ravi: > > a question: with the possibility of McCain or a Democrat coming to power > > and some of the excesses coming under regulation and some chance of a > > return to honour among thieves, and the fact [?] that corporate profits > > continue to ride high, can an uptick in corporate investment/spending > > make a difference?
Miracle Max: > I don't see more real investment as relevant. You've got this huge > pyramid of conflicting financial claims -- > what my brother blogger Atrios calls "Big Shitpile," that has to be > dealt with. Don't ask me how. The usual solution to conflicting financial claims is a bail-out. The Fed could simply buy up a lot of bad mortgage-backed securities at above-market prices using its pile of government bonds. Then it would be earning less interest and paying less each year to the Treasury, so that it's the taxpayers who are bailing out the financiers. As usual. supposedly, capitalism is morally justified by the fact that capitalists take risks. But then the taxpayers bail out the capitalists when things go bad. It's business as usual: privatization of benefits and socialization of risks and losses. It's the same idea as with limited-liability corporations: if you (the stock-holder) mess up, you're not held fully responsible. If taking risks is the justification for capitalist rule, then I'm advocating Coalminerism, where coal miners rule the roost. Coal miners -- at least the ones who go underground -- risk their actual lives rather than mere money. They also can't diversify. the MF should have written a tract titled "Coalminerism and Freedom." -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
