Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama on Afghanistan and Iraq Withdrawal
>>That has fallen through because the US and NATO can't control enough of the countryside through which the pipelines must run. It has also fallen through because there weren't any players like Enron around to get the deals going--and we have seen the venture banks and private equity deals like that dry up--in fact, they dried up a couple years before the current set of multifaceted financial troubles in the news now.<< It also seems to have fallen through because the US government worried it would benefit Russia or its C. Asia allies rather than the group of anti-Russian countries the US has been trying to cultivate. What's more, the Afghan occupation-light (the country actually got invaded and occupied with the 'forward positioned assets' the US, under Clinton, had been readying for regime change in Iraq) only succeeded because Iran, Russia and Pakistan cooperated. But the US wanted it both ways. It wanted to use its new holdings in the 'great game' against a resurgent Russia. Relations with Iran got worse once Ahmadinejad got elected (instead of a somewhat pro-US 'reformer'). And Pakistan went all awry because it turns out their puppet there had a weaker position than their puppet in Afghanistan. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Obama on Afghanistan and Iraq Withdrawal
>>CB: No, the distinct characteristic of Obama's position is that he proposes a definite "timetable" for withdrawal as opposed to an indefinite one or "eventually." << Well timetables have been discussed 'concretely' since the invasion and occupation started. I believe they were the brainchild of the Iraqi Resistance (both Sunni and Sadrist). Even Dr. Dean picked up on the idea (however, unlike Obama, he failed to figure out how to crack the caucases -- YEEEHAAAW!). But Obama's concrete timetable turns out to be conditional, which opens up 'the eventual' for the DoD and CentCom, who have bet the farm on getting a self-sufficient, base complex in the ME (they have them in Europe, E. Asia, not SE Asia, not S. America, not Africa). The Gulf Arabs would support such a base complex (so long as it removes the US military from their countries)--it would boost their direct sales of fuel and help them to diversify their economies in the way the US military did in places like S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan (because of the huge amounts of procurements). The DoD's best hope for BO presidency: embrace him warmly as a one-term president whom they can outlast. By the time they get around to actually start withdrawing troops according to some timetable given to them (if that even happens), he will be running for a second term. Obama's timetable it turns out is conditional upon such ill-defined concepts as 'progress on the ground' and the 'ability of the Iraqis to take on the responsibilities of running their country' etc etc. He even wants Gates to stay and certify it. >>CB: Surely since you don't allow "conspiracy theories" of 9/11, it is your position that Bin Laden's group did 9/11. << Which is really just another conspiracy theory and a rather poorly explained one at that. The 'after the fact' video has OBL or his lookalike talking about gasoline and steelframe buildings, which means he didn't even watch the news coverage of the fate of the WTC because of its materials (and airplanes don't burn gasoline so far as I know). >> Is it your position that Bin Laden's group did 9/11, but the US shan't >> attack Bin Laden's group ? Given the premise that Bin Laden's group attacked >> the US on 9/11, I don't know of a legal argument against the US >> militarycounterattacking that group.<< It might help if we saw even one coherent criminal trial under constitutional law somewhere that links a conspirator of 9-11 to the larger group. >> Bin Laden's group is sort of unique in modern US imperialist history. No >> other "Third World" country or group has actually attacked the US, contrary to US lying propaganda about protecting American "freedom" through wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan-ante (!), etc.<< Singing the Marine Corps song, from the shores of Tripoli. There were the Barbary Coast pirates. And then there was the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa. I pointed out Pancho Villa on Henwood's list and Carroll Cox then stole it from me. But being the unoriginal dumbass he is, Carroll Cox knew nothing about Pancho Villa's genuine revolutionary politics and actions and thought he was something like the greasy Frito Bandito. >>Iraq was the opposite. The attack there by the US violates the UN Convention against Crimes Against Peace.<< Well many actions the UN itself has taken violates the UN Convention. That is what happens when you have a hegemon like the US (and its evil mini-mes like Israel) throwing their weight around. But at any rate, so would some DoD-concocted causus belli vs. Pakistan in order to inflate the S. Asia occupation budgets of CentCom. >>As far as imperialism, I don't really think the US wants to set up a colony >>or neo-colony in Afghanistan. There's not much to exploit there.<< There are somethings to exploit there, it just isn't feasible, even on the arrogant, deceitful terms of the US's national security state. Karzai's only hope to get the US and NATO protection racket stabilized were the pipelines that were supposed to link C. Asia with the populous markets of S. Asia. That has fallen through because the US and NATO can't control enough of the countryside through which the pipelines must run. It has also fallen through because there weren't any players like Enron around to get the deals going--and we have seen the venture banks and private equity deals like that dry up--in fact, they dried up a couple years before the current set of multifaceted financial troubles in the news now. An airbase complex in Afghanistan would only make sense though as a somewhat minor complement to a major army base complex in Iraq. That is because Afghanistan is landlocked, and would only be good as a network of airbases that allows the US to extend its 'rapid deployment'--light infantry that flies bascially--to a part of the world that borders world and regional powers. Unless of course the US could successfully occupy Pakistan and get something going there. But a religiously and nat
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The playboy philosopher
