Rachel Maddow Show: Naomi Klein on the Bank Bailouts
By Heather Thursday May 07, 2009 6:00pmRachel Maddow talks to Naomi Klein about the bank bailouts, the results of the stress tests and how bailing out these banks is a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector into private hands. They talk about how the crisis has not been solved but instead the burden has been moved to those that can least afford it.
We need to re-regulate these industries and I agree completely with Klein and Maddow when they say the regulation should have come hand in hand with the bailout money. The Obama administration had a chance to channel the public anger over these bailouts to get reform passed and by not using that anger in same the way FDR did, they've wasted an opportunity to really fix the system that got us into the mess we are now. And as Naomi Klein notes that anger is going to get channeled somewhere and unfortunately not always towards the ones that deserve it.
Instead we see these tea bag parties, people lashing out at immigrants or anyone else they can blame their own economic woes on, and many who don't feel that one party is any better than the other one. If the Democrats don't get some real reform passed even if it is a day late and a few trillion dollars short they're going to be facing a lot of that anger at the polls come next election and rightfully so. They're saying that they're going to get it done and that we'll see some reforms come through this summer. I will take them at their word for now that they're going to do it but if they don't, I'm sure myself and everyone else who contributes at this site will be calling them out for it.
Login or Register to post comments.
and too infrequent on the airwaves.
Very few people you see on teevee can speak so candidly and truthfully on these most important matters without the brainwashing effects of corporate media censoring and limiting their very thought patterns.
Shock Doctrine should be required reading as well
truth...Shock Doctrine is a classic...Mainly the reason she is not on the Talking heads oe new...Call Congress--1.800.828.0498 ..tell them we want answers and restitution...Email the admin at watchdog.com or change.org...We need to use our voice to channel the anger--not displace it on the few who are attempting to get us back in balance!
her book shock doctrine misquotes Milton Freidman and is one of the worst misrepresentations of his teachings and views. She intermingles facts with completely incorrect statements in her interviews as well as her book. It's about as disingenuous of a work as I have ever read. In her interview with Maddow she once again wrongly says the first experiment was in Chile, not true it's been going on for hundreds of years. The fall of the Berlin Wall was a larger failure than Chile ever was and she misrepresents Freidman's role in the Chile event, she's blatantly lying.
Let Naomi answer this one question from Freidman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs
Take a long look at where China came from and has gotten to, they owe more to Milton Friedman than anyone else. Too bad Freidman isn't here, he would destroy her in a debate. She wrongly associates corporate corruption and deregulation with conservative capitalism. Not true, much of these controls were removed under Clinton.
During the election Obama consulted with Robert Rubin who a short time back resigned as head of Citigroup; who now need yet mo-money says the stress test, I guess $45 billion wasn't enough. Obama appointed Larry Summers to be director of the White House National Economic Council and of course Timothy Geithner, former head of the FED Bank of New York now Treasury Secretary.
All of these men were members of Clinton's economic team and played a part in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 forbidding banks from selling speculative investments. Clinton, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner succeeded in repealing it to legitimize the formation of Citigroup.
Robert Rubin was the Secretary of Treasury under Clinton and later headed Citigroup, Tim Geithner from 1998 to 2001 worked under Robert Rubin, a.k.a Robert Rubin's protege.
i am surprised that you actually read the book and have come out as confused as you are. it makes me think you never read the book, but are basing your post off of what you heard about the book, or some rightwing screed against it.
klein and others (me) have time and time again criticized the clinton economic team, specifically b/c they have followed the same friedman neoliberal game plan. so, the fact that you use rubin and his band of rubinites as a criticism of klein demonstrates a basic lack of comprehension of the shock doctrine, klein's critique of the chicago school, and a myriad of other things.
and, by complete accident, you are right about china. it is a totalitarian regime that uses the power of the state to skew the economy, and you claim that they owe more to friedman than anyone else. well, you got that right. one basic aspect of the chicago school of economics was the use of the state as a repressive force in society to funnel wealth upwards.
Touché.
she vehemently attacks Freidman in her book and has done so in her speeches using the incident in Chile as an example. She overstates his role, Freidman put that to rest many years ago.
