Re: [Pen-l] "Has Barack Obama's presidency already failed?"

[Charles Brown <cdb1003@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> =================================================
> They're not socialists so they can't be accused of
> not being what they don't
> pretend to be.  But, as you say, the calls for
> nationalization,

^^^^^^
CB: It might be too late, but it might 
be a good idea to nationalize, but 
not call it that. I think someone else
said something like that on this thread.
Maybe call it "federalize".

^^^^
 even if only
> intended as a as a temporary expedient to save capitalism,

^^^^
CB: I know it's ultra-leftist crazy, 
with enormous human cost and
the result could be fascism, but it's 
tempting to think "why _save_capitalism ?"
As long as basic and emergency food,
 shelter, energy
and medical care is maintained...Nawww
Americans have too many guns.

^^^^^

> are a very good
> thing in the sense that a) wasting billions upon billions
> on zombie banks is
> not in our interest as taxpayers and wage and salary
> earners; b) revived
> discussion of public ownership in the political realm, 

^^^^
CB: I'm not sure about this, but
I don't recall an American tradition
of any discussion of public ownership
to revive
except of course in the tiny socialiist
and Communist left. Anarchist/libertarians
are against government ownership, I believe.
Well, actually, the federal government
did some "commandeering" of the private
sector during WWII.  If things get bad 
enough perhaps we should propose "martial
law in the private sector" (or Eminent
Domain ; see below) In the US,
that might fly better than 
"nationalization". I mean during the  
campaign that tv reporter asked 
Biden why raising rich people's
taxes wasn't "Marxism". Many Americans
are hyper-anti-communist. On the other
hand , the majority of voters didn't
listen to the redbaiting.

 A key thing,
again, would be to come up with
some different names. In this context,
Shakespeare is wrong. There is something
in a name.
Some in this discussion have noted
that if "the" banks don't start 
helping the recovery, Obama, may
be forced to do some "commandeering"

On the Constitutional question
that Sandwichman raised, there is
Eminent Domain. If the feds give
the banks billions, that would
constitute the just compensation,
so no violation of the Takings
Clause. If the banks are
insolvent, then their
fair market value wouldn't
be that much , so there
wouldn't have to be just
compensation.

^^^^^

from
> which it had
> been banished for decades by a triumphant capitalism, is in
> our interest -
> no matter how it's initially posed, with whatever
> motive, and from whatever
> quarter.


CB: Certainly. The trouble is there
 are almost no elected officials
with this "tradition" in the US.
What has Bernie Sanders said ?
Conyers might for it, but he's
always been a maverick.
Unfortunately, it is hard to think
how any would take the leap, to
a radically new perspective without
economic catastrophe. It's hard
not to fall into thinking "the
worse the better" and that the
only way to make a radical majority
among Congress people, would
be something we don't want
 the masses to suffer. I don't know
that economic journalists like
Krugman ,Buiter, Stiglitz, Galbraith
 and Wolf can make
a change in the elected officials.
Not to mention that if there
was a serious proposal for "nationalization"
 it would give the
rightwingers an excuse to get
radical too,only fascist.


> 
> Raghu posted an article yesterday by the Dutch-British
> economist, Willem
> Buiter, one of the more prominent advocates of
> nationalizing the banking
> system, which is well worth reading:


CB: I hope he doesn't call it
"nationaliszation"
> 
> http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/02/good-banknew-bank-vs-bad-bank-a-rare-example-of-a-no-brainer/.
> 
> Buiter wants new state banks created with TARP and like
> public funds
> elsewhere, 

allowing the big private ones to collapse with
> their impossible
> to value toxic assets. Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Romer, whom
> Buiters
> references, have made similar proposals, as have Krugman
> and Wolf. Their
> indictment of the current policies of national treasuries
> and central banks
> to inject capital into the failed institutions and to
> assume responsibility
> in one way or another for the massive losses on the now
> near worthless
> stocks, bonds, and derivatives incurred by reckless private
> investors is
> something we can all get behind without reservation.

^^^^^^
CB: How can "we" move masses to march
on Wall Street ? Can anyone suggest
to Krugman et al that they start
referring to the example
of commandeering the private
sector in WWII , the era
of the "Greatest Generation" ?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l