As much as I detest the Fed’s emergency lending programs to banks to get them through the crisis, the truth is that they were fulfilling a main responsibility of central banks. It’s that they stopped following through when the crisis turned to human beings and not financial institutions, and that they were so generous (to the point of giving free money to banks), that was the big problem.
But if the Fed were running Europe today, the situation would demand at least a somewhat similar operation to get the continent out of crisis. Yet the European Central Bank, what passes for a facsimile, believes it has only a mandate on price stability and refuses to become that lender of last resort. And that is why some like Wolfgang Munchau in the Financial Times believe there may only be days left to save the Eurozone:
In virtually all the debates about the eurozone I have been engaged in, someone usually makes the point that it is only when things get bad enough, the politicians finally act – eurobond, debt monetisation, quantitative easing, whatever. I am not so sure. The argument ignores the problem of acute collective action. Last week, the crisis reached a new qualitative stage. With the spectacular flop of the German bond auction and the alarming rise in short-term rates in Spain and Italy, the government bond market across the eurozone has ceased to function.
The banking sector, too, is broken. Important parts of the eurozone economy are cut off from credit. The eurozone is now subject to a run by global investors, and a quiet bank run among its citizens. This massive erosion of trust has also destroyed the main plank of the rescue strategy. The European Financial Stability Facility derives its firepower from the guarantees of its shareholders. As the crisis has spread to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria, the EFSF itself is affected by the contagious spread of the disease. Unless something very drastic happens, the eurozone could break up very soon.
Even before the final reckoning, Europe has slipped into recession. The OECD’s prescription for this, sadly, is more austerity. But even they say that the ECB is the only entity equipped to arrest the crisis. All we’re hearing are trial balloons about the IMF rescuing Italy, which have since been shot down. But that would be the ECB funding the IMF, in all likelihood. Which is why it wasn’t credible.
As Munchau reports, European banks cannot secure market lending. It turns out the banks got stuck with a lot of the shitpile – bad mortgages, toxic loans – and now the music has stopped and they cannot find a chair.
The options are only a massive backstop from the ECB, perhaps eurobonds to spread risk among all 17 member countries and lower total borrowing costs throughout the Eurozone, and tighter fiscal integration, which is being discussed. But all of these involve the political actors of the major countries to give up the most cherished element of nationhood, sovereignty. I don’t know how all these competing forces get together on such a deal to turn European countries into the United States of Europe. And even in the event of success, changing treaties and constitutions with referenda could take years. The Eurozone has days.
And none of this misses the United States. The combination of Euro fallout and the likely fiscal drag from forced spending cuts is enough to bring us to a recession as well.
More from Tim Duy. I don’t see much reason for optimism.
UPDATE: More gloom from Peter Boone and Simon Johnson. The failure late last week of a German bond sale, which could not find enough investors, shows that contagion has reached the strongest country in the Eurozone. Boone and Johnson basically recommend a limited breakup, which may be where we’re headed anyway.




157 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I simply do not understand why people take this position. I remember calling up Barney Frank’s office before the Great Bailout and begging him to stop it only to be told that it HAD to be done bc it would be TheEndOfTheWorld otherwise. It was a horrible mistake then and, for the life of me, I cannot understand those who advocate that it be done again in Europe. It is only to bail out the Banksters all over again. The contrast between the U.S.-2008 and Europe-Today is illusory. It is the same problem resurfacing in another guise and suggesting that another Bankster Bailout is the solution is, quite frankly, bizarre. After the money is taken from the People then what? More and more austerity made necessary by the self-inflicted deficits. Why advocate this course in light of our recent experience?
And should anyone choose to reply I’d also ask you to consider this by Ambrose Evans Pritchard, in which he advocates the U.S. bailing out Europe directly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8918784/Should-the-Fed-save-Europe-from-disaster.html
So do you agree that bailing out Europe and the Banksters is so vital that the U.S. should use American Taxpayer money to do it? Because that is where this is and always has been headed.
agreed. The policies implemented by the Fed have been a disaster for the people. i say let the chips fall. Givig up ones sovereignty is not a price to pay at any cost
As Munchau reports, European banks cannot secure market lending. It turns out the banks got stuck with a lot of the shitpile – bad mortgages, toxic loans – and now the music has stopped and they cannot find a chair.
banks are stuck with the shit they created as it should be. and if the music continued the chair the would find and dump this on is the taxpayer
The mantra that “this is what central banks must do” is empty cant when applied to the real world conditions we face.
I agree with you and mswinkle. Let the system collapse and clear out the corruption and malinvestment.
What do you think will happen to Britain? I have an English exchange student in my Ethics class, and I am wondering if I should advise her to go home for Christmas vacation and wait it out over there.
The 1% own virtually ALL of the financial media.
Any “reporting” being done by them is for the benifit of the 1%.
People are falling for the “Financial Media” false scenarios like a bunch of religious cult followers… never stoping to ask if this is whats REALLY going on.
The “financial crisis” is a power grab by American bankers to take over the world financial system and to set up a “World Fed” controlled by bankers who have ultimate decision making authority in all financial matters around the globe.
OT, but some welcome good news amidst the gloom…
Judge Blocks Citigroup Settlement With S.E.C.
wbgonne @4
The other mantra of “personal responsiblity,” used when it applies to individuals of the underclass, is conspicuously absent in reference to those who made disastrous banking decisions.
I agree. This is just another attempt to fortify the death-grip the Global Financial Elite has on the world. Before ANYTHING positive can happen, in any arena, the GFE must be weakened if not destroyed. Let it be now so we can get on with things.
I was just reading that.
*Gasp* A Jury trial! Let the people decide something. How terrible!
I hope they screw Citigroup the way Citigroup screws Americans every damn day.
Concepts like “personal responsibility,” “austerity” and “sacrifice” are for The Suckers. The GFE trots such slogans out to make the suffering and thievery more palatable.
Why can’t the EU banks sue for fraud on the toxic loans, bad mortgages etc? Then that would free them of having to shore up banks whose balance sheets are inflated.
Second they could tax the rich more but many of the riches’s assets are inflated either by direct exposure to toxic loans, bad mortgages or companies and hedgefunds that bought those toxic loans, bad mortgages. But if they do this they add another chair to the game of musical chairs they are playing and buy time.
Third All Foreign Debt I am willing to bet has Credit Default Swap protection. Let the CDS market as Greece etc goes broke if the CDS market goes broke it won’t effect the real economy just the musical chair economy.
Fourth Maybe all EU nations should cut military spending 20% and pledge to use that money to create jobs? Green jobs :)
It amazes me how anybody can say with enthusiasm, “Let the whole system collapse.” How on earth is the collapse of the GLOBAL ECONOMY going to do anything to help ‘the people’ with which those some anybodies are so preoccupied?