If want to view some her misstatements on Freidman just hit youtube and do a search on Freidman Klein and you can find many videos in her own words misconstruing and misquoting Freidman. She's an opportunist. Got China right by accident? No I've read much of Friedman's works and her shock doctrine book as well.
She is right about a shock doctrine but she wrongly attaches Freidman to it and demonizes him when she shouldn't. Keynesian economists will get the opportunity to prove themselves wrong in this economic downturn. The notion of deficit spending our way through this is asinine, the can of worms we are opening will be more than evident in just a few years. I'll be here to remind people of that when inflation is firmly hitting our pocket books.
You continue to conflate the stimulus and the bailouts.
Stop it.
They are different things.
The stimulus is for things we should be doing.
The bailouts are a giveaway to the Oligarchs.
The bailouts are a swindle.
At three trillion, four times the size of the stimulus. At $12 trillion committed they are over ten times.
The bailouts only stimulate the greed and moral hazard of the banksters, impoverishing the rest of us in the process.
Why shoot the messenger, the message is that the Oligarchs are crooks.
They blew themselves, and us, up with their fraudulent products. Because they have captured the government they are robbing us blind to rebuild their lost fortunes.
It won't be the stimulus that did it, it will be the bailouts.
deficit spending is deficit spending. We don't HAVE the money, and China (as predicted) is reducing their exposure to our debt right now and have been since January. You guys are in for a very rude awakening in just a few years. The stimulus to increase government works is still a burden to the tax payer, it's a snake eating it's own tail. Just wait until the FED is forced to loan itself money based on nothing as the world distances themselves from us.
China has 'canceled US credit card': lawmaker
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/China_has_cancel...
China Says Global Easing Policies Risk Devaluation (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsar...
Fed Needs To Cut Rates To -5%, Says Fed
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-...
No it will be foreign debt, it has always been the problem. Bush spent us into the ground with two wars and lowering taxes and Obama is doing it also with even higher record budgets that can only be added to the national debt.
You guys just don't get it, the US is insolvent, out of money, living on a credit card (now canceled). Again the question I have belabored here with no good answer to date. "With what money?"
On a financial statement bailout and stimulus both end up in the expense column. That column WAS getting paid for by the now canceled credit card, not real earnings, generated cash flow, or anything positive. The ROI on the stimulus will take years, we will default on our debt before then.
I get all of it.
I am not saying that the one note you keep singing is wrong, just that it is one note.
Here in the May Atlantic (along with Simon Johnson's Quiet Coup here.):
and in the end it will unwind badly, they can't hide the mess forever. Klein is right about the corruption, it's a few top cronies trying desperately and vainly to hold on to power.
friedman was one of the masterminds behind the neoliberal economic school, which has been an abject failure.
He was a man who blathered on about "free" markets, yet prescribed undemocratic policies that were dependent on the state to enact. he spoke out against the "tyranny of the majority", which, in economic terms, by ensuring that the majority (the people) never can impose its will upon the minority (the ruling class), the resulting system guarantees that the rich will always rule, and that no government intervention could disrupt this system.
friedman was a neoliberal, a lapdog to the oligarchs, and a hypocrite.
Abject failure? In 15 to 20 years China will be the economic powerhouse and in many ways are so today. Freidman won, here we are the insolvent US saying Keynes knew better and we can punch our way through to the other side if we just deficit spend enough. Good luck with that.
maybe you look to totalitarian china with love struck eyes, but not me, i prefer democracy. china's use of slave labor, violent repression, extreme income inequality might look like "winning" to you, but not this guy. no thanks.
and you seem to lack an understanding of the past 3 decades: just WHY is america now dabbling with keynesian ideas? (hint: it has to do with the implementation of friedman neoliberalism and the complete breakdown of the economy [due to rampant deregulation, privatization, and the financialization of the economy], which led many back to keynes general theory about how to fix the mess that friedman's economic ideology created. damn, i gave you the answer)
all that said, i think TARP was one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever come from DC. and i think that the obama econ team is about as trustworthy and credible as a drunk rattlesnake
and, sorry i normally wouldn't point this out, but you keep spelling friedman's name wrong... ('i' before 'e')
Don't confuse political policy with economic science. He was an avid defender of freedom in policy, while he did not agree with China on many policy issues he repeatedly said his economic science could be applied even in a dictatorship.
