the latter option i.e. Moratorium, would be a stand-still arrangement that
sovereign developing countries could adopt during bust situations but i guess
not a toothless working class. there is quite a substantive difference between
the role of the left in the thirties and now in America. so it is this rapport
De force that decides and it is highly unlikely that matters could spin the
other way around.
as to the first option, once more these measures could be appealed and repealed
for the same reason of power relations, which are highly skewed in favour of
the lenders now... the separation of the legal system from politics is now more
tenuous than ever in the US.
if a recession continues to be about disengagement of unnecessary resources for
the rejuvenation of capital, then quite a substantive dislocation will be in
place and, in the absejnce, of ideological alternatives, matters could sink
very low. Catrina is a case in point.
I would like emphasize that it is now the stark absence of the power of
organized labour, which is also the fruit of reaganite-thatcherite assault,
which tends tip mattes definitively in favour of capital.
----- Original Message ----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:45:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Two perspectives on the bailout of B.S. (Henwood and Baker)
Quoting raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The gov has guaranteed something like GBP110b in NR's assets - and
>> apparently some of the bank's best assets were sheltered in some
>> offshore vehicle, leaving the government with the crap. That's a lot
>> bigger than what the Fed is guaranteeing JPM over BS.
>
> The bigger story both in the UK and the US is the implicit bailout of
> every band and investment bank. Does anyone think that the government
> is going to allow Lehman Brothers to fail? Is this not a gift to
> Lehman stockholders? The amount the Fed explicitly pledged to JPM is
> peanuts in comparison with this larger gift.
>
> The whole thing really stinks. But then are there any good options here?
> -raghu.
I think this is a very important question. This is obviously going to
be a major political issue in the months ahead. We should continue to
debate this question and try to influence the public discussion in any
way possible.
One option which I think is much better is a bill currently in the
House and Senate that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms
of mortgages according to current values and current interest rates.
This proposal would not cost the government (i.e. the taxpayers)
anything. The loans would be made more affordable for homeowners and
all the losses would go to the lenders.
You can learn more about this bill at the Center for Responsible
Lending website: http://www.responsiblelending.org/
Another idea, which I recently read about, is that during the Great
Depression there was a moratorium on home mortgages that lasted
serveral years. Does anybody know more about this moratorium? And
perhaps some good references?
My slogans would be: "No bail-out for the bankers!"
"Stop the foreclosures now!"
What do others think of these ideas? Any better ideas?
Comradely,
Fred
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
