, who is also the North African nation's top representative to OPEC. Mr. Ghanem declined to say what type of projects were at risk, but said, "we aren't sure if all the finance is going to be there." OPEC is likely to reduce production to defend prices from falling below $80 a barrel. But some analysts said that heightened costs elsewhere in the oil patch may keep prices from falling much further anyway. A study released by Bernstein Research of New York this week argues that oil prices will remain linked to the cost of producing supplies from difficult but crucial fields deep offshore and elsewhere, a cost the research firm puts at between $75 and $80 a barrel. By 2012, the firm said, that cost likely will have jumped to $105 a barrel. Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king at wsj.com and Spencer Swartz at spencer.swartz at dowjones.com Security Council adopts Iran resolution with no new sanctions Sep 27, 2008 UNITED NATIONS (AFP) ? The UN Security Council on Saturday unanimously adopted a resolution again urging Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear fuel work but offering no new sanctions and merely reaffirming existing ones. Resolution 1835 calls on Iran "to fully comply and without delay with its obligations (under relevant UN resolutions) and to meet the requirement of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) board of governors." U.S. sanctions: financial firewall for Iran, Syria? Sun Oct 5, 2008 4:08am EDT By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent - Analysis BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria and Iran, both targeted by U.S. sanctions, proclaim that their "independent" economies will suffer less than others from global financial turmoil. From michael.hudson at earthlink.net Fri Oct 10 07:27:01 2008 From: michael.hudson at earthlink.net (Michael Hudson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:27:01 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson Wed. Oct 8th one hour audio In-Reply-To: <48EEA771.1070207@gmail.com> Message-ID: You're welcome to circulate it. I can't afford to pay a lawyer to sue, even if I wanted to. How do you hear about all these off-beat venues? Michael On 10/9/08 8:53 PM, "Leighm" wrote: > Can anyone inform me of the copyright status of this audio? > > Can it be re-distributed via Creative Commons licensing? > > Leigh > > Todd Boyle wrote: >> Listen to this >> Guns and Butter Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 >> http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28790 >> >> *"The New Kleptocracy" with economist Dr. Michael Hudson on Treasury >> Secretary Hank Paulson's "Plan" passed by Congress on October 3, >> 2008. We discuss what is being purchased, the congressional vote, >> what this means for the oligarchs, and what this means for the rest of >> us.* > > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 10 07:52:14 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:52:14 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Inflammatory Republican rallies raise concern Message-ID: <48EF25CD.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Another Poster' s comment: [Rallies are eliciting angry audience exclamations like "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" when Palin esp. launches into anti-Obama tirades. One clip I saw featured an angry man ranting to McCain that "socialists are taking over the country!" - B.] http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMqpznh3v6jNwakujuNxroUbT2qw Inflammatory Republican rallies raise concern 3 hours ago WAUKESHA, Wisconsin (AFP) - Shouts of "terrorist" and "treason" aimed at Barack Obama have echoed around Republican rallies, whipping up into alarming, hate-filled frenzies against the Democratic White House hopeful. Republican presidential nominee John McCain has taken to asking, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" at rallies this week, leading one supporter in Pennsylvania, a blue-collar battleground state to shout back, "he is a bomb." Before the rally, local Republican leader Bill Platt warmed up the crowd by several times referring to "Barack Hussein Obama," focusing on the Illinois senator's middle name, trying to highlight his differences with other Americans. Chants of "Nobama, Nobama" mingled with cries of "terrorist," as one banner in the crowd declared: "Go ahead, let the dogs out." The stream of vicious attacks against Obama, who has left McCain trailing in the polls, were ramped up at the weekend by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin who accused the Chicago senator of "palling around with terrorists." Palin was referring to Bill Ayers, a founding member of the Weathermen, a radical leftist group in the 1960s, who served with Obama as a board member on a charitable foundation from 1999 to 2001. Now when she mentions Obama , some of the crowds' responses have escalated beyond boos and hisses, and there are fears among some observers that the attacks are going too far. Biden on Wednesday repudiated Palin's "ugly inferences" and personal attacks as "beyond disappointing." "They're trying to take the low road to the highest office in the land," Biden said. On Thursday, the McCain campaign issued a hard-hitting negative commercial, slamming his rival's judgement and candor and accusing him of not telling the truth about the extent of his acquaintance with Ayers. On the campaign trail in Waukesha, near Milwaukee in the northern state of Wisconsin, McCain and Palin appeared to have tempered their attack Thursday, focusing instead on policy, rather than personal differences with the Democratic candidate. On the stump, McCain slammed Obama on his alleged ties to banking giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blamed Obama for having "never taken on the leadership of his own party on any issue," and for his position on raising taxes on wealthy Americans, among other issues. But still, on the Ayers issue which seems to have energized some of the angriest McCain supporters, the campaign is not backing away from its negative tack. "It's about Senator Obama being candid and straight forward with the American people and their relationship," McCain told Fox News. "He has dismissed it by saying he was just a guy in the neighborhood. You know it's much more than that." Obama himself has said little on the topic, leaving it to his vice presidential pick, Joseph Biden, to come to his defense. "This is volatile stuff and ... I just thought we were kind of beyond this place," Biden told ABC television. If Palin heard hate-filled shouts from the crowds, she should be "at least saying 'whoa, whoa, whoa that's overboard,'" Biden said Wednesday. In an email to supporters Biden said Thursday: "I've heard some pretty unspeakable things in the past few days -- deeply offensive smears that we'll hear over and over again until election day. "Instead of focusing on the issues that really matter, our opponents are doing everything they can to encourage this toxic atmosphere." The US Secret Service conducted a brief probe this week into an alleged "kill him" death threat against Obama that, according to The Washington Post, was shouted Monday at a McCain rally when Palin was speaking of Obama's links to Ayers. USSS spokesman Ed Donovan told AFP on Thursday that none of the Secret Service agents assigned to the McCain camp had actually heard the threat, and that it was unclear who it was meant for, whether Obama or Ayers. For those reasons, he added, the investigation was dropped. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 10 08:01:08 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:01:08 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Panic of 1907 Message-ID: <48EF27E3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Panic of 1907 A swarm gathers on Wall Street during the bank panic in October 1907.The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic, was a financial crisis that occurred in the United States when the stock market fell close to 50 percent in January from its peak in the previous year. At the time, the economy was in a recession and there were numerous runs on banks and trust companies. The panic's primary cause was a retraction of market liquidity by a number of banks in New York City that quickly spread across the nation, leading to the closures of both state and local banks and businesses. The crisis occurred after an attempt by Otto Heinze to corner the market in United Copper failed in October, 1906. When the bid failed, banks that had loaned money for the scheme experienced a number of runs which spread to affiliated banks and trusts, leading a week later to the downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company. With the collapse of New York's third largest trust company, fear spread throughout the city's trusts as regional banks pulled deposits from New York, and nationwide as people withdrew their deposits from regional banks. At the time, the United States had no central bank to inject liquidity. The panic would have deepened further if not for the intervention of J.P. Morgan, who convinced other New York bankers to provide a backstop. By November the contagion had largely stopped, yet a small crisis emerged when a large brokerage firm had borrowed heavily with the stock of Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company (TC&I) as collateral. Collapse of the firm's stock price was averted by an emergency takeover approved by anti-trust crusading president Theodore Roosevelt. The following year, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich established and chaired a commission to investigate the crisis and propose future solutions, leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. Contents [hide] 1 Economic conditions 2 Panic 2.1 Cornering copper 2.2 Contagion spreads 2.3 Panic strikes the trusts 2.4 Enter J.P. Morgan 2.5 Stock exchange nears collapse 2.6 Crisis of confidence 2.7 Resolution 3 Aftermath 3.1 Central bank 3.2 Pujo Committee 4 References 5 Bibliography 6 External links [edit] Economic conditions The 1906 San Francisco earthquake badly damaged the U.S. economy, further exacerbating the vulnerability of the national banking system.When U.S. President Andrew Jackson allowed the Second Bank of the United States charter to expire in 1836, the U.S. was without any sort of central bank, and the money supply in New York City fluctuated with the country's annual agricultural cycle. Each autumn money flowed out of the city as harvests were purchased and?in an effort to attract money back?interest rates were raised. Foreign investors then sent their money to New York to take advantage of the higher rates.[1] In January 1906, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a high of 103 and began a modest correction. The U.S. economy had been particularly unstable since the April 1906 earthquake which devastated San Francisco, prompting an even greater flood of money from New York to San Francisco to aid reconstruction.[2] A further stress on the money supply occurred in late 1906, when the Bank of England raised its rates and more funds remained in London than expected.[3] From their peak in January, stock prices declined 18 percent by July 1906. By late September, stocks had recovered about half of their losses. Between September 1906 and March 1907, the stock market slid, losing 7.7 percent. of its capitalization[4] Then, from March 9 to March 26, stocks fell another 9.8 percent.[5] (This March collapse is sometimes referred to as a "rich man's panic".[6]) The economy remained volatile through the summer. A number of shocks hit the system: the stock of Union Pacific?among the most common stocks used as collateral?fell 50 points; that June an offering of New York City bonds failed; in July the copper market collapsed; in August the Standard Oil Company was faced with a $29 million fine for antitrust violations.[7] In the first nine months of 1907, stocks were off a total of 24.4 percent.[8] On July 27, The Commercial & Financial Chronicle noted that "the market keeps unstable ... no sooner are these signs of new life in evidence than something like a suggestion of a new outflow of gold to Paris sends a tremble all through the list, and the gain in values and hope is gone."[9] The fall season was always a vulnerable time for the banking system?combined with the roiled stock market, even a small shock could have grave repercussions.[10] [edit] Panic [edit] Cornering copper Timeline of panic in New York City[11] Monday, Oct. 14 Otto Heinze begins purchasing to corner the stock of United Copper. Wednesday, Oct. 16 Heinze's corner fails spectacularly. Heinze's brokerage house, Gross & Kleeberg is forced to close. This is the date traditionally cited as when the corner failed. Thursday, Oct. 17 The Exchange suspends Otto Heinze and Company. The State Savings Bank of Butte, Montana, owned by Augustus Heinze announces it is insolvent. Augustus is forced to resign from Mercantile National Bank. Runs begin at Augustus' and his associate Charles W. Morse's banks. Sunday, Oct. 20 The New York Clearing House forces Augustus and Morse to resign from all their banking interests. Monday, Oct. 21 Charles T. Barney is forced to resign from the Knickerbocker Trust Company because of his ties to Morse and Heinze. The National Bank of Commerce says it will no longer serve as clearing house. Tuesday, Oct. 22 A bank run forces the Knickerbocker to suspend operations. Wednesday, Oct. 23 J.P. Morgan persuades other trust company presidents to provide liquidity to the Trust Company of America, staving off its collapse. Thursday, Oct. 24 Treasury Secretary George Cortelyou agrees to deposit Federal money in New York banks. Morgan persuades bank presidents to provide $23 million to the New York Stock Exchange to prevent an early closure. Friday Oct. 25 Crisis is again narrowly averted at the Exchange. Sunday, Oct. 27 The City of New York tells Morgan associate George Perkins that if they cannot raise $20?30 million by November 1, the city will be insolvent. Tuesday, Oct. 29 Morgan purchased $30 million in city bonds, discreetly averting bankruptcy for the city. Saturday, Nov. 2 Moore & Schley, a major brokerage, nears collapse because its loans were backed by the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company (TC&I), a stock whose value is uncertain. A proposal is made for U.S. Steel to purchase TC&I. Sunday, Nov. 3 A plan is finalized for U.S. Steel to takeover TC&I. Monday, Nov. 4 President Theodore Roosevelt approves U.S. Steel's takeover of TC&I, despite anticompetitive concerns. Tuesday, Nov. 5 Markets are closed for Election Day. Wednesday, Nov. 6 U.S. Steel completes takeover of TC&I. Markets begin to recover. Destabilizing runs at the trust companies do not begin again. The 1907 panic began with a stock manipulation scheme to corner the market in F. Augustus Heinze's United Copper. Heinze had made a fortune as a copper magnate in Butte, Montana, and in 1906 moved to New York City, where he formed a close relationship with a notorious Wall Street banker Charles W. Morse. Morse had once successfully cornered New York City's ice market, and together with Heinze gained control of many banks?the pair served on at least six national banks, 10 state banks, five trust companies and four insurance firms.[12] The panic began in the vibrant marketplace for stocks that took place on the curb outside the New York Stock Exchange; this curb market later became the American Stock Exchange.Augustus's brother, Otto, devised the scheme to corner United Copper, believing that the Heinze family already controlled a majority of the company. However, a significant number of the Heinze's shares had been borrowed, and Otto believed that many of these had been loaned to investors who hoped the stock price would drop, and they could thus replace the shares cheaply, pocketing the difference in a technique known as short selling. Otto proposed a scheme called a "bear squeeze", whereby the Heinzes would aggressively purchase as many remaining shares as possible, and then force the short sellers to pay for their borrowed shares. The aggressive purchasing would drive up the prices, he believed and, unable to find shares elsewhere, the short sellers would have no option but to turn to the Heinzes, who could then name their price.[13] To finance the scheme, Otto, Augustus and Charles Morse met with Charles T. Barney, president of the city's third largest trust, the Knickerbocker Trust Company. Barney had provided financing for previous Morse schemes. Morse, however, cautioned Otto that he needed much more money than he had to attempt the squeeze and Barney declined to provide funding.[14] Otto decided to attempt the corner anyway. On Monday, October 14 he began aggressively purchasing shares of United Copper, which rose in one day to $52 per share from $39 per share. On Tuesday, he issued the call for short-sellers to give back the borrowed stock. Share prices rose to nearly $60, but the short-sellers were able to find plenty of United Copper shares from sources other than the Heinzes. Otto had misread the market, and the share price of United Copper began to collapse.[15] The stock closed at $30 on Tuesday and fell to $10 by Wednesday. Otto Heinze was ruined. The stock of United Copper was traded outside the hall of the New York Stock Exchange, literally an outdoor market "on the curb" (this curb market would later become the American Stock Exchange). After the crash, The Wall Street Journal reported, "Never has there been such wild scenes on the Curb, so say the oldest veterans of the outside market."[16] [edit] Contagion spreads The failure of the attempt at a corner left Otto unable to meet his obligations and sent his brokerage house, Gross & Kleeberg, into bankruptcy. On Thursday October 17, the New York Stock Exchange suspended Otto's trading privileges. As a result, the State Savings Bank of Butte Montana (owned by F. Augustus Heinze) announced its insolvency. The Montana bank had held United Copper stock as collateral against some of its lending and had been a correspondent bank for the Mercantile National Bank in New York City, of which F. Augustus Heinze was then president. F. Augustus Heinze's association with the corner and the insolvent State Savings Bank proved too much for the board of the Mercantile to accept. Although they forced him to resign before lunch time,[17] by then it was too late. As news of the collapse spread, depositors rushed en masse to withdraw money from the Mercantile National Bank. The Mercantile had enough capital to withstand a few days of withdrawals, but when depositors began to pull cash from the banks of the Heinzes' associate Charles W. Morse, runs occurred at both the Morse's National Bank of North America and the New Amsterdam National. Afraid of the impact the tainted reputations of Augustus Heinze and Morse could have on the banking system, the New York Clearing House (a consortium of the city's banks) forced Morse and Heinze to resign all banking interests.[18] By the weekend after the failed corner, there was not yet systemic panic. Funds were withdrawn from Heinze-associated banks, only to be deposited with other banks in the city.[19] [edit] Panic strikes the trusts At the time, trust companies were booming; in the decade before 1907, their assets had grown by 244 percent. During the same period, national bank assets grew by 97 percent, while state banks in New York grew by 82 percent.[20] The leaders of the high-flying trusts were mainly prominent members of New York's financial and social circles. One of the most respected was Charles T. Barney, whose father-in-law William Collins Whitney was a famous financier, and his Knickerbocker Trust Company was the third largest such fund in New York.[21] The headquarters of the Knickerbocker Trust Company at the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street.Because of past association with Charles W. Morse and F. Augustus Heinze, on Monday, October 21, the board of the Knickerbocker asked that Barney resign (depositors may have first begun to pull deposits from the Knickerbocker on October 18, prompting the concern[22]). That day, the National Bank of Commerce announced it would not serve as clearing house for the Knickerbocker. On October 22, the Knickerbocker faced a classic bank run. From the bank's opening, the crowd grew. As The New York Times reported, "as fast as a depositor went out of the place ten people and more came asking for their money [and the police] were asked to send some men to keep order".[23] In less than three hours, $8 million was withdrawn from the Knickerbocker. Shortly after noon it was forced to suspend operations.[24] As news spread, other banks and trust companies were reluctant to lend out any money. The interest rates on loans to brokers at the stock exchange soared and, with brokers unable to get money, stock prices fell to a low not seen since December of 1900.[25] The panic quickly spread to two other large trusts, Trust Company of America and Lincoln Trust Company. By Thursday, October 24, a chain of failures littered the street: Twelfth Ward Bank, Empire City Savings Bank, Hamilton Bank of New York, First National Bank of Brooklyn, International Trust Company of New York, Williamsburg Trust Company of Brooklyn, Borough Bank of Brooklyn, Jenkins Trust Company of Brooklyn and the Union Trust Company of Providence.[26] [edit] Enter J.P. Morgan When the chaos began to shake the confidence of New York's banks, the city's most famous banker was out of town. J.P. Morgan, president of the eponymous J.P. Morgan & Co., was attending a church convention in Richmond, Virginia. Morgan was not only the city's wealthiest and most well-connected banker, but he had experience with crisis?he helped rescue the U.S. Treasury during the Panic of 1893. As news of the crisis gathered, Morgan returned to Wall Street from his convention late on the night of Saturday October 19. The following morning, the library of Morgan's brownstone at Madison Avenue and 36th St. had become a revolving door of New York City bank and trust company presidents arriving to share information about (and seek help surviving) the impending crisis.[27][28] J.P. Morgan, the dominant banker in New York City, had rescued the U.S. Treasury during the Panic of 1893.Morgan and his associates had examined the books of the Knickerbocker Trust, but decided it was insolvent and did not intervene to stop the run. Its failure triggered runs on even healthy trusts, prompting Morgan to take charge of the rescue operation. On the afternoon of Tuesday, October 22, the president of the Trust Company of America asked Morgan for assistance. That evening Morgan conferred with George F. Baker, the president of First National Bank, James Stillman of the National City Bank of New York (the ancestor of Citibank), and the United States Secretary of the Treasury, George B. Cortelyou. Cortelyou said that he was ready to deposit government money in the banks to help shore up their deposits. After an overnight audit of the Trust Company of America?s books showed the institution to be sound, on Wednesday afternoon Morgan declared, ?This is the place to stop the trouble, then."[29] As a run began on the Trust Company of America, Morgan worked with Stillman and Baker to liquidate the company's assets to allow the bank to pay depositors. The bank survived to the close of business, but Morgan knew that additional money would be needed to keep it solvent through the following day. That night he assembled the presidents of the other trust companies and held them in a meeting until they agreed to provide loans of $8.25 million to allow the Trust Company of America to stay open the next day.[30] The meeting ran until midnight, but on the Thursday morning Cortelyou deposited around $25 million into a number of New York banks.[31] John D. Rockefeller, the wealthiest man in America, deposited a further $10 million in Stillman's National City Bank.[32] Rockefeller's massive deposit left the National City Bank with the deepest reserves of any bank in the city. To instill public confidence, Rockefeller phoned Melville Stone, the manager of the Associated Press, and told him that he would pledge half of his wealth to maintain America's credit.[33] [edit] Stock exchange nears collapse Despite the infusion of cash, the banks of New York were reluctant to make the short-term loans they typically provided to facilitate daily stock trades. Unable to obtain these funds, prices on the exchange began to crash. At 1:30 p.m. Thursday October 24, Ransom Thomas, the president of the New York Stock Exchange, rushed to Morgan's offices to tell him that he would have to close the exchange early. Morgan was emphatic that an early close of the exchange would be catastrophic.[34][35] Near panic broke on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in April 1907 when money reserves dried up.Morgan summoned the presidents of the city's banks to his office. They started to arrive at 2 p.m.; Morgan informed them that as many as 50 stock exchange houses would fail unless $25 million was raised in 10 minutes. By 2:16 p.m., 14 bank presidents had pledged $23.6 million to keep the stock exchange afloat. The money reached the market at 2:30 p.m., in time to finish the day's trading, and by the 3 o'clock market close, $19 million had been loaned out. Disaster was averted. Morgan usually eschewed the press, but as he left his offices that night he made a statement to reporters: "If people will keep their money in the banks, everything will be all right."[36] Friday, however, saw more panic on the exchange. Morgan again approached the bank presidents, but this time was only able to convince them to pledge $9.7 million. In order for this money to keep the exchange open, Morgan decided the money could not be used for margin sales. The volume of trading on Friday was 2/3 that of Thursday. The markets again narrowly made it to the closing bell.[37] [edit] Crisis of confidence Morgan, Stillman, Baker and the other city bankers were unable to pool money indefinitely, while even the U.S. Treasury was low on funds. Public confidence needed to be restored, and on Friday evening the bankers formed two committees?one to persuade the clergy to calm their congregations on Sunday, and second to explain to the press the various aspects of the financial rescue package. However, when Europe's most famous banker, Lord Rothschild, sent word of his "admiration and respect" for Morgan, his remark was represented by newspapers as just an idle boost.[38] In an attempt to gather confidence, the Treasury Secretary Cortelyou agreed that if he returned to Washington it would send a signal to Wall Street that the worst had passed.[39][40] (Clockwise from top left) John D. Rockefeller, George B. Cortelyou, Lord Rothschild, and James Stillman. Some of the best known names on Wall Street issued positive statements to help restore confidence in the economy. To ensure a free flow of funds on Monday, the New York Clearinghouse issued $100 million in loan certificates to be traded between banks to settle balances, allowing them to retain cash reserves for depositors.[41] Reassured both by the pastor and the newspapers, and with their balance sheets flushed with cash, a sense of order returned to New York that Monday.[42] Unbeknown to the city, a new crisis was being averted in the background. On the Sunday, Morgan's associate, George Perkins, became aware that the City of New York required at least $20 million by November 1 unless it was to become bankrupt. The city tried to source money through a standard bond issue, but failed to gather enough finance in a then tight climate. On the Monday and again on the Tuesday, the New York Mayor George McClellan approached Morgan for assistance. In an effort to avoid the disastrous signal that a New York City bankruptcy would send, Morgan wrote a contract to purchase $30 million of city bonds.[43][44] [edit] Resolution Although calm was restored in New York by Saturday, November 2, a further crisis loomed. One of the exchange's largest brokerage firms, Moore & Schley, was heavily in debt and in danger of collapse. The firm had borrowed extensively, using stock from the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company (TC&I) as collateral. Recent market difficulties meant there was little demand for TC&I shares, and that not only would Moore & Schley be unable to repay their creditors if loans were called, but that the market would be flooded with TC&I stock. Thus it was presumed bank failure would rapidly spread.[45] The danger remained that if the following morning's exchange opened with Moore & Schley's fate still uncertain, fear would result in a massive crash. One obstacle remained: the anti-trust crusading President Theodore Roosevelt.[46] Morgan retained one ally that had not been tapped, the U.S. Steel Corporation, a company Morgan had helped form through the merger of the steel companies of Andrew Carnegie and Elbert Gary. U.S. Steel had no involvement in banking, but could acquire TC&I.[47] Morgan, Perkins, Baker and Stillman, along with U.S. Steel's Gary and Henry Clay Frick worked Saturday and Sunday arranging the terms and by Sunday night had a plan for acquisition. Frick and Gary traveled on overnight by train to the White House to implore Roosevelt to allow, before 10 a.m. when the markets opened, a company with a 60 percent market share?already the antithesis of his trust-busting efforts under the Sherman Antitrust Act?to make a massive acquisition. Roosevelt's personal secretary refused to see them, yet Frick and Gary convinced James Rudolph Garfield, the Secretary of the Interior, to bypass the secretary and allow them go directly to the president. With less than an hour before markets opened, Roosevelt and Secretary of State Elihu Root, began to review the proposed takeover and absorb the news of a potential crash if the merger was not approved.[48][49] Roosevelt relented, and he later recalled of the meeting, "It was necessary for me to decide on the instant before the Stock Exchange opened, for the situation in New York was such that any hour might be vital. I do not believe that anyone could justly criticize me for saying that I would not feel like objecting to the purchase under those circumstances."[50] When news reached New York, confidence soared. The Commercial & Financial Chronicle reported that "the relief furnished by this transaction was instant and far-reaching".[51] The final crisis of the panic had been averted.[52] [edit] Aftermath Dow Jones Industrial Average's weekly close from January 1904 to December 1909. The market bottom of 53 was recorded on the close of November 15 and November 22, 1907.The panic of 1907 occurred during a lengthy economic contraction, measured by the National Bureau of Economic Research as beginning in May 1907 and lasting until June 1908.[53] [54] The interrelated contraction, bank panic and falling stock market produced considerable economic strife. Robert Bruner and Sean Carr cite a number of statistics quantifying the damage in The Panic of 1907: Lessons Learned from the Market's Perfect Storm. Industrial production dropped further than after any bank run to that date, and that year saw the second highest volume of bankruptcies to that date. Production fell by 11 percent, imports by 26 percent while unemployment rose to 8 percent from under 3 percent. Immigration dropped to 750,000 people in 1909 from 1.2 million people two years earlier.[55] Since the end of the civil war, the United States had seen panics of varying severity. Economists Charles Calomiris and Gary Gorton rate the worst panics as those leading to widespread bank suspensions: the Panic of 1873, Panic of 1893, (as well as 1907 and a later suspension in 1914). Widespread suspensions were forestalled through coordinated actions during the panic of 1884 and panic of 1890. A bank crisis in 1896 is also sometimes classified as a panic.[56] The frequency of crises, the severity of the 1907 panic and concern about the outsized role of J.P. Morgan gave renewed impetus to conduct a national discussion on banking reform.[57] In May 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich?Vreeland Act which established the National Monetary Commission to investigate the panic and to propose legislation to regulate banking.[58] Senator Nelson Aldrich (R?RI), the chairman of the National Monetary Commission, went to Europe for almost two years to study that continent's banking systems. [edit] Central bank Main article: History of the Federal Reserve System A 1910 editorial cartoon in Puck titled: "The Central Bank--Why should Uncle Sam establish one, when Uncle Pierpont is already on the job?"A significant difference between European and the U.S. banking system was the absence of a central bank in the United States. Through their central banks, European countries were able to extend the supply of money during periods cash reserves were low. The idea that the United States economy was made vulnerable without a central bank was not new. Early in 1907, Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. warned in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce that "unless we have a central bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history". Aldrich convened a secret conference with a number of the nation's leading financiers at the Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of Georgia, to discuss monetary policy and the banking system. In November 1910, Aldrich and A.P. Andrews (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department), Paul Warburg (a naturalized German representing Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), Frank A. Vanderlip (president of the National City Bank of New York), Henry P. Davison (senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company), Charles D. Norton (president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York), and Benjamin Strong (representing J. P. Morgan), produced a design for a "National Reserve Bank".[59] Forbes magazine founder B. C. Forbes wrote several years later: Picture a party of the nation?s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundreds of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written.[60] "Dawn of a new era in business"The final report of the National Monetary Commission was published on January 11, 1911. For nearly two years legislators debated the proposal and it was not until December 22, 1913, that Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act. President Woodrow Wilson signed the legislation immediately and the legislation was enacted on the same day, December 22, 1913, creating the Federal Reserve System.[61] Charles Hamlin became the Fed's first chairman, and none other than Morgan's deputy Benjamin Strong became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most important regional bank with a permanent seat on the Federal Open Market Committee.[61] [edit] Pujo Committee Main article: Pujo Committee Although Morgan was briefly seen as a hero, wide fears concerning plutocracy and concentrated wealth soon eroded this perception. Not only had Morgan's bank survived but the Trust Companies that were a growing rival to traditional banks were badly damaged. Some analysts believed that the panic had been engineered, either to punish Heinze or as part of an elaborate plot for U.S. Steel to acquire TC&I, or to damage confidence in trust companies so that banks would benefit.[62] Although Morgan lost $21 million in the panic, and the significance of the role he played in staving worse disaster is not disputed, he became the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism.[63] The chair of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Representative Ars?ne Pujo, (D?La. 7th) convened a special committee to investigate a "money trust", the de facto monopoly of Morgan and New York's other most powerful bankers. The committee issued a scathing report on the banking community, finding that the officers of J.P. Morgan & Co. were on the boards of directors of 112 corporations with a market capitalization of $22.5 billion (with the total capitalization of the NYSE then estimated at $26.5 billion).[64] Despite his ill health, J.P. Morgan testified before the Pujo Committee, facing several grueling days of questioning from Samuel Untermyer. Untermyer and Morgan's famous exchange about the fundamentally psychological nature of banking?that it is an industry built on trust?is oft quoted to this day:[65] Untermyer: Is not commercial credit based primarily upon money or property? Morgan: No, sir. The first thing is character. Untermyer: Before money or property? Morgan: Before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it ... a man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom.[65] Associates of Morgan blamed his continued physical decline on the hearings. In February he became very ill and on March 31, 1913?nine months before the "money trust" would be officially replaced as lender of last resort by the Federal Reserve?J.P. Morgan died.[65] [edit] References This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 10 08:10:23 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:10:23 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Reverse auction Message-ID: <48EF2A0E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Reverse auction A reverse auction (also called procurement auction, e-auction, sourcing event, e-sourcing or eRA) is a tool used in industrial business-to-business procurement. It is a type of auction in which the role of the buyer and seller are reversed, with the primary objective to drive purchase prices downward. In an ordinary auction (also known as a forward auction), buyers compete to obtain a good or service. In a reverse auction, sellers compete to obtain business. [edit] Introduction Reverse auction is a tool used by many purchasing and supply management organizations for spend management, as part of strategic sourcing and overall supply management activities. In a typical auction, the seller puts an item up for sale. Multiple buyers bid for the item, and one or more of the highest bidders buy the goods at a price determined at the conclusion of the bidding. In a reverse auction, a buyer contracts with a market maker to help make the necessary preparations to conduct the reverse auction. This includes: finding new suppliers, training new and incumbent suppliers, organizing the auction, managing the auction event, and providing auction data to buyers to facilitate decision making. The market maker, on behalf of the buyer, issues a request for quotation (RFQ) to purchase a particular item or group of items (called a "lot"). At the designated day and time, several suppliers, typically 5-20, log on to the auction site and will input several quotes over a 30-90 minute period. These quotes reflect the prices at which they are willing to supply the requested good or service. Quoting performed in real-time via the Internet results in dynamic bidding. This helps achieve rapid downward price pressure that is not normally attainable using traditional static 3-quote paper-based bidding processes. The prices that buyers obtain in the reverse auction reflect the narrow market which it created at the moment in time when the auction is held. Thus, it is possible that better value - i.e. lower prices, as well as better quality, delivery performance, technical capabilities, etc. - could be obtained from suppliers not engaged in the bidding or by other means such as collaborative cost management and joint process improvement. The buyer may award contracts to the supplier who bid the lowest price. Or, a buyer could award contracts to suppliers who bid higher prices depending upon the buyer's specific needs with regards to quality, lead-time, capacity, or other value-adding capabilities. However, buyers frequently award contracts to incumbent (i.e. current) suppliers, even if prices are higher than the lowest bids, because the switching costs to move work to a new supplier are higher than the potential savings that can be realized. This outcome, while very attractive to buyers, is often strongly criticized by both new and incumbent suppliers. The use of Optimization software has become popular since about 2002 to help buyers determine which supplier to source the work to. It includes relevant buyer and seller business data, including constraints. Reverse auctions are used to fill both large and small value contracts for public and private commercial organizations. In addition to items traditionally thought of as commodities, reverse auctions are also used to source buyer-designed goods and services, and has even been used to source reverse auction providers. The first time this occurred was in August 2001, by America West Airlines (now US Airways) using FreeMarkets software and won by MaterialNet. The majority of purchasing spend subject to reverse auctions over the years has been in the category of buyer-designed goods, followed by services, and then commodity items. Today, an average of 5% of total corporate spending is sourced using reverse auctions. This figure was higher in past years, indicating the goods and services to which reverse auctions can be successfully applied is limited.