I, for one, think that the auto makers should receive money, but we should fire the execs. There are way too many working Americans effected by this industry that are on the edge if we don't help them out where the execs failed. Wall Street has got theirs (to which I do not think they should have-and also in the manner to which that they have). As we move through and listen to the big three auto makers of America beg for money for their failed products and ideas we come to this video that I have below.
I find it interesting as to how GM is asking for $9 Billion, when if liquidated, as an on paper audit of the firm would indicate, that the company's true value is only around $3 Billion. Why the extra funding? Perhaps the extra is for the health and pension funds that Wall Street pissed away and will not return with their own bailout money, since they are using it to payout bonuses (I mean incentives) and spa trips, etc...Right...but I digress...Again, that is millions of Americans that rely on those companies for their retirement and insurance (just what Wall Street pissed away...)
Also, if the bosses couldn't do it right for the past few decades,(and of course we need to give blame to the Bush tax incentives for large car purchases and the fact that people bought them...) why would we give them these funds and still have the same failed managers and executives managing the firms? I agree with Michael Moore, as to, if we as tax payers are going to be owning these companies, we should immediately fire the managers and executives then mandate that with these tax dollar funds they make efficient electric and hybrid cars and trucks, as well as, build high speed rail lines for the country. It is our money and we need modern transportation like in Europe and Japan. All of that will put hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, to work for these new rail lines and retooling and re...
Just like what happened with Roosevelt and with the New Deal, then the car manufacturers were told NOT to make cars but were ORDERED to make tanks, guns, and items necessary for our society and the war effort. Well, guess what, we have a new war on. The war on fiscal solvency.
When a President declares war, as we have seen exemplified through this finally ending failed administration, lame ducked, shamed faced...sorry, I got carried away.
A President has special executive powers to mandate ideas, projects, processes, and regulations if there is a war on something. That's why they call it a war on something...anything...this way they can use special executive powers to make things happen that they normally would not. I say, let there be a declaration of a war on the economy. For this, Wall Street MUST give money to companies, small businesses and tax payers to help them with their financial messes to which Wall Street orchestrated. Detroit MUST make ecological affordable vehicles and high speed mass transportation to which will help our country move back and forth instead of the necessity to rely on the continually failing airline industry...Oh, yeah, those guys get bailed out too...remember those...
If we are going to go down this socialistic path, we as a society should benefit from OUR money and OUR needs. That's what socialism is, for the society as a whole and not simply for the rich.
Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. I don't think that is altogether true or necessary. It is not necessarily a transition to communism. We can have socialism with capitalistic tendencies. Or should I say, WE DO HAVE socialism with capitalistic tendencies. Let's call it regulation with a bailout. Right now, what we have recently created in this country is the world's largest socialistic government, with capitalistic tendencies. There was not revolution, but there is class struggle, and even still the rich are currently winning this fight hands down. But, if the tax payers are going to be owning these firms on Wall Street, and in Detroit, we MUST have that accountability and oversight that the Republican party has so carefully forgotten about, as well as how much they deregulated over these past thirty years.
Ironically, (and perhaps it is the gods having fun with us), it was September 11th, when our own government financed a coup that assassinated and overthrew, Salvador Allende, the democratically elected socialist leader of Chile, in 1973. This is our pattern, is to state publicly and adamantly, and to brainwash our society that capitalism is the best system in the world and socialism or communism must be crushed. Make no mistake, I am not against capitalism. I enjoy the fruits of my hard earned dollars just as much as the next person.
What is the dilemma is that we destabilize socialist countries and overthrow democratically elected leaders of other countries after we demonize their leaders for running a system not like our own. We create crippling and stagnate economies after these actions in these countries for the American financial institutions to exercise their might in these "now democratic" societies. We then set up American corporate interests for raw materials and manufacturing to enslave the working class of these countries for the "now democratic" state, that is after we instill the new leader of the country that we want and who sees things the American way. Just like, back in Sept. 11, 1973, when we installed the murdering dictator General Augusto Pinochet. We have done this in Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Cuba, Iran...Iraq...