Uh its vital if your the 1% for us well in order to save the 1% our SS, Medicare and private pensions are already being sacrificed with ore sacrifice to come to save the 1%. WE can easily screw the 1% and guarantee SS, Medicare and private pensions below a million dollars by taxing the rich more creating jobs and cutting military spending.
Nobody told the rich they had to gamble and risk all their money.
They have over-reached. A few key individuals can thwart their plans.
Pedestrians will need to be cautioned to avoid walking on sidewalks adjoining tall buildings.
If the Fed gets involved in Europe, it wouldn’t be using “taxpayer dollars.” The Fed can print money; it doesn’t need to take it from anybody. Hence how it made $7.77 trillion in loans to the financial sector without first collecting $7.77 trillion in taxes.
If the Global Financial System weren’t such a monstrosity it wouldn’t be failing and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We are faced with a stark choice: temporarily and futilely prop up a failed and corrupt financial system with Real People’s money or let it fail and construct a new system. Why in the world would we want to throw good money at a collapsed, corrupt system that benefits only a tiny percentage of people while distressing and harming billions of less-connected people?
When a building is infested with termites, cockroaches, and other vermin sometimes the only way to fix the problem is to burn the building down and build anew.
Oh please. There is no such thing as free money. If there were, the Global Financial Elite wouldn’t be so desperate for more hard cash to devour.
“If the Fed gets involved in Europe, it wouldn’t be using “taxpayer dollars.””
P.S., If the Fed does this there will be serious social unrest in the U.S.
What exactly do you propose we do to (a) relieve the world during the severe economic depression and (b) create a new “Global Financial System”? We already radically changed the system in the 70s. Do you want to go back on the gold standard? End international trade? What is your vision for the new world order, and how do you propose to not lead millions into starvation while you try to impose it?
Britain will be hit as bad maybe worse than America they are a huge world banking center like us but nobody has real numbers of just how many bad loans they have vs America to speculate who would be worse without a full accounting of both banking systems would require much more knowledge than I or I suspect anyone else here has.
Suppose America has only 5% direct exposure to Greek debt and Britain 4% but how much exposure do we both have to countries or banks with more exposure? How much do we both have invested in companies in Greece or that trade with Greece?
Next if Greece fails any exposure to Italy, Spain, etc will likely cause panic selling if Greece falls.
Then try and calculate how much this will effect the entire EU and exports to the EU.
The 2nd bailout is coming.
It will not be televised.
16-19 trillion was not enough. How much shite did these things make?
Their mistakes, but the taxpayer will pay.
Even here some are saying we have to or else …
Wait for it, it’s coming. I’m sure the Fed has the plan all ready to go.
Bullshit. It is NOT the Fed’s responsibility to bail out insolvent TBTF banks or buy toxic assets to keep them afloat — with no conditions whatsoever. It WAS the Fed’s responsibility to never let it get to that stage to begin with, and they failed miserably. (It also wasn’t a Fed responsibility to lie about the true size of the bailout.)
The notion that there was simply no alternative is absolutely false. And the notion that TARP paid for itself is a bald face lie — as you yourself have shown.
Inaction by the Fed was one of the primary causes for the crisis. Bailing out the banks made matters WORSE for the American people, not better.
well I guess you will be amazed. The system is corrupt to the core and supports the 1% at the cost of the rest. The monetary system and central banking system was designed by the power structure fore the power structure. We need a monetary, political, system that works for the people. i am all for capitalism but what we have is rigged crony capitalism and it will not be fixed by the current people in charge who are vested in and have their power from this system.
Of course there will be pain, and there will be an opportunity for nefarious brokers to try and take charge, but there is also the possibility to create a better system that works. if we continue down the path we are going all we will get is more austerity for the people, less sovereignty, and greater and greater disparities in wealth and opportinity
They’re ready for the unrest.
The police might as well as be the military with their training and hardware. All thanks to DHS.
And of course the new bill they will pass making America a battlefield.
Any people experiencing “unrest” will be carted off to military prisons. No trial, no appeal, no nothing. They will be locked up and thrown away. All legal thanks to the new law.
excuse me the Fed by printing dollars causes devaluation and inflation, so it directly hurts the people. It is theft by other means
It is inevitable that we get a new system bc the extant one is collapsing. Whether you like it or I like is irrelevant because it is happening regardless. The proposals to prop up the GFS are fruitless (as our 2008 Wall St bailout demonstrated). All those efforts accomplish are giving the Banksters additional opportunities for theft while further impoverishing the People.
What should the current GFS be replaced with? Beats me. But that’s the discussion we should be having RIGHT NOW. I am still waiting for people with clout to step up and start putting ideas out into the world. The sooner the better.
Economic terrorism.
Economic hostage-taking.
Economic coup d’etat.
“Give us your money or else …”
The bribed politicians are ready to serve. The new law making America a battlefield and no rights for those arrested (or just taken in the night) is not only for Occupy. It’s in preparation for the 2nd bailout.
Really? What makes you think that? Bernanke dropped the idea a while ago. DeLong explicitly said it’s what we need to be doing. The general consensus is that the ECB needs to start acting like a central bank, otherwise the whole world is going to suffer. But suddenly when the United States decides it’s not going to let Germany take down the global economy, there’s going to be OUTRAGE that the Fed ‘bailed out’ Europe without spending “taxpayer dollars”?
I’m skeptical.
It’s a wonder that the Fed ever prints money!
Just watch.
They are going to dump all their toxic shite and bad mistakes on the taxpayer, AGAIN.
The ECB acting as a lender of last resort does not alone solve the Euro-crisis. Just like bailing out the TBTF banks here didn’t solve the crisis.
Spending money into existence is required for growth and increases in employment. Bailing out banks — by swapping assets — is not stimulative.
Its an imaginary economy the Credit Default Swap market is bigger than the the GDP of the planet and has no margin set aside for payment. Argentina defaulted not that long ago they then increased social spending and now their economy is getting better despite little foreign investment.
Notice no country is going after banks for toxic loans and bad mortgages instead to save the banks governments around the world trying to prop up the value of the banks so they don’t need to declare all those toxic loans and bad mortgages as in default.
The second they do the 1%’s wealth on paper will drop how much 20-50%? maybe more?
If we keep the 1% rich we will lose our SS, Medicare and Private Pensions so where is the downside?
We can tax the rich more, end both wars, cut military spending and create green jobs and save our economy we have to sacrifice the 1% to save the world economy.
