Thursday, July 23, 2009

There Goes Democracy

riverrun on the banks brings us by a commodius vacuuming of money out of recirculation back to The Great Depression.

Dennis Kucinich wonders if the Federal Reserve is paying banks not to make loans.
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has led the effort challenging the use of TARP funds through two administrations, today questioned whether or not “banks are parking a historic amount of taxpayers’ money in the Federal Reserve while the businesses and consumers across America are starved for credit” and whether the Federal Reserve is “paying banks not to make loans.”
“First Congress was told that TARP was for the purchase of toxic assets, to help keep people in their homes. Then the Bush Administration switched the program.

“Next Congress was told that the TARP funds were instead needed to bail out the banks, in the form of a direct capital infusion, to keep credit markets alive.

“If TARP isn’t about keeping people in their homes or providing credit to businesses, what is it for? I think the vast majority of Americans would be outraged to learn their tax dollars were facilitating hoarding at the Fed and increased profit making for banks,” Kucinich said.
We lent the banks our money so they could lend it to us -- and by lending, keep the economy alive. If they aren't lending, then what are they doing with the money? And just what is keeping the economy alive?

Nothing. The zombie will fall and disintegrate the moment it realizes that it is no longer breathes. The only thing keeping it ambulatory at present is the power of hallucination.

Nothing in the TARP agreement forced the banks to use money for loans. No substantive new regulations have been or will be put into place. Obamaland is simply another name for Goldman Sachs and Environs. The Wall Streeters (Those Greedy Devils) are banana-izing our republic:
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
Was this planned? Marxism is dead, socialism is wrongly considered Marxism, anything unapproved by Milton Friedman is wrongly considered socialism, and capitalism is killing both us and itself. So the day after That Gargantuan Death, what the Heil will we have left?

History repeats: A new and even more Terrible Great Depression. Only this one will have an unhappier, much less Rooseveltian ending, because the great brain-laundries of the right have convinced Americans that the solution is the problem. No new New Deal. No I say no we won't No.

There Goes Democracy.

And the story is old and old and old it's sad and old it's sad and weary, as we go back to you my cold stepfather, my cold mad Adolfy stepfather, til the hindsight becomes the foresight of him, rising higher and heiler and running faster and fascter. We pass through grass behush the Bush II. End here. Us vs. Them. Again -- then Fin. Buzz off, memory. No Loans alas, no love along the

4 comments:

Joseph Cannon said...

And when the great crash crashes, when that wallstrait old parr finally falls its ultimate fall, what will it sound like?

bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!

-- Theodore Gorilladen Donglonger

MrMike said...

Who was it said that TARP was a delaying action to allow the failing banks to be cleaned out of anything of value by the ones responsible for wrecking them?
How much were congress members promised for allowing this?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why, but this seems to be the place to ask: where do profits come from? In the traditional paradigm, a buyer and seller exchange ownership in a capital investment that produces wealth. The market results from the difference of opinion about the wealth-producing prospects of the investment. The investor's profit is tied to a real world ability to produce wealth.

In our world of structured finance, multiple speculators can bet on a company's prospects, and if they correctly bet up or down, they get a payout. My question is, where does the profit in that transaction come from?

Theoretically, the brokerage takes the bet of the option for a fee, and they were happy to make these bets for the fee stream. Apparently, they bought a little insurance from AIG, and we all know where AIG got the money. So one has to wonder why this continues to be legal, but my point is that I believe that options pay out nonexistent profits, and that therefore the structure of structured finance is inherently flawed.

the quiet psychic said...

There is something much worse coming for this country. No Rooseveltian ending, indeed.