The irony is hitting us square in the face now and we must come to terms with our own societal two faced rhetoric as we have shown clearly to the world that a free capitalistic system is not the "only" way. There is no one way for anything. It is in our best interest to educate ourselves of our own misgivings and see the socialistic one way mirror to which we now find ourselves on the other side of.
Oh, sorry, I got sidetracked. I wanted to discuss cars...
Watch this! Perhaps Detroit can learn from this!!
This, the 212th entry in bloggoland! Thanks for reading and coming back. I always enjoy the comments, emails and the banter!!
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Showing posts with label Roosevelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roosevelt. Show all posts
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
A look back in order to look forward
Will this most recent meeting that Bush held with 20 leaders of the world over the financial crisis do much? Will it have any of the similar impact that the Bretton Woods meeting had that was held at the end of WWII? Does Bush have enough respect to create any sort of unity on the global stage in his last 100 days in office?
Bush is a different kind of man and a different kind of leader than President FDR. Roosevelt stated in the discussions at the time, "The economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbors, near and distant."
I have a weird feeling that Bush holds a different sentiment. Just as Bush stated yesterday at the meetings held at the White House, "One of the dangers during a crisis such as this is that people will start implementing protectionist policies,". (You mean like the isolationism style of leadership that he has administrated with over the past eight years) He went on to say that he was pleased leaders had reaffirmed the "principles of open markets and free trade". In other words, 'piss on you guys, we run the world...watch and learn as I make all of the elite, white, more rich in America with free markets and limited or no oversight.'
In July of 1944, British economist John Maynard Keynes addresses the Bretton Woods conference to encourage international trade and investment. Is this going to become the opportunity to create a global currency? As Keynes, the UK equivalent of a Secretary of the Treasury for England in 1944 argued at Bretton Woods for a single world currency. This later became the dollar as the dominant currency for exchange.
At that time, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to enforce a set of fixed exchange rates that were linked to the dollar. What they created has become a means of indentured servitude of the smaller countries of the world to the U.S. The IMF is set up so that countries in balance of payments difficulties could receive short-term help from the IMF to avoid devaluation, and it could sanction changes in exchange rates when necessary.
The World Bank (officially called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was set up to make long-term loans "facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war [and] the reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs".
This sounds much like the new failing Bailout Plan that the Bush clan has instituted to keep the lower and middle class of America in a kind of indentured servitude for the wealthy.
At the time of the Bretton Woods meeting created the International Trade Organization, which was designed to encourage free trade, was dead in the water when the US refused to ratify it in 1947. Also, more ambitious proposals from the UK's John Maynard Keynes to set up a world central bank which could issue its own currency (which he labeled Bancor) but was rejected by the US. Keynes hoped a new bank could help infuse the world economy by expanding the money supply.
He also wanted the cost of adjustment shared between countries with trade surpluses and deficits, so that countries with big surpluses would have to revalue their currencies, as well as deficit countries being forced to devalue.
Instead, the Bretton Woods system gave the US currency - which was linked to gold - the dominant position in the world economy and allowed the US to run a trade deficit without having to devalue. Hence, our new debt laden society that we have all come to love.
Since we were the country that 'saved the world' at that time, we held a huge amount of global respect. And the US, which contributed the most money to both institutions, also gained the most voting rights, giving it a veto over major policy decisions.
What transpired was the Marshall Plan. This was an establishment of a rules-based system of international finance that would help restore confidence in the world economy and lead to an extraordinary boom in the post-war years. The strategy that this did for the United States was to make it the pre-eminent power throughout the world. Signed, sealed and delivered when Lord Halifax signed. At that point, the UK signed the Bretton Woods deal but soon found itself needing US aid. The US pumped even more money into the European recovery effort when the World Bank's ability proved inadequate for their full needs.
This program prompted great world trade among developed countries and global trade grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, boosting world output and raising the standard of living, especially in Europe and Japan...and America. Not only did the IMF and the World Bank lend money, but the US sent dollars abroad through both military and civilian aid.
Now, with the financial imbalance of global trade deficits that the United States had created by a growing debt laden society and the Vietnam war, (hmm, sounds like a time that we are in right now) the initial plan began to unravel. So, in 1971, President Nixon tookk the dollar off the gold standard. This devalued the dollar, a move ratified by the Smithsonian Agreement later that year. So, the financial institutions printed more money and the advent of credit cards came to the forefront of our lifestyle.