What we are doing now by bailing out Greece is just putting off the end, Italy, Spain etc are also near default and no we can’t bail them all out.
The “general consensus” you reference is among those who profit from the existing corrupt system. And yes, that includes academics like Krugman as well as Wall Street types talking their book.
I heard first China and Brazil would bail out the EU then I heard they would not last I heard Russia would funny America is not being asked to step up again. But I am sure Obama/GOP will if things get bad but I doubt we can do the job.
Now people are talking about the EU bank buying bad National debt my question is even if they can save Greece can they save Italy, Spain etc?
My question is why not ask Greece and Italy to tax the rich more cut military spending rather than cut necessary government spending which if you cut lowers consumer demand and future tax collection and weakens the national economy?
The EU’s actions are asking for more defaults later on once those cuts in government spending are enacted.
“It is NOT the Fed’s responsibility to bail out insolvent TBTF banks or buy toxic assets to keep them afloat — with no conditions whatsoever. It WAS the Fed’s responsibility to never let it get to that stage to begin with, and they failed miserably. (It also wasn’t a Fed responsibility to lie about the true size of the bailout.)”
————–
You got THAT right. I think “somebody was asleep at the wheel”. gee, I wonder who???????????
Explain to me how this system is corrupt without (a) saying “1%!!!!” or (b) using tired abstractions of class differences. I know I shouldn’t look to a comments section on a blog for academic discourse. But I wish the discussions here could rise above meaningless memes.
Do you have any proposals for what a new global financial system would be? Or are just content with demonizing the existing one and hoping that something better springs up from the rubble after the 99% bring the current one down?
I agree. But I’m prepared this time. Already under my desk with a six pack of Dos Equis and bag of Nacho Cheese Doritos. That’s MY stimulus package.
What I have heard is that Greece is “small potatoes”. But together with Italy and Spain it will take the EU, the USA and Russia with some help from a few Arab sheiks to save all three.
Doritos? Really?
I would go with salt and vinegar chips.
Just the headlines. They speak volumes:
OBAMA SAYS U.S. `READY TO DO OUR PART’ TO RESOLVE EURO CRISIS.
OBAMA SAYS SOLVING EURO CRISIS OF `HUGE IMPORTANCE’ TO U.S.
Not really.
The US can print money or coin a trillion dollar coin.
The US can put all debt, foreign and domestic all on US taxpayers quite easily.
NOT with Dos Equis. The salt and vinegar chips (which I love) are good with Bud Light.
HOLY CRAP!!!!!
Frank Barone, “Everybody Loves Raymond”
“The US can put all debt, foreign and domestic all on US taxpayers quite easily.”
—————–
I’d RATHER they not do that. Who can I talk to?????
Obama is ready to bail out the European banks to bail out — AGAIN — the TBTF banks here. That’s what this is all about.
And, of course, getting re-elected.
Well 3 decades ago, we could talk to our representatives.
But since the USG is now fully owned by the 1%/corporations/banksters, we can talk to no one.
Bud light? LMAO.
I think the only way Obama gets RE-elected is IF he invents a “zero-calorie” pizza. Just sayin’.
The claim in this article the the FED was just “doing it’s job” is perposterous.
It’s not the job of the FED to baliout bankrupt banks… or to prop up corrupt criminal companies.
The 1% sponsored propanda is and always has been an all out effort to legitimize and support the FED… which is the 1% main scam… the biggest financial scam in history.
The 1% owned financial media have feindishly spread propagnada… and peopjle are still falling for it.
Why do people keep falling for this propaganda… why ?
WAKE UP people.
if he lets the taxpayer bail out europe then I think he has agreed to fall on his sword for this and will ride off into the sunset ladened with wealth and future opportunities.
If we act like we have no power then we don’t. That is the message from OWS. Call your Congresspeople — whether Left or Right, Dem or GOP — and urge them to oppose using American money to bail out Europe. Tell them you oppose it no matter how the scheme is designed: an IMF bailout, the Fed buying toxic assets, it makes no difference. I just called my critters and told them I am adamantly opposed to using American money to bail out Europe. I urge you to do the same. This is an issue upon which OWS and the Tea Partiers should find common ground. Let’s use it.
If the system was not corrupt it would not be insolvent and in need of artificial support. If the system was not corrupt L.Blankfein, J.Dimon, K.Lewis, et.al. as well as H.Paulsen, B.Bernanke, T.Geithner, et.al. would be rotting in prison for fraud (accounting, securities, etc.) instead of living the high life. Those (like W.Buffett, and others) who made irresponsible and/or bad investment decisions would have been wiped out instead of bailed out. As far as what follows, I don’t know. Ideally I would like to see a free market capitalist system where people are held responsible for their actions and an act of crony capitalism is a capital offense.
“Do you have any proposals for what a new global financial system would be? Or are just content with demonizing the existing one and hoping that something better springs up from the rubble after the 99% bring the current one down?”
Do you seriously think it is the job of pseudonymous internet commenters to design a replacement global financial system? Don’t some people study these matters get paid serious money to do such things? We the People know what is wrong. We know what isn’t working. We know what has failed. We know that we must do something different. That’s enough for now. How about our “leaders” get off their asses and start discussing the real issues instead of doubling down on a failed, corrupt system and looking for new ways to screw the People out of what remains of our wealth? Is that too much to ask?
If people are advocating for the active destruction of the current financial system, then yes, I do think it’s their job to design a replacement.
I did “design” a replacement (see last sentence post #55). It isn’t rocket science. Also, what wbgonne said, per post #56.
Look, we had a perfectly serviceable financial system before it was deregulated. Read up on it.
We don’t need to redesign one. We just need to go back to what we had — pure and simple.
Your post is 95% “let’s arrest people” and 5% meaningless meme. If you’re calling for the collapse of the global financial system, I expect some serious thought to have been put into what to do afterwards. If you don’t know, then you didn’t seriously think about what you said before you said it.
“We just need to go back to what we had — pure and simple”.
————-
No need to reinvent the wheel. Remove and/or punish the criminal element, I agree.
Deleveraged 40:1 means a 98.5% writedown. Don’t bailout, buyout at firesale prices (it is worth what ya can get for it, a “market” thing). Let them reap what they have sown. Maybe they won’t be able to afford more war.
so one can only advocate arrest and collapse of current system if one has a replacement? what nonsense. As for what can replace it one can go with econbuzz suggestion. I prefer going one step further. As the debt of the US is backed by the US and we have the power to issue our own currency, we could issue our currency without debt. why are we getting middle men to do what we can do, and paying interest for it. Some say this will cause inflation but that is what we have. We could also limit the amount that can be issued by making it a percentage of GDP, and we can make it hard to change this. We can also move to a more direct democracy so people in congress are there to manage things not control them. Enforce strict capital requirements on the banks and limit the amount the amount of money they can create. Implement fair trade agreements that are actually fair and thus shipping jobs overseas will not look so attractive. these are just a few things we could do.