A lot of people here have a big misunderstanding of what Friedman's teachings were. He was a libertarian, not an Ann Rand libertarian but a realist libertarian as he often said.
There are a lot of people right now who are trying to associate cronyism with being capitalism, and it's flat wrong.
Yup I am, got a friend who's last name spells it the other way. my bad.
you wrote: he [friedman] repeatedly said his economic science could be applied even in a dictatorship
this is not correct
stated correctly: his economic science required a dictatorship. (see: chile, argentina, bolivia)
what friedman advocated and prescribed was directly opposed by the majority of people that were targeted for structural reform.
from privatizing SOEs, to opening of economies to direct foreign investments, to the elimination of subsidies, etc.
it devastated local populations, the poor, small farmers, hourly workers, etc.
and, the poor and middle class being the majority came out hard against these trickle down policies, and friedman and neoliberalism advocated the use of state-sanctioned violence to oppress (or just plain disappear) those that dare question why economic policy was being skewed to help the wealthy and the corporations.
i know friedman. hence the scorn. he was not for freedom, he was for oligarchy.
Watch the below video and towards the end listen to what he says in an interview on a German program where he clarifies his science can be applied under these settings, he also debunks his role the Chile incident.
Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUFyEY3gmo
sorry, this only shows how desperate friedman and the neoliberal apologists are to spin the results of the failed experiment.
note: economics, like anthropology and sociology, is a social science. he makes himself look like a buffoon drawing a direct comparison btwn economics and physics. how is that science working fer ya now milty (as we spiral further down a neoliberal-induced recession)
also, the video, in its shrillness, sets up a strawman, that being the claim that klein argues that friedman is personally responsible for the chilean deaths/torture. this claim is never made, and, again, it makes me wonder whether you and other neoliberal apologists ever read the book you vilify. it is easy to knockdown that strawman b/c it is simply inaccurate, and a thorough understanding of klein's book makes that crystal clear. the point she makes is that the ideology that friedman espoused and the chicago boys advised pinochet led to the death/torture. maybe it is too complex for some people, but there is a difference, and it makes the video seem pretty dishonest.
fine, you don't like klein, cool. but i am waiting to see where you actually defend friedman's neoliberalism. if this is the extent of your refutation of friedman criticism might i suggest you regroup...
in front of your eyes, just give it 3 to 5 years. The Austrian school is going to be proven right and Keynesian economics will be left with no answers. How on earth can anyone in their right mind defend deficit spending when it is precisely the action which got us into trouble?
I didn't say I didn't like Klein, I agree with many of her arguments but she clearly misrepresents and misquotes Friedman, the video I presented proves it. It also proves she either did not do her home work or she is blatantly lying about Friedman's role in Chile.
Friedman's economics are hardly failed, China is succeeding on them now. Their economic foundation is based on his precepts and today because of this they now are the largest creditor nation in the world and the largest exporter of products. Our roles here in the US are reversed with China because we lost sight of his teachings and allowed corruption to set in.
Today we are the largest debtor nation in the world with a meaningless GDP because we don't produce hardly anything. Instead our GDP is reflection of all production not giving reverence to what foreign country has setup shop here in the US.
When you look at an economy, just at the gnp and other economic numbers, China looks like it's going to take over the world. Maybe economically, but the real measure of an economy in my mind is what THE PEOPLE think of it. The poor and middle class. For them it sucks. Low wages, high prices, pretty well slave labor, no choices.
I don't care one bit about how good an economy is, if all it does is make the rich a little bit richer and the poor a whole lot poorer.
Naomi stated time and again in her book that the upper classes just loved Friedmans theories, they made tons of money from them. The poor on the other hand went from barely manageable poverty to crushing poverty.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is looked on with horror and loathing by the elites of the society. He's actively taking money out of their wallets. The poor and middle class on the other hand love him. He is trying to do something that no American president would ever even consider doing: giving the poorest among us true help in their daily lives. Milton Friedman and his ilk are disgusted when they see anyone taking money away from the haves to give to the have nots.