This led to the abandonment of fixed exchange rates and the introduction of floating rates, where the value of all the main currencies was determined by market trading.
This breakdown had consequences. It led European countries to begin seriously considering closer monetary co-operation, which ultimately led to the creation of the euro in 1999.
At the time it was a grand idea, especially for America. The Bretton Woods system unleashed two decades of financial globalization, encouraged by the deregulation not just of currency markets, but also of rules about banking and investment. Which eventually led to the breakdown of the system. Funny how deregulation can do something like that. When you give greed and corruption no oversight do you really think that all will be well. That is like saying that by taking the police and firemen out of our system we will still be fine and all act civilized.
What this deregulation did though was lead to increased flows of private money to rich and poor countries alike, which helped boost growth but also created greater instability. Everyone thought that things were great, although with the rapid reversal of private money when currencies were threatened with devaluation became the central cause of the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, which spread to Russia and eventually Argentina.
Many countries have learned that the system is top sided. Meaning, the United States, has orchestrated a global caste system. Or the Reaganomics type of global policy is not necessarily working for them. So, many Asian countries, including China, have accumulated large currency reserves to insulate themselves against future crises, avoiding the need to call on the IMF.
Now, we have a new global financial crisis. It has hit the richest countries the hardest and they have now renewed calls for a new global framework of financial regulation. It is a new world, a different financial world we have today. It is much more integrated and much more complex through the proliferation of financial instruments and the fact that there is no longer one country that dominates the world economy in the way the US did after World War II. Although, the ego of the United States propaganda is telling us that the world still needs the U.S. is true, but certainly not to the same extent as in 1944.
The co-operation of our political leaders today do not have the same impetus today as they did in 1944. We have not gone through a decade of depression, yet. Our wars are still being financed. Yet, people are feeling it now. They are beginning to understand the gravity of the situation. They are beginning to see that this current policy is NOT working. Although, Bush will plunder the rest of the hundreds of billions as there is no congress pushing for oversight at this time allowing him and Paulson a free ride to funnel our future tax dollars to where ever they deem appropriate.
We are in a new time, with new global powers with different sets of players and circumstances. The coming new agreement would have to recognize the power of the rising economies, such as China and India, and reshape the institutions and policies created more than half a century ago.
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Bush is a different kind of man and a different kind of leader than President FDR. Roosevelt stated in the discussions at the time, "The economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbors, near and distant."
I have a weird feeling that Bush holds a different sentiment. Just as Bush stated yesterday at the meetings held at the White House, "One of the dangers during a crisis such as this is that people will start implementing protectionist policies,". (You mean like the isolationism style of leadership that he has administrated with over the past eight years) He went on to say that he was pleased leaders had reaffirmed the "principles of open markets and free trade". In other words, 'piss on you guys, we run the world...watch and learn as I make all of the elite, white, more rich in America with free markets and limited or no oversight.'
In July of 1944, British economist John Maynard Keynes addresses the Bretton Woods conference to encourage international trade and investment. Is this going to become the opportunity to create a global currency? As Keynes, the UK equivalent of a Secretary of the Treasury for England in 1944 argued at Bretton Woods for a single world currency. This later became the dollar as the dominant currency for exchange.
At that time, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to enforce a set of fixed exchange rates that were linked to the dollar. What they created has become a means of indentured servitude of the smaller countries of the world to the U.S. The IMF is set up so that countries in balance of payments difficulties could receive short-term help from the IMF to avoid devaluation, and it could sanction changes in exchange rates when necessary.
The World Bank (officially called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) was set up to make long-term loans "facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war [and] the reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs".
This sounds much like the new failing Bailout Plan that the Bush clan has instituted to keep the lower and middle class of America in a kind of indentured servitude for the wealthy.
At the time of the Bretton Woods meeting created the International Trade Organization, which was designed to encourage free trade, was dead in the water when the US refused to ratify it in 1947. Also, more ambitious proposals from the UK's John Maynard Keynes to set up a world central bank which could issue its own currency (which he labeled Bancor) but was rejected by the US. Keynes hoped a new bank could help infuse the world economy by expanding the money supply.