What you fail to understand is that the GFS is collapsing whether we want it to or not. Would I have preferred a measured orderly transition to a more just economic system? Yes. But it didn’t happen that way. And it didn’t happen that way BECAUSE of the inequities in the current system, most prominent among them that the power of government has been harnessed by the Global Financial Elite. You advocate the use of huge sums of money to prop up the rotten edifice that is ruining the world. THe burden is on you to justify that, especially since almost nobody actually thinks it will solve the problems.
As for what changes must be made: the finance system must once again be made subservient to the real economy. Government regulation, financial transaction taxes, compensation controls, corporate reform, there are myriad ways to achieve the goal once the goal is acknowledged.
Because the global economy doesn’t serve the public anymore . Bankrupt the bankers before they develop a close relationship with lamp posts.
You need to improve your reading skills. I will try again. Punish fraud and corruption by enforcing existing laws. Eliminate crony capitalism by ending bailouts. If those two things could be done 99% of what is wrong with the existing system would be corrected. Unfortunately, TPTB do not want this to happen. Therefore, the only way to bring this about is through collapse of the existing system, most likely accompanied by revolution and civil war. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for what follows. After all, democracy in Germany after 1945 would not have been possible without the collapse of the system that preceeded it.
How is proping up criminal/bankrupt banks and proping up criminal private companies going to “help” “the people”…?
It’s not. The bankers could care less about “the people”. Do you not know that?
Stop falling for the propaganda. Learn to think for yourself.
So when you end bailouts and get rid of one of the fundamental purposes of central banking, are you also going to reinstate the gold standard?
Good writing.
Not sure if you are an out-and-out troll, or trying to defend a good faith belief system. Suspect the former, but, giving you the benefit of the doubt, we have a system right now that is so convoluted and non-transparent that NOBODY, not even the top “experts,” claims to understand it. In fact, they all claim they do not understand it, as they try to excuse their failure to head off any of the recent crises. What anybody can understand is the effect, which is that the elite bankers and their minions are soaking up all the wealth, and expecting regular people to pay for their game-playing. In that context, doing away with the present structure is a necessary first step to implementing any replacement regime. Proposals for that replacement regime will abound once the present one is accepted as being dead and over. My view, we can replace with a system that is much simpler, as we’ve had prior to the last couple of decades. Frankly, we couldn’t conjure up a replacement that would be more destructive or have a worse track record than the present one, which was only created so insiders could do things outsiders would not understand because of the built-in informational disadvantages. Recall that all these “innovations” were done in the name of free market capitalism. The most basic tenet of that philosophy is that failures get to crash and burn. That “creative destruction” is supposed to set the stage for the next, better thing. I certainly believe in capitalism to that extent. Do you?
The system pre-18th century seemed pretty bad.
“The system pre-18th century seemed pretty bad.” Well, that’s a classic non sequitur, isn’t it? I notice you did not answer my query as to whether you believe that failures should be allowed to fail in a capitalist system. Do you not believe that only the meritorious deserve to prosper in business?
Of course. And rather foolish even if they are only self-interested. If the European protection racket cannot resist it’s demolition, what “system” do collapse speculators suppose will arise? Something organized for the common man?
These people speak out of fury but their “whole system collapse” only enables the victorious demolishers to prey on the ruins. The racket is a trap which threatens ruin on exit.
If the solidarity existed to ensure the co-immiseration in collapse would be shared, that solidarity could end the system. We are not ready yet.
I’m still trying to process that $ 7.7 Trillion bailout – on top of the $700 Billion TARP. Holy shit. And nobody went to jail? Fuck the guy that ran Countrywide walked off with millions as did the assholes of Merrill Lynch, etc. And then they said this was “necessary”. Necessary to make these fuckers rich? No fucking way. Before we get to talkin about bailouts in Europe we have to talk about some other payback. LIke is Angela going straight off to jail? And all the ECB assholes? And either break up the euro or make the ECB bail out the fucks. Yeah this could cause a deep recession but if we do not stop it and do it right, it will happen again. Some fucks will get super rich again and austerity will reign supreme. Fuck no. It doesn’t work for me just yet. Now is time for more than lip service for accountability.
Ah. A Utopia to rule them all.
Somehow when they lie and steal they have to be held accountable.
The “fuckers” know this good thing must come to an end. That’s why they’re racing to the conclusion, which does not involve prosecution (except for their unfortunate 1%). Will your willed crash prevent that? Ho ho ho.
A crash is an act of desperation. Occupy, instead.
They will win that duel, if you do not organize.
Holding banks responsible for their own actions is now Utopian? I would say that “utopian” is your belief that you are entitled to thrive while being such an asshole. Just my opinion.
I don’t know what Occupy means. But we cannot allow anymore hostage taking.
However, that printed money will affect taxpayers. It’ll lower the value of the dollar. It means that the prices of goods like gasoline or food will continue to rise.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
As it is, those areas are already causing considerable pain for Americans.
Amusing such presumption and fantasy in one dedicated to checking reality. Perhaps you are going to hold them responsible? The truth is more complex and we shouldn’t organize on a simpleton’s conception.
I tried to give you the benefit. Now I’m calling bullshit. Go think again, pal.
Yes, but when? The printed money being held is for the .1%’s reassurance. Should they not be able to create, they can stand a little destruction (and manipulate the politics handsomely on the decline). The “consumer” must pray they create and suffer some inflation.
Their alternatives are worse.
Sorry, bluedot, that was for the name-calling realitychecker. Please calm yourself.
Regarding Occupy, I prefer to say no more. Capiche?
The problem with the system is that the actions of the Fed can have significant impact on the citizens of this country and it appears to have fallen down on its job of regulating if indeed American taxpayers were on the hook for TARP. Basically the Fed was an attempt to let bankers regulate bankers and I’d say that exercise failed abysmally.
I don’t say this lightly. I am aware that the Fed contributed 79 billion in 2010 to the US treasury. However, it appears that in regards to conducting oversight that it failed on a spectacular level and indeed based on some of the statements of Greenspan on “creative financing for housing” actually contributed to the problem.
Maybe half right. It is a consortium of bankers. After all, what is good for bankers is good for America. Or so it went …
I disagree. I don’t think there is much “worse” than not being able to afford food or the means to get to work so that you can take care of those basic needs.