There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't even know where to start. "THE PEOPLE" love sweat shops, no matter how much you detest them. The reason is, before they came along the Chinese where working 14+ hour days on a farm in the sun. Now they're making decent wages, (remember, wages are relative) for easier (again relativity) jobs. This doesn't even go into the fact that sweat shops have been steadily improving due to job competition. This in return allows American companies to lower the prices to incredible lows, helping the poorest people. There actually was a study done that showed communities with Wal-Marts in them actually improved the health of everyone around them, due to the increased availability of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Moving on you point out that Hugo Chavez has done more to help the poor, by taking money out of the "elites" pockets. Ignoring your questionable morals, I find your overall understanding of the situation of Venezuela, and the long term consequences to be laughable. You're correct in that Hugo Chavez has helped out the poor by "giving" (stealing) money to the lower classes, but he's only been able to do this because of his oil reserves. A study was actually done on this and found: "The poor of Venezuela are living much better lately and have increased their purchasing power . . . [but] without being able to improve their housing, education level, and social mobility," .... "Rather than help [the poor] become stakeholders in the economic system," what the government has done is "distribute as much oil wealth as possible in missions and social programs.” Now that oil is back to normal prices, the people are going to be even worse off. Good deal? Good luck trying to find other companies that want to invest in the Venizwalian economy, now that Hugo has nationalized pretty much everything.
In the end, he's going to fail, just like every other socialist country in history. We can only hope that he realizes this before we see another mass famine, and opens up the market. You can be a romantic idealist, who worships the ideas of equality and "fairness," or be a realist and understand that planned economies never work.
I never realized that Hong Kong was a dictatorship.
I have said that same thing since the beginning.
Here is Dean Baker on how simply it would have been to actually see the housing bubble. If you knew arithmetic and you weren't in Washington.
Here are some contrarians on the 'Stress Tests'. Yves Smith, William K Black, Simon Johnson et al.
William K Black from above:
Yves Smith: Stress tests pin the bogometer here.
Robert Scheer and the TARP robbery here.
Report on Barofsky TARP report here. Complete Barofsky report here.
Simon Johnson, his site Baseline Scenario, his article in the Atlantic, A Quiet Coup, here.
MATTHEW RICHARDSON and NOURIEL ROUBINI We Can't Subsidize the Banks Forever here.
I see my is already made. Another source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Bernanke's green shoots are really 'Little Shoots of Horror' here.
Market intervention or manipulation, here.
Ok, I know I am in the minority when I say regulate tomorrow and do a good job of it rather than rushing through regulation today to appease the masses. The American people --- and the rest of the world for that matter --- wont forget the SNAFU on Wall St. anytime soon so I believe Obama has time to draft thoughtful and good legislation to send to the hill for the House and Senate to mull over and hack to bits.
Rushed legislation is rarely good and usually counterproductive at best (USA Patriot act comes to mind but there are other instances). FDR did a lot in the first 100 days but many of the things done were also counter productive.
Keep reminding your reps that we need to regulate Wall St but don't complain that we have not done anything as of yet because we did not know the depth and scope of the troubles until recently. I'm not a fan of the big bankers --- not in the least --- but I don't want to rush through a bad bill. The republicans drove this country to the brink by passing bill after bill using emergencies to force the hand of congress. I, for one, am tired of this tactic because nothing good comes from it.
We don't need bipartisanship or a bill that makes everyone happy; however, we need to ensure the bill works and does what the drafters intend for it to do. We need a bill that has been run through the ringer a few times to find loop-holes BEFORE corporations can.
There is nothing wrong with doing things a little more slowly than what we are used to. From what I saw of Obama in the run-up to the election I figured he would be thoughtful and cautions and not reactionary. That is why I voted for him.
We need to stop being reactionary and to think through problems to come to good solutions in the end (data driven process refinement for you six-sigma and lean manufacturing types ;)
You make a lot of great points. I would have liked to have heard the Obama administration talking about reinstating some of the regulations that were in put in place after the Great Depression that worked pretty well for us for a long time and were dismantled with the help of both parties. I don't think they need to be reinventing the wheel with some of this. As Klein and Maddow noted there's a window for that public pressure which is there now to move the Congress to act. I don't think they've taken advantage of it in the way they could have. I don't expect any of this to get fixed quickly if it's going to be fixed right either.
...although I have to say that I think some of the Obama vs. FDR comparisons are a little unfair. To borrow an incredibly insightful line from the brilliant film "The American President," FDR didn't have to be president on television.