>>I believe that it was CeJ who when detailing Sartre's Stalinist politics, asserted that he supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. But everything I have seen about Sartre's politics indicates that the opposite was the case. That is, he denounced the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In fact, that was one of the first times in the 1950s, where he found himself at loogerheads with the PCF. Within a few years, he was at odds with them again, because of their foot dragging over supporting the Algerian independence struggle, which Sartre avidly and courageously supported, at a time when that was not very popular in France, even on the left.<< Not me. If I did, it must have been a typo with an omitted NOT or something. I may have posted a link to something that asserted that, but I don't remember it. That book about existentialism and Marxism (links to which I posted here) detailed that issue. I speculated on whether or not Sartre knew Althusser in the FCP in the 50s, long before the more famous debates of the 60s. I now speculate on whether or not he knew him through the old school ties, since Althusser was well set on a successful academic career (even before taking on for his own purposes the social scientific structuralism of Claude Levi Strauss. For example, Althusser's status as adviser, supervisor, mentor and friends of Foucault and Derrida were already established (and Sartre didn't have such relationships because, I would argue, he eschewed academia and the academic career). BTW, I admire Sartre's contributions to philosophy, social science and politics. And his relationships with Camus, De Beauvoir and Merleau Ponty have long fascinated me. I think JF you are thinking of someone else on another list, since you contribute on the philsophy of history on those lists while at the same time CB cross-posts from those very same lists to this list (for example this thread on the playboy philosopher, which seems to have sprung up already fully discussed somewhere else). CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Moral hazard
Moral hazard Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk ( e.g. by a bailout-CB) may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company. Moral hazard is related to information asymmetry, a situation in which one party in a transaction has more information than another. The party that is insulated from risk generally has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information. A special case of moral hazard is called a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot perfectly monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned. Contents [hide] 1 In finance 2 In insurance 3 In management 4 History of the term 5 See also 6 References 7 External links [edit] In finance Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the highest return. A moral hazard arises if lending institutions believe that they can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but they will not have to fully pay for losses if the investment turns out badly. Taxpayers, depositors, and other creditors have often had to shoulder at least part of the burden of risky financial decisions made by lending institutions.[1] Moral hazard can also occur with borrowers. Borrowers may not act prudently (in the view of the lender) when they invest or spend funds recklessly. For example, credit card companies often limit the amount borrowers can spend using their cards, because without such limits those borrowers may spend borrowed funds recklessly, leading to default. Some believe that mortgage standards became lax because of a moral hazard—in which each link in the mortgage chain collected profits while believing it was passing on risk—and that this substantially contributed to the 2007–2008 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[2] Brokers, who were not lending their own money, pushed risk onto the lenders. Lenders, who sold mortgages soon after underwriting them, pushed risk onto investors. Investment banks bought mortgages and chopped up mortgage-backed securities into slices, some riskier than others. Investors bought securities and hedged against the risk of default and prepayment, pushing those risks further along. [edit] In insurance In insurance markets, moral hazard occurs when the behavior of the insured party changes in a way that raises costs for the insurer, since the insured party no longer bears the full costs of that behavior. Two types of behavior can change. One type is the risky behavior itself, resulting in what is called ex ante moral hazard. In this case, insured parties behave in a more risky manner, resulting in more negative consequences that the insurer must pay for. For example, after purchasing automobile insurance, some may tend to be less careful about locking the automobile or choose to drive more, thereby increasing the risk of theft or an accident for the insurer. After purchasing fire insurance, some may tend to be less careful about preventing fires (say, by smoking in bed or neglecting to replace the batteries in fire alarms). A second type of behavior that may change is the reaction to the negative consequences of risk, once they have occurred and once insurance is provided to cover their costs. This may be called ex post moral hazard. In this case, insured parties do not behave in a more risky manner that results in more negative consequences, but they do ask an insurer to pay for more of the negative consequences from risk as insurance coverage increases. For example, without m
[Marxism-Thaxis] Maverick
Maverick A maverick is an unbranded range animal, especially a motherless calf; it can also mean a person who thinks independently; a lone dissenter; a non-conformist or rebel. People Samuel Augustus Maverick (1803–1870), Texas cattleman from whom the term maverick originated Samuel Maverick (colonist) (1602–1670), English colonist in Massachusetts Maury Maverick (1895–1954), US congressman from Texas, coined the word "gobbledygook" Maury Maverick, Jr. (1921–2003), Texas politician, activist and columnist Maverick Matt, ring name of Matt Bentley, American professional wrestler Organizations and products Maverick (chocolate), a discontinued chocolate bar manufactured by Nestle in the UK Maverick (magazine), a South African business magazine Maverick (entertainment company), an American entertainment company with several divisions: Maverick Records, a record label Maverick Films, a film production company Maverik Lacrosse, a lacrosse equipment and apparel company, based in Mineola, New York Ford Maverick, the name of 4 different automobiles made by the Ford Motor Company Maverick (cigarette), made by the Lorillard Tobacco Company Maverick REV-6, a Nerf gun in the N-Strike series Sports Dallas Mavericks, an NBA basketball team from Dallas, Texas, US Mid-Missouri Mavericks, a minor league baseball team from Columbia, Missouri, US Mavericks, the mascot of Mesa State College in Colorado, US Mavericks, the mascot of University of Texas at Arlington in Texas, US Mavericks, the mascot of Minnesota State University, Mankato in Minnesota, US Mavericks, the mascot of University of Nebraska, Omaha, US Film and television Maverick (TV series), an American television series from 1957–1962, set in the American Old West starring James Garner and Jack Kelly Maverick (film), a 1994 film based on the television series, starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, and James Garner Maverick, the callsign of the main character in the film Top Gun, played by Tom Cruise Places Maverick (MBTA station), a subway station in Boston, Massachusetts, US Mavericks (location), a famous surfing location in Northern California, US Maverick County, Texas, US Music Maverick (album), by George Thorogood The Mavericks, a country music band Computers MaverickCrunch, a floating point math coprocessor by Cirrus Logic for ARM architectures Maverick Framework, an MVC framework for Java Other uses Maverick (book), an autobiography of Ricardo Semler's Brazilian company Maverick (comics), or David North, a character in Marvel Comics Maverick (roller coaster), at Cedar Point amusement park Maverick (Mega Man), characters in the Mega Man X video game series AGM-65 Maverick, a guided air-to-surface missile This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