He also wanted the cost of adjustment shared between countries with trade surpluses and deficits, so that countries with big surpluses would have to revalue their currencies, as well as deficit countries being forced to devalue.
Instead, the Bretton Woods system gave the US currency - which was linked to gold - the dominant position in the world economy and allowed the US to run a trade deficit without having to devalue. Hence, our new debt laden society that we have all come to love.
Since we were the country that 'saved the world' at that time, we held a huge amount of global respect. And the US, which contributed the most money to both institutions, also gained the most voting rights, giving it a veto over major policy decisions.
What transpired was the Marshall Plan. This was an establishment of a rules-based system of international finance that would help restore confidence in the world economy and lead to an extraordinary boom in the post-war years. The strategy that this did for the United States was to make it the pre-eminent power throughout the world. Signed, sealed and delivered when Lord Halifax signed. At that point, the UK signed the Bretton Woods deal but soon found itself needing US aid. The US pumped even more money into the European recovery effort when the World Bank's ability proved inadequate for their full needs.
This program prompted great world trade among developed countries and global trade grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, boosting world output and raising the standard of living, especially in Europe and Japan...and America. Not only did the IMF and the World Bank lend money, but the US sent dollars abroad through both military and civilian aid.
Now, with the financial imbalance of global trade deficits that the United States had created by a growing debt laden society and the Vietnam war, (hmm, sounds like a time that we are in right now) the initial plan began to unravel. So, in 1971, President Nixon tookk the dollar off the gold standard. This devalued the dollar, a move ratified by the Smithsonian Agreement later that year. So, the financial institutions printed more money and the advent of credit cards came to the forefront of our lifestyle.
This led to the abandonment of fixed exchange rates and the introduction of floating rates, where the value of all the main currencies was determined by market trading.
This breakdown had consequences. It led European countries to begin seriously considering closer monetary co-operation, which ultimately led to the creation of the euro in 1999.
At the time it was a grand idea, especially for America. The Bretton Woods system unleashed two decades of financial globalization, encouraged by the deregulation not just of currency markets, but also of rules about banking and investment. Which eventually led to the breakdown of the system. Funny how deregulation can do something like that. When you give greed and corruption no oversight do you really think that all will be well. That is like saying that by taking the police and firemen out of our system we will still be fine and all act civilized.
What this deregulation did though was lead to increased flows of private money to rich and poor countries alike, which helped boost growth but also created greater instability. Everyone thought that things were great, although with the rapid reversal of private money when currencies were threatened with devaluation became the central cause of the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, which spread to Russia and eventually Argentina.
Many countries have learned that the system is top sided. Meaning, the United States, has orchestrated a global caste system. Or the Reaganomics type of global policy is not necessarily working for them. So, many Asian countries, including China, have accumulated large currency reserves to insulate themselves against future crises, avoiding the need to call on the IMF.
Now, we have a new global financial crisis. It has hit the richest countries the hardest and they have now renewed calls for a new global framework of financial regulation. It is a new world, a different financial world we have today. It is much more integrated and much more complex through the proliferation of financial instruments and the fact that there is no longer one country that dominates the world economy in the way the US did after World War II. Although, the ego of the United States propaganda is telling us that the world still needs the U.S. is true, but certainly not to the same extent as in 1944.
The co-operation of our political leaders today do not have the same impetus today as they did in 1944. We have not gone through a decade of depression, yet. Our wars are still being financed. Yet, people are feeling it now. They are beginning to understand the gravity of the situation. They are beginning to see that this current policy is NOT working. Although, Bush will plunder the rest of the hundreds of billions as there is no congress pushing for oversight at this time allowing him and Paulson a free ride to funnel our future tax dollars to where ever they deem appropriate.
We are in a new time, with new global powers with different sets of players and circumstances. The coming new agreement would have to recognize the power of the rising economies, such as China and India, and reshape the institutions and policies created more than half a century ago.
(c)Copyright 2008 Doug Boggs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