I might feel differently if bailing out the banking system seemed to clear up the problems. However, it hasn’t. Banks have been reticent about writing down their losses, and have continued to play a game of denial. Additionally they went from giving out money to every Tom, Dick and Harry to tightening it to the point that lending to small business is problematic.
http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/06/23/credit-conditions-in-u-s-banks-still-tight/
Heh
I’m going to assume the second half of that statement is sarcasm.
If only we all could be Jamie Dimons. Then we could be completely incompetent at our jobs, utter the words “in hindsight perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to lend money to people without actually verifying whether or not they would have the ability to repay” and still collect a couple of million dollars on payday.
We won’t even get into the six figure incomes we are paying the dolts in DC who regularly utter “who could have imagined” who ALSO failed since they are supposed to be providing Congressional “oversight.” They continually seem to fail to ask the right questions and therefore come up with the wrong answers over and over and over.
We’d be better served to have a lottery to fill Congressional seats and make the wages a national median.
I believe we disagree on something else. Regarding your explicit “disagreement”, I think their alternative (more destruction) would mean more hunger and unemployment.
The bailout cleared up the 1%’s problems. They can now make it through a degrowth. You have to pray that, once relaxed, they will come up with a new proposition.
If you can’t provide a coherent defense of your Comment #75, then you deserve to be called a vulgar name. Your comments drip with implied and explicit sarcasm and condescension, but you don’t actually say anything about what you believe, nor do you defend the things you imply. What appellation would you prefer for being that kind of person?
Irony, at least. But you get my point, I hope, that their failure did not fail them.
This “crisis” is neither the result of incompetence nor negligence. It arises in systemic malice. Not that every actor acts with malice, but the collective animus is malicious.
They play act at regulation and “oversight” while pickled in contempt.
There are many Jamie Dimons waiting in the wings.
I’m not a big fan of the prayer model in terms of being a solution to national problems.
There needs to be reform conducted so that oversight can actaully occur. It shouldn’t be months after the fact that we find out the Fed handed over billions of dollars to the very banking institutions that came begging for a taxpayer bailout and then subsequently spent that money rewarding themselves with bonuses.
And neither should you be. The system as it is deems you a supplicant. Terminating that status will require more than pleas for regulation.
We shall see. Inflation has already EXCEEDED the Feds target point of 2-3%.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
Meanwhile wages are on a decline
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Declining-Wages-Hurt-Consumer-wscheats-1293124957.html
It’s a collision course waiting to happen when you have declining streams of revenue for purchasing power and increasing costs for goods and services.
The Federal Reserves job isn’t limited to looking out for banking interests. It also is tasked with keeping the economy stable for Americans and price points are included in that definition.
I hope you are only mad as a hornet, realitychecker.
No, Utopian in the belief that a free market capitalist system where people are held responsible is possible. One will, of course, never have a free market, so it will always be necessary to pursue it.
As to your caricature (hold the banks accountable is now Utopian?) of my claim, I suppose in the future that could be engaged but the last bout of that engagement failed to prevent the present calamity. It even appears that the wrong lessons were learned. No, I think holding “banks” accountable, were it possible in the present system, does not go far enough.
Child, please!
Personally, I’m way past the illusion that
is anything more than shouting in the wind.
If you’ll remember, something like 70 to 80% THAT’S 70 to 80 PERCENT of the American public was against the TARP bailout and our Congresspeople did it anyway.
It’s useless, that’s not what they are there for.
If they can’t keep the economy stable for all Americans, they will settle for less. They already know there will be hell to pay.
Bears repeating in this discussion. With that much allocated to bail out the banks, other economic sectors must be put on austerity or the Fed has to do quantitative easing. “Quantitative easing” does not mean “free lunch”. As I pointed out in another thread, check out the dollar/Yen and dollar/Yuan exchange rates over the past 2 years. If Europe wasn’t in the same toilet, the dollar would be down against the Euro, too. If the Fed has to be lender of last resort to do its real job of maintaining economic stability, it is because of the deregulation that has forced it into that corner.
OK, maybe I was too quick to jump on you. I apologize, and offer a fresh start. This is your very first appearance here, and we’ve been getting a lot of really obnoxious trolls lately, and the ambiguous flavor of some of your early comments left room for me to resolve that ambiguity against you. But your last few comments seem to lean the other way, i.e., that you are not an Establishment apologist, so, as a sincere reality checker, I’ll reset myself, and see where we go from here. OK? I’m starting to get the sense that we may be very much alike in our beliefs. I, of course, was speaking from the viewpoint of what SHOULD happen in an honest capitalistic model. But, I share the apparent cynicism of your later comments, which seem to indicate that you, like myself, would not choose to be overly gentle in dealing with the malefactors, if only . . .
Well people are looking long and hard at the Fed, myself included. It’s fairly obvious that it’s regulatory mechanism is broken and it seems dubious that the organization can impact employment in a meaningful way when the recession cost millions of jobs and Fed policy has done little to stem that loss, so that leaves it with price controls and interest rates. Absent that it seems that there would be little public reason to keep a central bank.
“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” Seem to recall seeing that title somewhere before…
Hayek advocated prayer and supplication. As a citizen and not a subject in a realm, I don’t do supplication very well. Call it a failing of mine.
I tend to think that the Fed has done alot more than the Federal government to actually address our economy. That being said, there should be some questions answered as to why the regulatory portion or the oversight portion of its job was virtually ignored. It’s pretty clear that lending practice problems were almost across the board in the banking industry.
But that 19th century was pure bliss. /s
We’ve all pretty much have been treated as supplicants though.
It isn’t like the majority of the country hasn’t said tax the rich and been ignored or that the majority didn’t oppose the bailouts that occured despite majority opposition.
So I understand his larger point and would agree that the system is rigged.
I agree with most of what you say. However, I think this particular issue has possibilities for the pols unintentionally doing the right thing. There is a lot of anger from BOTH the Left and Right about bail outs. The story today only adds to it. And this is Europe we’re talking about! Really! The American taxpayer is going to bail out European banksters? The attack ads write themselves for the next election.
No, Dylan is right. The US doesn’t need to tax to obtain money to spend. It also doesn’t need to print money. The Fed and Treasury don’t use hard cash, only numbers on the Fed’s spreadsheet. The gov’t can create money at will and injects it into the public sector by spending and/or lending. “The government never has nor does not have dollars.” Warren Mosler.
The thing is, the European Central Bank, which has sovereign control over the euro like the US Fed has over the dollar, also can create money at will. The ECB so far has refused to do this because it is hamstrung by ideology: the unfounded fear of setting off hyperinflation.