I have no intention of defending BHO's idea of taking the "war on terror" of Afghanistan and, if he deems it necessary, to Pakistan. I'm a knee-jerk, US Out Of ___ anti-interventionist, and even if I were not, the Afghan war is even more lost than the Iraq war, if possible. I think the departing Brit commander acknowledged as much the other day. No one has conquered Afghanistan since Alexander the Great -- a point actually made, astonishingly enough, by McCain in the first debate, who didn't seem to appreciate its force. Mostly that didn't stick when the troops left whatever town they had just taken, although the Afghans, or many of them, paid "tribute," er, blackmail to Alexander while he lived, fortunately for them, not long. To the extent that Alexander's Afghan conquest stuck beyond that it did because he married a Bactrian (Afghan, we'd now say) princess, or chieftain's daughter, Roxanne. I don't think that Michelle Obama would approve of that solution (Roxanne is among other things, suspected of poisoning Alexanders first, Persian wife, Darius; daughter); and unlike today, polygamy was both legal and popular in Alexander's time and constituencies. Be that as it may, what BHO actually says should be noted. He says he wants to send two more brigades" of new troops into Afghanistan. This would be a fairly significant escalation of the war. NATO has about 43,000 personnel (mostly noncombat, ratio these days is roughly 10:1) in Afghanistan, 26,000 of which are US. A US military brigade comprises 1,500 to 4,000 personnel, so this could mean as many as 8,000 new us troops, or a roughly 15% increase in the total number of NATO troops, an increase by a third of the number of US troops. But as a practical matter that is a drop in the bucket. It will not make any military difference whatsoever in a country where the Taliban and the warlords own everything outside three or four major cities. Now BHO is a very smart guy who has highly competent military advice. He has to know this escalation won't do a damn thing militarily, and it's not even significant as an escalation compared to the withdrawal of 140,000 troops (plus, one presumes, a roughly equal number of contractor/mercenaries) from Iraq, even if BHO were to leave a residual force behind. The BHO Afghan escalation proposal, like the threat to go after bin Ladin in Pakistan without asking if they find him (ha!) and the Pakistantis are unable or unwilling to "take him out," is purely for domestic consumption. It is meant to show a US audience that Democrats can be as aggressive and militaristic as Republicans, and to justify withdrawal from Iraq in the context of BHO's suggestion that that is the "wrong" war. It's a play for the US political middle. That doesn't make BHO a wonderful guy and an ideal candidate of the left, although ending the Iraq war would be a real improvement from any sane political perspective. Apart from the young men and women the proposed Afghan escalation would put in harms way and those near them, and the extra Afghan civilians who will be killed by some of those troops, the Afghan idea is not a major military change. What is really scary, though, and what no one I have heard discuss has remarked, is that both candidates, including BHO, want to get the former Soviet Republics, including Ukraine, into NATO. For people -- both McCain and BHO -- who sday they don't want to start a new cold war, that is a pretty strange way to go about it, because that is exactly what surrounding Russia with NATO countries, some of which used to be sister Republics and share extended borders with Russia, would do. I do trust that the Russians will continue to be stable and cool-headed and not start shooting, but they will reignite the arms race, and we, of course, will "have" to respond, and we will back in the pre-perestroika era with the great power politics of the 19th century. That will be extremely expensive for countries that, like us, can't afford it, and extremely dangerous in terms is raising the geopolitical military temperature fought, if people are sane about it, through proxy wars. One doesn't really want top have to start thinking (again)( aboout what it means if they are not sane. --- On Wed, 10/8/08, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner > To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and > thethinkers he inspired" > Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 9:56 AM > >>> Doug Henwood > > > > No, the distinct characteristic of Obama's > position is that he > > proposes a definite "timetable" for > withdrawal as opposed to an > > indefinite one or "eventually." > > Yeah, and he explicitly wants to take the troops withdrawn > from Iraq > and send them to Afghanistan. Surely you've noticed > that. > > Doug > > > CB: Surely since
[Marxism-Thaxis] Sarah Palin lowered the standards for female candidates and political discourse |
Michelle Goldberg: Sarah Palin lowered the standards for female candidates and political discourse | Flirting her way to victory Sarah Palin's farcical debate performance lowered the standards for both female candidates and US political discourse Michelle Goldberg guardian.co.uk, Friday October 03 2008 18:30 BST Sarah Palin winks during the vice-presidential debate on Thursday in St Louis, Missouri. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night. By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said. And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity. It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise. In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try and determine whether a candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished. There is indeed something mesmerising about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example, is how she responded to Biden's comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate. Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorised talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky average-ness, which she did to the point of shtick - and dishonesty. Asked what her achilles heel is - a question she either didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?" None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described "fuckin' redneck". Palin is a woman who can't even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, ke
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] communism mailing list
Thanks >>> ehrbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/04/2008 5:53 PM >>> There is no danger that I will close down marxism-thaxis. Hans. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Community R Act
Isn't singling out the CRA and its mid-90s amendment just another example of selective right-wing demonization? One might just as easily point to the Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 which deregulated - and annihilated - the S&Ls and further integrated local real estate financing into the global captial markets. Or to the 1968 Congressional legislation that split the FNMA into two entities, and created the GNMA which did much to ramp up the secondary mortgage market, along with the creation of the FHLMC in 1970. Or for that matter, the creation of the FHLB in 1932 or the FHA in 1934. The nauseating line being spewed by right-wing scum on their websites and through their medida organs is the rawest, racist bile and represents a new low, even the proponents of such nonsense. Although . . . . I have to admint that the thought that while no one was paying any attention the wretched of the Earth managed to pull the plug on the Empire of Capital, if only temporarily, is as heartwarming and hopeful as any I've had since the end of the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, it's not true. (by MR) > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The playboy philosopher