When Obama has to deal with a corporate media machine poised and ready 24/7 to pounce and attack him on everything down to his friggin' choices in mustard (?!?) and deliver it in real-time to the very loud and obnoxious knuckle-dragging segment of the populace who decide daily on the color of the sky by the word of said media types but happen unfortunately to be masters of spin, he and his team no doubt have to scrutinize every single word he utters in public. One "Special Olympics" slip up aired ad nauseum can set back days or weeks of work on shaping public opinion.
Obama, I think, generally wants to do right by the people and push through real change. Overly comfy senators on both sides of aisle, however, not so much...
The obvious answer to "the regulation should have come hand in hand with the bailout money" (which is something I emphatically agree with in principle) is the banks couldn't wait for Congress to write new regulations. The regulation will have to come now. Unfortunately both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the financial industry.
couldn't the Congress just have reinstated the Glass-Steagall Act and the other laws they 'discontinued' in '99 and '00 as a temporary measure????
If it worked for 50+ years, I'm sure it could have been used a while longer until more 'up-to-date' legislation is out into place.
Though it probably would have been contentious, and people up for reelection are generally looking to stay away from a fight.
Without regulations are put into place the bailout won't work. I'm not a economist, but I'm allowed to my opinion. Bailout won't work because the private sector depends on investors and right now they are scared to death to risk their money to be thrown into Wall Street without safe guards to make sure they are not getting ripped off. Not regulating business has been my biggest disappointment so far with the democratic party.
The American People...ordinary citizens...need to have publicly owned banks where WE control the agenda.
Period.
End of story.
The majority of "banks" in this country should be owned and SIMPLY regulated by the people. The people should be the "stockholders".
"Venture capitalism" as we know it in this country has been put to the test and has failed.
Why?
G-R-E-E-D.
Average, ordinary, hard-working "normal" human beings just want to have a good steady job they love, a decent wage, health care that covers everything cradle to grave, a roof over our heads and an infrastructure that serves everyone.
All the other "perks" in the society are gravy. And that "gravy" is the love and creativity and ingenuity and ambition that makes us the society we long to be.
THAT is the America I'd like to live in.
Where the F is it??? Only in my imagi-freakin'-nation???!!
Bank of North Dakota
The State of North Dakota currently has a rather large budget surplus.
Bank On It: How Cash-Starved States Can Create Their Own Credit
It died when the middle class sold it for a few measley bucks worth of GOP tax cuts. We got $50 bucks, the billionaires got 30 million in tax cuts.
Gee, hard to figure out how they transferred at that wealth to themselves?
She is right about something else too: all of the clueless dumbasses I know who voted Repuke last year, think its the fault of Jorge the dishwasher - making $8,000 a year at Big Boys, who is destroying them. Yep, they actually think its the dirt poor immigrants who are the real problem. Talk about totally misreading the tea leaves.
When people are that ignorant, is it any wonder 46% of them voted for McInsane and crazy Palin last year? We are so screwed.
Setting the peasants against each other is rule #1 in the Ruling Class Game Book.
"Naomi Klein ... one of the most influental thinkers anywhere over the last ten years."
AGREED! She won me over with No Logo over a decade ago, and she's still kicking ass.
Congresswoman Kaptur: When Will The Wall Street Wrongdoers Be Brought To Justice?
NEVER!
Its not illegal when rich people on Wall Street do it!
Not true Madoff, Enron punks, and many other white collar criminals have been frog marched off to jail. Many more need to go to prison.
simon johnson recently stated: "I think the banks have control of the state. Not the state in control of the banks". trying to find blame among the politicians/lawmakers can be challenging. there have been strategic moves made by the financial elites over the last twenty years or so to get to where they
are today. in doing so, they made sure to include little pee ons players of both parties. this way fingers
can be pointed in all directions. personally, i lean toward the (r) party for providing many loopholes.
like i have said before that's NOT absolute. actually this financial crisis includes many international players for which we have don't have complete control. anti-trust laws need to be revisited as does
global monetary policies regarding interconnectedness.
The bail out is the final chapter in the transfer of our wealth and power to the Global Empires..
Obama had to made a deal with some group before the his election that he would continue Bush/Cheney total destruction of our citizens and any power they might have,,
Wealth is power and now we the people have none..
