First Obama was a Muslim, and now he's a Jew? What's next? Maybe he'll be a Scandinavian lacrosse player named Bjørn?

>> ^solvent:
There is nothing surprising about this. Alan Greenspan (ex-chairman of the Federal Reserve) is a jew and he was shaping the American monetary policy for years. The next president Obama is - contrary to popular belief - also a jew. They are occupying very important positions in the government, the financial sector and other key industries as well. Of course they will do anything to stop anti-zionist activity. These are fact, not a racist rant...

There is nothing surprising about this. Alan Greenspan (ex-chairman of the Federal Reserve) is a jew and he was shaping the American monetary policy for years. The next president Obama is - contrary to popular belief - also a jew. They are occupying very important positions in the government, the financial sector and other key industries as well. Of course they will do anything to stop anti-zionist activity. These are fact, not a racist rant...

No matter how bad the temporary pains seem, putting off the inevitable will only make the pains worse when the collapse comes. And it will come. Putting off the recession is what made the Great Depression so Great.

Somehow I don't mind so much, the government helping out the auto industry BECAUSE there are strings attached. But to allow the banks to continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable, without consequences, as they surely will be, who is to think that their behavior will really change?

Maddow's explanations make clear the discrimination that differs in between the financial class and the working class: If you are poor, and you screw up and lose all your money, you are left homeless. If you are rich, and you screw up and you lose all your money, you get free money with no strings attached.. Is that even a slap on the wrist?? Even Greenspan has pointed out that these organizations are irresponsible and unaccountable.

If a bad loan was administered, shouldn't those who granted the bad loan somehow be accountable for it? The people who end up homeless are not the bank execs who make what, thousands of bad loans, again and again? How is this fair? Where is the accountability of the institutions?

* I am beginning to increasingly believe that FIGHT CLUB GOT IT RIgHT back in 1999!

Full clip of Greenspan's responses: http://www.videosift.com/video/Alan-Greenspan-I-Was-Wrong-longer-clip

Not fair.
Alan Greenspan proved himself to be more than capable of his post when he resigned at age 80...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Same thing. The definition of republic is much broader than that of a democracy, and USA fulfills both categories. It is a democracy, but it is also a republic.

The distinction usually politically charged, because democrats want to call it a democracy and republicans want to call it a republic. They are both right (or wrong).

We live in a republic, not a democracy. The constitution sets up a system of sound money not fiat currency, and for good reason. I think it was funny how he dodged the question of how his hero would of totally hated the idea of a central bank. Though, it isn't the idea of the central bank and fractional reserve that would of been most disturbing, it would off been the complete control of the money system being in the hands of the government. Historically speaking, this almost always results in either hyper-inflation or stagflation.

Greenspan himself was a former Austrian economist until he moved on up the chain of command. The same happened with Nixon and other various political figureheads. Power corrupts I guess

Underlining Mark Thirlwell's point about the multitude of opinions with regards to the current economic crisis is this video of Naomi Klein and Joseph Stiglitz:

Liberal commentator Naomi Klein blames Alan Greenspan for the current economic crisis, citing the former Federal Reserve Chairman's push to deregulate financial systems such as derivatives markets as a key element of the crisis.



Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz criticizes American financial leadership in the run-up to the current economic crisis, and declares free-market fundamentalism "dead" as a guiding principle of the U.S. economy.



Full video is at http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Naomi_Klein_and_Joseph_Stiglitz_on_Economic_Power

Yep, Republicans in the White House, Republicans in Majority of Congress, and Republicans in control of the Supreme Court.

Certainly everything that went wrong was still the Democrats' fault, just for existing.

Even Alan Greenspan says it was deregulation that caused this, and not anti-discrimination laws, Fannie and Freddie, or Barney Frank's homosexuality.

Only rightwing nutjobs believe...oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^I don't want to see you calling the fire department when your home catches fire, Señor rugged individualist.


Can you not read or something? I want government funding to the extent that they're preventing the infringement of rights and offering recourse, not "directing industry" with forcibly appropriated money or providing services any more complex than laying pavement. Any fire could be arson, you need a fire department to protect private property. Full-blown state health care addressing self-inflicted conditions with other people's money is garbage.

Ever hear about the guy in Sweden with the brain tumor? The state didn't like his chances and declared it inoperable to save money. He flew to private facility and paid for the operation, and lived for many more years. How kind and wonderful socialist health care is.

Learn what Socialism is.. do you really want to Live in CUBA or Russia? for the next 4 years.

Surely not, but it's worth nothing that economic and political freedom are two completely different things and they don't even have elections in Cuba. And yes, economically, Cuba is even more socialist than we are. Just this year they ALLOWED their citizens to buy computers. People don't risk their lives fleeing to America on rafts and banana boats for nothing, they're trying to escape living life as just another lowest common denominator. They want the opportunity to live, not merely survive in a so-called socialist utopia. Unfortunately, they don't realize the hyperinflationary depression brought on by our socialist interventions they're now stepping into. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, as they might say.

downvote banshee for ignoring what i wrote and telling me the definition of a word.