I believe that it was CeJ who when detailing Sartre's Stalinist politics, asserted that he supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. But everything I have seen about Sartre's politics indicates that the opposite was the case. That is, he denounced the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In fact, that was one of the first times in the 1950s, where he found himself at loogerheads with the PCF. Within a few years, he was at odds with them again, because of their foot dragging over supporting the Algerian independence struggle, which Sartre avidly and courageously supported, at a time when that was not very popular in France, even on the left. Jim F. CB: That's my understanding of the history. Sartre had better positions than the PCF on French colonialism in Algeria (!), making them real good positions. -- "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ralph Dumain What a useless piece of shit Badiou is. His politics are even more worthless than his philosophy. As for Sartre, there are others on the anti-Stalinist left who bear a grudge against him for his erstwhile apologetics for the Communist Party. Some might wonder what he was doing with Maoist students. As for Sartre's philosophy, the philosophy he is known for seems to me a failure. I think one would have to read Critique of Dialectical Reason in search of a lasting contribution. ^ CB: Funny, this reminds of the old Marx/Engels rule of intellectual thumb: Marxism as French politics, British political economy and German philosophy. Sartre, French, has good politics , but not so good philosophy. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Seeking a career in Web Design? Find a school near you. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oHUEfg1Thcd9GpuWO02PGldZ6phD7cxF7b5GpCeoMovrmy1/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
Also, I forgot to mention that best to bog down US military in Afghanistan so the forces there can't be redeployed to Venezuela and Bolivia. CB >>> "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/08/2008 10:56 AM >>> >>> Doug Henwood > No, the distinct characteristic of Obama's position is that he > proposes a definite "timetable" for withdrawal as opposed to an > indefinite one or "eventually." Yeah, and he explicitly wants to take the troops withdrawn from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. Surely you've noticed that. Doug CB: Surely since you don't allow "conspiracy theories" of 9/11, it is your position that Bin Laden's group did 9/11. Is it your position that Bin Laden's group did 9/11, but the US shan't attack Bin Laden's group ? Given the premise that Bin Laden's group attacked the US on 9/11, I don't know of a legal argument against the US military counterattacking that group. Bin Laden's group is sort of unique in modern US imperialist history. No other "Third World" country or group has actually attacked the US, contrary to US lying propaganda about protecting American "freedom" through wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan-ante (!), etc. Iraq was the opposite. The attack there by the US violates the UN Convention against Crimes Against Peace. As far as imperialism, I don't really think the US wants to set up a colony or neo-colony in Afghanistan. There's not much to exploit there. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The playboy philosopher
I believe that it was CeJ who when detailing Sartre's Stalinist politics, asserted that he supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. But everything I have seen about Sartre's politics indicates that the opposite was the case. That is, he denounced the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In fact, that was one of the first times in the 1950s, where he found himself at loogerheads with the PCF. Within a few years, he was at odds with them again, because of their foot dragging over supporting the Algerian independence struggle, which Sartre avidly and courageously supported, at a time when that was not very popular in France, even on the left. Jim F. -- "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ralph Dumain What a useless piece of shit Badiou is. His politics are even more worthless than his philosophy. As for Sartre, there are others on the anti-Stalinist left who bear a grudge against him for his erstwhile apologetics for the Communist Party. Some might wonder what he was doing with Maoist students. As for Sartre's philosophy, the philosophy he is known for seems to me a failure. I think one would have to read Critique of Dialectical Reason in search of a lasting contribution. ^ CB: Funny, this reminds of the old Marx/Engels rule of intellectual thumb: Marxism as French politics, British political economy and German philosophy. Sartre, French, has good politics , but not so good philosophy. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Seeking a career in Web Design? Find a school near you. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oHUEfg1Thcd9GpuWO02PGldZ6phD7cxF7b5GpCeoMovrmy1/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Community Reinvestment Act at fault -- NOT
there's a somewhat deeper issue here; while blaming the CRA is clearly asinine talking points, in my opinion, the whole project of looking for micro explanations of what was clearly a macro phenomenon is screwed. If you run a current account deficit then (by accounting identity), domestic consumption/investment is growing faster than domestic saving. If domestic consumption/investment is growing faster than domestic saving, then, in nearly any normal situation in the financial sector, banking sector loans will grow faster than banking sector deposits. The financial sector intermediates the current account deficit - that's a large part of its purpose in a globalised financial sector. If you run such a situation in large size and for a prolonged period, banking sector loans will exceed banking sector deposits by a very great amount, and the banking sector will have large balances relative to GDP which are funded on global wholesale markets. Thus far, we've basically established it all via accounting identities or very obvious behavioural equations. The question now is whether you close the model by taking banking sector behaviour as exogenous and saying that the current account deficit is the residual (the result of the banks' decision to expand lending), or whether you close the model by taking the current account as exogenous and saying that the loan and deposit growth is the residual (ie that the debt buildup is the result of the current account deficit). Frankly, it's much more in the tradition of mainstream economics to say that the banking sector is the residual and the model should be closed by looking at the causes of the current account deficit (basically, tax cuts and war). I'm quite surprised that so many people have decided on a very non-standard, somewhat post-Keynesian closure of the model where the decisions of the banking sector drove the whole shebang and shooting match. None of which is to excuse particular individual decisions on lending and structuring, btw; just to say that these are equivalent to the no doubt obvious fact that many of those made unemployed during the Depression were the lazier and less productive workers - that is, it's probably true, but it's missing the point as to why there were so many unemployed. best dd This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Community Reinvestment Act at fault -- NOT