I understand what you are saying. I disagree. Money is not free. If it was, Europe wouldn’t need it. That is why Germany doesn’t want the ECB to create money (printed or otherwise). And that is why the U.S. shouldn’t give it or do it either.
Must run.
Sorry, you’re wrong. The Fed creating money (most of the money involved would not be “printed” but would show up in accounts in the Fed Reserve spreadsheet – banks’ accounts, accounts of individuals, etc.) in the current situation in which lack of spending is leading to unemployment and recession would not soon lead to inflation. Inflation is not the problem right now. The pea is not under the shell labeled “Inflation” as the MSM punditry would have us believe. Misbegotten fears of inflation are being used so that the real solution to our problem – greatly increasing spending power so the economy gets going – will not be considered.
That fear isn’t unfounded.
Creating money does create inflation. And considering it would need to create the money to bail out several nations I would think that hyperinflation might indeed be problematic.
Is it more problematic than allowing a country to essentially run out of the funds necessary to fund services? That is the billion euro question.
Exactly…
It was NOT the FED’s “job” to bailout criminal/bankrupt banks or to bail out criminal private companies.
Anyone who falls for that false meme has fallen hook, line and sinker for the 1% propaganda.
Inflation may not be a real problem to you. However for millions of Americans that are already living from paycheck to paycheck it is a very real problem.
I already pointed out that inflation for this year was at 3.5%, past the 2-3% target that the Fed originally planned on allowing with it’s QE.
Additionally, I printed the numbers from the BLS which show how while that big screen TV may have decreased that prices of food and fuel(fuel in particular) have increased substantially.
Offense is a piffle to me, realitychecker. I don’t think your indignation at the players in this system is effective, either. The system is not moral, it’s projections to the contrary. O, there are malefactors, to be sure, but the pious legions, who should know better, sanction it’s cruelty and abuse. If the masters did not so possess their world view, the masters vice would not be possible.
The masters’ best punishment is the rejection of their religion.
So is the Fed (and the Treasury). Most of the Fed’s recent “activities” in support of the economy have not “created money.”
I’m not sure what you mean by money being “free”. The fact that a fiat currency (like the dollar or the euro) can be created at will by its central bank does not at all mean that it has no buying power (such that Europe wouldn’t need it). It only means that the central bank has complete control over how much “money” – a better term would be spending power – there is in the economy. The purpose of the central bank is to monitor how much spending power there should be in the economy to ensure the “right” level of economic activity, steering a course between bubbles and recession. That’s how it’s designed to work, anyway.
BTW, the purpose of taxation is not to get spending money for the gov’t but to take spending power out of an overheating economy. Also, a federal deficit is a good thing because it means the gov’t is injecting spending power into the economy by spending and lending. A budget surplus means the gov’t is drawing spending power out of the economy, generally not a good thing (since the gov’t is the ultimate source of spending power).
Yes.
That’s where that public/private components thing gets tricky. Because the Fed is largely a consortorium of bankers they do indeed have a stake in banking enterprises failure or success.
I agree with everything you’ve written. Pure MMT.
But I would add that, policy-wise, there is definitely an opportunity cost to printing money for purposes of buying toxic assets from TBTF banks. The opportunity cost is using the newly created “money” to actually help the economy by buying down private debt, for example. Buying toxic assets from banks, or lending to banks at near zero interest rates, does not expand the economy unless the banks themselves lend. As I’m sure you know.
Creating money creates inflation only if there is more money in the economy than goods and services to buy with it. The current situation is that there are so many goods and services languishing unbought (no matter how much Black Friday price slashing) that people are being laid off. In this situation, any inflation created by the Fed injecting spending power into the economy would be minimal since so many goods are already discounted.
Apparently the hyperinflation in Germany after WWI (which is haunting German leaders so today) was not caused by printing too much money but by the fact that the German economy, bled white by the war and further stressed by reparations payments, was severely hampered in being able to produce needed goods and services. There was too much money chasing too few goods. This is the current thinking by many economists.
That’s why we are not recovering from the recession and are facing another one.
To be fair to the Fed it has a limited toolbox. It isn’t like the Fed hasn’t told Congress that decreased spending is not a good idea right now. Absent Congress actually listening the Fed feels it has to act.
While I disagree with QE, I completely understand why it is occuring.
I agree. FWIW, I think the “inflation fear” is a dodge. What is really at stake is who is going to take the losses from the bubble bursting. The issue is who will be bailed out: the 1% or the 99%? And we see the answer.
MMT is the strongest argument that progressives have. As long as government spending is shackled by the need to borrow or tax, we’re truly fucked.
Let’s not get personal, shall we? But since you brought it up, I do pretty much live from paycheck to paycheck. I’m not saying there’s not inflation. I’m saying that the Fed is refraining from doing what it could to stimulate the economy probably out of an ideological fear of inflation.
The inflation we’re seeing is happening, not from Fed monetary policy but from things like rising energy prices that cascade through the economy causing prices to rise in many other sectors – including, notably, food in our petrochemical agribusiness industry.
“MMT is the strongest argument that progressives have. As long as government spending is shackled by the need to borrow or tax, we’re truly fucked.”
You got that right!
Keep in mind that the Congress didn’t need to act for the Treasury and Fed to spend $16 trillion to bail out the banks.
Some clarification, please, if you will. What do you deem to be “their religion”? To me. the “religion” appears to be dishonest manipulation for the sole benefit of their in-group, which is a behavior that will doom every economic ideology I know of. That dishonesty is the basis for the moralistic flavor of my anger; however, I well understand the difference between “what ought to be” and “what is.” I think that honest capitalism, or, perhaps more accurately, honest free enterprise, is as good from a pragmatic viewpoint as any other pure ideology. Personally, I would favor a blend of free enterprise and socialism, not ideologically orgasmic, perhaps, but pragmatically superior. But any system where the players lack integrity will produce injustice IMO.
Your point is well taken.
Inflation has risen 3.5%. So apparently, there are not enough goods or services to keep costs down. Even more problematic is that despite the increase in the cost of goods wages have already begun to deflate. At least 5 months this year saw a decrease in wage value. We’re barely treading water in regards to employment(and this isn’t all due to the Fed since the dolts in Congress are insisting on cutting the deficits now, now, now). Credit is still problematic because banks still have lots of stuff on their books that they won’t write down because they figure they can collect through the Fed buying up their “toxic assets.” All in all I can’t say that the Fed has been overly successful on any front.
Energy price increases are directly related to the decrease in the value of the dollar.
Cathy Mason:
This is inconsistent. Is their supposed ideology a misconception or a tool?