[1] [edit] History Reverse auctions gained popularity in the late 1990s as a result of the emergence of Internet-based online auction tools. Pioneer of online reverse auctions, FreeMarkets, was founded in 1995 by former McKinsey consultant and General Electric executive Glen Meakem after he failed to find internal backing for the idea of a reverse auction division at GE. Meakem hired McKinsey colleague Sam Kinney who developed much of the intellectual property behind FreeMarkets. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, FreeMarkets built teams of "market makers" and "commodity managers" to manage the process of running the online tender process and set up market operations to manage auctions on a global basis. The company's growth was aided greatly by the hype of the dot-com boom era. FreeMarkets customers included BP plc, United Technologies, Visteon, H.J. Heinz, Phelps Dodge, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell, to name a few. Dozens of competing start-up reverse auction service providers and established companies such as General Motors (an early FreeMarkets customer) and SAP, rushed to join the reverse auction marketspace. Although FreeMarkets survived the winding down of the dot-com boom, by the early 2000s it was apparent that its business model was really like an old-economy consulting firm with some sophisticated proprietary software. Online reverse auctions started to become mainstream and the prices that FreeMarkets had commanded for its services dropped significantly. This led to a consolidation of the reverse auction service marketplace. In January 2004, Ariba announced that it purchased FreeMarkets for $493 million.[2] Fortune magazine published an article in March 2000 describing the early days of reverse auctions.[3] In the past few years mobile reverse auction have evolved. Unlike B2B reverse auctions, mobile reverse auction is B2C and allow consumers to bid on products for pennies. The lowest unique bid wins. In Congressional testimony on the 2008 proposed legislative package to use federal funds to buy toxic assets from troubled financial firms, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke proposed that a reverse auction could be used to price the assets. [edit] Issues and Opportunities Buyers, sellers, and market makers should adhere to auction rules and industry codes of conduct for the use of reverse auctions, if they exist. Problems arise when one or more parties fail to conform to auction rules. This can range from simple cries of "foul" to litigation. Buyers should not assume that reverse auctions will, in every case, deliver savings - either on a unit price or total cost basis. Reverse auction savings can range from negative (i.e. it costs the buyer money) to neutral (i.e. no savings) to positive savings (average gross of 10-20%, but net savings is typically half or less). A true representation of savings can not be achieved if unit price-focused purchasing metrics such as "purchase price variance," "purchase order variance," or "material price variance" are used. Instead, total cost savings must be calculated, inclusive of direct and indirect losses associated with using reverse actions, implementing reverse auction results, subsequent procurement activity, and related activities such as customer returns, defective goods or services, warranty expense, litigation, etc. Suppliers are advised to determine if a value proposition exists for them that would warrant their participation. Some have characterized reverse auctions as a technologically-assisted form of zero-sum power-based bargaining, or as "going in reverse" with respect to developing buyer-seller relationships, collaboration, and purchasing process improvement. Reverse auctions have also been criticized as "bid shopping" - when a buyer uses a supplier's bid to obtain lower prices from other suppliers. Suppliers seeking to avoid reverse auctions can create unique intellectual property, expand the value propositions for its customers by creating new products and services, or seek to extend or improve collaborative activities with their customers. Reverse auctions used in industrial business-to-business procurement and spend management activities remain controversial, both within buying organizations, among suppliers, and among the academics who study them. As such, buyers considering the use of reverse auctions should carefully evaluate all available information, both favorable and unfavorable, to ensure that informed business decisions are made. [edit] Current State Reverse auctions (also becoming known as service auctions) are undergoing a resurgence at present (9/2008), as evidenced by a number of service auction sites for freelancers (e.g. eLance.com, guru.com) that are doing a significant volume of business both in number of projects and amount of money spent (20,000 projects in the last 30 days and over $100 million spent since 2006 according to eLance's website). There are narrow scope sites, such as those specializing in programming, technical writing and other professional, desk-based work (eLance.com, guru.com) or in home improvement and construction work, e.g. blauarbeit.de and eGenie.co.uk. A broad scope site, FlatDoor.com, covers all types of work in any part of the world, including volunteer projects for non-profit organizations. One recent article in Inc. (May 2007; Reverse Auctions ? A supplier's survival guide) by Mark Chafkin quotes Gartner Studios as having been successful with reverse auction bids. The same article quotes Sandy Jap, who studies reverse auctions at the Wharton School of Business as estimating that up to half of all corporate spending could some day be decided by reverse auction. Gartner's keys to success as a supplier in reverse auctions are: (a) Thorough preparation ? it's essential to know your costs, your suppliers, and your market to the greatest extent possible ? tiny details can make the difference between winning and losing, and between being profitable or not; (b) Reverse auctions should be largely kept to the supply of commodity products rather than proprietary ones; and (c) Having a strong, competent bidder leading your effort at the time of the auction, with clear guidelines on when to bid and when to fold is essential. The results of these preparations and skills in the arena are that Gartner has been able to decrease their production and shipping costs by almost 30%; a little more than double their sales in 3 years (2003-2006); and increase their profits to an all-time high. "I know most people don't look at reverse auctions positively, but we see them as a process that makes you better," Gartner says. "If companies don't look at it that way, they'll lose to somebody who does." [edit] See also This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 10:46:27 2008 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:46:27 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson Wed. Oct 8th one hour audio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EF86E3.7040105@gmail.com> Thanks. It's here... [October 10 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: What To Cover? ?In The Midst Of The Collapse Of Western Capitalism There Are Some ?Victims? Who Are Not Thought Of? Journalists http://www.archive.org/details/tth_081010 and here: http://leighm.net/wp/2008/10/10/tth_081010/ Creative Commons Copyright, no derivatives allowed, author attribution required, non-commercial use only. KPFA? Offbeat? Nah! This is offbeat: [October 03 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Misplaced Blame Department - The Critics Say The Problem With Politicians Is Their ?Lying?, But We MUST Discount That Because Americans Are Used To Being Lied To http://www.archive.org/details/tth_081003 Leigh Michael Hudson wrote: > You're welcome to circulate it. I can't afford to pay a lawyer to sue, even > if I wanted to. > How do you hear about all these off-beat venues? > Michael > > > On 10/9/08 8:53 PM, "Leighm" wrote: > > >> Can anyone inform me of the copyright status of this audio? >> >> Can it be re-distributed via Creative Commons licensing? >> >> Leigh >> >> Todd Boyle wrote: >> >>> Listen to this >>> Guns and Butter Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 >>> http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28790 >>> >>> *"The New Kleptocracy" with economist Dr. Michael Hudson on Treasury >>> Secretary Hank Paulson's "Plan" passed by Congress on October 3, >>> 2008. We discuss what is being purchased, the congressional vote, >>> what this means for the oligarchs, and what this means for the rest of >>> us.* >>> >> > > > > > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 10 11:00:47 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:00:47 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Business Cycle in American History Message-ID: <48EF51FF.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/Tbanks.htm HISTORY 2111 The Business Cycle in American History -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There have been many economic depressions in American History; so many that economists created the term "business cycle" to describe how the economy seemed to collapse approximately every twenty years under unregulated capitalism. Before the term "depression" came into vogue, however, such economic downturns were referred to as Bank Panics. Three such national depressions occurred during the antebellum period. The three antebellum depressions (in 1819, 1837 and 1857) all show two basic causes. The sudden collapse of an important agricultural commodity price In 1819 and 1837, the market for cotton collapsed In 1857, increased demand for wheat in Europe, caused by the Crimean War, came to a sudden end when the war ended and an excess harvest occured worldwide. An Unstable Banking System In 1819, runs on banks occur because of collapse of land price, because of risky speculation by unregulated state banks, and because of an embezzlement case at the Baltimore Branch of the Bank of the US. In 1837, "Wild Cat Banks" collapsed at the same time that specualtion on internal improvements destroyed the credit of many state governments. In 1857, an Ohio insurance company went bankrupt which set off a panic primarily in the North. The 1857 Panic brought another factor into the mix: Overproduction of manufactured goods. When inventory stocks of manufactured goods exceeded the demand for those goods because of the financial market, the depression deepened in the North as thousands of workers were laid off during the financial downturn. This become a factor in every depression afterwards. Panics continued approximately every twenty years after the Civil War up to the Great Depression. Panics occured in: 1819-1821 1837-1845 1857-1859 1873-1875 1893-1896 1908 1919 1929-1941 With the economic regulations put in place during the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, financial downturns became less severe and became known as recessions. Recessions occurred in: 1946 1974-1975 1982-1983 1992 2001-2002 The Reagan Administration dismantled most of Roosevelt's regulations. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Oct 9 21:08:15 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:08:15 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson Wed. Oct 8th one hour audio In-Reply-To: <6tceqh$23ic7f@ipo4smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <6tceqh$23ic7f@ipo4smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <2E0C90BFF3754F5A99D3E625AE459F64@TonyPC> ...That was superb. T. ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Boyle To: a-list Cc: vfptalk at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson Wed. Oct 8th one hour audio Listen to this Guns and Butter Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28790 "The New Kleptocracy" with economist Dr. Michael Hudson on Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's "Plan" passed by Congress on October 3, 2008. We discuss what is being purchased, the congressional vote, what this means for the oligarchs, and what this means for the rest of us. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1822 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081009/9d3cccdb/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Fri Oct 10 11:49:22 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:49:22 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Reverse auctions (only a special case of offer-acceptance in contracts) In-Reply-To: <48EF2A0E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <48EF2A0E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: Cities and States should maintain public transaction repositories, allowing anybody-and-everybody to post contracts (offers, then acceptances by specific counterparties.) Auctions are a special case of transaction lifecycle that can be handled as easily as any other transaction type, by a generalized transaction infrastructure. If I were king, I would say, henceforth in my kingdom, all contracts must be posted on a public transaction repository and digitally signed by both parties, otherwise, not be enforceable by the power of the state. A PTR would be a simple technical specification that could be implemented by anybody, even in a portable device or offline. It's principle function would be just to store in standard form, the Who, What, When, and Where of the transfers of economic resources FROM one party TO the other party. When signed by both parties, then, it would be binding. (We have reasonably secure signing devices in our cellphones now) The decision to publicly display the transaction might be under the control of the contracting parties. Since the interfaces were electronic, this would bring to ordinary people the reduction in transaction costs enjoyed for so many years by corporations like Walmart, bringing us closer to a coasian, efficient market. For example, a liquid market in all kinds of commodities, including promissory notes of individuals, would replace the national currencies for many users--we would not be held hostage by money-center banks. Multiparty transaction repositories have been implemented in many different forms, for at least 40 years in EDI networks as well as financial institutions. SQL databases, and ISAM databases before that, where primarily designed to reliably record transactions under the assumption of an adverse environment where people exist throughout the building who want to steal money from the system. Todd At 07:10 AM 10/10/2008, Charles Brown wrote: >Reverse auction > >A reverse auction (also called procurement >auction, e-auction, sourcing event, e-sourcing >or eRA) is a tool used in industrial >business-to-business procurement. It is a type >of auction in which the role of the buyer and >seller are reversed, with the primary objective >to drive purchase prices downward. In an >ordinary auction (also known as a forward >auction), buyers compete to obtain a good or >service. In a reverse auction, sellers compete to obtain business. > > > > > >[edit] Introduction >Reverse auction is a tool used by many >purchasing and supply management organizations >for spend management, as part of strategic >sourcing and overall supply management activities. > >In a typical auction, the seller puts an item up >for sale. Multiple buyers bid for the item, and >one or more of the highest bidders buy the goods >at a price determined at the conclusion of the bidding. > >In a reverse auction, a buyer contracts with a >market maker to help make the necessary >preparations to conduct the reverse auction. >This includes: finding new suppliers, training >new and incumbent suppliers, organizing the >auction, managing the auction event, and >providing auction data to buyers to facilitate decision making. > >The market maker, on behalf of the buyer, issues >a request for quotation (RFQ) to purchase a >particular item or group of items (called a >"lot"). At the designated day and time, several >suppliers, typically 5-20, log on to the auction >site and will input several quotes over a 30-90 >minute period. These quotes reflect the prices >at which they are willing to supply the requested good or service. > >Quoting performed in real-time via the Internet >results in dynamic bidding. This helps achieve >rapid downward price pressure that is not >normally attainable using traditional static >3-quote paper-based bidding processes. > >The prices that buyers obtain in the reverse >auction reflect the narrow market which it >created at the moment in time when the auction >is held. Thus, it is possible that better value >- i.e. lower prices, as well as better quality, >delivery performance, technical capabilities, >etc. - could be obtained from suppliers not >engaged in the bidding or by other means such as >collaborative cost management and joint process improvement. > >The buyer may award contracts to the supplier >who bid the lowest price. Or, a buyer could >award contracts to suppliers who bid higher >prices depending upon the buyer's specific needs >with regards to quality, lead-time, capacity, or >other value-adding capabilities. However, buyers >frequently award contracts to incumbent (i.e. >current) suppliers, even if prices are higher >than the lowest bids, because the switching >costs to move work to a new supplier are higher >than the potential savings that can be realized. >This outcome, while very attractive to buyers, >is often strongly criticized by both new and incumbent suppliers. > >The use of Optimization software has become >popular since about 2002 to help buyers >determine which supplier to source the work to. >It includes relevant buyer and seller business data, including constraints. > >Reverse auctions are used to fill both large and >small value contracts for public and private >commercial organizations. In addition to items >traditionally thought of as commodities, reverse >auctions are also used to source buyer-designed >goods and services, and has even been used to >source reverse auction providers. The first time >this occurred was in August 2001, by America >West Airlines (now US Airways) using FreeMarkets >software and won by MaterialNet. > >The majority of purchasing spend subject to >reverse auctions over the years has been in the >category of buyer-designed goods, followed by >services, and then commodity items. Today, an >average of 5% of total corporate spending is >sourced using reverse auctions. This figure was >higher in past years, indicating the goods and >services to which reverse auctions can be successfully applied is limited.[1] > > >[edit] History >Reverse auctions gained popularity in the late >1990s as a result of the emergence of >Internet-based online auction tools. Pioneer of >online reverse auctions, FreeMarkets, was >founded in 1995 by former McKinsey consultant >and General Electric executive Glen Meakem after >he failed to find internal backing for the idea >of a reverse auction division at GE. Meakem >hired McKinsey colleague Sam Kinney who >developed much of the intellectual property >behind FreeMarkets. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, >PA, FreeMarkets built teams of "market makers" >and "commodity managers" to manage the process >of running the online tender process and set up >market operations to manage auctions on a global basis. > >The company's growth was aided greatly by the >hype of the dot-com boom era. FreeMarkets >customers included BP plc, United Technologies, >Visteon, H.J. Heinz, Phelps Dodge, Exxon Mobil, >and Royal Dutch Shell, to name a few. Dozens of >competing start-up reverse auction service >providers and established companies such as >General Motors (an early FreeMarkets customer) >and SAP, rushed to join the reverse auction marketspace. > >Although FreeMarkets survived the winding down >of the dot-com boom, by the early 2000s it was >apparent that its business model was really like >an old-economy consulting firm with some >sophisticated proprietary software. Online >reverse auctions started to become mainstream >and the prices that FreeMarkets had commanded >for its services dropped significantly. This led >to a consolidation of the reverse auction >service marketplace. In January 2004, Ariba >announced that it purchased FreeMarkets for $493 million.[2] > >Fortune magazine published an article in March >2000 describing the early days of reverse auctions.[3] > >In the past few years mobile reverse auction >have evolved. Unlike B2B reverse auctions, >mobile reverse auction is B2C and allow >consumers to bid on products for pennies. The lowest unique bid wins. > >In Congressional testimony on the 2008 proposed >legislative package to use federal funds to buy >toxic assets from troubled financial firms, >Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke proposed >that a reverse auction could be used to price the assets. > > >[edit] Issues and Opportunities >Buyers, sellers, and market makers should adhere >to auction rules and industry codes of conduct >for the use of reverse auctions, if they exist. >Problems arise when one or more parties fail to >conform to auction rules. This can range from >simple cries of "foul" to litigation. > >Buyers should not assume that reverse auctions >will, in every case, deliver savings - either on >a unit price or total cost basis. Reverse >auction savings can range from negative (i.e. it >costs the buyer money) to neutral (i.e. no >savings) to positive savings (average gross of >10-20%, but net savings is typically half or less). > >A true representation of savings can not be >achieved if unit price-focused purchasing >metrics such as "purchase price variance," >"purchase order variance," or "material price >variance" are used. Instead, total cost savings >must be calculated, inclusive of direct and >indirect losses associated with using reverse >actions, implementing reverse auction results, >subsequent procurement activity, and related >activities such as customer returns, defective >goods or services, warranty expense, litigation, etc. > >Suppliers are advised to determine if a value >proposition exists for them that would warrant their participation. > >Some have characterized reverse auctions as a >technologically-assisted form of zero-sum >power-based bargaining, or as "going in reverse" >with respect to developing buyer-seller >relationships, collaboration, and purchasing >process improvement. Reverse auctions have also >been criticized as "bid shopping" - when a buyer >uses a supplier's bid to obtain lower prices from other suppliers. > >Suppliers seeking to avoid reverse auctions can >create unique intellectual property, expand the >value propositions for its customers by creating >new products and services, or seek to extend or >improve collaborative activities with their customers. > >Reverse auctions used in industrial >business-to-business procurement and spend >management activities remain controversial, both >within buying organizations, among suppliers, >and among the academics who study them. As such, >buyers considering the use of reverse auctions >should carefully evaluate all available >information, both favorable and unfavorable, to >ensure that informed business decisions are made. > > >[edit] Current State >Reverse auctions (also becoming known as service >auctions) are undergoing a resurgence at present >(9/2008), as evidenced by a number of service >auction sites for freelancers (e.g. eLance.com, >guru.com) that are doing a significant volume of >business both in number of projects and amount >of money spent (20,000 projects in the last 30 >days and over $100 million spent since 2006 >according to eLance's website). There are narrow >scope sites, such as those specializing in >programming, technical writing and other >professional, desk-based work (eLance.com, >guru.com) or in home improvement and >construction work, e.g. blauarbeit.de and >eGenie.co.uk. A broad scope site, FlatDoor.com, >covers all types of work in any part of the >world, including volunteer projects for non-profit organizations. > >One recent article in Inc. (May 2007; Reverse >Auctions ? A suppliier's survival guide) by Mark >Chafkin quotes Gartner Studios as having been >successful with reverse auction bids. The same >article quotes Sandy Jap, who studies reverse >auctions at the Wharton School of Business as >estimating that up to half of all corporate >spending could some day be decided by reverse auction. > >Gartner's keys to success as a supplier in >reverse auctions are: (a) Thorough preparation ? >it's essential to know your costs, your >suppliiers, and your market to the greatest >extent possible ? tiny detaiils can make the >difference between winning and losing, and >between being profitable or not; (b) Reverse >auctions should be largely kept to the supply of >commodity products rather than proprietary ones; >and (c) Having a strong, competent bidder >leading your effort at the time of the auction, >with clear guidelines on when to bid and when to >fold is essential. The results of these >preparations and skills in the arena are that >Gartner has been able to decrease their >production and shipping costs by almost 30%; a >little more than double their sales in 3 years >(2003-2006); and increase their profits to an >all-time high. "I know most people don't look at >reverse auctions positively, but we see them as >a process that makes you better," Gartner says. >"If companies don't look at it that way, they'll lose to somebody who does." > > >[edit] See also > > > >This message has been scanned for malware by >SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 13422 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081010/03b01ac4/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Oct 10 16:55:16 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:55:16 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <48EFDD54.50207@attglobal.net> Read this or George W Bush will be president the rest of your life by William Blum www.killinghope.org (October 01 2008) 101 ways to get rich without doing anything socially useful Why do we have this thing called a "financial crisis"? Why have we had such a crisis periodically ever since the United States was created? What changes occur or what happens each time to bring on the crisis? Do we forget how to make things that people need? Do the factories burn down? Are our tools lost? Do the blueprints disappear? Do we run out of people to work in the factories and offices? Are all the services that people need for a happy life so well taken care of that there's hardly any more need for the services? In other words: What changes take place in the real world to cause the crisis? Nothing, necessarily. The crisis is usually caused by changes in the make-believe world of financial capitalism. All these grown men playing their boys' games. They create an assortment of financial entities, documents, and packages that go by names like hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, index funds, credit default swaps, structured investment vehicles, subprime mortgages, and dozens of other exotic monetary vehicles. They create all manner of commercial pieces of paper, of no known real or inherent value, backed up by few if any standards. Then they sell these various pieces of paper to the public and to each other. They slice and dice mortgages into arcane and risky instruments, then bundle them together, and sell the packages to those higher up in the pyramid scheme. And some of those engaged in this Wild West buying and selling become millionaires. Some become billionaires. They get Christmas bonuses greater than what most Americans earn the entire year. Is all this not remarkable? And much of the buying is not done with the buyer's own money, but with borrowed funds; "leveraged", they call it. The pieces of paper sometimes represent commodities, but the actual commodities are not seen, may not even exist; if the seller demanded the buyer's own funds, or the buyer wanted to see the goods, the whole transaction would freeze. They sell "long", expecting the price to rise; they sell "short", expecting the price to fall; they sell "naked short", which means they neither possess nor own what they're selling; a name for each gimmick. They take ever-greater risks buying and selling increasingly-esoteric pieces of paper. It's a glorified Las Vegas, casino capitalism. These pieces of paper can be so complex that many of those buying and selling them do not fully understand them; no problem, they just resell the pieces of paper to someone else at a higher price, even when one or both parties know that the paper, while pretending to be payable debt, is virtually worthless. The government, even when it tries to moderately regulate this Monopoly board, can at times also be confused by the complexities of the pieces of paper, compounded by the less-than-transparent practices that envelop the transactions; a potpourri including speculation, manipulation, fraud. Billionaire financier Warren Buffett has called the pieces of paper "weapons of mass financial destruction". The boys of finance have been playing their games for years, and so at each stage of the process there are insurance policies allowing the players to hedge their bets; they insure, and they re-insure; hopefully covering themselves against the many risks of the game, often knowing that they're trading in questionable debts; the giant corporation AIG, a major player in the insurance game, has just been taken over by the federal government. And with each transaction, at each level, someone earns a commission or a fee. There are also other firms whose purpose in life is to go around rating various players and their pieces of paper and their credit worthiness and giving seals of approval which are relied upon by investors. Some of these rating firms, we're now learning, have been surprisingly incompetent, when not simply dishonest President Roosevelt, confronted in the 1930s with similar players, called them "banksters". It's all built on faith, as fragile as the religious kind, the belief that something is worth something because it comes with a piece of paper with reassuring words and numbers written on it, because it's traded, rated, and insured, because someone will sell it and someone will buy it. The same market psychology, the same herd mentality, that went into constructing this house of cards built on pillars of greed can cause the house to collapse in a heap. But the Monopoly players keep their bonuses, and bow out with multimillion-dollar golden parachutes; while tent cities are springing up all over America. Is this any way to run a society of human beings? And the government is in the process of trying to bail out these reckless traders, these parasites, rescuing them and their system from their own nonsense. With our money; without a major restructuring of the Alice-in-Wonderland rules of the financial games, without instituting the toughest of regulations, oversight, and transparency, and with no guarantee that the spoiled-little-brat Masters of the Universe will act in any way other than their own narrow self interest, the rest of us be damned. Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good. There is perhaps some consolation. The libertarian and neo-conservative true believers will have a harder time selling their snake oil of privatization of Social Security or any other social program. Government regulation of matters vital to the public's welfare may be taken more seriously. We may hear less of that old bromide that markets are inherently self-correcting. It may even give a boost to the idea of national health insurance. And the libertarians and neo-conservatives are hurting and defensive, albeit not yet admitting to any new-found wisdom. A Washington Post interview with some true believers at the Cato Institute, where Ayn Rand's picture prominently hangs, produced these quotations: "Too much regulation got us where we are" ... "The biggest emotion we're feeling right now is frustration that the media narrative is that this is a crisis of the free market, a crisis of capitalism, a crisis of under-regulation. In fact it's a crisis of subsidization and intervention" ... "Capitalism without losses is like religion without hell."{1} And just think: Cuba has been tormented without mercy for fifty years because it refuses to live under such a financial system. Why I never watch presidential debates During their September 26 debate, John McCain criticized Barack Obama for saying that, as president, he'd be willing to meet President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. McCain stated: "Now here is Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map ... and we're going to sit down without precondition across the table to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the State of Israel ... " First it must be noted that Ahmadinejad, speaking at the UN earlier in the week, used no threatening language at all against Israel. What he said was that Iran was submitting to the UN "its humane solution based on a free referendum in Palestine for determining and establishing the type of state in the entire Palestinian lands". So John McCain just made up a story and Barack Obama said not a word in contradiction to anything McCain said or implied about Ahmadinejad. And that's it, America. That's all you get. You've heard a Republican saying some awful things about an ODE (Officially Designated Enemy) and you've heard a Democrat who has no problems with a word of that. That equals truth, doesn't it? This matter of Ahmadinejad and "wiping Israel off the map" has been a heated issue for three years now. However, according to people who know Farsi, the Iranian leader has never said anything of the kind. In his October 29 2005 speech, when he reportedly first made the remark, the word "map" does not even appear. According to the translation of Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". His remark, said Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all". It's the distortion of this to imply some sort of extreme violence on the part of Iran that has made the remark sound threatening. Cole added that the quote comes from an old speech of Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and "is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. [Ahmadinejad] quoted Khomeini that 'the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time'. It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks." {2} At a December 2006 conference in Teheran, the Iranian president said: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom". {3} Obviously, the man is not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union took place peacefully. For a word-by-word breakdown of Ahmadinejad's remark, in Farsi and English, see {4}. Moreover, in June 2006, subsequent to Ahmadinejad's controversial speech, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated: "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." {5} Palintology What's the proper term to use to categorize a person who is ... blindly patriotic, jingoist, an evangelical Christian creationist, gun and hunting enthusiast, National Rifle Association supporter; denies the science behind global warming, with a philosophy of "dig, dig, dig", and in foreign policy: "bomb", "bomb", "bomb"; untraveled, uneducated, ignorant, a devoted book-banner, racist, opposed to equal rights for gays, fanatically anti-abortion, anti-feminist, and has a seventeen-year-old daughter pregnant and unmarried? The proper American term is "white trash". Or, as the honorable governor of Alaska apparently prefers, "redneck" - "Rouge cou" is what she called a business she registered. And what do you call the person if on top of all that she declares in the year 2008 that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 and that "a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq"? The proper term is "scary", or perhaps "scary moron". And what do you think of this person when you learn that she believes that the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God"? I think this is actually a form of insanity. There are people in institutions all over the world charged with killing others, who insist that they were acting under God's command. And if the above is not enough to make you fall in love with the woman, consider that she believes that humans coexisted with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago; and have a look at a video of the vice-president/president-to-be undergoing an exorcism performed by a minister to free her body from "witches" {6}. When we consider the flak that Barack Obama received because his minister is not in love with US foreign policy, imagine what Palin will get for having a minister who performs witch exorcism. Nothing. So, have we forgotten anything about her charming belief system? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Oh, she must have been kidnaped by a space alien. I hope some day to meet her and have her read my palms, my tea leaves, my aura, my horoscope, and my tarot. When is a holocaust not a holocaust? When the perpetrators call it a victory. Although the "surge" has failed as policy, it appears to be succeeding as propaganda. It seems to be the only thing that supporters of the war have to point to, and so they point, and they point, and they point. Allow me to point out that while there has been a reduction in violence in Iraq - now down to a level that virtually any other society in the world would find horrible and intolerable, including Iraqi society before the US invasion and occupation - we must keep in mind that thanks to this lovely little war more than half the population of Iraq is either dead, crippled, traumatized, confined in overflowing American and Iraqi prisons, internally displaced, or in foreign exile. Thus, the number of people available for being killers or victims is markedly reduced. Moreover, extensive ethnic cleansing has taken place in the country (another good indication of progress, n'est-ce pas? nicht wahr?) - Sunnis and Shiites are now living more in their own special enclaves than before, none of those stinking mixed communities with their unholy mixed marriages, so violence of the sectarian type has also gone down; and the powerful movement of Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr has had a cease-fire in effect for many months, unconnected to the surge. On top of all this, US soldiers, in the face of numerous "improvised explosive devices" on the roads, have been venturing out a lot less (for fear of things like ... well, dying), so the violence against our noble lads is also down. Remember that insurgent attacks on American forces is how the Iraqi violence all began in the first place. Just imagine - If the entire Iraqi population over the age of ten is killed, disabled, imprisoned or forced into exile there will probably be no violence at all. Now that would really be victory. No American should be allowed to forget that Iraqi society has been destroyed. The people of that unhappy land have lost everything - their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their health care, their legal system, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their security, their past, their present, their future, their lives. But they do have their surge. Politicizing and militarizing sports A few years ago I wrote in this report: A TV ad for Anheuser-Busch shown during the recent Super Bowl: An airport, a contingent of US soldiers in uniform is passing through, presumably on the way to or just returning from Iraq; the people in the terminal one by one look up, and slowly realize who's walking by - It's (choke) ... Can it (gasp) be? ... Yes! HEROES!! Real honest-to-God heroes!! The faces of the onlookers are filled with deep gratitude and pride. The soldiers begin to realize what's happening as the waves of adulation sweep over them, their faces are bursting with matching gratitude and matching pride, their faces say "Thanks". The screen says "Thanks". Not a dry eye in the whole damn terminal. In the Soviet Union they might have been a group of Stakhanovite hero workers on the way to the factory. Last month at the United States Tennis Open women's final in New York, a woman comes out to sing "America the Beautiful". Pretty common of course at sporting events in beautiful America. If it's not that, it's another well-known hymn to athleticism like "God Bless America" or "The Star Spangled Banner". But this time, as she finishes singing, dozens of marines in full uniform march out and unfurl an American flag a mile long. The crowd eats it up. Two days later, at the men's final, same thing plus four jet planes roar past above the stadium. I wish I had been there. So I could have yelled out: "What the fuck does this have to do with tennis?" Hardly anyone would have heard me above the din of the patriotic orgy, but if anyone did, I would not be surprised if they reported me to the nearest authorities (and in present-day America one is never too far from authorities), and I'd be asked to accompany the authorities to the security office (and in present-day America one is never too far from a security office). Norman Mailer wrote in 2003, a few weeks before the US invasion of Iraq: "My guess is that, like it or not, or want it or not, we are going to go to war because that is the only solution Bush and his people can see. The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in our lives ... And before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way. ... Indeed, democracy is the special condition ... we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America already" {7} F?r meine deutschen Leser My book Rogue State has a new German edition. This is an updated version of the previous German edition, with a much better translation. You can read about it at:{8} Website help needed AOL is closing down the website service for its members. I have to relocate my website with its numerous separate files and pages to a new host and convert the AOL HTML language, AOLPRESS, to the language of the new host. This is completely beyond my knowledge and skill. Is there an expert out there who can advise me? Some payment can be arranged. NOTES {1} Washington Post. September 25 2008 {2} "Informed Comment", Cole's blog, May 03 2006; www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html {3} Associated Press, December 12 2006 {4} Global Research, January 20 2007, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527) {5} Letter to Washington Post from M A Mohammadi, Press Officer, Iranian Mission to the United Nations, June 12 2006 {6} http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNvemHKXZFs. Also see Associated Press, September 25 2008 {7} International Herald Tribune, February 25 2003 {8} www.amazon.de/Schurkenstaat-William-Blum/dp/3897065304/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221896103&sr=8-2 William Blum is the author of:- Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two (Common Courage Press, 1995) Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Zed Books, 2002) West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir (Soft Skull Press, 2002) Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (Common Courage Press, 2004) Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at http://www.killinghope.org and previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite. Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer62.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 10 13:36:17 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:36:17 -0400 Subject: [A-List] More chicken little Message-ID: <48EF7671.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903425.html The End Of American Capitalism? By Anthony Faiola Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, October 10, 2008; A01 The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is claiming another casualty: American-style capitalism. Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation's wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government. The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system. Yet the administration may feel it has no choice. Credit, the lifeblood of capitalism, ceased to flow. An economy based on the free market cannot function that way. The government's about-face goes beyond the banking industry. It is reasserting itself in the lives of citizens in ways that were unthinkable in the era of market-knows-best thinking. With the recent takeovers of major lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the bailout of AIG, the U.S. government is now effectively responsible for providing home mortgages and life insurance to tens of millions of Americans. Many economists are asking whether it remains a free market if the government is so deeply enmeshed in the financial system. Given that the United States has held itself up as a global economic model, the change could shift the balance of how governments around the globe conduct free enterprise. Over the past three decades, the United States led the crusade to persuade much of the world, especially developing countries, to lift the heavy hand of government from finance and industry. But the hands-off brand of capitalism in the United States is now being blamed for the easy credit that sickened the housing market and allowed a freewheeling Wall Street to create a pool of toxic investments that has infected the global financial system. Heavy intervention by the government, critics say, is further robbing Washington of the moral authority to spread the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism. The government could launch a targeted program in which it takes a minority stake in troubled banks, or a broader program aimed at the larger banking system. In either case, however, the move could be seen as evidence that Washington remains a slave to Wall Street. The plan, for instance, may not compel participating firms to give their chief executives the salary haircuts that some in Congress intended. But if the plan didn't work, the government might have to take bigger stakes. "People around the world once admired us for our economy, and we told them if you wanted to be like us, here's what you have to do -- hand over power to the market," said Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University. "The point now is that no one has respect for that kind of model anymore given this crisis. And of course it raises questions about our credibility. Everyone feels they are suffering now because of us." In Seoul, many see American excess as a warning. At the same time, anger is mounting over the global spillover effect of the U.S. crisis. The Korean currency, the won, has fallen sharply in recent days as corporations there struggle to find dollars in the heat of a global credit crunch. "Derivatives and hedge funds are like casino gambling," said South Korean Finance Minister Kang Man-soo. "A lot of Koreans are asking, how can the United States be so weak?" Other than a few fringe heads of state and quixotic headlines, no one is talking about the death of capitalism. The embrace of free-market theories, particularly in Asia, has helped lift hundreds of millions out of poverty in recent decades. But resentment is growing over America's brand of capitalism, which in contrast to, say, Germany's, spurns regulations and venerates risk. In South Korea, rising criticism that the government is sticking too close to the U.S. model has roused opposition to privatizing the massive, state-owned Korea Development Bank. South Korea is among those countries that have benefited the most from adopting free-market principles, emerging from the ashes of the Korean War to become one of the world's biggest economies. It has distinguished itself from North Korea, an impoverished country hobbled by an outdated communist system and authoritarian leadership. But the repercussions of crisis that began in the United States are global. In Britain, where Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher joined with President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to herald capitalism's promise, the government this week moved to partly nationalize the ailing banking system. Across the English Channel, European leaders who are no strangers to regulation are piling on Washington for gradually pulling the government watchdogs off the world's largest financial sector. Led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, they are calling for broad new international codes to impose scrutiny on global finance. To some degree, those calls are even being echoed by the International Monetary Fund, an institution charged with the promotion of free markets overseas and that preached that less government was good government during the economic crises in Asia and Latin America in the 1990s. Now, it is talking about the need for regulation and oversight. "Obviously the crisis comes from an important regulatory and supervisory failure in advanced countries . . . and a failure in market discipline mechanisms," Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF's managing director, said yesterday before the fund's annual meeting in Washington. In a slideshow presentation, Strauss-Kahn illustrated the global impact of the financial crisis. Countries in Africa, including many of those with some of the lowest levels of market and financial integration and openness, are now set to weather the crisis with the least amount of turbulence. Shortly afterward, World Bank President Robert Zoellick was questioned by reporters about the "confusion" in the developing world over whether to continue embracing the free-market model. He replied, "I think people have been confused not only in developing countries, but in developed countries, by these shocking events." In much of the developing world, financial systems still remain far more governed by the state, despite pressure from the United States for those countries to shift power to the private sector and create freer financial markets. They may stay that way for some time. China had been resisting calls from Washington and Wall Street to introduce a broad range of exotic investments, including many of the once-red-hot derivatives now being blamed for magnifying the crisis in the West. In recent weeks, Beijing has made that position more clear, saying it would not permit an expansion of complex financial instruments. With the U.S. government's current push toward intervention and the soul-searching over the role of deregulation in the crisis, the stage appears to be at least temporarily set for a more restrained model of free enterprise, particularly in financial markets. "If you look around the world, China is doing pretty good right now, and the U.S. isn't," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "You may see a push back from globalization in the financial markets." Staff writers Blaine Harden in Seoul and Ariana Cha in Washington contributed to this report. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Oct 10 13:43:16 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:43:16 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Why the Bailout Won't Work and What We Need to Do Message-ID: <48EF7813.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Why the Bailout Won't Work and What We Need to Do As this edition of the People's Tribune goes to press, the government has just approved the $700 billion bailout of the banks and other wealthy speculators. Among the people there is a mixture of anger and fear - anger that the speculators are being bailed out, and fear over where the economy is headed. The government is trying desperately to save a dying economic system. We must also see that the corporations are moving to gain complete control of our society and run it entirely in their interests. To understand why the proposed bailout won't work and is not in the workers' interest, we need to see what is really at the root of the crisis. With the advent of computers and robots, more and more production is carried on with fewer and fewer workers. Millions of jobs have been permanently eliminated or reduced to part-time, contingency or low-wage jobs. This has produced an unprecedented polarity of wealth and poverty. At one end of society are millions who are cast out of the economy and are struggling to survive on little or no work. At the other end is a tiny class of billionaires and the corporations they control. It is the elimination of jobs and the corresponding destruction of the market that is at the root of the crisis and the global economic depression we now see developing. As more production is done with less labor, there is practically no actual productive capacity, such as a factory, for the wealthy and the corporations to invest in. A relative handful of mines, mills, factories and giant farms spread around the world can produce everything that humanity can consume. With nothing productive to invest in that will actually give them a profit, the corporations have turned to speculation - in effect, they make money by gambling, by buying and selling all kinds of exotic financial instruments. And most of the speculation has been carried on with trillions of dollars of borrowed money. Now we are seeing trillions of dollars in value wiped out as the financial house of cards built by speculation collapses. The fact is that most of these financial instruments really have no value. This is because the underlying "real" economy - where real economic value is created by human labor power in the production process - is being destroyed by replacing human labor with computers and robots. You can't continue to have a market economy when the market -- which consists of people with jobs and the money to buy things - is being destroyed. And that problem is not going to be fixed by bailing out the speculators. For all practical purposes, the corporations have merged with the government, and their ultimate aim is to use the power of the government to reconstruct society in the way most profitable to them. They don't care whether the workers live or die. They are fully prepared to use the power and financial resources of the government to nationalize private property, so long as it's done in a way that suits their interests. We are seeing this in the bailout of the banks and speculators. The corporations will end up with the wealth, and we, the people, will still be scrambling to survive. What is going to be done to guarantee food, clothing, housing, health care, energy, education, transportation and the other necessities of modern life for the workers? Where is our bailout? Modern methods of production mean that it is now possible to have a society organized around meeting people's needs, where what we produce is distributed according to need, and not according to how much money you have. We can have a society where no one is homeless or hungry, or does without health care. As a step in that direction, we need to demand that certain industries - including the financial industry- be nationalized in such a way that we can guarantee that people's day to day needs are met. This means we must confront corporate control of the government. It is supposed to be our government, and we must demand that it represent our interests. The future is up to us. _http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2008.10/PT.2008.10.09.html_ (http://www.peoplestribune.org/PT.2008.10/PT.2008.10.09.html) This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 06:50:32 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:50:32 -0400 Subject: [A-List] 'A Deathblow to Privatization': Planned IPO of Deutsche Bahn Put on Hold Message-ID: 'A Deathblow to Privatization' One of the German government's most ambitious and arduously negotiated projects fell victim to the financial crisis on Thursday. The planned IPO of Deutsche Bahn have been put on hold. German commentators have their doubts if it will ever get back on track. With the global financial crisis showing no sign of abating, German crisis managers find themselves both adjusting future budgetary expectations and reconsidering earlier economic decisions. Among the objects of second-guessing are plans to privatize Deutsche Bahn, Germany's national railway company. The initial public offering process had been scheduled to begin on Monday and the company, expecting to take in upwards of ?4 billion, had already been courting international investors for months. Thursday, government officials announced that the privatization would be delayed until further notice. "We are not going to put the assets on the capital markets at the wrong time," Finance Minister Peer Steinbr?ck said. The postponement is a bitter pill to swallow for Germany's ruling "Grand Coalition" between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. The privatization plans -- which called for the company's passenger, freight and logistic divisions to be spun off into a holding company, 24.9 percent of which was to be privatized -- were the product of months of arduous negotiations between the coalition partners. It was also among the government's few headlining achievements during its three years in power. Politicians insist that they reckon only with a delay, not a cancellation of Deutsche Bahn's privatization. As Angela Merkel told reporters Thursday, "I assume that there will eventually be a business environment in which the privatization can take place." But, with politicians openly discussing greater intervention in the economy and murmuring of further bank takeovers, Germany's newspaper commentators are skeptical that the Deutsche Bahn plan will ever get back on track. The center-left S?ddeutsche Zeitung writes: "The worst case scenario for Deutsche Bahn is that nothing changes. Rail remains a state-owned company and it remains a giant with monoplistic control over trains and track networks. How likely the worst case is, though, is about as easy to predict as the health of the stock market at the end of November. The fact is that the privitization of German rail has lost all momentum...." "Meanwhile, difficulties are mounting. German rail may be able to credibly promise that rail doesn't need to be overly concerned about the economic problems. After all, travellers will continue to travel and goods will still have to be transported through the country. But one business segment, carefully built up by the head of Deutsche Bahn Hartmut Mehdorn, is in trouble: global freight. If the global economy slows down, there won't be as much to transport. When the numbers will be as auspicious for a German rail IPO as they were this year is a question nobody can answer." The business daily Handelsblatt writes: The fact is, the already botched, partial privatization of the Deutsche Bahn received on Thursday ... it's death blow. And that's a good thing." "The calculation behind the political pressure for partial privatization is clear: the IPO is a prestige project for Germany's governing coalition. But that coalition reaches the end of its road in the elections next fall. The coalition can see that there will likely be a larger opposition from the left, which is hardly supports rail privatization. The IPO, then, would have to take place before next autumn's elections." "That, though, isn't likely and, seen politically, the chances that the light will ever again be green are sinking. At the moment, one bank after another across the globe is being partially nationalized. A partial privatization of German rail hardly fits." "Finally, there are the economic forecasts, that predict anything but rosy economic times in the coming months. It is hard to imagine stock markets making a quick recovery. The value of the company on the stock market will continue to sink. Every day that the stock market drops is another argument for not selling the German rail system cheaply -- and with that, the light will remain red." The business daily Financial Times Deutschland writes: "Among the people, the entry to the market has few friends, and skepticism of the market will only increase. It won't be long until the representatives of the governing parties succumb to the temptation to question the privatization plans. Then we'll be facing a bizarre alliance of panicking markets and moralizing admonishers. That would be a big mistake." "If the government initiates another fundamental debate about the privatization of Deutsche Bahn, many of the interested investors would be permanently turned off. It would be too clear a signal that the company is a plaything of political interests." "If Berlin doesn't manage [to realize the privatization plans] years of preparation will have gone to waste. And that won't have helped anyone -- neither the head of Deutsch Bahn, nor the passengers of the railway." The left-of-center Beliner Zeitung writes: "It's understandable if the latest rejection causes stomach problems for the head of Deutsche Bahn. Because nobody knows whether the markets will have calmed down enough in the next few weeks to make another go at privatization. There's much to suggest that that won't be the case." "A large majority of the population has always rejected the idea of going public. Many of Deutsche Bahn's employees have also always preferred to remain under control of the state. Their desire is understandable. They fear that unserious investors will have a say at the company. And in the past few days, these fears have likely deepened and spread even further. The recent turbulence has caused enormous damage to the public's trust of the free market. Certainly it calls into question the point of railway privatization. It is indeed a paradox that, at a time when banks around the world are getting nationalized, Deutsche Bahn wants to enter the stock market." -- Cameron Abadi; 3:15 p.m. CET From noreply at coha.org Fri Oct 10 13:50:34 2008 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:50:34 -0400 Subject: Birds of a Feather?: Fujimori's Trial Resumes, García's Scandal Deflects Attention Message-ID: <20081010194909.6E4723E4751@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081010/aa3fd68c/attachment.txt From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Oct 11 10:17:49 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:17:49 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Facing Collapse, Developing States Want New Financial System Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:59 AM Subject: [stopnato] Facing Collapse, Developing States Want New Financial System http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1316956&lang=EN Deutsche Presse-Agentur October 11, 2008 Developing countries: Financial spill-over could prompt collapse -"Money was found to bail-out Wall Street, but the 25 billion dollars promised to Africa has not been mobilized because of complications." -The G24 called for more international coordination to avoid a "protracted deterioration" of both the financial and wider economic world. The spreading crisis was another sign that the global economic institutions needed to be reformed "to reflect the realities of the global economy." Developing countries warned wealthier nations to meet their aid commitments and help avoid a spill-over of the financial turmoil that could prompt the collapse of some poorer countries' economies, dpa reported. Ministers and central bankers from 24 developing countries meeting in Washington warned that their economies were now being struck by three crises - the financial turmoil as well as food and energy price surges - and would need help pulling themselves back from the brink. In a joint statement, the G24 bloc said the "financial contagion" was already turning away investors and drying up funding in some emerging economies, some of which were in need of new loans. The International Monetary Fund's offer Thursday to restart an emergency loan programme was "long overdue." Jean-Claude Masangu Mulongo, head of the Congolese central bank and chair of the G24 bloc, criticized wealthy nations for coming up with the funds to rescue their own economies while backing out of promises of aid. He said Africa needed 25 billion dollars in new funds. "Money was found to bail-out Wall Street, but the 25 billion dollars promised to Africa has not been mobilized because of complications," Mulongo quipped. Syrian central bank head Adib Malayeh warned that the banking sectors of some developing countries "could collapse under the weight" of the kind of financial turmoil currently being seen in advanced economies. "In the developing world we will also feel the effects but the developed countries have the means to deal with the problem," he said. The G24 called for more international coordination to avoid a "protracted deterioration" of both the financial and wider economic world. The spreading crisis was another sign that the global economic institutions needed to be reformed "to reflect the realities of the global economy," the statement said. Developing countries have long been calling for more votes in the IMF and World Bank. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Biz Resources Y! Small Business Articles, tools, forms, and more. All-Bran Day 10 Club on Yahoo! Groups Feel better with fiber. Weight Loss Group on Yahoo! Groups Get support and make friends online.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Oct 11 10:18:37 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:18:37 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Taiwan Expects More US Arms Message-ID: <7C4302DD129B4100AC6A72D9F2F2D928@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:55 AM Subject: [stopnato] Taiwan Expects More US Arms http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1317201&lang=EN Deutsche Presse-Agentur October 11, 2008 Taiwan welcomes US approval of arms' sales -Washington was...unhappy with Taipei's [previous government's] unwillingness to boost its defence budget and defend itself. Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou said Saturday the US approval of arms' sales to Taipei signifies willingness to gradually rebuild trust with the island, reported dpa. "The approval not only represents the US assertion of our policy to improve cross-strait ties, while at the same time maintain proper security relations with the US. It also represents the US willingness to gradually rebuild mutual trust seriously deteriorated in the past eight years," he said. He made the comment during a meeting with a US visitors from the Center of Strategic and International Studies at his office in Taipei. The administration of President George W Bush notified US Congress last week about the sale of six major packages of weaponry worth 6.45 billion US dollars to Taiwan, ending the nearly year-long freeze on arms' sales to the island. The approval drew sharp protest from China, which retaliated by suspending several military exchange activities with Washington. China regards Taiwan a rogue province and US support for it has been a source of tension between the two countries. The US dropped Taiwan to recognize China in 1979, but pledged to continue to sell defensive arms to Taiwan. The Bush administration had delayed the latest arms package since late 2007, amid reports that Washington was unhappy about the policy of Ma's predecessor Chen Shui-bian of repeatedly infuriating China through his pro-independence statements and activities. Washington was also unhappy with Taipei's unwillingness to boost its defence budget and defend itself. Ma, who stressed that Taiwan's defence budget was to remain at 3 per cent of the island's gross domestic product, vowed to do all he could to rebuild mutual US-Taiwan trust. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Oct 11 10:21:41 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:21:41 -0400 Subject: [A-List] 1, 200 KM Border With Russia: Ahtisaari Wants Finland In NATO Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com ; b-antinato at yahoogroups.com ; yugoslaviainfo at yahoogroups.com ; pravica at yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:14 AM Subject: [stopnato] 1,200 KM Border With Russia: Ahtisaari Wants Finland In NATO http://www.yle.fi/news/id104244.html YLE News (Finland) October 11, 2008 Martti Ahtisaari Wants Finland in Nato Former president and Nobel laureate Martti Ahtisaari stresses the importance of Finland joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO. Speaking at YLE's Ykkosaamu current affairs programme on Saturday, Ahtisaari said Finland should join NATO because it is the optimal channel through which to streamline peacekeeping efforts.... "I don't want Finland to be the odd one out when most other states are already members," said Ahtisaari. .... "Russia seems to lack self-confidence today. A confident state would not attack another independent state, such as Georgia," explained Ahtisaari. Kosovo was Strenuous Time in Career The former president said his relationship with Russian leadership is good, although Kosovo's independence was a bitter pill for Russia to swallow. Ahtisaari pointed out that the time he spent hammering out a solution to the 1999 Kosovo crisis was the most difficult period in his career. Ahtisaari said he believes the outcome of the peace talks hinged on preventive diplomacy and on the strong signal sent to dictators [?] that their actions would not be tolerated. .... =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Learn to live a full life with these healthy living groups on Yahoo! Find helpful tips for Moderators on the Yahoo! Groups team blog. All-Bran Day 10 Club on Yahoo! Groups Feel better with fiber.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Oct 11 10:22:43 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:22:43 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Anti-US ABM: Russian ICBM Makes Record Flight Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:19 AM Subject: [stopnato] Anti-US ABM: Russian ICBM Makes Record Flight http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgpi_L7eH1krz0Ft00CidxZy6xfAD93OBA6O0 Associated Press October 11, 2008 Russian missile makes record flight MOSCOW - Russian officials say a submarine-launched ballistic missile has made a record flight, hitting a target in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for the first time. President Dmitry Medvedev witnessed the test, part of naval exercises being staged in the northern Barents Sea. Russian TV showed what it said was the Sineva missile launching from the submarine Tula. Medvedev said Saturday it flew more than 7,100 miles into the Pacific near the equator. Medvedev also was quoted by Russian news agencies as ordering naval officials to begin building new aircraft carriers. A Russian flotilla is heading to the Caribbean Sea for joint exercises with Venezuela - the largest such Russian deployment to the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49A1HA20081011 Reuters October 11, 2008 Russia test-fires ballistic missile to mid-Pacific By Oleg Shchedrov --The Sineva missile, advertised by the Russia military as an element of a new generation of Russian strategic weapons capable of surpassing any missile defense system, was commissioned last year. MURMANSK, Russia - Russia test-launched a strategic missile to the equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean for the first time on Saturday, at a time when Moscow's growing assertiveness is fuelling tension with the West. President Dmitry Medvedev, who watched the launch from aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, has said problems caused by global financial turmoil would not hurt Russian plans to revive its armed forces, a symbol for Moscow's resurgence. Russia's newest missile, the Sineva, was launched by the nuclear-powered submarine Tula from an underwater position in the Arctic Barents Sea, and hit an unspecified area near the equator in the Pacific Ocean, a navy spokesman said. "For the first time in the history of the Russian Navy the target of the missile was in an equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean rather than the Kura testing ground on the Kamchatka Peninsula," he said. The spokesman did not specify the area where the missile landed. He said the area was closed for navigation and flights ahead of the test in accordance with international rules. Medvedev's predecessor Vladimir Putin focused on reviving the armed forces, which were neglected for around 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia's strategic bombers have restarted regular patrols over the Atlantic Ocean, irking NATO, and a group of the Northern Fleet ships is on its way to the Carribean to take part in joint exercises with U.S. foe Venezuela. Russia's commitment to modernize its armed forces has grown as its ties with the West reached their lowest point since the Cold War after Russian troops crushed Georgia's attempt to retake a pro-Moscow separatist region. Medvedev said late last month: "Regardless of any crisis we should build new submarines, should simply deal with the modernization of the armed forces." Russia, which saw eight years of strong economic growth under Putin, has adopted the goal of becoming one of the world's leading economies by 2020. Medvedev says the economy has enough resources to survive the global turmoil and achieve its goals. Putin, now Russia's prime minister, has said the next year's budges will see another 30-percent growth in defense spending. The Sineva missile, advertised by the Russia military as an element of a new generation of Russian strategic weapons capable of surpassing any missile defense system, was commissioned last year. The Russian military says the missiles of Sineva's class will be operational at least until 2030. Medvedev's appearance with the Northern Fleet in Murmansk is his second major visit to navy installations in just two weeks and he will oversee exercises attended by 5,000 troops, eight warships and five submarines. (Editing by Elizabeth Piper) =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Sitebuilder Build a web site quickly & easily with Sitebuilder. Yahoo! Groups Stay healthy and discover other people who can help. Real Food Group Share recipes, restaurant ratings and favorite meals.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Oct 11 10:24:41 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:24:41 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Pentagon Working On Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb Message-ID: <97F03D37BEBA48CB8EF6C1833862FB8F@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:58 PM Subject: [stopnato] Pentagon Working On Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb http://www.yourdefencenews.com/news_item.php?newsID=12482 Korea Times October 10, 2008 E-Bomb Will Debut by 2015 -[A]n EMP attack, generated by a very short, intense energy pulse or high-altitude nuclear blast, is known to be capable of crippling an enemy's command-and-control and communications systems or anti-aircraft radar systems. -This type of electromagnetic pulse weapon is a warhead that, when explodes, emits a high-energy pulse that will fuse electrical equipment within a given range. E-bombs can unleash in a flash as much electrical power - 2 billion watts or more - equal to the electricity the Hoover Dam generates in 24 hours. -``An EMP attack could seriously damage electronic and communications equipment. The United States is developing the bomb and expected to complete this by 2010.'' The Agency for Defense Development is developing the technology to build electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons, an official of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said Wednesday. The agency plans to complete the development of indigenous bombs by 2015, Maj. Gen. Lee Kyu-sang, chief of the JCS command-and-control bureau, said during a National Assembly inspection of the Ministry of National Defense and JCS. EMP and HMP bombs offer a significant capability against electronic equipment susceptible to damage by transient power surges. For example, an EMP attack, generated by a very short, intense energy pulse or high-altitude nuclear blast, is known to be capable of crippling an enemy's command-and-control and communications systems or anti-aircraft radar systems. Also known as the ``E-bomb,'' the HPM is designed to zap electronics, scramble computer programs and fry communications links. This type of electromagnetic pulse weapon is a warhead that, when explodes, emits a high-energy pulse that will fuse electrical equipment within a given range. E-bombs can unleash in a flash as much electrical power - 2 billion watts or more - equal to the electricity the Hoover Dam generates in 24 hours. ``An EMP attack could seriously damage electronic and communications equipment. The United States is developing the bomb and expected to complete this by 2010,'' said Lee. .... Meanwhile, some members of the Assembly's National Defense Committee urged the ministry to reconsider an option to buy 36 used Apache attack helicopters from the United States. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Oct 11 11:48:14 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:48:14 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Brasscheck TV: The silent creep of fascism Message-ID: <9B44900D599C40B9B0C4287D4C56E7FE@TonyPC> ..nothing particularly new here, but a pretty good synthesis. Worth sharing with whoever.. Tony > How do you boil a live frog? > > You turn the heat up very slowly, > otherwise the frog will know what's > up and jump out of the pot. > > The creep of fascism in the United > States has been so slow and relentless > that it would be easy to miss especially > with all the meaningless "noise" that > comes from the daily news. > > Here's the pattern and here's how > far down the road we are: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/177.html > > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how our independent video news > service grows. Thanks. > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how we grow. Thanks. > > ============================== > > > > Brasscheck TV > 2380 California St. > San Francisco, CA 94115 > > To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: > http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0zBwczGwMzA== > > From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sat Oct 11 13:27:49 2008 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:27:49 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Capitalist Party is Over! Message-ID: <01d1643b$39732$0cdb6441629051@your-6904db8205> THE CAPITALIST PARTY IS OVER! DARK DAYS BEFORE CLEARING SKIES MNN. Oct. 11, 2008. The stock market crash could be the best thing that ever happened to save the planet. The pollution from the skies will clear so that we can see the horizon once more. The Wall Street bankers are surprised that people are not reacting yet or cracking up. Angry words, yes! But watch out! We?re getting all our affairs in order. Governments and wars can't be run without money. So what will happen to all our differences? We might have to talk to each other like human beings. The secret government/oligarch ?mobsters? anticipated the currrent unfolding of events, the collapse of the US economy, the panic, the outrage and the ?domino effect? around the world. The corporate media hid it from us. We can thank alternate internet media for cluing us in! The mobsters anticipated the angry backlash of the people and prepared for it. However, they overlooked our Indigenous creativity, resourcefulness and perseverance. As we watch the demise of the exploitation of our lands and resources, we are seeing a show that is over and no one is clapping for an encore. The liars have been caught. It?ll never be the same again. The ?New World Order? gangsters thought that ?regional economies? like the North American Union NAU should be set up first before proceeding to ?global one world government?. Their new center of development won't last long because it?s a fraud. Their insistence on hierarchy is misdirected. We do not need one governing mind. We need to bring together all minds so that we can benefit from the wisdom of human and natural diversity. The US had the delusion that it could be the dominant economy all over the world forever. We know that no one can keep on stealing. It had to come to an end. Even so, the multinational dummies saw ahead and set themselves up in China, India, Asia and Central Asia. Tightening domestic controls is underway with: i) blending of military and police roles within and between nations; ii) stronger laws on surveillance, privacy, data collection, etc. People are being conditioned to accept huge invasions of privacy to get jobs, have bank accounts, go to school, etc. And iii) growing ISR - intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance on the domestic front. Cameras are everywhere, UAV's, microwave towers, internet controls and chipping with RFID (radio frequency ID). Everyone is being judged by ignorant, trigger-happy kids under the command of megalomaniac ?nut jobs? with little concern for intercultural experience and wisdom. Former Minister of the Liberal government of Canada, John Manley, is one of the main architects of the NAU. He recently recognized that, "Ending ?insurgency? in Afghanistan quickly [is] 'unrealistic'?. Of course it is. The war is also illegal. Everyone has a right to self-determination, including the people of Afghanistan. [Harper Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, Oct. 6, 2008]. Watch out for this man! The timing of the ?merged elections? in the U.S. and Canada is meant to blur the imaginary border between these two colonial for-profit states. They are not fooling anyone. We say, ?Remove the delusionary border and give everything back to us?. Artificial borders are outdated tools of the elite to control us and our resources that they are stealing. A biological event would legitimize martial law and travel restrictions. If one doesn?t appear soon, the banker-oligarchs need another ?pretext event? like 911. In 2001, the economy was in a slump and then got a big boost from the Twin Towers going down. It boosted spending on the military and policing. It brought on the illegal U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. President George Bush told everybody to go shopping. Resistance - protests - strikes - rebellion - civil war!! They hope to find a pretext soon to bring in martial law. The borders are being tightened with armed guards and IBET - Integrated Border Enforcement Teams at several border crossings. What's next? Checkpoints everywhere? Enhanced drivers licenses are being introduced in border provinces/states like Manitoba and Vermont so that people who work in one jurisdiction and live in another can travel across the border ?without hassle?. For the rest of us it's abuse, harassment, threats and even death. Why do we have to still declare goods at the border despite the North American ?free trade? agreement? The recent bizarre killing and attacks on buses reflects the legitimizing of airport like security for bus travelers. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/le/bs/ibet-eng.aspx IBET operates in 15 regions along the Canada-U.S. border. Evidently, Cornwall was the first one. This might be because Canadian Border Services Agency CBSA is the most paranoid as their illegal operation sits right in the middle of the Mohawk community of Akwesasne. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne hosted the first ever International Indigenous Cross-Border Security Summit on March 17-18, 2006, in Cornwall Ontario. It brought together First Nations and American Indian ?sell-outs? from communities which lie in close proximity to the Canada-U.S. border, as well as colonial government and law enforcement partners from coast to coast. [Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, the Assembly of First Nations, the National Congress of American Indians, Canada Emergency Preparedness PSEPC and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency.] The meeting was opened by ?pseudo? Seneca-Onondaga faith keeper, Oren Lyons, a long time employee of New York State. They discussed issues relating to security of the ?imaginary line? manned by their goons. They had a chance to trade intelligence, share tactics, identify people and areas where future work could be enhanced. This was followed by a big fight on how the money was going to be doled out. Can war be waged without money? No. It?s going to based on a ?free labor? program which is being set in place: i) forced labor using homeless, prisoners and others to build military bases like the new one at Trenton and to work in factories building tanks, trucks and gun barrels. ii) have a huge stockpile of ammo and supplies purchased on credit. The question is who?s going to give credit when they know it?s not for a legitimate purpose and there?s no backing for the dollar? Guess they?ll just have to go in and get what they need by force. But how, with bullet-less guns? iii) delay paying soldiers for as long as possible. Screw them on their pensions and leave them homeless in the streets. Oh, that's already happening. Don?t think that the injured are going to be taken care of. With elitists like Mr. Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers Investment House, getting punched out by an angry investor and recent changes in the top echelon of the US air force, there is evidence of erosion of the ranks from within. There isn't a lot of room at the top. Some of the lesser elitists are getting screwed and getting mad. They may try to mobilize the patriotic masses by telling them they are their champion and their angry reactions are necessary. Accusations are flying in every direction. Some say an attempted assassination helps to legitimize a leader and martial law. Somehow ?legitimate elections? have to be stopped. What will happen to government pensions - old age, disability, vets? How else will the "fat" be trimmed? Cutting social services, medicare, housing and education? Everybody will have to fend for themselves. The good thing for the environment is there won't be money for clear cutting, mining explorations or endless R&D (Research and development). The price of oil has plunged because the factory doors are closed. When Russia went thru its economic crisis, the air in the cities cleared up because the factories were shut down and could not spew out toxic smoke. People without jobs have time to think. Maybe with less inane activity, our heads will clear up and we?d see through some of the confusion. Some with lots of idle time and starving might even riot. How did Indigenous people survive one genocide and holocaust after another? It?s based on our relationship with the natural world and to each other. Remember that story about the frog in the pot of water on the stove? The water is heated up gradually until he got cooked and couldn?t jump out. Well, the water's been heating up for awhile. Everybody is frantically swimming around. Jump, we?re told, from the boiling water into the fire. Like the frogs, we should've known better using our common sense! We should've seen it coming! But we buried our heads and put our faith in fraudsters and gangsters who are calling for one world government enslavement to solve everyone?s problems, which is them. Who'll notice what?s going on besides people like us who have been standing on the sidelines forever and don't take part in either the colonial elections or the stock market? Is there a new state of consciousness to jump into? Or maybe we can jump back into something really traditional, like the Kaianerekowa, the Great Law of Peace, of the Indigenous people of Turtle Island. Iako?ha:kowa & MNN Staff, kittoh at storm.ca - www.mohawknationnews.com - katenies20 at yahoo.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: Canada has denied everything set out in our Statement of Claim filed in the Federal Court of Canada T-1309-08 for the ?Assault, Arrest & Illegal Detention? of Kahentinetha and Katenies on June 14, 2008 by their Cornwall Ontario border guards. They are filing a $20,000 surety demand for their costs. Your financial help is needed. Please send donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to ?MNN Mohawk Nation News?, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Posted by MNN Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com Go to MNN for more stories under Category ?Economics?; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 22:00:51 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:00:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Martin Wolf: "Asia's Revenge" Message-ID: Very useful, except the conclusion (still in favor of "liberalized finance," which is the primary reason many governments began to pile up foreign currency reserves so much). But why is this article titled "Asia's Revenge"? Joseph Stiglitz said that "they [banks] finally had found a sucker who would take them [toxic mortgages] off their hands -- called the American taxpayer." But the real suckers are, above all, East Asians, especially Chinese workers and peasants, and to a lesser extent Russians, Arabs, and Germans. Unfortunately, the top ten generators of surpluses, as well as the top deficit spenders, are the very countries where a major political change is the least likely! -- Yoshie Asia's revenge By Martin Wolf Published: October 8 2008 19:54 | Last updated: October 8 2008 23:48 "Things that can't go on forever, don't." ? Herbert Stein, former chairman of the US presidential Council of Economic Advisers What confronts the world can be seen as the latest in a succession of financial crises that have struck periodically over the last 30 years. The current financial turmoil in the US and Europe affects economies that account for at least half of world output, making this upheaval more significant than all the others. Yet it is also depressingly similar, both in its origins and its results, to earlier shocks. To trace the parallels ? and help in understanding how the present pressing problems can be addressed ? one needs to look back to the late 1970s. Petrodollars, the foreign exchange earned by oil exporting countries amid sharp jumps in the crude price, were recycled via western banks to less wealthy emerging economies, principally in Latin America. This resulted in the first of the big crises of modern times, when Mexico's 1982 announcement of its inability to service its debt brought the money-centre banks of New York and London to their knees. Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University identify the similarities in a paper published earlier this year.* They focus on previous crises in high-income countries. But they also note characteristics that are shared with financial crises that have occurred in emerging economies. This time, most emerging economies have been running huge current account surpluses. So a "large chunk of money has effectively been recycled to a developing economy that exists within the United States' own borders", they point out. "Over a trillion dollars was channelled into the subprime mortgage market, which is comprised of the poorest and least creditworthy borrowers within the US. The final claimaint is different, but in many ways the mechanism is the same." The links between the financial fragility in the US and previous emerging market crises mean that the current banking and economic traumas should not be seen as just the product of risky monetary policy, lax regulation and irresponsible finance, important though these were. They have roots in the way the global economy has worked in the era of financial deregulation. Any country that receives a huge and sustained inflow of foreign lending runs the risk of a subsequent financial crisis, because external and domestic financial fragility will grow. Precisely such a crisis is now happening to the US and a number of other high-income countries including the UK. These latest crises are also related to those that preceded them ? particularly the Asian crisis of 1997-98. Only after this shock did emerging economies become massive capital exporters. This pattern was reinforced by China's choice of an export-oriented development path, partly influenced by fear of what had happened to its neighbours during the Asian crisis. It was further entrenched by the recent jumps in the oil price and the consequent explosion in the current account surpluses of oil exporting countries. The big global macroeconomic story of this decade was, then, the offsetting emergence of the US and a number of other high-income countries as spenders and borrowers of last resort. Debt-fuelled US households went on an unparalleled spending binge ? by dipping into their housing "piggy banks". In explaining what had happened, Ben Bernanke, when still a governor of the Federal Reserve rather than chairman, referred to the emergence of a "savings glut". The description was accurate. After the turn of the millennium, one of the striking features became the low level of long-term nominal and real interest rates at a time of rapid global economic growth. Cheap money encouraged an orgy of financial innovation, borrowing and spending. That was also one of the initial causes of the surge in house prices across a large part of the high-income world, particularly in the US, the UK and Spain. What lay behind the savings glut? The first development was the shift of emerging economies into a large surplus of savings over investment. Within the emerging economies, the big shifts were in Asia and in the oil exporting countries (see chart). By 2007, according to the International Monetary Fund, the aggregate savings surpluses of these two groups of countries had reached around 2 per cent of world output. Government spending offsets private cutbacks (US financial balances as % of GDP); Households move to repair their finances (US private financial balances as % of GDP); Emerging imbalances (current account balances as % of global GDP); The costly fruit of foreign exchange intervention (foreign exchange reserves $'000bn): Despite being a huge oil importer, China emerged as the world's biggest surplus country: its current account surplus was $372bn (?215bn, ?272bn) in 2007, which was not only more than 11 per cent of its gross domestic product, but almost as big as the combined surpluses of Japan ($213bn) and Germany ($185bn), the two largest high-income capital exporters. Last year, the aggregate surpluses of the world's surplus countries reached $1,680bn, according to the IMF. The top 10 (China, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Switzerland, Norway, Kuwait, the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates) generated more than 70 per cent of this total. The surpluses of the top 10 countries represented at least 8 per cent of their aggregate GDP and about one-quarter of their aggregate gross savings. Meanwhile, the huge US deficit absorbed 44 per cent of this total. The US, UK, Spain and Australia ? four countries with housing bubbles ? absorbed 63 per cent of the world's current account surpluses. That represented a vast shift of capital ? but unlike in the 1970s and early 1980s, it went to some of the world's richest countries. Moreover, the emergence of the surpluses was the result of deliberate policies ? shown in the accumulation of official foreign currency reserves and the expansion of the sovereign wealth funds over this period. Quite reasonably, the energy exporters were transforming one asset ? oil ? into another ? claims on foreigners. Others were recycling current account surpluses and private capital inflows into official capital outflows, keeping exchange rates down and competitiveness up. Some described this new system, of which China was the most important proponent, as "Bretton Woods II", after the pegged adjustable exchange rates set-up that collapsed in the early 1970s. Others called it "export-led growth" or depicted it as a system of self-insurance. Yet the justification is less important than the consequences. Between January 2000 and April 2007, the stock of global foreign currency reserves rose by $5,200bn. Thus three-quarters of all the foreign currency reserves accumulated since the beginning of time have been piled up in this decade. Inevitably, a high proportion ? probably close to two-thirds ? of these sums were placed in dollars, thereby supporting the US currency and financing US external deficits. The savings glut had another dimension, related to a second financial shock ? the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000. One consequence was the move of the corporate sectors of most high-income countries into financial surplus. In other words, their retained earnings came to exceed their investments. Instead of borrowing from banks and other suppliers of capital, non-financial corporations became providers of finance. In this world of massive savings surpluses in a range of important countries and weak demand for capital from non-financial corporations, central banks ran easy monetary policies. They did so because they feared the possibility of a shift into deflation. The Fed, in particular, found itself having to offset the contractionary effects of the vast flow of private and, above all, public capital into the US. A simple way of thinking about what has happened to the global economy in the 2000s is that high-income countries with elastic credit systems and households willing to take on rising debt levels offset the massive surplus savings in the rest of the world. The lax monetary policies facilitated this excess spending, while the housing bubble was the vehicle through which it worked. The charts show what happened, as a result, to "financial balances" ? the difference between expenditure and income ? inside the US economy. If one looks at three sectors ? foreign, government and private ? it is evident that the first has had a huge surplus this decade ? offset, as it has to be, by deficits in the other two. In the early 2000s, the US fiscal deficit was the main offset. In the middle years of the decade, the private sector ran a large deficit while the government's shrank. Now that the recession-hit private sector is moving back into balance at enormous speed, the government deficit is exploding once again. Looking at what happened inside the private sector, a striking contrast can be seen between the corporate and household realms. Households moved into a huge financial deficit, which peaked at just under 4 per cent of GDP in the second quarter of 2005. Then, as the housing bubble burst, housebuilding collapsed and households started saving more. With remarkable speed, the household financial deficit disappeared. Today's explosion in the fiscal deficit is the offset. Inevitably, huge household financial deficits also mean huge accumulations of household debt. This was strikingly true in the US and UK. In the process, the financial sector accumulated an ever greater stock of claims not just on other sectors but on itself. This frightening complexity, which lies at the root of many of the current difficulties, was facilitated by the environment of easy borrowing and search for high returns in an environment of low real rates of interest. A protest against the US banking rescue These linked dangers between external and internal imbalances, domestic debt accumulations and financial fragility were foretold by a number of analysts. Foremost among them was Wynne Godley of Cambridge university in his prescient work for the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, which has laid particular stress on the work of the late Hyman Minsky.** So what might ? and should ? happen now? The big danger, evidently, is of a financial collapse. The principal offset, in the short run, to the inevitable cuts in spending in the private sector of the crisis-afflicted economies will also be vastly bigger fiscal deficits. Fortunately, the US and the other afflicted high-income countries have one advantage over the emerging economies: they borrow in their own currencies and have creditworthy governments. Unlike emerging economies, they can therefore slash interest rates and increase fiscal deficits. Yet the huge fiscal boosts and associated government recapitalisation of shattered financial systems are only a temporary solution. There can be no return to business as usual. It is, above all, neither desirable nor sustainable for global macroeconomic balance to be achieved by recycling huge savings surpluses into the excess consumption of the world's richest consumers. The former point is self-evident, while the latter has been demonstrated by the recent financial collapse. So among the most important tasks ahead is to create a system of global finance that allows a more balanced world economy, with excess savings being turned into either high-return investment or consumption by the world's poor, including in capital- exporting countries such as China. A part of the answer will be the development of local-currency finance in emerging economies, which would make it easier for them to run current account deficits than proved to be the case in the past three decades. It is essential in any case for countries in a position to do so to expand domestic demand vigorously. Only in this way can the recessionary impulse coming from the corrections in the debt-laden countries be offset. Yet there is a still bigger challenge ahead. The crisis demonstrates that the world has been unable to combine liberalised capital markets with a reasonable degree of financial stability. A particular problem has been the tendency for large net capital flows and associated current account and domestic financial balances to generate huge crises. This is the biggest of them all. Lessons must be learnt. But those should not just be about the regulation of the financial sector. Nor should they be only about monetary policy. They must be about how liberalised finance can be made to support the global economy rather than destabilise it. This is no little local difficulty. It raises the deepest questions about the way forward for our integrated world economy. The learning must start now. *Is the 2007 US subprime financial crisis so different? An international historical comparison. Working paper 13761, www.nber.org **The US economy: Is there a way out of the woods? November 2007, www.levy.org The writer is the FT's chief economics commentator and author of Fixing Global Finance, published in the US this month by Johns Hopkins University Press and forthcoming in the UK through Yale University Press. From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Oct 11 22:02:08 2008 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:02:08 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Chomsky: Bretton Woods, and the right to restrict capital movements Message-ID: Whenever you order at a restaurant or bar, always give the name CHOMSKY, and when they call out...ignore it.. make them walk around yelling CHOMSKY... -Todd Friday, October 10, 2008 Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1010/1223560345968.html The initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly modified. Photograph: Susan Walsh/APThe initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly modified. Photograph: NOAM CHOMSKY Bretton Woods was the system of global financial management set up at the end of the second World War to ensure the interests of capital did not smother wider social concerns in post-war democracies. It was hated by the US neoliberals - the very people who created the banking crisis writes Noam Chomsky THE SIMULTANEOUS unfolding of the US presidential campaign and unravelling of the financial markets presents one of those occasions where the political and economic systems starkly reveal their nature. Passion about the campaign may not be universally shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about jobs, savings and healthcare at risk. The initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly modified. Under intense lobbyist pressure, they were reshaped as "a clear win for the largest institutions in the system . . . a way of dumping assets without having to fail or close", as described by James Rickards, who negotiated the federal bailout for the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1998, reminding us that we are treading familiar turf. The immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that is, freeing the markets as much as possible from government regulation. These steps predictably increased the frequency and depth of severe reversals, which now threaten to bring about the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Also predictably, the narrow sectors that reaped enormous profits from liberalisation are calling for massive state intervention to rescue collapsing financial institutions. Such interventionism is a regular feature of state capitalism, though the scale today is unusual. A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries", they conclude. In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by which people suffering the consequences can take effective control. The financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient", as economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures. The task of financial institutions is to take risks and, if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses to themselves will be covered. The emphasis is on "to themselves". Under state capitalist rules, it is not their business to consider the cost to others - the "externalities" of decent survival - if their practices lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do. Financial liberalisation has effects well beyond the economy. It has long been understood that it is a powerful weapon against democracy. Free capital movement creates what some have called a "virtual parliament" of investors and lenders, who closely monitor government programmes and "vote" against them if they are considered irrational: for the benefit of people, rather than concentrated private power. Investors and lenders can "vote" by capital flight, attacks on currencies and other devices offered by financial liberalisation. That is one reason why the Bretton Woods system established by the United States and Britain after the second World War instituted capital controls and regulated currencies.* The Great Depression and the war had aroused powerful radical democratic currents, ranging from the anti-fascist resistance to working class organisation. These pressures made it necessary to permit social democratic policies. The Bretton Woods system was designed in part to create a space for government action responding to public will - for some measure of democracy. John Maynard Keynes, the British negotiator, considered the most important achievement of Bretton Woods to be the establishment of the right of governments to restrict capital movement. In dramatic contrast, in the neoliberal phase after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, the US treasury now regards free capital mobility as a "fundamental right", unlike such alleged "rights" as those guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: health, education, decent employment, security and other rights that the Reagan and Bush administrations have dismissed as "letters to Santa Claus", "preposterous", mere "myths". In earlier years, the public had not been much of a problem. The reasons are reviewed by Barry Eichengreen in his standard scholarly history of the international monetary system. He explains that in the 19th century, governments had not yet been "politicised by universal male suffrage and the rise of trade unionism and parliamentary labour parties". Therefore, the severe costs imposed by the virtual parliament could be transferred to the general population. But with the radicalisation of the general public during the Great Depression and the anti-fascist war, that luxury was no longer available to private power and wealth. Hence in the Bretton Woods system, "limits on capital mobility substituted for limits on democracy as a source of insulation from market pressures". The obvious corollary is that after the dismantling of the postwar system, democracy is restricted. It has therefore become necessary to control and marginalise the public in some fashion, processes particularly evident in the more business-run societies like the United States. The management of electoral extravaganzas by the public relations industry is one illustration. "Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," concluded America's leading 20th century social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as long as power resides in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda". The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans". Differences can be detected in the current election as well. Voters should consider them, but without illusions about the political parties, and with the recognition that consistently over the centuries, progressive legislation and social welfare have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above. Those struggles follow a cycle of success and setback. They must be waged every day, not just once every four years, always with the goal of creating a genuinely responsive democratic society, from the voting booth to the workplace. * The Bretton Woods system of global financial management was created by 730 delegates from all 44 Allied second World War nations who attended a UN-hosted Monetary and Financial Conference at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire in 1944. Bretton Woods, which collapsed in 1971, was the system of rules, institutions, and procedures that regulated the international monetary system, under which were set up the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (now one of five institutions in the World Bank Group) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which came into effect in 1945. The chief feature of Bretton Woods was an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value. The system collapsed when the US suspended convertibility from dollars to gold. This created the unique situation whereby the US dollar became the "reserve currency" for the other countries within Bretton Woods. Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His writings on linguistics and politics have just been collected in The Essential Chomsky , edited by Anthony Arnove, from the New Press. This article appeared first in the New York Times ? 2008 The Irish Times This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times From kaliyuga at wildblue.net Sat Oct 11 22:45:17 2008 From: kaliyuga at wildblue.net (MARGARET WYLES) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:45:17 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Chomsky: Bretton Woods, and the right to restrict capital movements In-Reply-To: <6tcecr$249ans@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <6tcecr$249ans@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <82b839ea0810112145w5ef3b2hcf9f53549bee17d@mail.gmail.com> > Bretton Woods was the system of global financial > management set up at the end of the second World > War to ensure the interests of capital did not > smother wider social concerns in post-war > democracies. It was hated by the US neoliberals - > the very people who created the banking crisis writes Noam Chomsky > > Interesting that Berlosconi is calling for a new Bretton Woods at the 'urgency' summit this weekend. Wonder what that portends. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Oct 12 05:58:41 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:58:41 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Power of the Nonrational Message-ID: <48F1E671.2000301@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (October 08 2008) For the release of a book on the end of industrial civilization, it was certainly good timing. Over the last week or so, as my book The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age {1} hit the bookstores, the wheels came off the global economy. As stock markets crashed worldwide and governments panicked, I found myself wondering if the marketing people at my publisher, New Society, had managed to pull off the great-grandmother of all publicity stunts. Now of course the crisis now under way has been building since the early 1980s, when politicians who had forgotten the lessons of the Great Depression threw out the prudent regulatory firewalls that kept banks from speculating with other people's money. Deregulation was the word du jour, driven by a blind faith in markets that did its level best to ignore the lessons of history, and each of the crises that followed - the 1987 stock market crash, the currency implosions of the 1990s, the dotcom bubble and bust at the turn of the millennium, and the orgy of delusional finance that drove the global real estate bubble thereafter - simply brought cries for more of the same deregulation that caused the trouble in the first place. For a quarter century, those who recalled Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1995) and its many successors, and pointed out that uncontrolled speculation always ends the same dismal way, were told that they ought to shut up until they learned something about economics. Sober warnings from distinguished scholars were drowned out by a chorus of cheerleading, while less prestigious voices were pushed out to the fringes of the blogosphere. What is now painfully clear is that those marginalized voices were right all along, and their warnings could have spared us a massive economic disaster if the pundits and politicians who dismissed them had listened instead. All this raises a question that deserves more attention than it usually receives: what makes a society accept or reject any given set of warnings about the future? At the ASPO-USA peak oil conference last month, a slightly more focused version of this question was much in the air. Several of the speakers expressed their frustration at the way warnings of global climate change have been picked up by the media and turned into an international cause celebre, while warnings of the imminence of peak oil are still being dismissed as a nonissue by most people straight across the political and cultural spectrum. It's a fascinating question, not least because there are at least two serious problems with the case for global extinction via climate change currently being splashed across the media. The first of these was pointed up by several of the presenters at the ASPO conference: the scenarios of drastic climate change being offered by the IPCC, the government-supported panel of scientists responsible for the most widely accepted predictions, assume that the world's production of petroleum, coal, and natural gas can increase steadily through the year 2100. That's a problematic assumption, to say the least. The world's peak production of conventional petroleum happened in 2005; massive infusions of tar sand products and biofuels have kept the numbers from falling significantly since then, but with production at most of the world's oil fields dropping steadily, the IPCC's assumptions of steady increase are hard to support. Natural gas worldwide is expected to hit peak production around 2030. Coal is more complex, because all coal is not created equal; the most energy-intensive coal, anthracite, is all but exhausted already, and most of what remains is low-quality "brown coal", much of which will cost more energy to extract than it yields; by 2040 at the latest, the energy yield from coal production will have reached its limit and begun an irrevocable decline. By 2100, our total consumption of all fossil fuels put together will have fallen to a very modest fraction of today's levels, simply because there won't be enough left to produce. Yet there's another difficulty with the scenarios of global ecological collapse being offered by activists and the media just now: even if the IPCC figures for production made sense, a six degrees Celsius increase in the Earth's temperature over a century is well within the normal range of variation for our planet. The latest Greenland ice cores show, for example, that at the end of the last ice age, the Earth's average temperature spiked up twelve degrees Celsius in fifty years or less {12}; similar jolts up and down, some of them even more extreme, have happened many other times in Earth's long history, and for most of the last billion years, this planet has been much, much warmer than it is now. Not that many millions of years ago, it bears remembering, alligators lived on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, and tropical and subtropical forests covered most of the planet. This doesn't mean, mind you, that we can simply dump carbon dioxide into the atmospere and ignore the consequences. What counts as normal variation for the Earth is far more than a fragile industrial civilization can cope with, and the prospect of drastic food shortages driven by wild climatic swings, plus a fifty-foot rise in sea levels drowning every coastal city on Earth, should be reason enough for second thoughts. The point I hope to make, rather, is that extreme scenarios of planetary extinction have been widely accepted in popular culture, despite some very significant weaknesses, while the predictions of the peak oil community - which have a much more solid basis in fact - have been dismissed out of hand. Why? That question cannot be answered without straying out of simple matters of fact into the murky territory of beliefs and cultural narratives. Many of the critics of these essays, and indeed some of the people who have praised them, have dismissed this side of the conversation I've tried to start as irrelevant to our predicament. The problem with this sort of thinking is that it's only in the delusions of raving economists that human beings make decisions on the basis of a purely rational assessment of objectively known facts. In the real world, facts are never objectively known, and reasoning is the willing slave of its preconceptions; we project our beliefs onto the inkblot patterns of experience, and so understanding those beliefs is essential if we're to understand the forces driving today's choices - and thus making tomorrow's hard facts. Look at the beliefs underlying the idea of catastrophic global climate change and you'll find, at their core, a story about human power. We have become so powerful through our technological progress, according to the narrative, that we are able to threaten our own survival and that of the Earth itself. The only limits most climate change advocates seem to be able to imagine are those they think we must place on ourselves; even if climate change leads to our extinction, we will at least have the glory of doing the deed ourselves. It's almost a parody of the old atheist gibe: to prove our own omnipotence, we made a crisis so big not even we can lift it out of our way. Underlying the idea of peak oil, though, lies a different and far more sobering view of things, because peak oil is not a story about human power; it's a story about human limits. If the peak oil narrative is correct, the power we claimed as our own was never really ours; we got it by breaking into the earth's treasure of stored carbon and burning it up in a few short centuries. Despite the cliches, we never conquered nature; instead, we borrowed her assets and blew them in a three-hundred-year orgy of lavish consumption. Now the bills are coming due, the balance left in the account won't meet them, and the remaining question is how much of what we bought with all that carbon will still be ours when nature's foreclosure proceedings finish with us. These differences matter, because the basic assumption of the climate change narrative - the belief in human omnipotence - is a core article of faith in contemporary industrial societies. It's so pervasive that its effects are rarely noticed, but it undergirds an astonishing range of popular attitudes and ideas. It's axiomatic in the industrial world that anything unsatisfactory is a problem in need of a solution, and equally axiomatic that a solution can be found for it. The suggestion that some deeply unsatisfactory conditions may not be problems that can be solved but, rather, are predicaments that must be lived with, is at once unthinkable and offensive to a great many people these days. Yet this is exactly what the peak oil narrative suggests. If the world's conventional petroleum production peaked in 2005 and faces imminent declines, as all the evidence suggests; if none of the proposed replacements for petroleum can take up the slack, and many of them, especially the other fossil fuels, are themselves closing in on their own peaks and declines; if the technological revolutions and economic boom of the last three centuries were a product of extravagant use of these nonrenewable resources, not of such impressive intangibles as "the human spirit", and will not outlast their material basis; if, in other words, human life is subject to hard ecological limits - if these things are true, the narrative of human omnipotence falls, and a popular and passionately held conception of humanity's nature and destiny falls with it. Now I have to confess that I find the narrative of human omnipotence, and the secular mythology that has grown up around it, utterly unconvincing. From the perspective of my own Druid faith, all that rhetoric about humanity's conquest of nature is absurd; it's as though a leaf were to daydream about conquering the tree that brought it into being, presently sustains it, and will let it fall in due time; the attitudes that lead us to picture ourselves as creation's overlords strike me as nothing more than an extraordinary case of egomania. Still, the fact remains that, in an age that has abandoned the traditional forms of religion without uprooting the emotional needs that religions meet, many people rely on these beliefs as a source of meaning and hope. In turn, the peak oil movement's problems finding a hearing in the wider discourse of our time has nothing to do with a shortage of solid facts or compelling reasoning; it has both of these in abundance. Rather, I have come to think, those difficulties are rooted in the movement's failure, at least so far, to address these deeper, nonrational issues. If the peak oil message is correct, then the Great God Progress is dead; however misguided the faith of his votaries may turn out to be in hindsight, it's a deeply held faith, and those who rely on it to give their lives meaning and hope can be counted on to cling to it until and unless some convincing alternative comes their way. That their clinging may keep our civilization from finding useful responses to a crisis even more challenging than today's financial debacle is simply one of the ironies of our present situation. Links: {1} http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/4014 {2} http://www.physorg.com/news133107932.htm http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/power-of-nonrational.