Dit is het echte verhaal over de triljoenen zwendel. Een analyse die u niet snel in de westerse commerciele massamedia zult aantreffen, want ook die media maken onderdeel uit van het neoliberale geloof.
MONDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2008
Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle
by: William Greider, The Nation
(Illustration: The Conservatard)
MONDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2008
Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle
by: William Greider, The Nation
(Illustration: The Conservatard)
Financial-market wise guys, who had been seized with fear, are suddenly drunk with hope. They are rallying explosively because they think they have successfully stampeded Washington into accepting the Wall Street Journal solution to the crisis: dump it all on the taxpayers. That is the meaning of the massive bailout Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has shopped around Congress. It would relieve the major banks and investment firms of their mountainous rotten assets and make the public swallow their losses - many hundreds of billions, maybe much more. What's not to like if you are a financial titan threatened with extinction?
If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public - all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics - exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.
Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, a brave conservative critic, put it plainly: "The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson's latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist lovefest between Washington's one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks."
A kindred critic, Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher in New York, defined the sponsors of this stampede to action: "Let us be clear, it is not citizen groups, private investors, equity investors or institutional investors broadly who are calling for this government purchase fund. It is almost exclusively being lobbied for by precisely those institutions that believed they were 'smarter than the rest of us,' institutions who need to get those assets off their balance sheet at an inflated value lest they be at risk of large losses or worse."
Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough - using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.
A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own - cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.'
If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public - all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics - exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.
Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, a brave conservative critic, put it plainly: "The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson's latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist lovefest between Washington's one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks."
A kindred critic, Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher in New York, defined the sponsors of this stampede to action: "Let us be clear, it is not citizen groups, private investors, equity investors or institutional investors broadly who are calling for this government purchase fund. It is almost exclusively being lobbied for by precisely those institutions that believed they were 'smarter than the rest of us,' institutions who need to get those assets off their balance sheet at an inflated value lest they be at risk of large losses or worse."
Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough - using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.
A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own - cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.'
4 opmerkingen:
Zoals ik het begrijp is het in werkelijkheid nog veel erger. Immers de USA is bankroet. Er wordt dus geen fonds gecreeerd maar er wordt geld gedrukt. Omdat er toch altijd een relatie blijft tussen productie en geld, betekent dit dat de producenten meer moeten leveren voor minder. Oftewel de armen in de hele wereld worden weer armer. Dit is en was al het meest schreinende effect van het huidige monetaire systeem dat nu nog erger wordt. Geldhandel (aandelen etc) is uiteindelijk stelen van armen, van degenen die zich niet kunnen verweren en dus totaal immoreel.
Natuurlijk weet ik wel dat hier om een klein deel van de wereldhandel gaat. Immoreel blijft het.
Succes, Ben
Ook dat artikel in The Nation gaat niet in op de meer permanente kwaal van eeuwige exponentiele groei, eeuwige inflatie, en eeuwige schuld.
Het financieel systeem dat de banken en NBFI's (non-bank financial institutions) vormgeven kan het best worden geanalyseerd als parasitisme. Aangezien banken geen feitelijke waarde toevoegen, en rente heffen op (gecreeerde) leningen aan hen die wel waarde voortbrengen, kunnen we hen zien als parasitaire entiteiten.
Het directe probleem is de legalisering van dit parasitisme door de staat, die immers het door banken gecreeerde geld beschouwt als legaal betaalmiddel voor belastingen.
iets anders,
hoe komt het dat de laatste tijd de waarde van de Dollar stijgt tov Euro en Pound?
hoe komt het dat de laatste tijd de waarde van de Dollar stijgt tov Euro en Pound?
Als er miljarden dollars worden afgeschreven aan niet-inbare leningen neemt het volume aan dollars in de economie af, en "zijn er dus minder dollars". De waarde van de dollar neemt daardoor toe. Handelaren kunnen daarop hebben ingespeeld. Nu de belastingbetaler echter de miljardeninjecties in de omvallende banken moet gaan betalen, en er weer een hoop extra geld wordt geschapen door de Fed, neemt het volume weer toe, zodat de waarde weer afneemt.
Over een jaar dus eens kijken hoe de koers dan is. :-)
Het kan ook heeel ergens anders aan liggen, misschien heeft Soros weer zitten goochelen ofzo. ;-) Maar bij dit soort zaken moet je eerder kijken naar de lange termijn.
Koers gemeten over 5 jaar
Een reactie posten