Community Reinvestment Act at fault -- NOT From: Slate Magazine / moneybox Subprime Suspects The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008, at 2:08 PM ET We've now entered a new stage of the financial crisis: the ritual assigning of blame. It began in earnest with Monday's congressional roasting of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld and continued on Tuesday with Capitol Hill solons delving into the failure of AIG. On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media), and in certain parts of the op-ed-o-sphere, there's a consensus emerging that the whole mess should be laid at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed mortgage giants, and the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed during the Carter administration. The CRA, which was amended in the 1990s and this decade, requires banks-which had a long, distinguished history of not making loans to minorities-to make more efforts to do so. The thesis is laid out almost daily on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the National Review, and on the campaign trail. John McCain said yesterday, "Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides an excellent example, writing that "much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people." He continues: "For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-which in turn pressured banks and other lenders-to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." The subtext: If only Congress didn't force banks to lend money to poor minorities, the Dow would be well on its way to 36,000. Or, as Fox Business Channel's Neil Cavuto put it, "I don't remember a clarion call that said: Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster." Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities? These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper-economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice. Let's be honest. Fannie and Freddie, which didn't make subprime loans but did buy subprime loans made by others, were part of the problem. Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem. Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem. But none of these issues is the cause of the problem. Not by a long shot. From the beginning, subprime has been a symptom, not a cause. And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd. Here's why. The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt. Second, many of the biggest flameouts in real estate have had nothing to do with subprime lending. WCI Communities, builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there), filed for bankruptcy in August. Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities-unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities. The multiyear plague that has been documented in brilliant detail at IrvineHousingBlog is playing out in one of the least-subprime housing markets in the nation. Third, lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in f
[Marxism-Thaxis] Wall Street - Cold, Flat, and Broke
Wall Street - Cold, Flat, and Broke October 06, 2008 C R Sridhar http://desicritics.org/2008/10/06/114033.php “Dreamed about AIG and the stock market, woke up with the urge to stock up on canned goods and shotguns.” - Michele Catalano of Long Island, an angry blogger. The month of September was cruel for Wall Street. Stormy winds blew away the venerable institutions of Wall Street and they collapsed one by one like a pack of cards. Lehman Brothers, the 158-year investment global investment bank, went belly up. Merrill Lynch was swallowed up by Bank of America. American International Group (AIG), a $1 trillion insurance company, had to be rescued by $85 billion dollar deal by the Federal Government on the ground that it was too big to fall. Capturing the mood of panic in Wall Street Mike Whitney, a widely quoted freelance writer, wrote ‘Lehman gone; Merrill Lynch swallowed up; AIG Going… Who’s Next for Madam Defarge?’1 Madam Defarge and the tumbrels were kept busy while heads rolled in the basket in a grisly fashion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggies of Mortgage lenders, became terminally ill requiring a massive bail out at a cost estimated to be in the region of $5.3 trillion. Washington Mutual went bust followed by Wachovia. Earlier in March, Bear Stearns became insolvent after bad bets turned into bad debts requiring Fed intervention. The concept of Wall Street investment banking was blown sky high when the remaining Goliaths Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs haemorrhaged sustaining huge losses and took the unprecedented step to covert themselves into low risk and tightly regulated commercial banks. The pervasive mood of despair and anger of Main Street was reflected by the black humour on Wall Street, one of the most popular being-“Question-What is the difference between a pigeon and an investment banker? Answer- Only a pigeon can make a deposit on a BMW.” The dour looking, Harvard educated economist Nouriel Roubini was one of the early sceptics to predict the financial meltdown in Wall Street when he dropped the bombshell way back in 2006 that US would be heading towards the most serious financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression. His dark prophecies were met with derision and disbelief earning him the epithet- the prophet of doom. But Roubini had the last laugh when the US financial system melted down as he had predicted and he became an instant celebrity on media channels. A bipartisan blunder One of the contributing factors for the financial meltdown was the reckless financial deregulation that led to financial concentration and inefficient markets. The perception of regulation as hampering the animal magnetism of Wall Street bankers was a dangerous delusion that fostered the irrational drive to take unacceptable risks. As the economist Arthur MacEwan explains-“When financial firms are not regulated, they tend to take on more and more risky activities. When markets are rising, risk does not seem to be very much of a problem; all—or virtually all—investments seem to be making money. So why not take some chances? Furthermore, if one firm doesn’t take particular risk—put money into a chancy operation—then one of its competitors will. So competition pushes them into more and more risky operations.”2 Moreover, the extent of deregulation reached dangerous levels with the repeal of Glass- Steagall Act of 1933, which was passed after the financial debacle of 1929. This act separated investment banking from commercial banking and protected the investors from risky speculation of investment banking. Thus a commercial bank could not be in both insurance and/or investment business. Hectic lobbying for Wall Street by Phil Gramm -the Republican Senator from Texas and the economic advisor for John McCain - and