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Sat Oct 11 11:07:26 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:07:26 -0500 Subject: [A-List] PEOPLE TO THE STREETS COLOMBIA CHICAGO RNC Message-ID: <005201c92bc3$df5ab290$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here OCTOBER 11 PEOPLE ARE TAKING TO THE STREETS all over In Chicago we all gather march and rally in the Pakistani Afghanistani community. NO TO WAR AND OCCUPATION. Indigenous of Colombia Oct 12-13 Take to the Streets protesting the "Free" Trade Agreement FIGHT BACK. Drop all these bogus charges; the cops were criminal. St Paul RNC but it's people facing charges. Chicago Indy Media Video Group locally produced reports on local action. Take to the Streets. Chicago Air and Water Show Police Action, and more. TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2169 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/8a2fc932/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/8a2fc932/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Fight Back News Service Subject: Drop all charges against RNC protesters Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:24:07 -0400 Size: 12478 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/8a2fc932/attachment-0003.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: abeltranjurisdr at aol.com Subject: [PeaceNoWar] Indigenous Communities in Colombia Mobilize, October 12-13th, Mass Protests are Planned Throughout the Country Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:08:39 -0400 Size: 24036 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/8a2fc932/attachment-0004.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Chicago IMC video announcements Subject: [Imc-chicago-video] =?windows-1252?q?=5BImc-chicago-video-announc?= =?windows-1252?q?e=5D_Chicago_Independent_TV_in_Oct=2E_=96_Summer_of_Chic?= =?windows-1252?q?ago_Activism=3A_Taste_of_Chicago=2C_Air_and_Water_Show?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_No_War_on_Iran=2C_Re-enact_=9168?= Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:00:22 -0500 Size: 7477 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/8a2fc932/attachment-0005.eml From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Sat Oct 11 18:34:25 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:34:25 +1100 Subject: [A-List] John Bellamy Foster: Can the financial crisis be reversed? | Links Message-ID: <48F14611.4070104@greenleft.org.au> ``Will it work? Can they avoid a massive devaluation of capital across the board? I doubt it. It is likely too late to stabilise things in this way. Things have gone too far. The crux of the matter is that the whole "Atlantic" economy is in trouble, not just the financial sector. Consumption is collapsing in the United States, where it represents more than two thirds of total demand, and a good part of world demand. Fifteen per cent of the population is under water with their mortgages. Real wages in the United States have not risen since the 1970s and people are deeply in debt and their circumstances are eroding. Unemployment is way up and jobs are vanishing. Where the productive base of the economy is weakening drastically, a falling financial superstructure, finding the ground shifting under it, is unlikely to be able to right itself. ``As for the politics of nationalisation of banks in the US and UK, one should not confuse this -- as is all too common -- with socialism or even radicalism, unless one is talking about socialism for the rich. This is just another desperate stop-gap measure aimed at preventing a full-scale debt deflation. But as a sign of the total collapse of the "US model" of "free market" finance capitalism, the moral and political consequences are vast.'' Full article at http://links.org.au/node/677 For Links full coverage of the capitalist economic meltdown, see http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/137 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From nscchicago at igc.org Sat Oct 11 20:14:46 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:14:46 -0500 Subject: [A-List] [AmericanConscience] Brazilian cartoonist on Gaza Message-ID: <004601c92c10$5421cd10$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP ----- Original Message ----- From: mary whalen -----Forwarded Message----- From: anegyptian Subject: Fw: Brazilian cartoonist on Gaza It is not only GAZA it is in all Palestine... ....or better say the map.!!!! Cherif anegyptian Voices Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff creates artworks that call on the world to condemn Israeli holocaust of Gaza Nepos Libertas's blog WUFYS Carlos Latuff's statement: I'd like to beg all viewers to spread this image anywhere, as a way to expose Israeli war crimes against Palestinians. Use it on t-shirts, posters, banners. Reproduce it in zines, papers, magazines, and make it visible everywhere. Here is the high-resolution version for printing purposes: [ link ] Thank you in the name of every suffering Palestinian. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- See how Windows Mobile brings your life together?at home, work, or on the go. See Now ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1714 - Release Date: 10/8/2008 7:01 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7563 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 12667 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0014.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 26403 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0015.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 40042 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0016.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 41996 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0017.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 52811 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0018.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 64655 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0019.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 76948 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0020.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 58147 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0021.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 65014 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0022.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 61922 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0023.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 59496 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0024.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 51066 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0025.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 55138 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0026.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 55316 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0027.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049aeb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12667 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0028.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049afb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26403 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0029.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b0a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 40042 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0030.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b1a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41996 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0031.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b2a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 52811 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0032.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b39.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 64655 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0033.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b49.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 76948 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0034.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b58.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 58147 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0035.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b68.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 65014 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0036.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b78.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61922 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0037.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b87.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59496 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0038.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b97.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 51066 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0039.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049ba6.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 55138 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0040.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049bb6.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 55316 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0041.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049aeb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12667 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0042.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049afb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26403 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0043.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b0a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 40042 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0044.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b1a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41996 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0045.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b2a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 52811 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0046.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b39.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 64655 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0047.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b49.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 76948 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0048.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b58.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 58147 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0049.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b68.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 65014 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0050.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b78.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61922 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0051.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b87.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59496 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0052.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049b97.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 51066 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0053.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049ba6.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 55138 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0054.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: d049bb6.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 55316 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20081011/dfb5670f/attachment-0055.jpg From nscchicago at igc.org Sat Oct 11 20:52:13 2008 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:52:13 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Chomsky: Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism Message-ID: <006901c92c15$8f5fb7c0$0a0110ac@NSCCHICAGO> ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Chomsky: Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism > Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being > Exposed > > Bretton Woods was the system of global financial > management set up at the end of the second World War > to ensure the interests of capital did not smother > wider social concerns in post-war democracies. It > was hated by the US neoliberals - the very people > who created the banking crisis writes Noam Chomsky > > By Noam Chomsky > The Irish Times > October 10, 2008 > > http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1010/1223560345968.html > > The simultaneous unfolding of the US presidential > campaign and unraveling of the financial markets > presents one of those occasions where the political and > economic systems starkly reveal their nature. > > Passion about the campaign may not be universally > shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from > the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about > jobs, savings and healthcare at risk. > > The initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so > reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly > modified. Under intense lobbyist pressure, they were > reshaped as "a clear win for the largest institutions > in the system . . . a way of dumping assets without > having to fail or close", as described by James > Rickards, who negotiated the federal bailout for the > hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1998, > reminding us that we are treading familiar turf. The > immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the > collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal > Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the > struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based > consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But > the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph > of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that > is, freeing the markets as much as possible from > government regulation. > > These steps predictably increased the frequency and > depth of severe reversals, which now threaten to bring > about the worst crisis since the Great Depression. > > Also predictably, the narrow sectors that reaped > enormous profits from liberalisation are calling for > massive state intervention to rescue collapsing > financial institutions. > > Such interventionism is a regular feature of state > capitalism, though the scale today is unusual. A study > by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob > van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 > companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if > they had not been saved by their respective > governments, and that many of the rest gained > substantially by demanding that governments "socialise > their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. > Such government intervention "has been the rule rather > than the exception over the past two centuries", they > conclude. > > In a functioning democratic society, a political > campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking > into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by > which people suffering the consequences can take > effective control. > > The financial market "underprices risk" and is > "systematically inefficient", as economists John > Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of > the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and > reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and > proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One > factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who > do not participate in transactions. These > "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk > leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an > efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures. > > The task of financial institutions is to take risks > and, if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses > to themselves will be covered. The emphasis is on "to > themselves". Under state capitalist rules, it is not > their business to consider the cost to others - the > "externalities" of decent survival - if their practices > lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do. > > Financial liberalisation has effects well beyond the > economy. It has long been understood that it is a > powerful weapon against democracy. Free capital > movement creates what some have called a "virtual > parliament" of investors and lenders, who closely > monitor government programmes and "vote" against them > if they are considered irrational: for the benefit of > people, rather than concentrated private power. > > Investors and lenders can "vote" by capital flight, > attacks on currencies and other devices offered by > financial liberalisation. That is one reason why the > Bretton Woods system established by the United States > and Britain after the second World War instituted > capital controls and regulated currencies.* > > The Great Depression and the war had aroused powerful > radical democratic currents, ranging from the anti- > fascist resistance to working class organisation. These > pressures made it necessary to permit social democratic > policies. The Bretton Woods system was designed in part > to create a space for government action responding to > public will - for some measure of democracy. > > John Maynard Keynes, the British negotiator, considered > the most important achievement of Bretton Woods to be > the establishment of the right of governments to > restrict capital movement. > > In dramatic contrast, in the neoliberal phase after the > breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, the > US treasury now regards free capital mobility as a > "fundamental right", unlike such alleged "rights" as > those guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights: health, education, decent employment, security > and other rights that the Reagan and Bush > administrations have dismissed as "letters to Santa > Claus", "preposterous", mere "myths". > > In earlier years, the public had not been much of a > problem. The reasons are reviewed by Barry Eichengreen > in his standard scholarly history of the international > monetary system. He explains that in the 19th century, > governments had not yet been "politicised by universal > male suffrage and the rise of trade unionism and > parliamentary labour parties". Therefore, the severe > costs imposed by the virtual parliament could be > transferred to the general population. > > But with the radicalisation of the general public > during the Great Depression and the anti-fascist war, > that luxury was no longer available to private power > and wealth. Hence in the Bretton Woods system, "limits > on capital mobility substituted for limits on democracy > as a source of insulation from market pressures". > > The obvious corollary is that after the dismantling of > the postwar system, democracy is restricted. It has > therefore become necessary to control and marginalise > the public in some fashion, processes particularly > evident in the more business-run societies like the > United States. The management of electoral > extravaganzas by the public relations industry is one > illustration. > > "Politics is the shadow cast on society by big > business," concluded America's leading 20th century > social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as > long as power resides in "business for private profit > through private control of banking, land, industry, > reinforced by command of the press, press agents and > other means of publicity and propaganda". > > The United States effectively has a one-party system, > the business party, with two factions, Republicans and > Democrats. There are differences between them. In his > study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the > New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the > past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families > have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have > under Republicans, while the real incomes of working- > poor families have grown six times as fast under > Democrats as they have under Republicans". > > Differences can be detected in the current election as > well. Voters should consider them, but without > illusions about the political parties, and with the > recognition that consistently over the centuries, > progressive legislation and social welfare have been > won by popular struggles, not gifts from above. > > Those struggles follow a cycle of success and setback. > They must be waged every day, not just once every four > years, always with the goal of creating a genuinely > responsive democratic society, from the voting booth to > the workplace. > > * The Bretton Woods system of global financial > management was created by 730 delegates from all 44 > Allied second World War nations who attended a UN- > hosted Monetary and Financial Conference at the Mount > Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire in > 1944. > > Bretton Woods, which collapsed in 1971, was the > system of rules, institutions, and procedures that > regulated the international monetary system, under > which were set up the International Bank for > Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (now one of > five institutions in the World Bank Group) and the > International Monetary Fund (IMF), which came into > effect in 1945. > > The chief feature of Bretton Woods was an obligation > for each country to adopt a monetary policy that > maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a > fixed value. > > The system collapsed when the US suspended > convertibility from dollars to gold. This created the > unique situation whereby the US dollar became the > "reserve currency" for the other countries within > Bretton Woods. > > (c) 2008 The Irish Times > > _____________________________________________ > > Portside aims to provide material of interest > to people on the left that will help them to > interpret the world and to change it. > > Submit via email: moderator at portside.org > Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit > Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq > Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe > Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe > Account assistance: portside.org/contact > Search the archives: portside.org/archive From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sun Oct 12 10:54:56 2008 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:54:56 -0400 Subject: [A-List] 'Economic 9/11' Exacting Grim Toll On Average Americans Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:01 AM Subject: [stopnato] 'Economic 9/11' Exacting Grim Toll On Average Americans http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=254064 Agence France-Presse October 10, 2008 'Economic 9/11' exacting grim psychological toll in US -"This compares to 9/11 in terms of the impact, definitely. And it's significant that it isn't a Wall Street crisis as I see it - it's affecting the entire consumer economy, and almost every individual that I see. "It's not just affecting adults, it's affecting the children. I had one 14-year-old who came to see me and said 'I'm worried my parents are going to go broke, because they're arguing more.' "It's filtered down to almost every household I deal with. I've never seen something that has affected such a wide range of people." -"It is a sense of fear, depression and anxiety that says no matter how hard or well I work, I have no control over my future. So the present stinks and the future will be worse. And there's no one to help me." LOS ANGELES - The murder-suicide of a Los Angeles financial manager who shot dead five members of his family before killing himself has highlighted the psychological toll of the economic meltdown. The bodies of Karthik Rajaram, a 45-year-old business school graduate, and his wife, three children and mother-in-law, were discovered at his home in an upmarket gated community on Monday. In a letter to police, Rajaram said he had been driven to murder because of his dire economic situation: already unemployed for several months, his remaining finances were reportedly wiped out by Wall Street's collapse. Rajaram's tragic case has become a grim symbol of the US financial crisis. Or as Los Angeles deputy police chief Michael Moore put it, "a perfect American family destroyed by a man stuck in a rabbit hole of absolute despair." The Los Angeles case came less than a week after a 90-year-old woman in Ohio shot herself as she was about to served an eviction notice on the home she has lived in for the past 38 years. The two harrowing incidents have drawn attention to the mental-health impact associated with the most serious US financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, experts say. Chicago-based psychologist Nancy Molitor told AFP the numbers of people seeking help because of finance-related anxiety had skyrocketed. "In my 20 years of practice I have never seen anything like this, the anxiety is through the roof," Molitor told AFP, estimating she had seen a 50-percent increase in volume of calls. The sense of bewilderment caused by financial crisis was comparable to the effect of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Molitor said, impacting people of varying ages and backgrounds. "This compares to 9/11 in terms of the impact, definitely. And it's significant that it isn't a Wall Street crisis as I see it - it's affecting the entire consumer economy, and almost every individual that I see. "It's not just affecting adults, it's affecting the children. I had one 14-year-old who came to see me and said 'I'm worried my parents are going to go broke, because they're arguing more.' "It's filtered down to almost every household I deal with. I've never seen something that has affected such a wide range of people." Molitor said the problems varied greatly: affluent people who had lost a million dollars; couples fretting over the ability to pay for college tuition, or in one case, a 79-year-old woman who "couldn't afford to die." "I thought she was kidding," Molitor said. "But she told me 'I used to have a pretty good inheritance that I could leave my three children. If I die tomorrow they're going to get half of what they were going to get.'" Judith Bardwick, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said the tidal wave of grim economic headlines had exacerbated widespread feelings of impotence in an era of job insecurity. "It is a sense of fear, depression and anxiety that says no matter how hard or well I work, I have no control over my future," Bardwick said. "So the present stinks and the future will be worse. And there's no one to help me. "In a period of fiscal crisis, in which very visibly major institutions fail or are bailed out, and the market is riding a rollercoaster, the number of people who have these despairing views of life will naturally increase." The fact that the macroeconomic causes of the meltdown were not easily explained added to the sense of impotence, Molitor said. "It's a perfect storm because what breeds anxiety is a fear of the unknown," she explained. "I had a very bright person with a PhD in economics who said to me 'Even I don't get it. And if I don't get it, how is the average person managing a household supposed to get it?'" "There's a sense of total helplessness, which if it goes on long enough becomes hopelessness. And if that goes on long enough it becomes depression." In Los Angeles, authorities are urging anyone in despair to seek professional help immediately. Ken Kondo, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, said a 24-hour service was available for anyone seeking help. "One in five people in the United States will experience mental illness and these stressors from the economic crisis could trigger that," Kondo said. "What we're saying is that people should talk to friends and family members, don't try and handle it by yourself. And if they feel chronically depressed or suicidal, seek professional mental health help right away." =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1New Members Visit Your Group Biz Resources Y! Small Business Articles, tools, forms, and more. Best of Y! Groups Check it out and nominate your group to be featured. Yahoo! Groups Women of Curves Discuss food, fitness and weight loss.. __,_._,___ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 15:58:01 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:58:01 -0400 Subject: [A-List] European Leaders Agree to Inject Cash Into Banks Message-ID: October 13, 2008 European Leaders Agree to Inject Cash Into Banks By DAVID JOLLY and KATRIN BENNHOLD PARIS ? European financial and political leaders agreed late Sunday to a plan that would inject billions of euros into their banks in a bid to restore confidence to the teetering financial system. Taking their cue from a rescue plan announced last week by Britain, the European countries led by Germany and France pledged to take equity stakes in distressed banks and vowed to guarantee bank lending for periods up to five years. Both France and Germany were planning to unveil national rescue packages on Monday worth hundreds of billions of euros, officials said. "The meeting that we had was exceptional," President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, said at a news conference. "We need concrete measures, we need unity. That's what we achieved. The plan on which we agreed today will be applied in all our respective states." The plan "treats all the dimensions of the financial crisis," Mr. Sarkozy said. The Belgian finance minister, Didier Reynders, said, "We are committed in all European states to recapitalize banks if we establish a threat to solvency and a risk to the economy." "The goal is to kick-start the interbank lending market," he said. Mr. Reynders said the European Central Bank had also committed to helping to unfreeze the commercial paper market, which companies use to finance day-to-day operations. Leaders of the 15 countries that use the euro did not put a price tag on any of their promises ? contrary to Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced ?150 billion, or $255 billion, in government funds and other measures, and the United States, where a $700 billion bailout plan will now partly be used to recapitalize banks. European officials said actions would be taken at the national level, within the framework of the agreed "toolbox." The idea, they said, was that governments face different challenges and needed to act quickly but that a common front would avoid the possibility that one country might undercut another. Each country, Mr. Reynders said, will announce concrete figures for the measures they expect to take individually. "There is no question of setting up a European fund," he said. Announcements last week by Britain and the United States that they would move to take ownership shares in ailing banks, the 15 leaders of the countries that use the euro found themselves looking for a collective response to avoid tit-for-tat actions by individual countries that might harm their neighbors. Mr. Brown said earlier after meeting at the Elys?e Palace with Mr. Sarkozy, that he believed Europe would "work together with America." Mr. Brown, whose country has maintained its own currency, the pound, also warned that the decisions made Sunday would have economic consequences for years to come. In contrast to the meeting last weekend, European leaders on Sunday seemed to be reading from the same script. "Our goal is to have coordinated action for the euro zone," Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said, and the meeting "is a very important signal for the strength of the euro zone." Germany is considering a plan to inject 50 billion to 100 billion euros into its banks, with a price tag for all of the new measures reaching as much as 400 billion euros, or $536 billion, according to a person briefed on the government's work. A German official cautioned that the numbers remained speculative. Current plans are to have the package approved by the cabinet on Monday and through the German Parliament this week. France is expected to announce a two-pronged plan aimed at safeguarding the solvency of French banks and jump-start lending between financial institution, according to a senior official who has worked on the plan. Paris is expected to buy stakes in banks threatened by failure, though the magnitude of any rescue fund will be smaller than the 50 billion to 100 billion euro plan expected in Germany, the official said. "Our need for recapitalization is certainly weaker than that in Germany," he said. The French government will also pledge more than 100 billion euros to address liquidity concerns in banks and insurers. A new instrument guaranteeing bank debt in exchange for collateral will be announced, the official said. A draft law will be passed Monday in an extraordinary cabinet meeting and will be submitted Tuesday to Parliament. The freezing of credit markets has made it difficult for most companies to borrow money on more than an overnight basis. Stocks have plummeted, meanwhile, making it more difficult for banks to shore up their balance sheets by raising capital from investors. In Oslo, which is outside the euro zone, the Norwegian central bank moved to provide banks with $58 billion in additional liquidity. "The Norwegian money market isn't working," Reuters quoted the central bank governor, Svein Gjedrem, as saying. "Today, Norges Bank is for all practical purposes functioning as a clearing house for all activity in the Norwegian money market," he added. Michel Fleuriet, director of the investment banking program at Universit? Paris-Dauphine and the former head of Merrill Lynch in France, "These measures should add some life to the short-term financing of the economy," Mr. Fleuriet said after news of the deal. "But it's going to take some time for the market to digest this information. If investors are convinced that that the banks are going back to doing their jobs ? financing the real economy ? the stock market could stabilize. Right now the stock market believes the economy is dead." Earlier Sunday, the authorities in Australia and New Zealand announced a guarantee of bank deposits. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, called the financial meltdown "the economic equivalent of a national security crisis" because of the danger that money would flee Sydney banks for countries where governments had guaranteed deposits. In Washington, President Bush held a Saturday morning meeting at the White House with G-7 finance ministers, who were in the city for the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. "All of us recognize that this is a serious global crisis, and therefore requires a serious global response, for the good of our people," Mr. Bush said afterward. The president said the countries had agreed to general principles to respond to the crisis, including working to prevent the collapse of important financial institutions and protecting deposits. But the G-7 communiqu? issued Friday did not clearly detail what measures would be taken, suggesting that countries remained unable to agree on a common approach to shoring up their respective financial systems. The Group of 20, which includes the world's 20 richest nations, issued a statement in support of that communiqu? late Saturday after Mr. Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, met with leaders of the group. The turbulence of the past week moved Germany from advocating action on a case-by-case basis to support for a systemic solution for the country's banks. So far Germany has rescued several banks and guaranteed deposits. Germany's major banks accept that partial nationalizations ? even if they are not called that ? are necessary under the circumstances, Klaus-Peter M?ller, chairman of the German Banking Association, said. "This measure will be like a bridge since for some firms there is no capital out there on reasonable terms," Mr. M?ller said. The shift in Berlin does not extend to contributing to a common fund that would support all European banks, largely because the government fears that German taxpayers would end up financing other countries' banks. With the bond market in the United States and all Japanese markets closed on Monday for holidays, British policy makers appeared to be speeding plans to inject capital into their troubled banks. At the top of the list is Royal Bank of Scotland, whose market value has fallen to below ?12 billion pounds, or about $20 billion ? less than the amount of capital it raised from private investors in June. Royal Bank of Scotland is expected to need about that amount, giving the Exchequer a majority stake. As much as ?35 billion of the ?50 billion that the government set aside for sick banks could be disbursed. Other British banks that are likely to receive tax payer funds include HBOS, Lloyds TSB and Barclays. That these banks, which for weeks have been saying they did not need new funds from taxpayers, will welcome the British government as a large shareholder is a reflection of how little confidence remains in banks Late last week, Barclays had signaled that it might go to capital markets for the ?3 billion it needs to bolster its tier-one ratio, a measure of financial strength. Such an initiative would take as much as 10 days, an eternity in today's fear-stoked climate. And now Barclays, along with its peers, is preparing to take the direct, if not more humiliating, path by accepting public funds. Faced with the growing intensity of the crisis, the Bush administration has embarked on an overhaul of its own strategy. Two weeks after persuading the Congress to let it spend $700 billion to buy distressed securities tied to mortgages, the administration put that idea aside in favor of an approach that would have the government inject capital directly into the nation's banks ? in effect, partially nationalizing the industry. Katrin Bennhold contributed reporting from Paris; Landon Thomas Jr. from London; Carter Dougherty from Frankfurt; and Edmund L. Andrews and Mark Landler from Washington. From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sun Oct 12 12:15:54 2008 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:15:54 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Call-out Stop Quebec Police from Attacking Barriere Lake Algonquins Message-ID: <0124aafb$39733$0cdb5943796991@your-6904db8205> CALL FOR HELP! SUPPORT BARRIERE LAKE ALGONQUINS AGAINST QUEBEC POLICE ATTACKS, ARRESTS, BEATINGS, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES MNN. Oct. 12, 2008. On Monday, October 6, 2008, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake had enough and blocked Highway 117 in Northern Quebec. They want Canada and Quebec to live up to the ?trilateral agreement? signed in 1991 between the 3 parties. The Algonquins have a right to sustainably develop and co-manage their traditional territories and to have a share in resource revenues. Canada and Quebec obviously believe in stealing but not sharing. Isn?t that the ?slippery slope? that multinational corporations are sliding into right now? They refuse to comply with the agreement which would save the environment. Rotten to the core, Canada and Quebec responded to the blocked road by sending in almost 100 Quebec police, some fully-equipped riot police, to attack the Algonquins to get out of negotiations. Tear gas was shot into a group of youth and elders. One canister hit a handicapped person in the chest. Nine people, including; an elderly women, a pregnant woman, and two minors, were arrested. Severe "pain compliance" techniques were used on peaceful men, women and children who had secured themselves to concrete-filled barrels. The cops twisted their arms, dislocated their jaws, left them with bruised faces and sore necks and throats from the tear gas. To view the video of brutal police attack, go to www.barrierelakesolidarity.blogspot.com. The Algonquins of Barriere Lake intend to demonstrate until Canada's Conservative government and Quebec honor signed agreements and Barriere Lake's leadership customs. Allies and supporters are needed as witnesses. From Montreal: Take #15 North to St. Jerome where it turns into #117; drive north past Mt. Laurier and 1 hour after Grand Remous to LaVerendrye Park; turn right on ?#362 km? sign; drive 8 kms to the community of ?Rapid Lake?. Needed are camping equipment, food, phone cards, cameras; volunteers, equipment and everything necessary for makeshift schools. See contacts at end. In 1996, Indian Affairs tried to hijack the agreement by sneakily replacing the legitimate chief and council with their outside nominees [sort of creating ?New?gonquin appointees] to stop the agreement. Algonquins, who are not part of the colony of Canada, do not come under the Indian Act. Elders nominate eligible leaders who are then approved, by consensus if possible, in assemblies. Participation is open only to those who live in the community, speak the language, and have knowledge of and connection to the land. Since they rejected the colonial ?implants?, the majority have been deprived of employment, education and social assistance. Electricity is being run by local generators. The parents of more than half of the children refuse to send them to Indian Affairs funded schools. The reason is because the curriculum, no Indigenous language instruction and no say in the running of the school. Volunteer community members are educating the children. They need school and food supplies. There are no phone lines. They subsist on bush food and donations. This sounds like Kanehsatake. We wouldn?t be surprised if the same players are involved in Barriere Lake. See the list of slimy bureaucrats at end of this article. In 1997 Quebec Superior Court Judge R?jean Paul and two federal facilitators ordered that the legitimate chief and council be restored and that the trilateral agreement be upheld. Indian Affairs, Quebec and their appointees rejected this order. In 2007, Rejean Paul returned and agreed that, opponents to the traditional chief and council was "a small minority". Even so, in January 2008 this minority group conducted another supposed leadership selection which was quickly recognized by the filthy, dirty Indian Affairs department, Andre Cote himself. In 1998 Quebec signed a complementary Bi-lateral agreement. In 2006 two former Quebec Cabinet Ministers, John Ciaccia and Barriere Lake special representative, Clifford Lincoln, made recommendations to implement the agreement in 2006. Said Norman Matchewan, "Forestry operations will not be allowed on our Tri-lateral agreement territory, and we will be doing more non-violent direct action." The Algonquin Nation Secretariat, the Tribal Council representing three Algonquin communities including Barriere Lake, continues to recognize and work with Customary Chief Benjamin Nottaway and his Council. Posted by MNN Staff www.mohawknationnews.com Posted by MNN Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com Go to MNN for more stories under Category ?Canada?; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois Contact the Barriere Lake people: Michel Thusky, Barriere Lake spokesperson: 819 - 435 ? 2171 m_wawatie at hotmail.com; Norman Matchewan, Barriere Lake spokesperson: 514 - 831 ? 6902; Marylynn Poucachiche, Barriere Lake spokesperson: 438 - 868 - 3957 WATCH OUT FOR THESE SLIMEY BUREAUCRATS. They all work together to plan these attacks on us. - High up ? Chantal ?Who-Has-a-Dirty-Hand-in-Everything? Bernier chantal.bernier at psepc-sppcc.gc.ca; - Ryan W. ?Sour-Man? Monsour, Quebec Caucus Liaison, PMO, PSEPC, 613-991-2924; - Margaret ?Trying-to-Suck-Every-Last-Drop-of-Indian-Blood-Now-might-Be-Getting-Her-Fangs-Ready-for-Algonquins? Bloodworth, ?National Security Advisor? to Prime Minister, Margaret.bloodworth at psepc-sppcc.gc.ca, 613-957-5466; Indian Affairs sewer rats - Pierre ?Jellyfish? Nepton, Indian Affairs Quebec; - Walter ?Whose-Billy-Club-Has-Been-Taken-Away? Walling, wallingw at ainc-inac.gc.ca; Christian ?Anti-Christ? Rouleau, rouleau.c at ainc-inac.gc.ca; - Andre ?Turn? Cote, cote.a at ainc-inac.gc.ca; - Stuart ?Swan-Song? Swanson, swanson.s at ainc-inac.gc.ca; - Paul ?The-White-Man? Leblanc, leblanc.p at ainc-inac.gc.ca; - Zuwena ?Squeal? Robidas, Indian Affairs mouthpiece, zuwena.robidas at pspec-sppcc.gc.ca 613-993-2596; - Helene ?Parrot? Philippe, another Indian Affairs mouthpiece, philippe.h at ainc-inac.gc.ca; - David ?Economic-Hit-Man? Hillman, DG Econ. Dev. david.hallman at psepc-sppcc.gc.ca 819-953-0517; More Emergency Preparedness creeps - Jean ?Lapse-of-Selected-Memory? Chartrand, jean.chartrand at psepc-sppcc.gc.ca 613-990-8470; - Denise ?Who-was-in-there-like-a-dirty-shirt? Charron, denise.charron at spepc-sppcc.gc.ca 613-991-1694; Other excreta agents of the crown - Yvan ?Who-Maintains-Toilet-Supplies? Dery, for the Privy Council Office ydery at pco-bcp.gc.ca; - Gilles ?Pig-Shop-Keeper? Rochon, Aboriginal Policing, gilles.rochon at psepc.gc.ca 613-990-2666; - Emanuel ?Little-Lamb? Chabot, emmanuel.chabot at psept-sppcc.gc.ca 613-990-4353; - ?Slippery? Jim Beaver jim.beaver at pspec-sppcc.gc.ca; - Peter ?Flat-Foot? Fisher, Police Services PSEPC fax 613-991-0961; - Louise ?Who-Doesn?t-Know-the-Half-of-It? Savage louise.savage at psepc-sppcc.gc.ca; - Sylvia ?Ambulance Chaser? McKenzie, Justice Canada sylvia.mackenzie at sppcc-psept.gc.ca 613-998-3952; - Annik ?The-Squeak? Pelletier, Justice Canada apelleti at justice.gc.ca; - Louis-Alexandre ?Who-Sits-on-a-Very-High-Chair? Guay, Justice, lguay at justice.gc.ca; - Ghyslain ?Who-Readily-Grabs-the-Colonial-Persuasion-Money? Picard AFN Quebec reception at afn.ca; Help! Give a piece of your mind to: GG Michaelle jean info at gg.ca; Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Fax 613-941-6900 pm at pm.gc.ca; Lawrence Cannon, Transportation Minister and member for Pontiac, 613-99202940; Fax 613-944-9376; Chuckie ?Baby? Strahl, Indian Affairs Minister, 819-997-0002, Fax 819-953-4941 strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Jean Charest, Quebec Premier, 418-643-5321 514-873-3411 We need to tell Canada and Quebec and their agents to: (1) immediately stop their attacks and police brutality; (2) to honor the Trilateral Agreement they signed with the Algonquins of Barriere Lake; (3) to support the Barriere Lake community?s struggle for the right to chose its own leadership; and (4) to get Indian Affairs the h---lout of Barrier Lake unless asked! Resources: Laurier Riel Report, part I - Riel witnessed the alleged leadership selection, whose result was recognized by Indian Affairs on March 10, 2008; Laurier Riel Report, part II; Federal MP, Lawrence Cannon's Message to the Community in Le Droit (22 September 2008); Norman Matchewan's Response to Lawrence Cannon in Le Droit (26 September 2008); Trilateral Agreement - discussed in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP); 2007 leadership report by Quebec Superior Court Rhejean Paul; Legal challenge of Federal Government's deposition of Barriere Lake's Customary Chief and Council; Assembly of First Nations briefing note - January 2008 From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 16:47:11 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:47:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Mitsubishi and Morgan Stanley Renegotiating Message-ID: A local friend of mine jokes: if worst comes to worst, the US can annex Saudi Arabia. But why stop there on the way to the highest stage of ultra-imperialism: America, China, Japan, Germany, and Saudi Arabia together legally conglomerated into a new United States, bringing Americans -- thank Allah and Confucius -- once again back in the black? Granted, a fitting acronym for this new ultra-imperialist conglomerate is hard to come up with. -- Yoshie October 13, 2008 Mitsubishi and Morgan Stanley Renegotiating By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN Morgan Stanley was racing to salvage a crucial investment from a big Japanese bank on Sunday in an effort to allay growing fears about its future ? negotiations so critical to the financial markets that they have drawn in both the Treasury Department and the Japanese government. Morgan Stanley, one of the most storied names on Wall Street, was locked in talks on Sunday to renegotiate its planned $9 billion investment from the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group of Japan, according to people involved in the talks. The completion of a deal might help calm markets worldwide, which sank last week because of escalating concerns about the fate of financial institutions like Morgan Stanley. Investors might read the investment as a sign of confidence in the bank's future. Mitsubishi was pressing for more favorable terms after Morgan Stanley lost nearly half its market value during last week's stock market plunge. Treasury, however, is not planning to have the United States government take a direct stake in Morgan Stanley as part of a broader effort to stabilize the financial industry and the markets, these people said. Wall Street had buzzed Friday that such a move might be unavoidable. Morgan Stanley is in the midst of the gravest crisis in its 74-year history, even though analysts estimate that the bank has more than $100 billion in capital. Morgan Stanley's shares price has plunged nearly 82 percent this year, closing at $9.68 on Friday. Last month, Mitsubishi agreed buy about 21 percent of Morgan Stanley. The investment was to be made in the form of $3 billion in common stock, at $25.35 a share, as well as $6 billion in convertible preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend and a conversion price of $31.25 a share. Under the proposed new terms being discussed on Sunday, Mitsubishi would still buy roughly 21 percent of Morgan Stanley, these people said. But all of the investment would be through preferred shares, with a 10 percent annual dividend. Many of those shares would be convertible into common stock, but the Japanese bank was trying to set a conversion price far lower than originally proposed. Morgan Stanley and Mitsubishi have been in constant contact with government officials this weekend, these people said. Mitsubishi and the Japanese government have sought assurances from the Treasury Department that if the United States were to decide to inject money into Morgan Stanley at a later time ? a possibility some analysts do not rule out ? that such a move would not wipe out preferred shareholders. The Treasurey has indicated that it might use some of the $700 billion bailout package to take direct stakes in banks, but it has not spelled out how it would do so. Investors suffered deep losses when the government effectively nationalized the nation's largest mortgage finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is unclear how far those discussion have gone or whether any such assurances would be forthcoming. Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury Secretary, has pushed both companies to come up with a private-market solution and has indicated that he does not believe that Morgan Stanley needs capital from the United States government. However, he privately hinted to members of both companies that the government would back Morgan Stanley if it came to that, these people said, suggesting that he does not want to repeat the troubles that resulted from allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt. George Soros, the billionaire investor, wrote in a column in The Financial Times that Morgan Stanley needs to be rescued by the U.S. government. "The Treasury should offer to match Mitsubishi's investment with preferred shares whose conversion price is higher than Mitsubishi's purchase price," Mr. Soros wrote. "This will save the Mitsubishi deal and buy time for successfully implementing the recapitalization and mortgage reform programs." While the negotiations remained fluid, people close to both sides expressed confidence that a deal would be struck. The companies are hoping to announce the terms of the transaction and Mitsubishi's commitment to complete the deal by Monday morning, before the stock market open in the United States. Over the past week, Mitsubishi and Morgan Stanley have issued statements insisting that they planned to complete the deal on the original terms. Spokespeople for Mitsubishi and Morgan Stanley declined to comment on Sunday. Morgan Stanley converted itself into a bank holding company one week after Lehman Brothers collapsed last month. That business model makes it easier for Morgan Stanley to borrow from the Federal Reserve. The firm has also lowered its gross leverage levels to under 20 times. Mitsubishi has large ambitions for expansion into the United States. It recently purchased the remaining shares of UnionBanCal, a bank in California, for a premium over its share price. Mitsubishi had owned the majority of UnionBanCal since 1996. Edmund L. Andrews and Eric Dash contributed reporting. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Oct 13 00:15:10 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:15:10 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The world is at severe risk ... Message-ID: <48F2E76E.4050009@attglobal.net> ... of a global systemic financial meltdown and a severe global depression by Nouriel Roubini RGE Monitor (October 09 2008) The US and advanced economies' financial system is now headed towards a near-term systemic financial meltdown as day after day stock markets are in free fall, money markets have shut down while their spreads are skyrocketing, and credit spreads are surging through the roof. There is now the beginning of a generalized run on the banking system of these economies; a collapse of the shadow banking system, that is, those non-banks (broker dealers, non-bank mortgage lenders, SIV and conduits, hedge funds, money market funds, private equity firms) that, like banks, borrow short and liquid, are highly leveraged and lend and invest long and illiquid and are thus at risk of a run on their short-term liabilities; and now a roll-off of the short term liabilities of the corporate sectors that may lead to widespread bankruptcies of solvent but illiquid financial and non-financial firms. On the real economic side all the advanced economies representing 55% of global GDP (US, Eurozone, UK, other smaller European countries, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan) entered a recession even before the massive financial shocks that started in the late summer made the liquidity and credit crunch even more virulent and will thus cause an even more severe recession than the one that started in the spring. So we have a severe recession, a severe financial crisis and a severe banking crisis in advanced economies. There was no decoupling among advanced economies and there is no decoupling but rather recoupling of the emerging market economies with the severe crisis of the advanced economies. By the third quarter of this year global economic growth will be in negative territory signaling a global recession. The recoupling of emerging markets was initially limited to stock markets that fell even more than those of advanced economies as foreign investors pulled out of these markets; but then it spread to credit markets and money markets and currency markets bringing to the surface the vulnerabilities of many financial systems and corporate sectors that had experienced credit booms fand that had borrowed short and in foreign currencies. Countries with large current account deficit and/or large fiscal deficits and with large short term foreign currency liabilities and borrowings have been the most fragile. But even the better performing ones - like the BRICs club of Brazil, Russia, India and China - are now at risk of a hard landing. Trade and financial and currency and confidence channels are now leading to a massive slowdown of growth in emerging markets with many of them now at risk not only of a recession but also of a severe financial crisis. The crisis was caused by the largest leveraged asset bubble and credit bubble in the history of humanity where excessive leveraging and bubbles were not limited to housing in the US but also to housing in many other countries and excessive borrowing by financial institutions and some segments of the corporate sector and of the public sector in many and different economies: an housing bubble, a mortgage bubble, an equity bubble, a bond bubble, a credit bubble, a commodity bubble, a private equity bubble, a hedge funds bubble are all now bursting at once in the biggest real sector and financial sector deleveraging since the Great Depression. At this point the recession train has left the station; the financial and banking crisis train has left the station. The delusion that the US and advanced economies contraction would be short and shallow - a V-shaped six month recession - has been replaced by the certainty that this will be a long and protracted U-shaped recession that may last at least two years in the US and close to two years in most of the rest of the world. And given the rising risk of a global systemic financial meltdown the probability that the outcome could become a decade long L-shaped recession - like the one experienced by Japan after the bursting of its real estate and equity bubble - cannot be ruled out. And in a world where there is a glut and excess capacity of goods while aggregate demand is falling soon enough we will start to worry about deflation, debt deflation, liquidity traps and what monetary policy makers should do to fight deflation when policy rates get dangerously close to zero. At this point the risk of an imminent stock market crash - like the one-day collapse of twenty percent plus in US stock prices in 1987 - cannot be ruled out as the financial system is breaking down, panic and lack of confidence in any counterparty is sharply rising and the investors have totally lost faith in the ability of policy authorities to control this meltdown. This disconnect between more and more aggressive policy actions and easings and greater and greater strains in financial market is scary. When Bear Stearns' creditors were bailed out to the tune of $30 billion in March the rally in equity, money and credit markets lasted eight weeks; when in July the US Treasury announced legislation to bail out the mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie the rally lasted four weeks; when the actual $200 billion rescue of these firms was undertaken and their $6 trillion liabilities taken over by the US government the rally lasted one day and by the next day the panic has moved to Lehman's collapse; when AIG was bailed out to the tune of $85 billion the market did not even rally for a day and instead fell five percent. Next when the $700 billion US rescue package was passed by the US Senate and House markets fell another seven percent in two days as there was no confidence in this flawed plan and the authorities. Next as authorities in the US and abroad took even more radical policy actions between October 6th and October 9th (payment of interest on reserves, doubling of the liquidity support of banks, extension of credit to the seized corporate sector, guarantees of bank deposits, plans to recapitalize banks, coordinated monetary policy easing, et cetera) the stock markets and the credit markets and the money markets fell further and further and at an accelerated rates day after day all week including another seven percent fall in US equities today. When in markets that are clearly way oversold even the most radical policy actions don't provide rallies or relief to market participants you know that you are one step away from a market crack and a systemic financial sector and corporate sector collapse. A vicious circle of deleveraging, asset collapses, margin calls, cascading falls in asset prices well below falling fundamentals and panic is now underway. At this point severe damage is done and one cannot rule out a systemic collapse and a global depression. It will take a significant change in leadership of economic policy and very radical, coordinated policy actions among all advanced and emerging market economies to avoid this economic and financial disaster. Urgent and immediate necessary actions that need to be done globally (with some variants across countries depending on the severity of the problem and the overall resources available to the sovereigns) include: * another rapid round of policy rate cuts of the order of at least 150 basis points on average globally; * a temporary blanket guarantee of all deposits while a triage between insolvent financial institutions that need to be shut down and distressed but solvent institutions that need to be partially nationalized with injections of public capital is made; * a rapid reduction of the debt burden of insolvent households preceded by a temporary freeze on all foreclosures; * massive and unlimited provision of liquidity to solvent financial institutions; * public provision of credit to the solvent parts of the corporate sector to avoid a short-term debt refinancing crisis for solvent but illiquid corporations and small businesses; * a massive direct government fiscal stimulus packages that includes public works, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, tax rebates to lower income households and provision of grants to strapped and crunched state and local government; * a rapid resolution of the banking problems via triage, public recapitalization of financial institutions and reduction of the debt burden of distressed households and borrowers; * an agreement between lender and creditor countries running current account surpluses and borrowing and debtor countries running current account deficits to maintain an orderly financing of deficits and a recycling of the surpluses of creditors to avoid a disorderly adjustment of such imbalances. At this point anything short of these radical and coordinated actions may lead to a market crash, a global systemic financial meltdown and to a global depression. At this stage central banks that are usually supposed to be the "lenders of last resort" need to become the "lenders of first and only resort" as, under conditions of panic and total loss of confidence, no one in the private sector is lending to anyone else since counterparty risk is extreme. And fiscal authorities that usually are spenders and insurers of last resort need to temporarily become the spenders and insurers of first resort. The fiscal costs of these actions will be large but the economic and fiscal costs of inaction would be of a much larger and severe magnitude. Thus, the time to act is now as all the policy officials of the world are meeting this weekend in Washington at the IMF and World Bank annual meetings. Thursday midnite update: A few hours after I had written this note the market crash that I warned about is underway in Asia: the Nikkei index in Japan is down eleven percent and all other Asian markets are sharply down. This reinforces the urgency of credible and rapid policy actions by the G7 financial officials who are meeting in a few hours in Washington and the need to also involve in such global policy coordination the systemically important emergent market economies. http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253973/the_world_is_at_severe_risk_of_a_global_systemic_financial_meltdown_and_a_severe_global_depression http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 07:59:54 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:59:54 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Good morning Neighborhood Team Leaders Message-ID: <48F31C1A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Good morning Neighborhood Team Leaders: Thank you for attending the Get Out the Vote (GOTV) Training yesterday afternoon. We really appreciate your hard work and continued commitment to Team #__ and the Michigan Campaign for Change during the past few weeks! There will be a Team Leader Meeting this evening at 7:30 p.m. at Sala Thai Restaurant locates at (Lafayette Tower Shopping Plaza). At the meeting we will discuss how to implement the campaign's GOTV strategy during the last few weeks remaining between now and the election. Please plan to attend. Please contact me at ...t. to confirm that you will attend the meeting. Again, thank you for your continued support of the Michigan Campaign for Change! T. Neighorbhood Team # __ Coordinator Michigan Campaign for Change ?If you don?t like the way the world is, you change it. You have an obligation to change it. You just do it one step at a time.? Marian Wright Edelman This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 08:33:36 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:33:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Mad Activist's Declaration of Codependence Message-ID: The Mad Activist's Declaration of Codependence by Susie Day The sages of History say, Know Thyself -- and I do. I used to be a peace activist, but thanks to the sages of pop-psychology, I see now that I am a codependent. Yet I refuse to be your ordinary, run-of-the-mill codependent, who's stuck in a crappy relationship with just one needy, abusive individual. I say, Nyet to that. I'm not the "oh-my-man-I-love-him-so" wifey whose husband beats her senseless, steals her credit cards to pay off his gambling debts, kicks her cat through a window, then goes out on a drunken binge and murders nine people. I'm not the girl who quits her job, forgets her dreams of becoming an award-winning cha-cha dancer, and spends the rest of her life setting up legal defense teams, praying that one day her precious dickwad will walk out of prison -- because, really, wasn't the whole thing her fault? If I give up the best years of my life, it's not going to be to "enable" the destructive behavior of one measly alcoholic; it's going to be for an entire government, see? As an activist-turned-codependent, my purpose in life is to enable the destructive behavior of the United States of America. So even though America steals my money to pay off gambling debts, beats me senseless, kicks my cat through a window, then goes out on power-drunken binges, bombing people, poisoning the planet, and annihilating whole civilizations -- I know that, deep down, America really loves me. Oh sure, I stay at home a lot, weeping into my pillow. But then I remember that America hurts, too. America may seem needy and demanding, but, secretly, America is afraid I will go over to some other power. That's why America searches my bag and taps my phone. America is jealous. It's kind of cute. America: Love him or leave him. Actually, I see America as a sort of megalomaniacal, paranoid schizophrenic rage-aholic -- but in a good way, like for global dominance? Sometimes, I talk to America; I try to tell America how my day was, what I'm feeling. I have this shameful hope that America will someday see me for the fragile, iridescent, unrepeatable person that I am. But America remains distant, distracted -- even when I agonize about losing my job; even when I say my health plan's running out. It's my fault, I guess; I tend to pick emotionally unavailable governments. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 09:01:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:01:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Chomsky: Bretton Woods, and the right to restrict capital movements Message-ID: <48F32A98.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> ts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "MARGARET WYLES" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bretton Woods was the system of global financial > management set up at the end of the second World > War to ensure the interests of capital did not > smother wider social concerns in post-war > democracies. It was hated by the US neoliberals - > the very people who created the banking crisis writes Noam Chomsky > > Interesting that Berlosconi is calling for a new Bretton Woods at the 'urgency' summit this weekend. Wonder what that portends. ^^^^^ CB: Well, we just had a Mussolini-style fascist move in the US wherein the center of state-monopoly corporatism, finance imperialism, showed its power over the world leading US state by getting a trillion or so dollar gift. Now that's a boss of the President and Congress. Maybe they're going to add an international fascist component. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 10:37:34 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:37:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] European Banks Offer Unlimited Dollar Funding, Markets Cheer Bank Bail-outs Message-ID: Multinational investors' vote of confidence in ultra-imperialism. . . . -- Yoshie Markets cheer bank bail-outs By John Willman, Business Editor Published: October 13 2008 15:18 | Last updated: October 13 2008 15:18 Germany, France and other European countries have unveiled bail-out plans to recapitalise their banks and reopen credit markets, following the British announcement of measures to nationalise the UK banking system. The world's stock markets soared as details emerged of the co-ordinated European campaign to spend more than ?1,100bn on bailing out the continent's troubled banks. London's FTSE 100 rose more than 5 per cent after the British government announced its plans to inject ?37bn into three of the country's biggest banks. Other European stock markets followed suit as Germany and France announced their plans, Italy's cabinet passed a new decree offering more support to the financial sector, and the Spanish government approved a guarantee for issues of new bank debt. Europe's central banks promised unlimited dollar funding in co-ordinated action with the US Federal Reserve. The European Central Bank, Bank of England and Swiss National Bank said they were ready to inject as much as needed into the markets for dollar funding covering periods of seven days, a month and 84 days. Confidence in the money markets showed signs of returning as the interbank cost of borrowing in sterling, euros and dollars fell. Three-month euro Libor posted its biggest decline this year and three-month dollar Libor had its steepest fall since March. US stocks rallied when Wall Street opened, as details began to emerge of the plan to recapitalise US banks and other financial institutions. Neel Kashkari, the Treasury assistant secretary appointed by Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, to run the US government's $700bn bail-out fund, said the scheme would be "voluntary" in his first public statements since his appointment. "The equity purchase programme will be voluntary and designed with attractive terms to encourage participation from healthy institutions." Mr Kashkari said Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, would lead the oversight board for the troubled asset relief programme. That panel, which met for the first time last week, also includes Mr Paulson and the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other moves, Australia and New Zealand announced guarantees for all bank deposits, as did the United Arab Emirates, while Saudi Arabia cut its interest rates. The Swedish government said on Monday it would unveil steps to safeguard their financial sector in the next few days, but did not plan to inject capital into the Nordic country's banks. Norway announced at the weekend it would offer its commercial banks up to $55.4bn in government bonds in exchange for mortgage debt and Portugal said it would make as much as ?20bn available in guarantees for its banks' financing. Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, defended his government's "unprecedented but essential" ?37bn injection that could leave it owning a majority stake in Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the world's biggest banks, and more than 40 per cent of the combined Lloyds TSB and HBOS, which is set to be the country's largest mortgage lender. The German government endorsed measures closely modelled on the British rescue plan unveiled last week, will initially empower the finance ministry provide as much as ?500bn in loan guarantees and capital to bolster the banking system. The French government pledged ?360bn to the country's banks, including ?320bn of loan guarantees and ?40bn to buy stakes in French banks. The guarantees will run through to the end of 2009. European banks offer unlimited dollar funding By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt Published: October 13 2008 10:03 | Last updated: October 13 2008 13:31 European central banks have opened the floodgates with promises of unlimited dollar funding in a coordinated action with the US Federal Reserve. The European Central Bank, Bank of England and Swiss National Bank said they were ready to inject as much as needed into the markets for dollars funding covering periods of seven days, a month and 84 days. Banks would "be able to borrow any amount they wish against the appropriate collateral in each jurisdiction," the central banks said in a statement. In Tokyo, the Bank of Japan said it was considering a similar step. The joint move marks a further dramatic escalation of the weaponry being used by the world's monetary authorities to unblock paralysed financial markets, and follows the ECB decision last week to offer unlimited euro liquidity in its regular weekly actions. As in that move, the unlimited dollar funding announced on Monday will be made available at a fixed interest rate ? rather than banks bidding according to how desperate their need is for cash. Swap lines agreed with the US Fed would be expanded to whatever size deemed necessary by demand, the central banks said. The announcement was met with a fall in Libor rates, the lending rate banks charge each other to lend, which have been at historically high levels. According to the British Bankers' Association the three-month dollar libor dropped to 4.7525 per cent from 4.81875 per cent on Friday. The one-month rate fell to 4.56 per cent from 4.5875 per cent as signs of the co-ordinated efforts in Europe, Asia and the US to tackle the global financial crisis were beginning to have an effect. After attending weekend meetings of global policy makers in Washington and eurozone leaders in Paris, Jean-Claude Trichet, ECB president had signalled late on Sunday that the ECB was urgently considering further steps it could take to avert a financial markets catastrophe. "We can imagine new measures to enlarge access to our system of guarantees," he said. The Frankfurt-based institution could broaden the range of assets it accepts as collateral in money market operations, Mr Trichet hinted. But he argued that the ECB did not have the legal power to follow the example set by the US Fed and buy commercial paper. Highlighting the role the world's central banks are playing in the absence of functioning markets, the ECB said a record ?154.6bn had been parked with at the weekend at a penalty low interest rate ? a measure of the mutual distrust between private-sector banks. The European central banks said the first seven-day auctions of unlimited dollar liquidity would be held on Wednesday. The interest rate will be announced in advance by the ECB, the Bank of England and the Swiss central bank. The ECB said that from Thursday, the emergency injections of overnight dollar liquidity would be conducted "only if necessary". In their statement, the central banks said they would "continue to work together and are prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to provide sufficient liquidity in short-term funding markets." Full text: US Treasury Tarp plans Published: October 13 2008 13:44 | Last updated: October 13 2008 13:44 Neel Kashkari, Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, gave more details of the Tarp plan to the Institute of International Bankers on Monday morning CTOBER 13, 2008, 12:09 P.M. ET Stock Market Rebounds Stocks Rise Sharply After Vows of New Bank Capital By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM Published: October 13, 2008 From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 11:18:06 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:18:06 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Recent history of bailouts Message-ID: <48F34A8E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> US capitalism has been operating on state-monopoly ( definition of a monopoly is "too big to fail) underwriting or subsidizing for a while. What are the amounts of these bailouts ? Are there others ? Charles Chrysler bailout - 1979 ? S & L bailout LTCM bailout 2008: GM-Chrysler-Ford loan bailout AIG Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Paulson's $ 700 billion to what company ? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 12:40:56 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:40:56 -0400 Subject: [A-List] =?utf-8?q?Is_this_Capitalism=E2=80=99s_End_of_Days=3F?= Message-ID: <48F35DF9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Counterfeit currency Is this Capitalism?s End of Days? By Norman Markowitz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- click here for related stories: economy 10-08-08, 12:37 pm The economic crisis continues to escalate and it is a crisis of the capitalist system as the system has devolved in the US and globally in recent decades. It is not a crisis of ?Wall Street? aka the stock market or ?finance? aka the banks because the stock market and the banks are inter-related and with ?deregulation? directly interconnected institutions of the capitalist system. For those of us not ready to pass through the golden gates and ascend to Free Market Heaven where there is no regulation or taxation, three questions arise? What is being done? What should be done? What can be done? First, what is being done is to pump money into the system. The goal is to buy up the ?bad paper? that has functioned as a sort of counterfeit currency in a world where public policy has encouraged the worst of capitalist speculation on a scale greater (because the world economy is so much greater) than ever before. Does the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve have enough money literally to do this? In the ?brave new world "of multi-trillion dollar and euro unregulated global hedge funds, a world where transnational firms are in many instances literally working off the books, I really don?t know. And, more importantly, I don?t think that those who are pumping in the money from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve know either? Register to vote here What they are doing now is to use a version of Keynesian compensatory fiscal as the policy to ?pump prime? the economy, as it was called in the 1930s, in order to ward off a major depression. But they are doing it in a chaotic, helter-skelter way, with no serious concessions to workers who face unemployment as credit contraction continues, the millions of homeowners who face foreclosure without any ban on foreclosures or any judicial discretion in debt restructuring. Nor is there any mention of the long battered public sector where state and local governments, relying on bond issues and regressive taxes to fund education, police, fire, and other basic services, may face collapse as the crisis expands to the bond market and local property taxes move toward confiscatory levels. What can be done? To answer this, let us exclude entirely the likely answers of Palin and McCain, that is, prayer and tax cuts for the corporations and the rich, respectively, along with their mock outrage against greedy Wall Streeters. Let us also exclude what the Federal Reserve Board itself seems to be excluding, that is, the monetary theory of the late Milton Friedman, on which it and the central banks of other major capitalist countries in significant ways have been operating for decades, that is intervening with interest rate increases and decreases to alternatively stimulate and dampen down capital flows in the economy and thus let the ?free market? operate without state intervention in the form of jobs, housing, health care, transportation energy. However, bailouts of banks, brokerage houses, corporations, which don?t fit into the theories of Adam Smith in the 18th century, with greatly influenced the nineteenth, or the theories of Milton Friedman in the 20th, century, which promised a triumphant return to the 19th, seem to keep on happening when big capitalists get in big trouble. It is almost as if government serves dominant class interests instead of being a ?neutral? force, a passive policeman, or a buddy to stakeholders. I am sure Milton Friedman would have opposed the Treasury department orchestrated bailout last week. And, although I do not commune with spirits, I think he certainly would be aghast at the Federal Reserve buying up all this bad paper. After all, he long contended that the US could have avoided both the great depression and the New Deal (a terrible deviation from ?economic freedom?) with the correct monetary policy. He would probably say if he were still with us that his monetary theories should be given a chance to work, that in the long run all will be well if the ?market? is kept as free as possible. And the theorist whom he spent much of his life trying to supplant (not Karl Marx, but John Maynard Keynes) would probably repeat the sarcastic answer he gave to his ?free market critics? during the depression that is, ?in the long run everyone is dead.? What should be done before Keynes' warning becomes prophecy? In the US and globally through the IMF and World Bank, there can be a repudiation of the policies that have emanated from Friedman?s monetary theories and a revival and updating of both regulation and compensatory fiscal policies aimed at maintaining effective purchasing power in national economies. This means providing economic and social protections for workers and farmers instead of forcing poor countries to eliminate existing subsidies to facilitate ?market development.? This means also building over time the World Labor Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN into instruments that will at the very least regulate both transnational corporations and agribusiness in the interest of workers and farmers in poor countries, raising the purchasing power of the people within those countries in order to make international trade a two way, not a one way street. In the US, particularly what should be done is the dismantling of what was once called ?Reaganomics? the grotesque combination of Friedmanite Monetary Theory with a prominent US historian earlier called ?Military Keynesianism.? To achieve this, what is needed is nothing more than a ?new New Deal,? and one that will in all likelihood have to be more experimental, flexible, and radical then the first. That ?new New Deal? should in the first hundred days of an Obama administration write new National Banking and Securities and Exchange Acts, repealing the deregulation of the last thirty years, and restructuring consumer debt for personal property (including home a mortgages). That ?new? New Deal should repeal in its entirety the Taft-Hartley law and threaten those states who seek to continue anti-union shop policies under various subterfuges with a cut off of federal funding. That ?new New Deal? should institute in its first year far reaching cuts in the military budget. A reduction of something like $50 billion should in the first year should be considered a minimum and those cuts should continue annually. These cuts should also be re-invested in federal public sector programs, federal aid to education, the establishment a national public health care system, the revival of public housing programs which went into eclipse in the Reagan era and public energy policies which fell by the wayside in after World War II. Finally, the first 100 days of a ?new New Deal? in an Obama administration should do more than close tax loopholes, but repeal the entire ?detaxation? policy of the Reagan-Bush era. Ideally, it would restore progressive income and corporation taxes, capital gains taxes, and in the process begin to collect hundreds of billions of dollars which will permit it, along with military budget cutbacks, increased revenues from increased real wages and incomes of working people, to both fund social revitalization, reduce the federal deficit and through its policies aid state and local governments to reduce their deficits. How much of this will be done depends on what happens in this coming election. If McCain wins, we can be reasonably certain that none of it will be done, because even with an expanded Democratic majority, he would veto virtually all of it. If Obama wins, the size of his victory and the continuation of the grassroots movements and activism that served was the mass base for his candidacy, along with his inclinations and the size of the crisis he confronts upon taking office will largely determine the policies of his first 100 days, whether it is just a half a loaf improvement from the Bush disaster or a comprehensive reversal of what Obama himself has called ?an economic philosophy which has failed completely.? All of this can be done, within the context of the present capitalist system. Immediately, meaning right now, Congress can push through a repeal of Gramm-Leach and the Obama campaign can begin to outline its economic policy, leaving McCain and Palin continue their silly and petty personal attacks, which merely highlights the fact that they have no plan, no policy, and no idea of what to do exist get elected and continue the policies that have produced the present crisis. Hopefully, we will begin to see an outline of the Obama?s first 100 days as he addresses the expanding economic crisis in the last weeks before the election. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 12:42:20 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:42:20 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Labor-led coalition demands recovery plan for Main Street Message-ID: <48F35E4D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Labor-led coalition demands recovery plan for Main Street Author: John Wojcik People's Weekly World Newspaper, 10/09/08 14:06 Leaders of many of the nation?s most powerful unions have joined with heads of dozens of progressive community and political organizations to map out an economic recovery plan for Main Street. In a message titled ?A Call for Common Sense,? they demanded that Congress support public oversight of the recently passed Wall Street bailout, tight new regulations for Wall Street, measures to keep people from losing their homes to foreclosure, strict limits on CEO compensation and a massive public program to rebuild the nation?s crumbling infrastructure. Leading the signers were the heads of the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the United Steelworkers and the Communications Workers of America. Others included leaders of ACORN, Jobs with Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Consumers League, Campaign for America?s Future and many more. These groups and others are now putting a priority on electing Barack Obama and a bigger Democratic majority in Congress as the next step to win a Main Street recovery plan. As record new jobless figures were announced Oct. 3, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney declared, ?The roots of the current economic crisis are decades deep. They reflect the basic elitism that underlines the Bush administration?s economic agenda and has permeated McCain?s as well for his 26 years in the Senate. These rules favor corporate profits and Wall Street investors and not the working people who build our cities, teach our children and nurse our ills.? The same day, President Bush signed the bailout measure giving $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. But Republicans have blocked an economic recovery package for workers, despite the signs of increasing desperation on Main Street. While the bailout may ultimately provide some relief to the tanking stock market and failing banks, progressive leaders say it does not address the center of the economic storm. The Labor Department announcement said 159,000 additional jobs were lost in September ? making the total jobs lost this year more than 760,000. Responding to the new jobless numbers, Sweeney said, ?It is essential that we provide immediate relief to families across the country who are bearing the brunt of the economic meltdown.? Immediately after approving the bailout, the Democratic-majority House approved an additional extension of unemployment benefits for long-term jobless workers. The bill provides a 7-week extension for workers who exhaust their benefits, with a 13-week extension in states with the highest rate of joblessness. More than 1.1 million workers will, by the end of the year, exhaust both their regular unemployment benefits and the13 weeks of extended benefits passed earlier this year. Bush said Oct. 2 that he continues to oppose any additional unemployment benefits. That same day Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats to bring the unemployment extension bill to a vote by unanimous consent. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the ringleader of the effort to block the extension. McConnell is facing a strong election challenge from labor-endorsed Bruce Lunsford. As bad as the news on the job-loss front is, the full picture is far gloomier because the number of long-term unemployed (those out of work for more than six months) grew to 2 million in September, an increase of 728,000 over the past 12 months. A recent Economic Policy Institute report showed that in July there were 2.6 job seekers for every available job ? a hike of more than 60 percent from just a year earlier when there were 1.6 job seekers for every opening. Economist Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said, ?It is almost entirely the fault of Bush administration policy that things have gotten as bad as they have.? Obama called for enactment of a Main Street economic stimulus package, saying, ?Instead of Sen. McCain?s plan to give tax breaks to CEOs and companies that ship jobs overseas, we must rebuild the middle class by creating millions of new jobs, and by investing in infrastructure and renewable energy that will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East.? Obama also called on Congress to ?pass an immediate rescue plan for our middle class that will provide tax relief, save one million jobs, and save our local communities from harmful budget cuts and painful tax increases.? John McCain opposes such stimulus measures for working families. McCain failed to show up for the Senate vote on the first stimulus bill last spring. jwojcik @pww.org This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 12:43:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:43:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The crisis of family debt Message-ID: <48F35EA1.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The crisis of family debt Author: Art Perlo People's Weekly World Newspaper, 10/06/08 17:38 There is broad consensus among labor unions and progressive organizations, economists and politicians that we need a bottom-up solution to the economic crisis. That is, the priority should be fixing Main Street, not Wall Street. The main proposals include: 1) A moratorium on home foreclosures, and giving bankruptcy courts the power to renegotiate mortgages. 2) Extend unemployment benefits and increase funding for food stamps, heating assistance, and other survival programs. 3) Aid to state and local governments so they can avoid layoffs and reductions in vital services. 4) Rebuilding the infrastructure of America: clean energy, roads, bridges, water systems, schools, and housing, providing good-paying jobs. Bailing out Wall Street without fixing Main Street is like fixing the cracks in the wall while your foundation is crumbling. The measures listed above, as well as more basic changes, are necessary. But with more than 100,000 families losing their homes each month, I would like to focus on one critical part of the foundation -- stopping foreclosures and keeping families in their homes. The root of the crisis is that working families have been squeezed from all sides, especially since the recession of 2001. Household income has been falling behind the increasing cost of necessities. The squeeze has been aggravated by the decline of medical coverage and retirement plans, shifting these costs, along with soaring costs for education, food and energy, onto over-strained family budgets. Many have dealt with this strain by going into debt. They were pushed deeper by the mortgage brokers, real estate agents, appraisers, and credit card vendors, who piled on fees, charges, and hidden interest rates, often based on wildly inflated housing prices. Even when this debt was not the result of outright fraud and conspiracy by the financial and real estate industries, it was in violation of any reasonable banking standards. Financial institutions, staffed by MBAs, PhDs and other highly-trained experts, made loans that no first-year economics student should have approved. The immediate cause of the financial crisis on Wall Street is this mountain of debt smothering people on Main Street. In simplified form, here is what happens. ? Hard-pressed families fall behind on their mortgage and credit card payments. ? When homeowners can't make payments, the banks foreclose, but the home frequently stands empty and the bank is unable to recover much of the outstanding loan.. ? The bank, with less money coming in, has trouble paying other banks and investors that it borrowed money from. ? Those other banks and investors have trouble paying banks and investors they borrowed from. ? Banks, investors, and ordinary businesses are afraid to lend money to other banks, investors and ordinary businesses. Families owe more on their mortgages and their credit cards than they can ever pay back. And their effort to save their homes and meet creditors' demands is undermining their families, their neighborhoods and the local economy, as family members work multiple jobs and cut back on health care, local purchases, local taxes, utilities, and home maintenance. The bailout package just approved by Congress doesn't address this problem at all. Homeowners and consumers still have the same debt, still face the same monthly payments. The only change is that the U.S. government has become a collection agent for the banks and investors. The solution is to reduce the amount that working people owe. Reduce homeowners' and consumers' debt to the level it would be at if reasonable lending standards had been applied in the first place. Conservative practice is that families should pay no more than 25 percent of their income for housing. So a people's bailout plan would mandate that mortgages be reduced so that monthly payments will be 25 percent of household income. But in no case should the debt be for more than the real value of the house, as determined by historical price levels adjusted for inflation. Credit card debt, second mortgages, and home improvement loans, college loans, and medical debt could also be adjusted by similar calculations, to a maximum of 10 percent of household income. This would not cost the government a penny -- it would force banks and investors to recognize the losses resulting from their own bad judgment and fraudulent practices. Millions of people would still be in their homes, and neighborhoods and local tax bases would be stabilized. And the financial system would be more stable because the banks could now be confident of receiving a steady stream of payments, even though these payments would be less than what they originally expected. The proposals to revive the economy, listed at the beginning of this article, should still be adopted. The economic stimulus package that was blocked in the Senate by a Republican filibuster a few weeks ago included some of those provisions. And major reform and regulation of the financial industry is necessary; there are some excellent proposals to take over failing banks, regulate the financial industry, and tax financial transactions and exorbitant compensation to control speculation and help pay for the program. But until we clear up the massive, unfair, and often illegal debt that has been fastened on working families, it will act as an anchor dragging down the economy, and Main Street will be haunted by insecurity and misery. Democratic leaders in Congress had a number of proposals that would have reduced the amount families owe on their mortgages. They were blocked by the Republicans, who don't support any meaningful relief for homeowners. During the vice presidential debate, Senator Biden expressed support for bankruptcy reform to reduce the amount owed by homeowners, and said that he thought that McCain opposed it. Governor Palin said that Biden was wrong, implying that McCain also supports the measure, and said that McCain is on the side of the people against ?the greed and corruption on Wall Street.? There is a simple test to see if Palin's claim has any substance. Will McCain show leadership and bipartisanship by proposing that Senators Obama and Biden join him in pushing to pass this bankruptcy legislation immediately? The proposal was killed in the Senate last April after encountering ?stiff opposition from many Republicans as well as the banking and mortgage loan industries,? according to the New York Times. (April 4, 2008) But with McCain's backing, there should be no problem getting this legislation through Congress now. Art Perlo (econ4ppl at cpusa.org) is chair of the Communist Party?s economic commission. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 12:47:32 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:47:32 -0400 Subject: [A-List] "Recapitalization" Is Not "Nationalization" Message-ID: <48F35F85.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Sunday, October 12, 2008 "Recapitalization" Is Not "Nationalization" by Norman Markowitz The major industrial capitalist countries today are in effect purchasing "equity stakes" in major central banks, guaranteeing credit and deposits, and seeking to "recapitalize" through state investments and, hopefully, controls, a collapsing system. The Bush administration, according to the press is beginning to follow suit,shifting gears away from its $700 billion bailout. While this is being called "partial nationalization" it is yet a further exercise in state capitalism whose guarantees are primarily aimed at insuring that the capitalist class retains its control over capital. Many theorists in the socialist and to a much lesser extent the later Communist movements looked positively to aspects of state capitalist development, seeing in its centralization, its placing of state controls over capital, an important stepping stone on the road to the transformation of a centralized advanced form of capitalism into socialism. But without a strong workers movement(and Communists would say without a strong Communist party to educate the working class and help to coordinate its struggles) state capitalism can and has been a stepping stone to open capitalist dictatorships in Germany, Italy and other countries. Will these state capitalist interventions contain the crisis and keep the "recession" from becoming a major depression? Will they lead in the direction of working class revitalization or in the direction of increased monopoly power. That will be decided by the struggles ahead, the political struggles in the U.S. both before and especially after the election, especially the struggles to alleviate what we might call the "peoples crisis," unemployment, loss of homes and other personal property, loss of access to credit in an installment plan society, loss of pensions. While the peoples crisis and the capitalists crisis, the crisis of the banks and the stock market, the investors seeing their "portfolios" net worth plummet, the business managers seeing their credit tighten greatly, are inter-related, they affect different people in different ways, with the former affecting most of the world's people, who own nothing butt their labor. Senator Obama has talked about addressing the crisis "from the bottom up," which I interpret as addressing the peoples crisis first. So far that isn't being done. But it can be done and it is what has to be done. What is also interesting about the European governments actions is how irrelevant the Bush administration and its policies are to what is happening. Bush is in effect following Europe's lead, shucking and jiving so to speak with neither a consistent policy or much understanding of the developing crisis. If this is the world of "one superpower," that the pundits were proclaiming after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is a superpower straight out of Monte Python, with a President for global silliness. Meanwhile, McCain is running around, being booed by his own "base" for telling them that Obama is not an "arab," but a good family man, throwing in Bill Ayers while contending that the campaign should be kept clean, and expressing anger when Representative John Lewis, who was beaten into unconsciousnesses during the Freedom Rides in Alabama in 1961, accuses his campaign of "sowing hate" the way Alabama governor George C. Wallace did in the 1960s, hate that reverberated in increased violence against civil rights activists and peace activists. While the Obama campaign and Lewis are backtracking from the Wallace comparison, I wouldn't, in the sense that McCain's Town Meetings are filled with "supporters" who are talking like George Wallace in the 1960s or worse. Richard Nixon began to bring the George Wallace "base" (nearly 10 million votes in 1968) with coded appeals to racism and authoritarianism under slogans like "law and order" and "silent majority." McCain is using the "town meeting" format at this moment to have his supporters talk like George Wallace in a non coded way, to create a sort of audience participation racism and reaction while the world passes him, his campaign and his party by. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 12:53:31 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:53:31 -0400 Subject: [A-List] "Recapitalization" Is Not "Nationalization" Message-ID: <48F360EC.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Sunday, October 12, 2008 "Recapitalization" Is Not "Nationalization" by Norman Markowitz The major industrial capitalist countries today are in effect purchasing "equity stakes" in major central banks, guaranteeing credit and deposits, and seeking to "recapitalize" through state investments and, hopefully, controls, a collapsing system. The Bush administration, according to the press is beginning to follow suit,shifting gears away from its $700 billion bailout. While this is being called "partial nationalization" it is yet a further exercise in state capitalism whose guarantees are primarily aimed at insuring that the capitalist class retains its control over capital. Many theorists in the socialist and to a much lesser extent the later Communist movements looked positively to aspects of state capitalist development, seeing in its centralization, its placing of state controls over capital, an important stepping stone on the road to the transformation of a centralized advanced form of capitalism into socialism. But without a strong workers movement(and Communists would say without a strong Communist party to educate the working class and help to coordinate its struggles) state capitalism can and has been a stepping stone to open capitalist dictatorships in Germany, Italy and other countries. Will these state capitalist interventions contain the crisis and keep the "recession" from becoming a major depression? Will they lead in the direction of working class revitalization or in the direction of increased monopoly power. That will be decided by the struggles ahead, the political struggles in the U.S. both before and especially after the election, especially the struggles to alleviate what we might call the "peoples crisis," unemployment, loss of homes and other personal property, loss of access to credit in an installment plan society, loss of pensions. While the peoples crisis and the capitalists crisis, the crisis of the banks and the stock market, the investors seeing their "portfolios" net worth plummet, the business managers seeing their credit tighten greatly, are inter-related, they affect different people in different ways, with the former affecting most of the world's people, who own nothing butt their labor. Senator Obama has talked about addressing the crisis "from the bottom up," which I interpret as addressing the peoples crisis first. So far that isn't being done. But it can be done and it is what has to be done. What is also interesting about the European governments actions is how irrelevant the Bush administration and its policies are to what is happening. Bush is in effect following Europe's lead, shucking and jiving so to speak with neither a consistent policy or much understanding of the developing crisis. If this is the world of "one superpower," that the pundits were proclaiming after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is a superpower straight out of Monte Python, with a President for global silliness. Meanwhile, McCain is running around, being booed by his own "base" for telling them that Obama is not an "arab," but a good family man, throwing in Bill Ayers while contending that the campaign should be kept clean, and expressing anger when Representative John Lewis, who was beaten into unconsciousnesses during the Freedom Rides in Alabama in 1961, accuses his campaign of "sowing hate" the way Alabama governor George C. Wallace did in the 1960s, hate that reverberated in increased violence against civil rights activists and peace activists. While the Obama campaign and Lewis are backtracking from the Wallace comparison, I wouldn't, in the sense that McCain's Town Meetings are filled with "supporters" who are talking like George Wallace in the 1960s or worse. Richard Nixon began to bring the George Wallace "base" (nearly 10 million votes in 1968) with coded appeals to racism and authoritarianism under slogans like "law and order" and "silent majority." McCain is using the "town meeting" format at this moment to have his supporters talk like George Wallace in a non coded way, to create a sort of audience participation racism and reaction while the world passes him, his campaign and his party by. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 13:09:07 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:09:07 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Bush's Self-criticism Message-ID: <48F36494.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Bush's Self-criticism By Fidel Castro In a brief 15-minute speech [Sept. 24], the President of the United States made some assertions that, had they come from the mouths of any of his adversaries, they would have been described as atrocious and cynical slanders against the economic system of his country which he named ?democratic capitalism.? After dramatically appealing to Congress to allocate an additional 700 billion dollars to cope with the crisis, he cited, among others, the following reasons: ? This is an extraordinary period for America?s economy. ? We have seen terrible situations in the U.S. economy. ? The aim is to preserve the country?s overall economy. ? I have declared that our global economy remains regulated largely by twentieth century laws and we must update it to the financial structure of the twenty-first century. ? Banks have restricted credits. ? Many lenders have approved loans without examining ability to pay. ? How did we reach this point? What does this mean for the country?s financial future? ? Economists suggest these are problems that have developed for more than a decade. ? Most economists agree that the problems we?re witnessing today developed over a long period of time. ? Many entrepreneurs got loans to start businesses, buy houses and cars. There were many negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. ? Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. ? Many people assumed they would be able to pay their mortgages, but it was not so. ? All this had effects far beyond the housing market. ? Securities are sold to investors around the world. Many assumed these securities had a tangible value. ? Many companies like Freddie Mac borrowed enormous sums of money and put our financial market at risk. ? The large banks found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. ? Other banks found themselves in similar situations and available credit dried up. ? Many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government and put our financial system at risk. ? The situation became more precarious by the day. ? I?m a strong believer in free enterprise. ? The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect. ? I believe companies that make bad decisions should pay for it. Under normal circumstances, I would have not followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. ? The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence. ? The government?s top economic experts warn that, without immediate action, the country could slip into panic, more banks could fail, there would be negative effects on the retirement accounts, foreclosures would rise and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. ? The country could experience a long and painful recession. We must not let this happen. ? Many are asking, how would a rescue plan work? ? It should be enacted as soon as possible. ? The federal government would put up to $700 billion to inject liquidity. ? The government will try to have the markets back to normal as soon as possible. ? We have seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system. ? The government should be authorized to take a closer look at the companies to ensure that their growth does not threaten the global economy. ? Democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. ? I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged, but this is a temporary situation. ? History has shown that, in times of real trial, its leaders unite to rise to the occasion. ? Tomorrow, in the White House, Obama, McCain and other congressional leaders will meet. He concluded with thanks. Some have pointed out that his eyes did not for one minute move away from the teleprompter and that he was frowning. Yesterday, George W. Bush did not only confess these truths; he launched a new sort of Alliance for Progress. The first of them all was the colossal farce at Punta del Este in 1961, conceived by Kennedy after the Cuban Revolution. The one before the last, as we know, was Bill Clinton?s and it was called the Free Trade Area for the Americas (FTAA), which was signed in 1994. This one received its coup de gr?ce in Mar del Plata in the year 2005. On the same day of his ?self-criticism?, Bush launched the Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas Initiative. What a ridiculous name. After checking the list of the ten Latin American countries committed to the Initiative in New York, I realized the absence of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua; in other words, almost all of South America and one from Central America, whose former Chancellor, Miguel D?Escoto, a Sandinista and a priest who favor the Theology of Liberation, is now presiding over the United Nations General Assembly. According to Bush?s recurring fantasy, this project which is being discussed by the news cable agencies, as expressed by the President when he addressed the governments of the ten countries present, ?would permit us to work to ensure that the benefits of trade are broadly shared.? ?It will deepen the connections among regional markets. It will expand our cooperation on development issues.? ?It is a good idea to continue opening up new markets, especially in our own neighbourhood.? Such events constitute excellent study material for the ideological battle. What kind of progress can imperialism guarantee for any Latin American country, with its atomic weapons, its arms industry, its escorted fleets of nuclear aircraft carriers, its wars of conquest, its unequal exchange and permanent pillaging of other peoples? Self-criticism is not a category under ?democratic capitalism?. Anyway, we shouldn?t be ungrateful or impolite: we should thank Bush for his brilliant contribution to political theory. Cuban News Agency This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 13:59:08 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:59:08 -0400 Subject: [A-List] =?utf-8?q?Is_this_Capitalism=E2=80=99s_End_of_Days=3F_Co?= =?utf-8?q?unterfeit_currrency?