<< Where are the journalists? They don't go to speak with these companies either? Is there a reason? >>
Excellent questions. :) Peace and best wishes. Xi On Dec 4, 5:23 pm, Justice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep I agree. Only for all my money I want an ownership stake. The > non-voting rights we are given is like handing a starving person some > mud and telling them to eat hardy (oh, I forgot that's exactly what > the world is doing with Haiti, Darfur, Congo, etc.). > > Well -- we're going to have struggles on our hands. Shelby has > already said he will fight the auto bailout tooth and nail. You see > he has companies in Alabama that he feels will be the receipients of > such good fortune if these companies are allowed to die. (Wonder if > he's checked with management at Toyota and Honda to see if they feel > the same way, or is he such an ideologue that he can "imagine" what > their responses would be. Where are the journalists? They don't go > to speak with these companies either? Is there a reason? > > Yuck -- I'm too disappointed that we have not yet come together to > fight these problems together, and that republicans will once again be > the fly in the honey jar. > > On Dec 4, 9:07 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > A Bottom-Up Bailout Rather Than Trickle-Down > > >http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/bottom-up-bailout-rather-than... > > > Hank Paulson has just about burned through $300 billion, and it's not > > clear what the public has got out of it. Perhaps things would be worse > > without the bailout but they're certainly no better. Wall Street banks > > have not significantly stepped up their loans to small businesses, > > college students, car buyers, or distressed homeowners. Much of the > > auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy. And the rate of > > foreclosures is rising. > > > What happened to all the money? About a third has gone into dividends > > the banks are paying their shareholders. Some of the rest into > > executive salaries and bonuses. Another portion toward acquisitions > > designed to raise share values. Another chunk for bailing out giant > > insurer, AIG. > > > That's not what taxpayers bargained for. Paulson originally told > > Congress he'd use the money to buy mortgage-backed securities that > > were clogging the financial system. He'd create a market for them by > > holding a kind of reverse auction, buying them from the banks at the > > lowest prices they'd be willing to sell them for. > > > But Paulson has abandoned that strategy and is now just handing the > > money directly to the big banks, and AIG -- all of which are using the > > money for their own purposes. It's the worst type of trickle-down > > economics. Taxpayers are sending the money upward, and almost none of > > it is trickling back down. > > > The lame-duck Congress should amend the so-called Troubled Asset > > Relief Program to prohibit banks that are receiving the money from > > paying dividends, executive bonuses or deferred compensation, or doing > > acquisitions. > > > And Congress should save the rest of the $700 billion program for a > > new administration that will put it to better uses. For example, as > > FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has suggested, use the money to guarantee > > payment of mortgages whose terms are eased by lenders. Use it also to > > restructure automobile companies whose creditors, executives, > > shareholders, and workers agree to put up money as well. Use it to > > guarantee loans made to credit-worthy small businesses, college > > students, car buyers, and others who at this moment cannot get credit > > -- and who therefore cannot keep this economy moving forward. > > > In other words, use it for a bottom-up bailout, rather than trickle > > down. > > > Peace and best wishes. > > > Xi > > > On Dec 4, 3:04 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My comments: I do not want to emphasize my differences with his > > > approach basically because they are minor compared with the whole > > > approach, that I agree, of course. > > > >http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/11/rebirth-of-keynes-and-debate-... > > > > The economy has just about come to a standstill – not so much because > > > credit markets are clogged as because there’s not enough demand in the > > > economy to keep it going. Consumer spending has fallen off a cliff. > > > Investment is drying up. And exports are dropping because the > > > recession has now spread around the world. > > > > So are we about to return to Keynesianism? Hopefully. Government is > > > the spender of last resort, which means the new Obama administration > > > should probably be considering a stimulus package in the range of $600 > > > billion, roughly 4 percent of national product -- focused on building > > > and repairing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, providing help to > > > states to maintain services, and investing in new green technologies > > > in order to wean the nation off oil. > > > > But between now and late January, when the stimulus package will be > > > voted on, we're likely to be treated to a great debate over the wisdom > > > of Keynesianism. Fiscal hawks will claim government is already > > > spending way too much. Even without the stimulus package, next year's > > > budget deficit is likely to be in the range of $1.5 trillion, > > > considering the shrinking economy and what’s being spent bailing out > > > Wall Street. The hawks also worry that post-war baby boomers are only > > > a few years away from retirement, meaning that the costs of Social > > > Security and Medicare will balloon. > > > > What the hawks don’t get is what John Maynard Keynes understood: when > > > the economy has as much underutilized capacity as we have now, and are > > > likely to have more of in 2009 and 2010 (in all likelihood, over 8 > > > percent of our workforce unemployed, 13 percent underemployed, > > > millions of houses empty, factories idled, and office space unused), > > > government spending that pushes the economy to fuller capacity will of > > > itself shrink future deficits. > > > > Conservative supply-siders, meanwhile, will call for income-tax cuts > > > rather than government spending, claiming that people with more money > > > in their pockets will get the economy moving again more readily than > > > can government. They're wrong, too. Income-tax cuts go mainly to upper- > > > income people, and they tend to save rather than spend. > > > > Even if a rebate could be fashioned for the middle class, it wouldn't > > > do much good because, as we saw from the last set of rebate checks, > > > people tend to use extra cash to pay off debts rather than buy goods > > > and services. Besides, individual purchases wouldn't generate nearly > > > as many American jobs as government spending on infrastructure, social > > > services, and green technologies, because so much of we as individuals > > > buy comes from abroad. > > > > So the government has to spend big time. The real challenge will be > > > for government to spend it wisely -- avoiding special-interest > > > pleadings and pork projects such as bridges to nowhere. We’ll need a > > > true capital budget that lays out the nation’s priorities rather than > > > the priorities of powerful Washington lobbies. How exactly to achieve > > > this? That's the debate we should be having between now and January 20 > > > or 21st.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