Let me suggest that the Germans would have the same problem with backing the “PIGS” that protesters here have with the FED backing the EU. Moreover, the Germans don’t want to sacrifice their financial competitiveness, especially due to a Wall Street Armageddon. For the Germans, I believe this is neither ideology nor a strategy of anti-growth.
The treasury did need Congressional approval to act. That’s why Paulson was down on bended knee begging Pelosi to approve TARP. However, the Fed does not need Congressional approval. And it clearly knows that which is why we now are finding out those very banks that came to US taxpayers for a bailout were already getting BILLIONS from the Fed already. Pretty sweet deal the banking sector has going for them. Apparently if you’re a banker then you have lots of access to money with no questions being asked.
The Treasury needing Congress to act is a politically imposed constraint. Just like the Treasury having to borrow or tax to spend. Regarding TARP, they needed political cover — in particular to give money to insurance companies, etc.
The system as it stands is pretty problematic. It’s apparent the Fed isn’t asking the banking system questions or making requirements before giving them access to “created money” or buying up their poor lending decisions. It’s equally apparent that the government and its arm are just as poor at asking questions or placing strings on the taxpayer money that it hands out(Treasury). That leaves us with the question of who should be policing the banking system. Someone needs to, that much is definitely for sure. We can’t and shouldn’t indefinitely be directly and indirectly funding banks and poor banking decisions ad infinitum.
Let me start with this paradigm:
Of course you mean moral integrity, here, rather than integrity to the system. But you must explicitly differentiate these and allow that a system may not be moral. The capitalist system claims it delivers morality from immorality. This obfuscation frustrates the judgement of it’s morality for those integral with it.
Would “honest free enterprise” be moral? I suggest that honesty would too swiftly be castrated in order to hold that free enterprise “moral”.
The American negative identity fits well the least-evil, “pure” ideology of capitalism. We aren’t perfect, but we are less imperfect than everyone else. Likewise for the beloved capitalism. This is an American impure ideology. Capitalism is neither pure, nor on examination, pragmatic.
I prefer to focus on who the system serves. Capitalism favors oppression and is fundamentally antagonistic to justice. For some time it survived on the illusion that it would balance the competing desires in a liberal society. It can no longer do that. Now we seem to be hallucinating on the fumes of that delusion. No, on the whole, the winners are notorious, rather than meritorious. The priests of our economy have betrayed the faith, because they no longer believe it themselves. Fancy that.
Your “blend” is inherently unharmonious. For one, how can enterprise be free if it must be bridled? It is an antagonisitic “balance” that one hopes will produce both dynamism and security. As we have seen, it rather produces “civil” war, which does not serve the majority well.
Before you object that European “democratic socialism” did serve the majority well, I ask, what happened to that? The winners in that game are now dismantling the socialism. They already have less security and soon they will have less dynamism.
I wander. But it is a large territory.
It is indeed a large territory, and thus discussions like these often sacrifice precise communication in the interest of brevity, and generalizations frequently dominate over specific detail. So I generally avoid getting drawn into them overmuch. I no longer question your good faith, as I see that I did indeed misread you earlier. Such errors occasionally creep in despite my best intentions. ;-) We still disagree though, albeit it is an honest disagreement. I don’t think any particular ideology works when applied to a large population of complex and varied human beings. I gather you would favor a pure socialism model, but the human corruption we both acknowledge has the capacity to undermine such a system as well, and your criticisms of capitalism can apply equally to socialism. Corruption ruins everything. My bottom line is that regular people must get a fair shot at a good life. I don’t like the word “capitalism,” because it most often gets construed as fat guys doing nothing but sitting around and moving money. Free enterprise, to me, connotes a much better image, where people work to honestly produce and trade things and services of real value. That is more palatable, and more defensible. I like socialism as to providing universal human needs, and I like free enterprise because I think it does a very good job of promoting individual initiative and allowing for the fullest possible development of personal identity. I don’t see why the two models should be intrinsically incompatible. The ideological purists are the problem, IMO, just as the religious purists are the problem in their area. I don’t see why an entire society should be organized in full deference to any one viewpoint. But even in a society organized according to my lights, I would still want to be able to levy real consequences upon those who engage in sociopathic behaviors. Re your query about “free” enterprise having to be bridled, don’t get hung up on the word “free.” All behavior must be regulated, as extremes usually produce sociopathic results, Call it “individual enterprise” if you prefer. It connotes that individuals with original dreams and ideas should be allowed to pursue and develop and benefit from them so long as they do not forget that they are part of an overall community to which they have obligations and responsibilities, as well as the right to expect certain guaranteed benefits, e.g. food, education, physical security, and health care.
Re your point about moral integrity vs. integrity to the system, I would just say the former is my guide, always, but also that the people running things now cannot even claim integrity to their system. That system is supposed to be based on merit and competition and the Rule of Law. Obviously, those values are not honored by the top players as presently constituted. That did not need to be our present truth, and you are right that the masses allowed themselves to be brainwashed over time into allowing it, but I really have to place that fault with the perpetrators of the brainwashing rather than the objects of it, because I also know the incredible power of the tools and techniques that were relentless applied to effectuate that brainwashing.
First, my 18th century comment was tongue-in-cheek, because I didn’t think this discussion was going anywhere. And I still don’t. Too many of you have overly simplistic ideas of how the international economy works, and certainly of how central banking works. I’m no expert by any means, but even just reading the blogs of Matt Yglesias, Paul Krugman, or Brad DeLong would give somebody a more robust knowledge of these issues.
To answer your question, I would first explain that some firms should fail and some should not. I do not think laissez-faire capitalism is all that great. I believe that some firms and sectors, yes, are too big to fail, and I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. That is my brief opinion.
If the government had been doing its job then none of these enterprises would of nor should have grown too large to fail. By allowing them to grow so large the deck has been stacked against smaller ventures. We see this continually, not just in the banking sector. An example would be the fact that Blue Cross was consistently able to thwart regulatory control as an insurance company in California by threatening to use its wealth to tie up its abuses in litigation if the regulatory agency actually used teeth on it.
A public venture growing on a large scale is one thing. Private ventures shouldn’t be able to hold the economy hostage.
I don’t know how great your knowledge sphere is, but I’m certainly no babe in the woods, and neither are many who frequent this site. So, maybe we can understand if you explain why any one enterprise should be allowed to be too big to fail.
Yes. They were defrauded, but also knowingly. And beyond that, callously, extenuated by necessity. Capitalism produces a rotten people.
You may continue to argue that the people failed the system but you must recognize the possibility of my assessment, that the system failed the people. All systems are not created equal. Nor so rotten.
