Dean Baker argues the bailout was unnecessary: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031708J.shtml ..." If they can't get away with the "no bailout" nonsense, the Wall Street welfare boys will then try the route of claiming we have to bail them out in order to prevent the whole financial system from collapsing. Such a collapse could turn the recession into a depression leaving millions unemployed for years. This is also nonsense. We know how to keep banks operating even as they go into bankruptcy. England just did this with Northern Rock, a major bank that managed to get itself into huge trouble because of its holding of bad mortgage debt. After it was clear the bank was insolvent, the Bank of England stepped in and essentially took over the bank. It replaced the incompetent managers who had ruined the bank and brought in a new team to straighten out the books. The plan is to resell the bank to the private sector once the books are in order."
Doug Henwood argues the opposite: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Turmoil2.html Would anyone care to comment on these two? In Baker's mind, the civilized way to deal with BS would have been for the state to take it over temporarily - just like Northern Rock. Doug, were you arguing against this sort of remedy or against just nothing being done at all? (Also, Doug posted the median wage from the late seventies to present a couple of weeks ago - would you be so kind as to repost the data?) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