Are you on drugs or something?!! I totally answered your question. If you aren't socialist, you're capitalist. The terms are a reference to where the majority of the capital is controlled, politicians or its earner. There is no other place for it to be. Just like if you're not feeling good, you're feeling bad. Not anti-good.

YES, THAT MEANS GEORGE BUSH AND NEO-CONS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN MORESO THAN CLINTON WHO ENJOYED POPULARITY UNDER THE FED-INDUCED TECH BUBBLE OF THE 90S. Instead of having that bubble burst on Bush's first term and making him a one-term president, he delayed a severe recession by having Greenspan artificially lower interest rates to 1% for an entire year. The inflationary effects of that filtered into real estate. Amazing revelation, here for you?

then you only have one problem left, and for me it's a big one: The Arts. I cannot figure out a way that art can be compatible with capitalism. It doesn't work like that.

It's the complete opposite, art is hurt by socialism. What funds advanced types of art and entertainment like video games and movies is the personal tastes of a private earner who has in his possession excess capital after buying things to merely survive. Socialism could try to provide for that, but tastes vary far too much for a central office to know the millions of places that the capital would have flowed to if it had been spent by its earner. Or even how much is appropriate to distribute to each person. Invariably, there will be people who don't care much about art and just want a bigger family. Do you then take from one person's art fund to finance the cost of those kids? That will gut the art fund very quickly. As will the corruption inherent in having capital controlled by someone who didn't earn it. And when your government is involved in banning computers and censoring speech, good luck with damn near anything.

>> ^quantumushroom:
An old fool trying to salvage his legacy by blaming the victim: free markets.


I'll cheers to that.

its a complex question because one person can't predict the "natural rate" but they could set it according to better guidelines than they currently do. if they set it closer to the market value (or were removed from the picture altogether) the market would become extremely resilient and its inherent protection against booms/busts would be restored. price fixing removes the equilibrating effect of the price system which protects against both depressions and artificial "booms". if this occurred right now, our economy would recover and prosper in less than 8-12 months.

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, because I know little about economics. But I'm curious. What do you think would happen if the Fed suddenly stopped fixing the interest rate? If they simply set it at a natural rate, and left it?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
>> ^chilaxe:
^I have a lot of respect for Greenspan. Can you back up your allegations?


sure, what specifically would you like to know? Greenspan was originally close to objectivism, even writing letters for objectivist publications. He was also friends with Milton Friedman who was a prodigy of the Austrian school, at one point meeting face to face with F.A Hayek (until he too got in bed with the fed as a result of his monetarist leanings). Almost all economists in America are taught in the Chicago/Keynesian school, they never learn what Austrian economics is much less the theory behind it. They can be accurately classified as "ignorant." Greenspan knows better, he knows what Austrian economics is and thus he knows the moral and economic implications of his job at the federal reserve and he choses money and power over the economic well being of the country. He knows that when he fixes interests rates low he is creating "bubbles" which eventually burst, often violently as we are seeing today. Under his watch he set interest rates to an unheard of 1% after 9/11, creating a negative interest rate against inflation (very bad) and an artificial demand in housing, which resulted in large increases in both construction and price. These prices are not real or sustainable and must be eventually corrected, which is what is happening right now. However, the extent of monetary irresponsible has made it such that this is not contained in any one market but instead infects the whole economy.

He is not a man who should be respected, he is a man who should be despised with utmost tenacity. He is knowingly using misinformation to commit fraud against the American people. Paulson is probably aware of the consequences of his actions as well, but certainly does not have the background Greenspan does.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Don't know how I ended up smarter than Greenspan , but warped regulations, not deregulation, caused these crises.
Financial institutions wouldn't have dared play chicken with high-risk investments of their own money. Government paved the way for the corruption by allowing them to gamble without worry. "Too big to fail?" There's nothing those government idiots can't screw up, given enough time and other people's money. And now taxocrats want MORE government to fix what they already screwed up.

Funny wasn't it Bush who said that its very urgent for the country to save the economy by giving away 700 billion to save a few Wall Street firms.

Wasn't it McCain who said a few weeks ago "The fundamentals of our Economy remain strong"?

Who push forward privatization more then ever over the last 8 years? Energy deregulation? Enron.

What about deficits like this...

Greenspan destroys Capitalism in 16 seconds.

Don't know how I ended up smarter than Greenspan*, but warped regulations, not deregulation, caused these crises.

Financial institutions wouldn't have dared play chicken with high-risk investments of their own money. Government paved the way for the corruption by allowing them to gamble without worry. "Too big to fail?" There's nothing those government idiots can't screw up, given enough time and other people's money. And now taxocrats want MORE government to fix what they already screwed up.



* An old fool trying to salvage his legacy by blaming the victim: free markets.