Fossil fuels fed the human boom, which sustained the “less meritorious” while the “most meritorious” gorged. Should, somehow, cold fusion, etc. be realized, I don’t think these delusions of merit will have anyone’s faith. The underlying tyranny has been exposed. Merit, as defined under capitalism, is a cynical virtue.
Enterprise, another capitalist virtue, is a spectre, a ghost of “glories” past. People producing goods and trading them is not accurately called ‘free enterprise’. Have you been exposed to Pedagogy of the Oppressed? It provides a convincing counter analysis, from the regular peoples’ POV, of what drives hierarchy. In that analysis, enterprise is neither neither free nor liberating. The tyranny of competition oppresses all.
This outlandish and dizzying barbarity we witness today is clearly wrong. But the expectations we had while this gorgon was gestating, they are wrong too. Not only did they blind us to the the devil within, they were always fantastic.
I think Krugman explains it better than I could:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/too-big-to-fail-fail/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/a-bit-more-on-too-big-to-fail-and-related/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02krugman.html
Krugman is such a bullshitter.
Everyone agrees that a central bank like the Federal Reserve can create money. The points of contention arise when the plan is floated to have the Fed act as Europe’s lender of last resort. The questions are:
1. What cost will this have for the U.S. economy and taxpayer? Unless I misunderstand you, you suggest there will be no costs.
2. Should the Fed be acting as Europe’s lender of last resort at all? What are the ramifications for such a role? Again, i believe you argue there are no costs so there should be no inhibition.
3. Why is the Fed choosing to do this or, put otherwise, who is the Fed protecting and why?
4. What are the implications of another financial services rescue for the purportedly capitalist system in which we operate? Does this not tighten the grip of the TBTF entities that have captured the Global Financial System?
5. What is the endgame? How much money will the Fed have to use? For how long? What will be the result? Will this solve the problem?
Dylan, that is just sad. Krugman is a tame Establishment voice. Another dismal scientist, and the columns you link are among his most dismal. He doesn’t explain why the big should be bailed out, anymore than you do. He just says we would even bail out the small if we didn’t have the big. Sheesh. Why shouldn’t failures be allowed to fail? That is the question. I think you need to stop pretending that you have a deep understanding of economics. Try Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism to further your education.
First, let me say I’m glad you showed up here, because you clearly have an alive mind, and those are always welcome. I’ve had all the thoughts and ideas you express, and while there is some validity to them, I don’t think they capture the whole complex truth. Not to fault you, just that these concepts cover too much territory to address fully on a blog. I look forward to many future conversations. Not now, as I have to concentrate on my work, which is trading the S&P 500, always from a contrarian posture. May I suggest that you fill out your profile page, so we can have some idea of what you are about? I hate having to make assumptions about what your belief system is; here, you have mostly just shown what you are against, which makes it difficult to refine the conversation. A bientot.
Because certain failures have the power to bring down the economy. It’s not that hard to understand. But by painting everything in black and white, you have created a world that does not exist. First of all, failures happen all the time without being bailed out. It’s when those failures — either a few large banks or thousands of smaller ones — pose a systemic risk to the entire economy that you bail them out.
It won’t cost the US taxpayer anything, if you’re using the term ‘taxpayer’ in the standard way. The Fed doesn’t collect taxes to create money.
What will it cost the economy? I don’t know if inflation will rise or by how much. But I do know that the failure of the entire eurozone will cause a global depression. So there’s that.
No, I didn’t argue that there are no costs. Nor did I ever say money was ‘free.’ The fact is, though, that somebody needs to start buying eurobonds or else the entire system is going to collapse. If it’s the Fed that has to do this because of German ineptitude, then so be it.
If the Fed does it, then they’re doing it to prevent economic collapse. They’re protecting the economy. You can choose to believe that the Fed is protecting THE 1%!!!, but at the end of the day, you rely on the economy for survival just as much as the Koch Brothers do.
I don’t think you understand that the ECB is acting contrary to traditional central banking practices. The norm here is bailing out troubled firms, no matter their size, if their failure is going to bring about economic collapse. So there are little implications for the “capitalist system in which we operate” if the ECB or Fed acts as a lender of last resort.
I don’t know how much money and I don’t know the terms of a hypothetical bailout. I do now that it will solve the problem of the eurocrisis, though. The crisis exists exactly because the ECB is refusing to be a lender of last resort.
So that’s FDL’s darling economist, now? I’ll stick with the trained economist and Nobel laureate.
If it’s capitalism, failures must fail. Rebuilding from the ashes is part of the process. Bailouts=Corporate socialism, an ideology NOBODY is willing to embrace publicly. What is the benefit to society of having an enterprise become so big that its failure would wreck everything? Shouldn’t the anti-trust laws operate to prevent exactly that kind of concentration in any one enterprise?
Yves Smith is worth 10 Paul Krugmans. Nobel honors mean very little these days. Obama got the Peace Prize. If the last round of bailouts, which Krugman supported, were so great, why are we looking at another round now, and why hasn’t our economy recovered? It’s all just about making sure the favored cronies prosper. Open your eyes. Reading is great, but thinking is better.
Do you not see the irony in this assessment? Didn’t the monetarist shyster Greenspan “fail” to see the systemic risks? This Krugmanite game of labeling the smart and the stupid is part of the con.
“German ineptitude” is obviously a biased characterization. This is better understood as a capitalist war, with the US extending it’s protection racket. That smartness so promoted is utilized not for the betterment of all, but for it’s own narcissism.
I don’t believe “the Germans” are asserting their intellectual prowess, they are fighting an invader. I am not choosing sides but rather opposing the warfare (well, if one side is more a war-mongerer, then I am opposing them more.)
An episodic, tactical understanding leaves one vulnerable. Please correct my speculation, if you can.
Please forgive me, realitychecker, but I don’t thnk that opening very conducive to my relinquishing my anonymity.
I don’t kiss on the first date, anyway.
Not looking for a kiss, just an illuminating conversation. The fact that I’ve shared your thoughts should only be taken as an indication that I try to give fair consideration to all plausible possibilities. Only then do I allow myself to draw conclusions, which, on complex issues, always remain somewhat tentative. Certainty, too easily reached, too often sets the stage for catastrophic error, IMO. You make many implications which derive from your perception of human behavior and psychology, it seems to me. In all honesty, the database is not good enough to allow certainty about any of this stuff, but if we are going to discuss such basic issues, it would be helpful to know the belief system you are arguing from. It’s not a trap. You can click on my name to get an idea of who I am and where I come from. Filling out a profile does not compromise your anonymity. You’ll still be anonymous.
OR, you can just state right out what your belief system/ideology is.
Your view of capitalism is very narrow.
The eurocrisis is a form of economic warfare waged by the US against Germany? Somebody has an active imagination…