Robert Rubin in the Clinton administration were the guiding forces for the repeal of the act. This repeal became law when it received President Clinton’s assent in 1999. In 2000 another nail was driven in the regulatory coffin when Gramm introduced the Commodity Futures Modernisation Act, which excluded the scrutiny of counter derivatives, credit derivatives, credit defaults, and swaps, by regulatory agencies. Many economists hold the view that the repeal of the Glass –Steagal Act was instrumental in causing the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. The crucial point is to note that Wall Street enjoyed the support of both the Republicans and the Democrats for the repeal of the act. Even today both the presidential candidates Obama and McCain receive campaign money from Wall Street bankers and executives. This prompted Ralph Nader, the consumer activist, to acidly comment that there are no significant differences between Democrats and Republicans on major issues pertaining to Wall Street. A flawed business model The reward system is skewed in favour of brokers who make money for their Wall Street employer and not how well the c
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
>>> Doug Henwood > No, the distinct characteristic of Obama's position is that he > proposes a definite "timetable" for withdrawal as opposed to an > indefinite one or "eventually." Yeah, and he explicitly wants to take the troops withdrawn from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. Surely you've noticed that. Doug CB: Surely since you don't allow "conspiracy theories" of 9/11, it is your position that Bin Laden's group did 9/11. Is it your position that Bin Laden's group did 9/11, but the US shan't attack Bin Laden's group ? Given the premise that Bin Laden's group attacked the US on 9/11, I don't know of a legal argument against the US military counterattacking that group. Bin Laden's group is sort of unique in modern US imperialist history. No other "Third World" country or group has actually attacked the US, contrary to US lying propaganda about protecting American "freedom" through wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan-ante (!), etc. Iraq was the opposite. The attack there by the US violates the UN Convention against Crimes Against Peace. As far as imperialism, I don't really think the US wants to set up a colony or neo-colony in Afghanistan. There's not much to exploit there. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] McCain's Michigan Woes May Widen as Economy Hits Working Class
McCain's Michigan Woes May Widen as Economy Hits Working Class By Heidi Przybyla (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=photos&sid=adM8Fq0RTis0) Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Kari Durell, a 38-year-old waitress, had her doubts about Barack Obama after reading wild Internet rumors that he trained with al-Qaeda terrorists as a child. She's voting for him anyway. ``My main issue is health care, and I think a Democrat would do more,'' said Durell, who works at a riverside bar near a _Ford Motor Co._ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=F:US) -managed stamping plant in southeast Michigan that's about to close. Voters like Durell used to be called ``Reagan Democrats,'' working-class people who embraced _Ronald Reagan_ (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ronald+Reagan&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in 1980 and every Republican presidential candidate ever since over cultural issues such as abortion, guns and patriotism. Senator _John McCain_ (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John+McCain&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) needs their support in a big way this year. McCain's campaign last week, however, pulled out of Michigan, a state that only a month earlier was one of the Republican presidential nominee's top targets. Interviews with dozens of workers and elderly voters illustrate why: Michigan, whose _8.9 percent jobless rate_ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USUSMICH:IND) is the highest in the nation, is filled with economic anxiety, and McCain was gaining no traction there. The trials he faces in places like _Macomb_ (http://www.macombcountymi.gov/index.htm) and _Monroe_ (http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/monroe/default.aspx) counties -- largely white, Catholic enclaves near Detroit where many people make between $40,000 and $60,000 a year -- are mirrored throughout industrial battleground states from Ohio and Pennsylvania to Missouri. _George W. Bush_ (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=George+W.+Bush&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) won the support of these firefighters, carpenters, autoworkers, electricians and retirees by a margin of 15 percentage points in each of his two presidential races, exit polls showed. McCain has to do as well. `I'm Not Sure' That won't be easy. Voter thirst for a new economic direction after eight years of Bush is overpowering issues like gun rights, gay marriage and even race that have helped the Republicans run up votes in the past. ``I've been a Republican all my life, but right now I'm not sure,'' said Joyce Moynihan, a retired homemaker and member of _St. Mark Catholic Church_ (http://www.ourchurch.com/member/s/STMARKPARISH/) in Macomb County who's leaning toward Obama. ``Of course, I'm anti-abortion, but you can battle this forever. The economy and the war have got to be addressed'' and ``something dramatic has to happen,'' she said. To be certain, McCain, 72, has pockets of support. Those who plan to vote for the Arizona senator cite concern about what they say is Obama's lack of experience. Some say they see no difference between the two candidates on the economy and plan to continue voting Republican. For a few, the race issue was barely beneath the surface. Avoiding `Race Card' McCain ``has more experience than his opponent, and he's not playing the race card,'' said Ken Benardo, a 49-year-old carpenter from _Flint_ (http://www.cityofflint.com/) who said the country isn't ready for a black president. Brian Bennett, a 25-year-old construction worker from Detroit, said he may begin voting this year, but it won't be for Obama, 47, an Illinois senator. Still, just one voter interviewed, a Republican, mentioned abortion as a main issue. No one cited gun rights or gay marriage, which was such a hot ballot initiative in Ohio in 2004 that it helped Bush carry the state and secure victory. For Cornelia Glowacki, an 81-year-old retired hospital employee who lives in Warren, north of Detroit, morals and values extend beyond issues like abortion to the war in Iraq. ``The big issue with Catholics is the abortion issue, but look at all the young fellas that have lost their lives,'' said Glowacki, who plays cards with Moynihan and other seniors once a week at St. Mark Church in Warren. Economic Survival For most, economic survival is the chief concern. Michigan has _lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs_ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BLM0MI01:IND) in the past year. And workers interviewed cited anxiety over the rising cost of fuel and health care, home foreclosures, the disappearance of unions and anticipated cuts in Social Security. Most of them wanted Senator _Hillary Clinton_ (http://search.bloombe