Our manufacturing plants are gone around with the jobs they created. They have given foreign citizens visa to come into our country and take our jobs , while contracting over the phone communications all the jobs which are involved in answering and directing your calls.
Your internet services using foreign countries that "TRY" to answer your problems and questions.
Your can not go through any store and see anything made in this nation anymore..
SO if by now you have not realize that we have been sold out by Bush , Republicans and now Obama and the democrats , you will never see the writing on the walls.. Our constitution , bill of rights , manufacturing , jobs , social programs and economy has been sold to the highest bidder..
If Bush was still in office and doing what Obama and the democrats are doing we would still be talking about impeachment. Obama and who ever ,,,is using Obama's popularity to screw us over..
How in the h... can Americans fight this Global Empire which controls the president , senate and the house of representatives.. H... they even own our military and that is why our military is overseas to protect this Global Empire while they steal others resources..
You do not need a business major to realize what our government is doing now is destroying the American citizens while pumping money and power into Global corporations..
H... we are now a third world country and all foreign nations are buying our land and resources with the jobs and money they have been given by the government and this Global Empire..
this stimulus is a 50/50 chance at best.
i can't blame obama though.
bush will be credited with destroying the US.
bush's iraq war, tax cuts and gigantic giveaway to the drug companies put us here.
the stimulus is just trying to stop the bleeding.
the jobs part is really hard to swallow.
do we really think we can get enuf jobs back to compete with china paying their workers 1 dollar a day? no
our total loss of our manufacturing base will probably never return.
all we can hope for is that we cut our city, state and fed budgets can be cut by at least 40%.(mainly pensions)
unfortunately, this won't happen as our government unions control our government and will all take us down.
meanwhile calif sinks into the sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1xD6my_ycs
We're being screwed and they're not using lubricant either. We just meekly bend over and they stick it to us again and again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4
changed my whole life. It was like I'd been wandering through life with my hands over my eyes and earplugs in. I was one of those who never questioned what the newsman told me. It just never occurred to me that there was another side to the world that I wasn't seeing. In a six month span I read The Shock Doctrine, Chalmers Johnson's trilogy of books, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. John Perkins' Confession of an Economic Hitman and The Secret History of the American Empire. I also watched several excellent and eye opening documentaries by John Pilger. Michael Parenti, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky contributed to my awakening as well.
My eyes were opened and now I can no longer blithely go about my business as if we all were in never-land. The people who run our world are corrupt monsters who don't care for us at all. We're just statistics to them. Statistics to be used where necessary or erased if need be. Cannon fodder for their armies of conquest over other statistics (mostly of a different colour or race than ours).
others to check out:
david harvey
david cay johnston
danny schecter
immanuel wallerstein
"If the Democrats don't get some real reform passed, even if it is a day late and a few trillion dollars short, they're going to be facing a lot of that anger at the polls come next election..."
LOL. Who else are you going to vote for? The party of Palin? Come on. The Democrats are in the catbird seat. They can pander to the bankers who pay the freight, put a populist gloss on it all 'cause we all KNOW that Obama, bigod, is for the People, and waltz through the next couple of elections while the so-called Republican party rebrands. Plus ca change, baby!
There would have been the stupid Tea Bag Parties no matter if congress put regulations into place or not. The wingnuts would lash out at immigrants no matter what. Do you think that Lou Dobbs would have told them to back off?
When this meltdown happened in September/October things had to move fast. It is just a fact. I don't think that congress could have gotten regulations into place in the short time they had to act. It takes time to do it, to write good regulations. I think/hope that people like Barney Frank get the regulations into place. They said they would. If they don't then WE!!!! have to hold them accountable in no uncertain terms. I may be wrong about this but I don't think so. I hope not.
...to the Teabaggers, the Conservatives, Rush and Mr. Bush (whom I personally believe owes all us Americans a portion of his family's wealth).
By the way, did anybody notice the glistening in Rachel's eye every time she looked at Naomi?
"The Obama administration had a chance to channel the public anger over these bailouts to get reform passed and by not using that anger"
That a great sound bite. And the Democratic Chairman of the SEC is working to restore regulation taken away during the Bush administration. Problem is the SEC must have a "public comment" period before restoring regulation to the stock market.
