I think now any sane person would realize we need a international authority to help deal with

[RB TexLa]

financial concerns. Or at least more and broader regional political and economic unions with real power. I know our John Birch leaning members will give the right wing code words that our sovereignty is "precious" and that we to "cherish" it. And that such things would destroy 'Merican sovereignty. But for people who don't suffer from the disease of nationalism it should be pretty clear.

[stray cat]

1. I don't have that much trust in an ultimate all powerful world wide leader

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Krugman is on Rachel....said we need a nationalization of the system

I agree.

[anigbrowl]

4. Ugh, please no.

That's a crowd-pleaser, but I'm not at all in favor of just nationalizing everything, both for political and economic reasons. If he wants to advocate that he's going to have to come up with a really really good argument for why. I'll wait for him to go into print with some sort of exact proposal before I draw any conclusions about what he means.

[Two Americas]

10. crowd pleaser?

I think it is about damned time that the "crowd" - otherwise known as the people, the poor human beings trying to live in this "free market" nightmare, got something to be pleased about. We have had about enough of doing everything to please the wealthy and powerful few while the people suffer.

[anigbrowl]

13. 'What you want' is not always 'what's good for you'

If you find that point of view elitist, so be it. I could give you a ton of historical examples when populist policies turned out to be a dreadful mistake. So, I think that a fully nationalized financial system would end up causing much more unhappiness, probably within a relatively short time frame.

[Two Americas]

17. maybe

But what they want is killing us.

After the last 8 years we are now worried about some "dreadful mistake" that might come from populism or nationalization?

We are living the "dreadful mistake." This is it.

[anigbrowl]

18. This is pretty low on my 'dreadful' scale

Trust me, I can think of a lot worse than what we're currently going through, or even what we're likely to go through in a few years of recession. Nationalization looks like an attractive fix, but I believe that it would result in Weimar Republic 2.0.

[Two Americas]

20. good for you

I wish you the best.

So you really think that the peril that the average person is facing is being exaggerated? Not in my neighborhood, nor in very many neighborhoods I visit.

As far as nationalization, or a more active role by government in regulating and controlling the financial industry - how does that lead to Nazi-ism (assuming that is the fear you are raising here.)

[anigbrowl]

23. well...

I don't think the average person's problems are being exaggerated, but I can also think of a lot, lot worse situation that the average person could be in. I grew up in Ireland when it was both a lot poorer and more violent than today, and my in-laws are from Viet Nam. So while the situation in the US (and for the next few years) is far from peachy, it's still pretty darn good relatively speaking.

I don't think nationalization leads to Nazi-ism. But I do think it's much more likely to lead to hyper-inflation, and any and all economic discontent will be blamed on the government (especially by the sort of people that blame the government for messing up anything it touches). What I worry about is economic stagnation, which in 8 or 12 years leads to a return of the Republicans to power with the entire financial machinery under the direct control of the treasury.

In general, I am not that enthusiastic about socialist systems: having seen them up close (in both democratic socialist and communist flavors), I don't think they work very well. So I'm not convinced that nationalizing the banking sector will lead to great improvements even if the direst scenarios are avoided. I believe well-regulated markets & capitalism work better (not always, but more often than not) than the various alternatives.

[Two Americas]

24. thanks

I appreciate the thoughtful answer. I see your point now, it has much value, and I mostly agree with you.

[depakid]

5. That's not what he said

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. He said temporary nationalization of the system

and we are already on that path

:-)

And he gave me even more reason to be concerned... as in very concerned

[anigbrowl]

3. Like the IMF? Possibly so

But watch for the NWO-fearing lunatic fringe (both left and right) to go collectively insane if this is suggested in public.

Fortunately, both the IMF and the BIS are already looking at the matter. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/NEW100608A.htm

[readmoreoften]

6. Buddies with Feith, huh? Nice company you keep.

I'll stay on the "lunatic fringe" thanks...

[anigbrowl]

7. 'Buddies with feith'? what are you talking about?

[RB TexLa]

8. Must be the secret manufacturer of the black silent helicopters.

:rofl:

[anigbrowl]

15. I imagine I'll be waiting a while for a reply on that one

I presume he was referring to neocon Doug Feith, but last time I looked he didn't have anything to do with the IMF.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Bullshit. Re-read the shock doctrine.

Think it can't get worse? Ask the Chileans, Poles and Argentines.