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Charles Brown wrote: > No, the distinct characteristic of Obama's position is that he > proposes a definite "timetable" for withdrawal as opposed to an > indefinite one or "eventually." Yeah, and he explicitly wants to take the troops withdrawn from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. Surely you've noticed that. Doug ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
CeJ jannuzi Which brings to mind that this would be a good point on which to address their real flaws. BO has committed to withdrawing from Iraq (eventually) and scaling up the Afghan adventure. ^^^ CB: No, the distinct characteristic of Obama's position is that he proposes a definite "timetable" for withdrawal as opposed to an indefinite one or "eventually." Amazingly, the Bush Admin now has O's position now: a time definite for withdrawal , but called by a different name. The Iraqi leader has called for the same. As Biden said, McCain is the odd man out with his "eventually" position. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The playboy philosopher
Ralph Dumain What a useless piece of shit Badiou is. His politics are even more worthless than his philosophy. As for Sartre, there are others on the anti-Stalinist left who bear a grudge against him for his erstwhile apologetics for the Communist Party. Some might wonder what he was doing with Maoist students. As for Sartre's philosophy, the philosophy he is known for seems to me a failure. I think one would have to read Critique of Dialectical Reason in search of a lasting contribution. ^ CB: Funny, this reminds of the old Marx/Engels rule of intellectual thumb: Marxism as French politics, British political economy and German philosophy. Sartre, French, has good politics , but not so good philosophy. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] ] Obama falters McCain the winner
The debate format this time visually favored BO because he is taller and moved more fluidly--I could almost imagine him up in front of a class of law students bullshitting his way around constitutional law. McCain looked like an old man and moved like Bob Dole. ^^^ CB: McCain looks and "feels" like a pitbull without lipstick. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism-Thaxis
Marxism-Thaxis -- Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and the thinkers he inspired About Marxism-Thaxis English (USA) Marxism-Thaxis: An open and (loosely) moderated e-mail based forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised in both the work of Karl Marx and, more generally, the tradition(s) that work has inspired. In keeping with Marx's own attempts to bridge the gap between theory and praxis, Marxism-thaxis encourages participants to explore the theoretical and practical implications of issues raised in this forum. Indeed, we have chosen the neologism "thaxis" precisely to convey our own interest in the integration of theory and praxis. We welcome all new participants. To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Marxism-Thaxis Archives. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] michael perelman
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/crisis-commentary-overview/ This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Bailout is a Fraud
The Bailout is a Fraud Published 10/03/08 Paul Craig Roberts, former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury - Print Article E-mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Editor's Note: The following is by Paul Craig Roberts, and may not reflect the views or opinions of EconomyInCrisis.org. Before Congress passes such a massive bill, they should look at it from different perspectives, such as the one offered here. Feedback is welcome. In my last column I discussed the bailout as it was proposed and noted that the proposal cannot succeed if it impairs the U.S. Treasury's credit standing and/or the combination of mark-to-market and short-selling permits short-sellers to prosper by driving more financial institutions into bankruptcy. A reader's comment and an article by Yale professors Jonathan Kopell and William Goetzmann raise the question whether the Paulson bailout itself might be as big a fraud as the leveraged subprime mortgages. As one reader put it, " We have debt at three different levels: personal household debt, financial sector debt and public debt. The first has swamped the second and now the second is being made to swamp the third. The attitude of our leaders is to do nothing about the first level of debt and to pretend that the third level of debt doesn't matter at all." The argument for the bailout is that the banks will be free of the troubled instruments and can resume lending and that the U.S. Treasury will recover most of the bailout costs, because only a small percentage of the underlying mortgages are bad. Let's examine this argument. In actual fact, the Paulson bailout does not address the core problem. It only addresses the problem for the financial institutions that hold the troubled assets. Under the bailout plan, the troubled assets move from the banks' books to the Treasury's. But the underlying problem--the continuing diminishment of mortgage and home values--remains and continues to worsen. The origin of the crisis is at the homeowner level. Homeowners are defaulting on mortgages. Moving the financial instruments onto the Treasury's books does not stop the rising default rate. The bailout is focused on the wrong end of the problem. The bailout should be focused on the origin of the problem, the defaulting homeowners. The bailout should indemnify defaulting homeowners and pay off the delinquent mortgages. As Koppell and Goetzmann point out, the financial instruments are troubled because of mortgage defaults. Stopping the problem at its origin would restore the value of the mortgage-based derivatives and put an end to the crisis. This approach has the further advantage of stopping the slide in housing prices and ending the erosion of local tax bases that result from foreclosures and houses being dumped on the market. What about the moral hazard of bailing out homeowners who over-leveraged themselves? Ask yourself: How does it differ from the moral hazard of bailing out the financial institutions that securitized questionable loans, insured them, and sold them as investment grade securities? Moreover, note Koppell and Goetzmann, bailing out the financial institutions puts enormous power over the economy into executive branch hands and amounts to "transition to a socialist economy." Socializing the housing market and financial sector is probably too high a price to pay for bailing out private financial institutions. Congress should focus the bailout on refinancing the troubled mortgages as the Home Owners' Loan Corp. did in the 1930s, not on the troubled institutions holding the troubled instruments linked to the mortgages. Congress needs to back off, hold hearings, and talk with Koppell and Goetzmann. Congress must know the facts prior to taking action. The last thing Congress needs to do is to be panicked again into agreeing to a disastrous course. Authors Bio: Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous academic appointments. He has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, was published by Random House in March, 2008. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Presidential debate 2: Obama falters McCain the winner