= Message-ID: <48F3704D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Is this Capitalism?s End of Days? By Norman Markowitz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The economic crisis continues to escalate and it is a crisis of the capitalist system as the system has devolved in the US and globally in recent decades. It is not a crisis of ?Wall Street? aka the stock market or ?finance? aka the banks because the stock market and the banks are inter-related and with ?deregulation? directly interconnected institutions of the capitalist system. For those of us not ready to pass through the golden gates and ascend to Free Market Heaven where there is no regulation or taxation, three questions arise? What is being done? What should be done? What can be done? First, what is being done is to pump money into the system. The goal is to buy up the ?bad paper? that has functioned as a sort of counterfeit currency in a world where public policy has encouraged the worst of capitalist speculation on a scale greater (because the world economy is so much greater) than ever before. Does the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve have enough money literally to do this? In the ?brave new world "of multi-trillion dollar and euro unregulated global hedge funds, a world where transnational firms are in many instances literally working off the books, I really don?t know. And, more importantly, I don?t think that those who are pumping in the money from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve know either Register to vote here PA Editors Blog "Recapitalization" Is Not "Nationalization" Alan Greenspan Today Bloomberg's Unfinished Privatization Agenda Subscribe to this Feed What they are doing now is to use a version of Keynesian compensatory fiscal as the policy to ?pump prime? the economy, as it was called in the 1930s, in order to ward off a major depression. But they are doing it in a chaotic, helter-skelter way, with no serious concessions to workers who face unemployment as credit contraction continues, the millions of homeowners who face foreclosure without any ban on foreclosures or any judicial discretion in debt restructuring. Nor is there any mention of the long battered public sector where state and local governments, relying on bond issues and regressive taxes to fund education, police, fire, and other basic services, may face collapse as the crisis expands to the bond market and local property taxes move toward confiscatory levels. What can be done? To answer this, let us exclude entirely the likely answers of Palin and McCain, that is, prayer and tax cuts for the corporations and the rich, respectively, along with their their mock outrage against greedy Wall Streeters. Let us also exclude what the Federal Reserve Board itself seems to be excluding, that is, the monetary theory of the late Milton Friedman, on which it and the central banks of other major capitalist countries in significant ways have been operating for decades, that is intervening with interest rate increases and decreases to alternatively stimulate and dampen down capital flows in the economy and thus let the ?free market? operate without state intervention in the form of jobs, housing, health care, transportation energy. However, bailouts of banks, brokerage houses, corporations, which don?t fit into the theories of Adam Smith in the 18th century, with greatly influenced the nineteenth, or the theories of Milton Friedman in the 20th, century, which promised a triumphant return to the 19th, seem to keep on happening when big capitalists get in big trouble. It is almost as if government serves dominant class interests instead of being a ?neutral? force, a passive policeman, or a buddy to stakeholders. I am sure Milton Friedman would have opposed the Treasury department orchestrated bailout last week. And, although I do not commune with spirits, I think he certainly would be aghast at the Federal Reserve buying up all this bad paper. After all, he long contended that the US could have avoided both the great depression and the New Deal (a terrible deviation from ?economic freedom?) with the correct monetary policy. He would probably say if he were still with us that his monetary theories should be given a chance to work, that in the long run all will be well if the ?market? is kept as free as possible. And the theorist whom he spent much of his life trying to supplant (not Karl Marx, but John Maynard Keynes) would probably repeat the sarcastic answer he gave to his ?free market critics? during the depression that is, ?in the long run everyone is dead.? What should be done before Keynes' warning becomes prophecy? In the US and globally through the IMF and World Bank, there can be a repudiation of the policies that have emanated from Friedman?s monetary theories and a revival and updating of both regulation and compensatory fiscal policies aimed at maintaining effective purchasing power in national economies. This means providing economic and social protections for workers and farmers instead of forcing poor countries to eliminate existing subsidies to facilitate ?market development.? This means also building over time the World Labor Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN into instruments that will at the very least regulate both transnational corporations and agribusiness in the interest of workers and farmers in poor countries, raising the purchasing power of the people within those countries in order to make international trade a two way, not a one way street. In the US, particularly what should be done is the dismantling of what was once called ?Reaganomics? the grotesque combination of Friedmanite Monetary Theory with a prominent US historian earlier called ?Military Keynesianism.? To achieve this, what is needed is nothing more than a ?new New Deal,? and one that will in all likelihood have to be more experimental, flexible, and radical then the first. That ?new New Deal? should in the first hundred days of an Obama administration write new National Banking and Securities and Exchange Acts, repealing the deregulation of the last thirty years, and restructuring consumer debt for personal property (including home a mortgages). That ?new? New Deal should repeal in its entirety the Taft-Hartley law and threaten those states who seek to continue anti-union shop policies under various subterfuges with a cut off of federal funding. That ?new New Deal? should institute in its first year far reaching cuts in the military budget. A reduction of something like $50 billion should in the first year should be considered a minimum and those cuts should continue annually. These cuts should also be re-invested in federal public sector programs, federal aid to education, the establishment a national public health care system, the revival of public housing programs which went into eclipse in the Reagan era and public energy policies which fell by the wayside in after World War II. Finally, the first 100 days of a ?new New Deal? in an Obama administration should do more than close tax loopholes, but repeal the entire ?detaxation? policy of the Reagan-Bush era. Ideally, it would restore progressive income and corporation taxes, capital gains taxes, and in the process begin to collect hundreds of billions of dollars which will permit it, along with military budget cutbacks, increased revenues from increased real wages and incomes of working people, to both fund social revitalization, reduce the federal deficit and through its policies aid state and local governments to reduce their deficits. How much of this will be done depends on what happens in this coming election. If McCain wins, we can be reasonably certain that none of it will be done, because even with an expanded Democratic majority, he would veto virtually all of it. If Obama wins, the size of his victory and the continuation of the grassroots movements and activism that served was the mass base for his candidacy, along with his inclinations and the size of the crisis he confronts upon taking office will largely determine the policies of his first 100 days, whether it is just a half a loaf improvement from the Bush disaster or a comprehensive reversal of what Obama himself has called ?an economic philosophy which has failed completely.? All of this can be done, within the context of the present capitalist system. Immediately, meaning right now, Congress can push through a repeal of Gramm-Leach and the Obama campaign can begin to outline its economic policy, leaving McCain and Palin continue their silly and petty personal attacks, which merely highlights the fact that they have no plan, no policy, and no idea of what to do exist get elected and continue the policies that have produced the present crisis. Hopefully, we will begin to see an outline of the Obama?s first 100 days as he addresses the expanding economic crisis in the last weeks before the election. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 14:47:34 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:47:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Crossing Over :As the U.S. Economy Sputters, Working-Class Women Shift to Obama Message-ID: <48F37BA7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Crossing Over As the U.S. Economy Sputters, Working-Class Women Shift to Obama By JONATHAN KAUFMAN Wall Street Journal October 11 2008 KOKOMO, Ind. -- Last month, in this once-sturdy auto town of 60,000, two white women sounded off at a union hall when talk turned to politics. "I feel like a white female or a white male has fewer opportunities than the black man or the black woman because of all the special treatment and special programs they have gotten," said Marla Hightower. "If Obama is elected, what's going to happen?" "That is just stupid," Ginny McMillin, the head of her local, shot back. "People are saying 'we don't want a black man.' Shame on America for thinking that!" The exchange was emblematic of the sharp divide among white, working-class female voters -- a key voting bloc that has largely rejected Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. But four weeks and a $700 billion financial-bailout package later, some attitudes are shifting. Sen. Obama is now picking up support from some of the very women who until recently disdained him. As U.S. economic concerns intensify, ranks of blue-collar females are reconsidering everything from Sen. Obama's policies to their comfort level with his race. Working-class women, generally defined as those in blue-collar and service jobs earning less than $50,000 a year -- comprise almost a quarter of American voters. Sen. Obama trailed Sen. John McCain by 12 points among these women just two weeks ago, but has since closed the gap. According to a Wall Street Journal poll conducted the weekend of Oct. 4, the two senators are now running even, with 45% of such voters giving each candidate the nod. The reversal is one of the main reasons Sen. Obama is gaining ground in swing states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana -- all of which have large rural and blue-collar populations. Ms. Hightower, who lost her auto-factory job two years ago in a wave of forced retirements, is one of the recent converts. Having watched the financial crisis unfold and the stock market plummet, she now says she plans to cast her vote for the Illinois senator. "I am not 100% crazy about Obama," says the 55-year-old with a sigh. "He kind of scares me. But I think he will do better for the middle class." In particular, she likes Sen. Obama's conviction to keep more jobs in the U.S. Petra Jameson, a black Obama supporter, says she's noticed similar changes taking place at Kokomo's two big auto plants. Just a few weeks ago, "when we had some people come around to ask workers to vote for Obama they were told 'I am not voting for that N-word.' People said that." At the time, union organizers who support Sen. Obama were stunned by how many working-class women even refused to take literature with his picture on it. But now, says Ms. Jameson, 35 years old, some people are turning. "They are losing money [in their retirement accounts] daily. They may have to get over race." Kokomo is a city with a checkered racial and economic history. It was a hotbed of Ku Klux Klan activity in the 1920s and rippled with racial tension in the 1960s, residents say. About 10% of Kokomo's population today is African-American. Anchored by sprawling Delphi and Chrysler factories, the city has more recently been hit hard by layoffs triggered by the troubles of the auto industry. The area's jobless rate, at around 8%, is the highest in the state. In August, the Delphi plant announced it would let go another 300 workers. Thousands of people here have been pushed into early retirement. Many women in and around Kokomo once held jobs at the Delphi auto-parts plant and other factories that paid $20 to $30 an hour with generous benefits. Replacement gigs, often in the service sector, tend to pay about half that. Last week, Angela Lorenz, 58 years old, met with a stock broker to discuss her 401(k) which had been free-falling in value. Two years ago, she lost her position at a local utility company where she earned $24 an hour. These days, she and her husband, a former union auto worker, each make $9.25 an hour cleaning offices in a hospital building. Growing up in the Kokomo area, Ms. Lorenz recalls occasional clashes with African-Americans at work. Parking her car near black neighborhoods made her fearful about crime. Eventually, she says, she came to know and befriend blacks at her job. She voted for President Bush in 2004 but this time she is still undecided. "I want whoever is going to help the country get through this," says Ms. Lorenz, who has decided to stay put in the stock market for now. "I think Obama could represent me. He does understand the problems for older people. He was close to his grandparents. He is aware of what can happen to people if they don't have someone to look after them." In the latest Wall Street Journal poll, blue-collar women indicated they are more worried about their personal financial future than blue-collar men. About 62% of these women expressed concern about their personal financial future over the next year compared to just 23% who were more optimistic. Working-class men, while worried, show a bit more confidence, with 57% saying they are pessimistic about their own financial future versus 39% who are optimistic. Such differences may help to explain why working-class women have frequently shown a tendency to break with their husbands, brothers and fathers in the voting booth. (White working-class men still overwhelmingly back Sen. McCain by 58% to 34%, support that hasn't changed much since the financial crisis began.) In recent years, blue-collar women have been more open to Democratic economic messages, analysts say, and less swayed by social issues than their male counterparts. In 2004, President Bush defeated John Kerry overwhelmingly among blue-collar men but won blue-collar women by just one point. In 2000, President Bush trounced Al Gore among blue-collar men but won blue-collar women by just three points. For this election, some analysts see heightened economic tensions overcoming any racial prejudices or hang-ups. "Women are much more sensitive to kitchen-table issues -- they are usually responsible for balancing family budgets," says Katherine Newman, a Princeton sociologist who studies the working class. "Racism is what you indulge in if everything else is in order and you can let your prejudices hold sway. If your family is in trouble you can't afford it." Kenlyn Watson, the white owner of a beauty salon here called the Mane Attraction, was certain four weeks ago that she would vote for Sen. McCain. Among other things, she was suspicious that a President Obama "would try to right the injustices of 200 years against the black man in four years." Now, the 50-year-old says she is "on the fence" and seriously considering voting for Sen. Obama. "I am concerned when McCain says the 'fundamentals of the economy are sound' and then 24 hours later we are going down the crapper," she says. "I have friends who are planning on shutting down their stores in 30 days if things don't get better. I may not agree with all of Obama's policies but maybe we need change." In an effort to win back working-class women, the McCain campaign is emphasizing tax cuts and economic policies that it says will create jobs and help ease the financial crisis. Sen. McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have stepped up criticism of Sen. Obama's past associations, hammering away at the idea that Sen. Obama is an out-of-touch elitist while Sen. McCain and his running mate are populists on the side of workers. Gov. Palin has energized many working-class women here because they see themselves in her -- a woman, who, like them, is assertive, juggles work and family, and rejects many of the traditional liberal views of the women's movement. Chatting with a group of women in a downtown Kokomo caf?, 72-year-old Jody Hollis, a retired auto worker, recently took out a sheaf of papers with pictures of Gov. Palin downloaded from the Internet. "Look, girls: Her with the national guard, her killing a moose, holding a fish. Look! She's a macho woman and man at the same time." But support for Gov. Palin is also fading among working-class women. A month ago, 47% of blue-collar women said the Alaska governor was qualified to be president while 40% said she was not. Now those numbers have reversed: 43% of white working-class women in this past weekend's Journal poll say Gov. Palin is qualified to be president; 48% say she isn't ready. The campaign is still volatile and the preferences of white working-class women, like other segments of the electorate, could continue to shift. Race has emerged as an explosive topic several times -- most notably regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Obama's former controversial Chicago pastor who made inflammatory statements attacking American policies. Analysts and advisers in both campaigns expect such issues to surface again. "The idea that in a time like this there is no time for racism is a nice thought but I don't think things will necessarily pan out that way," says Jay Campbell, vice president of Hart research, which conducts the Wall Street Journal poll. "What we have seen over the past twenty years in politics is that a lot of people don't end up voting their own economic self-interest, but they vote on a values level." About half of white working-class women -- 51% -- say they don't identify with Sen. Obama's "background" and "values" while 42% say they do, according to a Journal poll last month. By contrast, 60% say they identify with Sen. McCain's values, while 34% say they do not. The Obama campaign is stressing tax cuts and broader health care coverage in addition to traditional women's issues like pay equity and the senator's pro-choice stance on abortion. It is also deploying Michelle Obama around the country to meet with working women and talk about their concerns. Mrs. Obama recently traveled to a suburb of Indianapolis, about an hour south of here, to address female voters. "That is why I am out here -- to convince people that Barack does get it," Mrs. Obama told the crowd. Last week, Ms. Jameson says she was in a Costco store with her son who was wearing an Obama T-shirt. A white woman came up to them, Mrs. Jameson recalls, and said, "I hope he wins. I am a lifelong Republican but things have to change." This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 14:50:41 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:50:41 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Wall Street Coup and the Bailout Scam Message-ID: <48F37C62.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The Wall Street Coup and the Bailout Scam by Ismael Hossein-zadeh The "rescue" plan is not only fraudulent, it is also the wrong medicine for the ailing economy. The Wall Street took the US (and the world) hostage and extracted a heavy ransom. But while the enormous ransom was successfully extracted, there are no guarantees that the hostages will be set free from the shackles of trickle-down economics. On the contrary, there are strong indications that the fraudulent (and perhaps criminal) bailout may turn the current crisis into a protracted agony of a long-bleeding economic depression. Why the Bailout Scam Is More Likely to Fail than to Succeed The bailout scam is doomed to fail because it avoids diagnosis and dodges the heart of the problem: the inability of more than five million homeowners to pay their fraudulently inflated mortgage obligations. Instead of trying to salvage the threatened real assets or homes and save their owners from becoming homeless, the bailout scheme is trying to salvage the phony or fictitious assets of Wall Street gamblers and reward their sins by sending taxpayers' good money after the gamblers' bad money. It focuses on the wrong end of the problem. The apparent rationale for the bailout plan is that, while the injection of tax payers' money into the Wall Street casino may not be fair, it is a necessary evil that will free the "troubled assets" and create liquidity in the financial markets, thereby triggering a much-needed wave of lending, borrowing, and expansion. There are at least five major problems with this argument. The first major problem is that the current financial disaster is not really a liquidity problem as it is repeatedly portrayed to be. It is a problem of faith and trust, or lack thereof, which in turn stems from the disproportionately large amount of junk assets or mortgages relative to real assets. It is true that lending and credit expansion has almost come to a halt and, in this sense, there is a serious liquidity crisis. But this illiquidity is not really due to a lack of good money or real assets in the system. It is rather because owners of such valuable assets are unwilling to lend their precious possessions to owners of troubled assets, or worthless papers. As Herman E. Daly, University of Maryland economist, puts it, "The value of present real wealth is no longer sufficient to serve as a lien to guarantee the exploding debt. Consequently the debt is being devalued in terms of existing wealth. No one any longer is eager to trade real present wealth for debt even at high interest rates. This is because the debt is worth much less, not because there is not enough money or credit." The second major problem with the bailout scheme is that it is simply unfeasible and ineffectual because there is just not enough good money to redeem all the bad money that has ballooned or bubbled to a multiple of the good money and/or real assets. full: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/hossein-zadeh111008.html This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 15:13:44 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:13:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] the major reserve currency issuing countries Message-ID: <48F381C9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chris Burford" < -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In line with their status, Yi said, the major reserve currency issuing countries should shoulder the responsibility for preventing further spillovers and minimizing shocks to other economies -- especially to the emerging markets. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6513486.html This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Oct 13 15:43:37 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:43:37 -0400 Subject: [A-List] More bailout Message-ID: <48F388CA.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> NEWS ALERT from The Wall Street Journal Oct. 13, 2008 The Bush administration is expected Tuesday to roll out a wide-ranging effort to restore confidence to the battered banking system, following similar moves by European governments that sent global stock markets soaring. The initiatives will likely supersede many of the government's previous efforts. One central plank of these new efforts is a plan for the Treasury to take approximately $250 billion in equity stakes in potentially thousands of banks, according to people familiar with the matter, using funds approved by Congress through the $700 billion bailout bill. In addition, the FDIC is expected to temporarily extend its backstop from bank deposits to new senior preferred debt issued by banks and thrifts for three years. For more information, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728367.html?mod=djemalert This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From sabri_oncu at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 00:50:32 2008 From: sabri_oncu at yahoo.com (Sabri Oncu) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [A-List] Nouriel agrees with Michael H. in the final analysis: It is the debt of "Main Street" that needs to be written down Message-ID: <381160.92964.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor Governments got religion after peering into the systemic meltdown abyss: aggressive and comprehensive policy action is now likely but significant downside risks to markets will remain Nouriel Roubini | Oct 13, 2008 I spent the weekend in Washington attending the IMF annual meetings and giving a series of talks in a variety of public and private fora (IADB talk, C-Span interview, Euro 50 Group meeting, IMF panel, etc.). After last week crash in stock markets and financial markets (and it was indeed a crash as during the week equity prices fell as much as the two day crash of 1929) policy makers finally realized the risk of a systemic financial meltdown, they peered into the systemic collapse abyss a few steps in front of them and finally got religion and started announcing radical policy actions (the G7 statement, the EU leaders agreement to bailout European banks, the British plan to rescue ? and partially nationalize - its banks, the European countries plans along the same lines, and the Treasury plan to ditch the initial TARP that was aimed only buying toxic assets in favor of plan to recapitalize ? i.e. partially nationalize ? US banks and broker dealers. While many details of these plans are fuzzy and there will be some national variants the contour of the approach are similar and close to the recommendations that I made in this forum. Here are the main policy actions that will be undertaken: - Preventing systemically important banks and broker dealers from going bust (i.e. the U.S. made a mistake letting Lehman fail; so Morgan Stanley and other systemically important financial institutions will be rescued) ("Take decisive action and use all available tools to support systemically important financial institutions and prevent their failure" as in the G7 statement ) - Recapitalization of banks and broker dealers via public injections of capital via preferred shares (i.e. partial nationalization of financial institutions as it is already occurring in the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Iceland and, soon enough the U.S.) matched by private equity injections ("Ensure that our banks and other major financial intermediaries, as needed, can raise capital from public as well as private sources, in sufficient amounts to re-establish confidence and permit them to continue lending to households and businesses") - Temporary guarantee of bank liabilities: certainly all deposits, possibly interbank lines along the lines of the British approach, likely other new debts incurred by the banking system ("Ensure that our respective national deposit insurance and guarantee programs are robust and consistent so that our retail depositors will continue to have confidence in the safety of their deposits") - Unlimited provision of liquidity to the banking system and to some parts of the shadow banking system to restore interbank lending and lending to the real economy ("Ensure that our banks and other major financial intermediaries, as needed, can raise capital from public as well as private sources, in sufficient amounts to re-establish confidence and permit them to continue lending to households and businesses") - Provision of credit to the corporate sector via purchases of commercial paper (certainly in the US, possibly in Europe) - Purchase of toxic assets to restore liquidity in the mortgage backed securities market (U.S.) ("Take action, where appropriate, to restart the secondary markets for mortgages and other securitized assets. Accurate valuation and transparent disclosure of assets and consistent implementation of high quality accounting standards are necessary.") - Implicit triage between distressed that are solvent given liquidity support and capital injection and non-systemically important and insolvent banks that will need to be closed down/merged/resolved/etc. - Use of the IMF and other international financial institutions to provide lending to many emerging market economies ? and some advanced ones such as Iceland - that are now at risk of a severe financial crisis. - Use of any other tools that is available and necessary to avoid a systemic meltdown (including implicitly more monetary policy easing as well as possibly fiscal policy stimulus "We will use macroeconomic policy tools as necessary and appropriate."). At this stage central banks that are usually supposed to be the "lenders of last resort" need to become the "lenders of first and only resort" as, under conditions of panic and total loss of confidence, no one in the private sector is lending to anyone else since counterparty risk is extreme. Only over time private lending will recover. While most of the economic and financial damage is already done and the global economy will not be able to avoid a painful recession, financial and banking crisis (i.e. the V-shaped short and shallow 6-month recession is now out of the window and we will experience a severe and more protracted 18 to 24 months U-shaped recession) the rapid and consistent implementation of these and other action will prevent the US, European and global economies from experiencing a systemic financial meltdown and entering in a more severe L-shaped decade long stagnation like the one experienced by Japan after the bursting of its real estate and equity bubble. Are we close to the bottom of this financial crisis? Today stock markets ? and other financial markets - will rally on the news that terrified policy makers peering into the abyss got religion and started to do in a consistent way what is necessary but financial markets will remain volatile with significant downside risks over the next few weeks as: - details of these plans are still very fuzzy and ambiguous and with uncertain effects on various assets classes (common shares, preferred shares, unsecured debt of financial institutions, etc.); - macro news will surprise on the downside as the economies sharply weaken and contract while fiscal policy stimulus is lagging; - earnings news for financial and non financial firms will surprise on the downside; - the damage done to confidence and to levered investment is already severe and the process of deleveraging of the shadow financial system will continue; - major sources of future stress in the financial system remain; these include the risk of a CDS market blowout, the collapse of hundreds of hedge funds, the rising troubles of many insurance companies, the risk that other systemically important financial institutions are insolvent and in need of expensive rescue programs, the risk that some significant emerging market economies and some advanced ones too (Iceland) will experience a severe financial crisis, the ongoing process of deleveraging in illiquid financial markets that will continue the vicious circle of falling asset prices, margin calls, further deleveraging and further sales in illiquid markets that continues the cascading fall in asset prices, further downside risks to housing and to home prices. More aggressive and consistent and rapid implementation of the policy plans will increase the likelihood that risky asset prices will bottom out sooner rather than later and then start recovering. A key policy tool ? that is currently missing in the G7 and EU plans is to use fiscal policy to boost aggregate demand. Indeed, given the current collapse of private aggregate demand (consumption is falling, residential investment is falling, non-residential investment in structures is falling, capex spending by the corporate sector was falling already before the latest financial and confidence shock and will now be plunging at an even faster rate) it is urgent to provide a boost to aggregate demand to ensure that an unavoidable two-year recession does not become a decade long stagnation. Since the private sector is not spending and since the first fiscal stimulus plan (tax rebates for households and tax incentives to firms) miserably failed as households and firms are saving rather than spending and investing it is necessary now to boost directly public consumption of goods and services via a massive spending program (a $300 bn fiscal stimulus): the federal government should have a plan to immediately spend in infrastructures and in new green technologies; also unemployment benefits should be sharply increased together with a targeted tax rebates only for lower income households at risk; and federal block grants should be given to state and local government to boost their infrastructure spending (roads, sewer systems, etc.). If the private sector does not spend and/or cannot spend old fashioned traditional Keynesian spending by the government is necessary. It is true that we are already having large and growing budget deficits; but $300 bn of public works is more effective and productive than spending $700 bn to buy toxic assets. Is such fiscal stimulus plan is not rapidly implemented any improvement in the financial conditions of financial institution that the rescue plans will provide will be undermined ? in a matter of six months ? with an even sharper drop of aggregate demand that will make an already severe recession even more severe. So a fiscal stimulus plan is essential to restore ? on a sustained basis ? the viability and solvency of many impaired financial institutions. If Main Street goes bust in the next six months rescuing in the short run Wall Street will still lead Wall Street to go bust again as the real economy implodes further. Moreover, the US government will need to implement a clear plan to reduce the face value of mortgages for distressed home owners and avoid a tsunami of foreclosures (as in the Great Depression HOLC and in my HOME proposal). Households in the US have too much debt (subprime, near prime, prime mortgages, home equity loans, credit cards, auto loans and student loans) while their assets (values of their homes and stocks) are plunging leading to a sharp fall in their net worth. And households are getting buried under this mountain of mounting debt and rising debt servicing burdens. Thus, a fraction of the household sector ? as well as a fraction of the financial sector and a fraction of the corporate sector and of the local government sector ? is insolvent and needs debt relief. When a country (say Russia, Ecuador or Argentina) has too much debt and is insolvent it defaults and gets debt reduction and is then able to resume fast growth; when a firm is distressed with excessive debt it goes into bankruptcy court and gets debt relief that allows it to resume investment, production and growth; when a household is financially distressed it also needs debt relief to be able to have more discretionary income to spend. So any unsustainable debt problem requires debt reduction. The lack of debt relief to the distressed households is the reason why this financial crisis is becoming more severe and the economic recession - with a sharp fall now in real consumption spending ? now worsening. The fiscal actions taken so far (income relief to households via tax rebates) do not resolve the fundamental debt problem because you cannot grow yourself out of a debt problem: when debt to disposable income is too high increasing the denominator with tax rebates is ineffective and only temporary; i.e. you need to reduce the nominator (the debt). During the Great Depression the Home Owners' Loan Corporation was created to buy mortgages from bank at a discount price, reduce further the face value of such mortgages and refinance distressed homeowners into new mortgages with lower face value and lower fixed rate mortgage rates. This massive program allowed millions of households to avoid losing their homes and ending up in foreclosure. The HOLC bought mortgages for two year and managed such assets for 18 years at a relatively low fiscal cost (as the assets were bought at a discount and reducing the face value of the mortgages allowed home owners to avoid defaulting on the refinanced mortgages). A new HOLC will be the macro equivalent of creating a large "bad bank" where the bad assets of financial institutions are taken off their balance sheets and restructured/reduced. A large fiscal stimulus plan and a plan to reduce the debt overhang of distressed home owners will also ease the political economy of the financial bailout: as the debate in Congress showed the US public is mad about a system where gains and profits are privatized while losses are socialized, a welfare system for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. Bernanke and Paulson and the US administration did a lousy job in explaining why partially bailing Wall Street is necessary to avoid severe collateral damage to Main Street in the form of a most severe recession and a risk of an even more severe economic stagnation. At least the redesign of the TARP into a program that will recapitalize banks with public capital (and thus provide the US government and the taxpayer with some upside potential) makes this bailout more socially fair and acceptable. But the current collapse of private aggregate demand makes it fair, necessary and efficient to directly help Main Street with a direct fiscal stimulus program and with a plan to reduce the debt burden of distressed home owners. Those two additional policy actions are necessary and fundamental ? together with the rescue and recapitalization of financial institutions ? to minimize the damage to the real economy and to the financial system. Post-Scriptum: Many many congrats to Paul Krugman for his very well deserved Nobel Prize in economics. While the prize was awarded to Paul for his contributions to trade theory his work in international macro/finance (currency and financial crises, currency target zones, reserve currencies, pass-through of exchange rates to import prices, contractionary effects of devaluations, sovereign debt crises, etc.) is as important and seminal. And his economic commentary is as incisive and deep as his more analytical research work. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Oct 13 19:43:56 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:43:56 +1100 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Capitalist financial crisis - articles, video, audio; Darfur book excerpt; climate change; nationalisations; Pilger on Mbeki's fall Message-ID: <48F3F95C.80004@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links./* * * * John Bellamy Foster: Can the financial crisis be reversed? Interview with John Bellamy Foster, editor of Monthly Review, for P?gina/12 (Argentina). This interview was first posted at MRzine on October 10, 2008, and has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission. P?gina/12: What is your opinion about the decision of the US Treasury Department to consider taking ownership stakes in many United States banks? Do you think this is the right political-economic strategy? I mean, will it lead to the recovery of the system? * Read more The financial meltdown: Roots of the economic crisis in overaccumulation, financialisation and 'global apartheid' By Patrick Bond October 3, 2008 -- The global economy's vast financial sector expansion - in the context of productive sector stagnation tendencies - has increased the leading powerbrokers' capacity to devalue large parts of the Third World (including major emerging market sites), as well as to write down selected financially volatile and vulnerable markets in the North (e.g. dot.com and real estate bubbles). In contrast to the 1930s, this set of partial write-downs of overaccumulated financial capital has not yet created such generalised panic and crisis contagion as to threaten the entire system's integrity. Shifting and stalling the necessary devalorisation of overaccumulated capital, particularly as it bubbles up via financial sectors into speculative markets, entailed spatial and temporal fixes. * Read more Exclusive book excerpt: A manifesto for principled Darfur activism -- and beyond Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal publishes -- with the authors' permission -- an exclusive excerpt from Kevin Funk and Steven Fake's just published book, Scramble for Africa: Darfur Intervention and the USA (Black Rose Books). In Scramble for Africa Kevin Funk and Steven Fake provide a forensic and astute examination of the Bush administration's politically cynical and opportunist exploitation of the people of Darfur's terrible plight, using them as pawns to regain access to Sudan's oil riches and to promote the self-serving imperialist concept of ``humanitarian intervention''. Funk and Fake reveal the hypocrisy of Washington, which can in the same breathe declare the Sudan regime's slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Darfuris ``genocide'' while -- out of the general public's earshot -- praise and collaborate with the very same butchers as allies in its ``war on terror''. The mainstream ``Save Darfur'' movement's leadership also comes in for a similar investigation for its willingness to allow the interests of the people of Darfur to play second fiddle to Washington's foreign policy double standards. * Read more Climate change -- the case for public ownership By Trent Hawkins Arising out of the UK Climate Camp in August 2008 there has developed an interesting debate between Ewa Jasiewicz, an activist in Britain, and well-known radical columnist George Monbiot about the role of so-called "state solutions" to climate change. Jasiewicz's article, published on the Guardian website[i] and entitled "Time for a Revolution", was an attack on Monbiot for a "controversial presentation [at climate camp] ... in which he endorsed the use of the state as a partner in resolving the climate crisis". It was also prompted * Read more Richard Wolff: Capitalism hits the fan: a socialist solution Richard Wolff is professor of economics at UMass Amherst. He talks about the underlying cause of the current capitalist crisis (NOT ``financial'' crisis) and capitalism in general. Socialism and workers' democracy is presented as the alternative. The talk was presented by the Association for Economic and Social Analysis and the journal Rethinking Marxism in early October 2008. * Watch at http://links.org.au/node/676 Videos on the Marxist theory of capitalism These resources with notes are created by Brendan Cooney and are available at Kapitalism 101. This page was compiled by Dave Riley. * Read more Capitalist versus socialist state intervention in the economy By Martin Saatdjian October 1, 2008 -- Venezelanalysis -- The current financial crisis reveals the first symptoms o