Also, when was Obama suppose to squeeze this issue into his work day? Seriously, President Obama has a better work ethic then any President in my life time, and way better than George "vacation king" Bush.
Further slowing regulation to the financial markets are the same short selling parasites that made massive amounts of money off the deregulation of the markets. All of the various interests are all lobbying to at least water down the regulation to various degrees.
Unfortunately there are no lobbyists representing "public outrage" So while some Congressmen are publicly for credit card reform they may, to some degree, secretly in favor of less regulation for the financial system.
Then you have Republicans pushing their agenda of "NO"...
"NO" Regulation, "NO" constructive input, "NO" ability to do anything other than criticize.
"They Frankly Own the Place" by Matt Renner
http://www.truthout.org/050809J?n
...I agree with Rachel Maddow when she called Ms. Klein's book 'mandatory reading' - it is. Like others have said here - The Shock Doctrine is an eye-opener and it helps us all understand what it is we are dealing with when we watch our government dance to whatever tune the Oligarchy wants to play.
Not that it can't be criticized for a few aspects (a skeptical mind is an active mind) like the comparison drawn between the torture of individuals and the 'torture' of whole societies can easily lead to critics yammering about false equivalence and hyperbole. If you are receptive to Ms. Klein's premise when reading the book you will be able to see that she isn't drawing equivalency between individual and societal 'shock' - she is using one as a metaphor for the other - but once it winds up being discussed by right-wing boneheads on TV they will screech about how ridiculous or outrageous it is to make that comparison (usually right before they call somebody 'worse than Hitler' in the next breath). Mostly the righties get incensed by her critique of Milton Friedman, his Chicago school disciples of disaster capitalism, and 'free market' true believerism - because nobody likes it when their religion is 'insulted'.
I wish we could see a lot more 'air time' for Naomi Klein and her observations about the disaster we are living through now. I think that if the reasonable and true description of the existential threat to our current situation and the deep systemic problems inherent to having crony capitalists in charge of 'fixing' crony capitalism were to be consistently communicated to a mass audience - there would be enough political re-alignment and support for making changes and fixes that ACTUALLY address our real problems as a society - instead of mortgaging our future with bailouts so that the predatory disaster capitalists can plunder us today, tomorrow, until society to completely collapses from their insane 'leadership'.
To those posters who only want to attack our 'enemies' (like Limbaugh, etc.) - I think you are wasting your time at best and misplacing your priorities at worst (ultimately self-defeating). What will work is getting enough people to see the great scam of partisan bickering for what it is - a distracting theater intended to sap the strength from popular movements and blunt the will of the people when it comes to seeing their true interests advanced. The democrats might get total control of the government but that in no way means that they will act against the desires of the oligarchy - they got into office by pretending to represent the will of 'the people' which includes a greater representation of minorities and 'middle class' folk - but they stay in office thanks to contributions from elite friends and lobbying interests in corproate boardrooms - we need to press them in order to ensure actual progress.
5:42 - is that a TIM HORTON'S TAKE OUT CUP I SEE???
yesssssssssssssssssssssssss
Did you hear what Rachel said at the beginning?
This crisis was engineered for a purpose, more regulation in the form of economic integration. It wasn't the free market that caused the crisis, it was the Federal Reserve artificially lowering interest rates.
The bailout was a mistake -- the Paradox of Thrift is not true.
The Keynesians (some of them) knew the crisis would happen. Listen to Barney Frank, he said he tried to get the Fed to stop sub-prime lending in 1994/1995. They wouldn't.
I bet you didn't know the Federal Reserve was founded by those who supported Imperial Federation for the British Empire?
This is their official website: http://www.moot.org.uk/history.asp
They created Chatham House and it's sister organization the CFR, both of which promotes Imperial Federation for the Commonwealth in the form of Economic Integration. They are two of the most powerful political organizations in the world.
In America, Step 1 was GATT, Step 2 was NAFTA and Step 3 is SPP.GOV
Step 5 a monetary union. Only possible if we had a financial crisis.
The CFR has repeatedly said to "globalize safely" we must abolish natural currencies. And gee, the CFR think tank is named for a vocal Fabian Socialist who just happens to be a large shareholder in the New York Federal Reserve, the dominant reserve bank.
Login or Register to post comments.