[anigbrowl]

14. Who sid anything about thinking it can't get worse?

Why do some people insist on arguing with things that were never said? I'm well aware of the Argentine situation; indeed, I've been saying that avoiding that was one of the good reasons to pass this bailout bill. You may not agree, but I can't help that. I do not believe that the Shock Doctrine is the bible of modern politics, partly because it can be applied to just about any historical disaster: any given catastrophe ends up benefiting somebody, but it doesn't follow that it was engineered for their benefit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Putting the IMF or the World Bank in control of their system was a catastrophe in itself..

The punishment the IMF inflicted on the people in the name of financial prudence was far greater than the crisis intervention was meant to address.

[anigbrowl]

21. Oh, really?

It wasn't the IMF that prevented people taking their own money out of the banks. While I wouldn't give an unqualified thumbs-up to the IMF, they've cut a lot of deals with Argentina, such that about 40% or so of the country's debt got written off. The IMF should probably not have kept loaning them money and rolling over the repayments all through the 1990s, given how corrupt Argentina still was (massive overspending by regional governments, massive tax evasion).

Why do you consider the IMF to be primarily at fault?

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. "They've cut deals with Argentina"

What were Argentina's concessions? Their part of "the deal"?

It's been a few months since I read TSD, but if memory serves, Argentina agreed to a bunch of market reforms which included privatizing (their version of) social security and eliminating their minimum wage. (Perhaps that was Chile... correct me if I'm wrong)

In essence the IMF and the World Bank used financial distress to extort the countries in question to accept wholesale Friedmanism.

[Two Americas]

19. that is delusional

The right wingers have been on a relentless, aggressive and transparent campaign to destroy, cripple, corrupt and privatize every single part of the public infrastructure and expropriate public resources, while transferiing massive wealth into the hands of the few, the connected, their friends and sponsors.

You would have us believe that this is all an accident?

[anigbrowl]

22. Nothing I say is going to satisfy you

I never said anything about it being an accident, nor am I trying to get the right wing off the hook. Every time I'm trying to have an informed, polite discussion with someone about economic matters, someone like yourself comes along with all these dramatic statements and takes me to task for not being angry enough or calling me delusional or whatever.

Fine, I am too centrist for your liking. Now you can post another random vent against the administration which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

[Two Americas]

25. not true!

I thought your last post was very good, and I much appreciated it.

Here is what I saw (not necessarily to say that this is the way things are, but rather so you understand what I was thinking) -

We are living in an extreme right wing nightmare, yet it seemed to me that you were cautioning and scaring people about any populist or left wing political ideas.

We are coming out of a period of extreme complacency and denial by people, yet it seemed to me you were telling people to calm down and not be alarmed.

[galileoreloaded]

27. I don't think we have ever seen a true right wing nightmare...yet...

I could think of 1000 ways it could be worse. Much worse. But I will say that the IMF and the World Bank royally screwed the Argentinians.

[Two Americas]

28. you watch from that direction

I will watch from the other.

Recommend caution, and I will recommend a sense of urgency.

Both are needed.

This is much worse than I ever want to see, and it is also much worse than it seems, because part of the way things are must include the potentialities inherent in current conditions. There is a potential for it to get much worse, and it is when it is on that stage that we have some hope of arresting it.

By the way, for some - those in secret detention locations and torture chambers, and those rounded up in raids, and those trapped in our prison system, and those living in terrible poverty, things now are as bad as they could ever get. And even under the worst times in Europe in the 30's and 40's there were people for whom life went on right through it without much impact on them.

[anigbrowl]

29. Well, I'm definitely a centrist (as in center left)

so it's certainly true that I'm wary of things going too far left, because I think that creates its own set of problems. At the same time, I'm inclined to damp down wilder flights of fancy, because those people who think 'nationalize everything and it will all be OK' are going to be real disappointed in Obama - and I say that as someone who regards Obama as a possible successor to FDR. I really think we need a 'new new deal' - but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

At bottom, I worry about the possibility that the right wing has polarized the country so much that they've made it dangerous to be in the center, though I don't think this is an imminent problem. I feel people often go for simple attractive solutions to complex problems, and that this deceptive simplicity can take people down a dangerous path, because authoritarians (or any political alignment) always like to make things seem as simple as possible.

[Two Americas]

30. no problem

All I ask - all I ever asked - was that the perspective from the Left (perhaps what you would call the far Left) be heard. I would never seek to exclude centrist voices.

Your second paragraph is well stated and has merit, in my opinion.

[kaos]

9. FRENCH OR EEU

Yeah let's get those assholes to run AMERICA

[Dorian Gray]

26. I don't think so....