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/07/2008 10:44 PM >>> Well, the wife said and I agree with it, that Obama stumbled and falter and seemed like an amateur. The most disheartening answer both candidates offered was their reply to the question "should health car be treated as a commodity?" Both candidates refused to answer the question and opted to explain their own health program. My wife stated that she was still going to vote for Obama but Senator McCain outright won round two in the Presidential debate. WL ^^ CB: My mother said Obama won the second debate. **New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew0001) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] British Development
Hi The recent developments in the UK, the state's injection of cash into the system, is going to put more heat on the share value of the Irish banks. The share price of Irish banks will fall sharply because of the markets seeking a similar injection of cash into them. The problem is that the Irish state may not have the funds to provide that kind of liquidity required for the Irish economy. The coalition government's following the line of David McWilliam's will prove damaging to Irish capitalism -financial rescue on the cheap by nationalising the bankocracy's debts. Paddy Hackett ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] UK finances
Hi The recent developments in the UK, the state's injection of cash into the system, is going to put more heat on the share value of the Irish banks. The share price will fall sharply because of the markets seeking a similar injection of cash into the Irish banks. The problem is that the Irish state may not have the funds to provide that kind of liquidity required for the Irish economy. The coalition government's following the line of David McWilliam's will prove damaging to Irish capitalism -financial rescue on the cheap by nationalising the bankocracy's debts. Paddy Hackett ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
>>Both Obama and Carter appear to me as somewhat well-intentioned > milquetoast neoliberals,<< Which brings to mind that this would be a good point on which to address their real flaws. BO has committed to withdrawing from Iraq (eventually) and scaling up the Afghan adventure. The problem for that with the DoD is they don't really want to hold Afghanistan with a major base complex (it's a landlocked country for crying out loud); they really do want to hold Iraq with a major base complex. A major base complex requires the infrastructure to support that, including ports. The Afghanistan invasion and occupation only got accomplished because Pakistan, Iran and Russia allowed it. So BO will find it very difficult to put together the leadership to get the DoD under his control. The only way they would enthusiastically sign on to a renewed bogus adventure in Afghanistan would be if the military budgets were significantly increased (which BO's people have promised) and Pakistan was somehow part of the new campaign. Meanwhile, they would try to drag out any withdrawal from Iraq to outlast Pres. BO (like Carter) and wait for the next Republican. So it's almost as if BO has defined himself to be the next Carter but also the next Al Gore (the so-called liberal who is pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-military spending increase). However, if the DoD tries to exploit the Pakistan gambit it would be in some way as to allow them to look good while being able to ask for and get more money. Some sort of debacle on the ground is the last thing they would want. So you have to wonder what their Plan B for new permanent super-bases in the ME is now. In the case of McCain, I would surely bet that most in the DoD would prefer him (because he would want them to stay in Iraq forever), but his weakness is he is a Republican likely set to lose the popular vote in enough states to lose the electoral college. You would almost think his best strategy would have been to declare himself an independent in June. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Obama falters McCain the winner
RD>>I was bored shitless and my attention lapsed, but here's my reaction: McCain acts like he needs to be put out of his misery. Obama's most conspicuous deficit is his stuttering, which weakens his image. But McCain was so lame, Obama would be president tomorrow morning if he were white.<< I was riveted in an almost bored shitless way. I couldn't believe I was watching it to the end instead of getting up and doing something at least marginally more useful, like washing the breakfast dishes. I think BO supporters will say it wasn't a victory because he didn't finish off the ugly old man. I think McCain supporters will say it was a McCain loss because he didn't trip BO up enough to dent opinion. The debate format this time visually favored BO because he is taller and moved more fluidly--I could almost imagine him up in front of a class of law students bullshitting his way around constitutional law. McCain looked like an old man and moved like Bob Dole. Earlier when the Democratic primaries were going I said it seemed to me that BO was the next Kerry. He had found out how to win the Democratic Party but had no clue how to take on the Republicans. But I also gave the edge to BO to win the election. Even as that prediction looked to falter, the economy totally tanked, collapsed into panic. All those guys in NYC and London with their computers and charts were at a loss as to what to do. It was worse than 5 Katrinas hitting east coast cities. And by default it was worse for the Republicans. The only thing I could see hurting a BO win would be that he has surged with newly registered voters, but if you extend that to 'young voters' in general, it is young voters who often turn into ghosts on election day. And low turnouts favor Republicans because they turn out the faithful and the electoral college (like the Senate) is skewed to red states. But what to call BO now? Well it seems to me the US backed into the Reagan era with Carter , and it is now backing out with Obama. And they both have a claim to be different categorically. BO because of his phenotype. And Carter because he declared he was a born again Christian (seriously, it's how he got Wallace supporters to vote for him). Both Obama and Carter appear to me as somewhat well-intentioned milquetoast neoliberals, although it looks like Carter now has more enlightened views about the ME (a bit--enough to get him branded anti-semitic by the usual zionist crowd). I thought McCain moving to shake hands with the retired Navy vet was the most calculated to look uncalculated move he made--more than the black Republican plants asking questions. McCain, a 22 year vet of the Navy as an officer to the epaulets born, patronized the retiree (who was enlisted) by saying he learned everything he needed to know about the Navy from a chief petty officer (sure, and what he didn't say was that was things like how to get lower enlisted to make your coffee without pissing in it). Despite the mail in ballot / absentee ballot and purged roll surprises the Republicans are sure to pull off in the next month, I still predict a BO victory. Popular vote 52 to 48 percent, with an electoral array that looks something like what brought Clinton to office the second time around. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
