Voor mijn Hollandse collega's die nog steeeds niet beseffen hoe diep de crisis is. Het gaat om de middenklasse die onvermijdelijk door de luchthandel vernietigd werd en nog steeds wordt. En zoals bekend is de belangrijkste steunpilaar van de parlementaire democratie diezelfde middenklasse. De laatste keer dat de middenklasse in een parlementaire democratie werd vernietigd was de Weimar Republiek. Wat er nu gebeurt heeft geweldige consequenties op sociaal en straks dus politiek gebied. Laat mijn collega's door de VS reizen in plaats van permanent voor het Witte Huis laten posten, waar ze alleen maar de Amerikaanse commerciele massamedia napraten. Laten mijn Hollandse collega's nu hun eigen ogen en hersenen gaan gebruiken. Uit de International Herald Tribune:BERKELEY, California:
Both presidential candidates have been criticized for failing - at Tuesday's debate and previously - to name any promises or plans they're going to have to scrap because of the bailout and the failing economy.
That criticism is unwarranted. The assumption that we are about to have a rerun of 1993 - when Bill Clinton, newly installed as president, was forced to jettison much of his agenda because of a surging budget deficit - may well be mistaken.
At first glance, January 2009 is starting to look a lot like January 1993. Then, the federal deficit was running at roughly $300 billion a year, or about 5 percent of gross domestic product - way too high for comfort. By contrast, the deficit for the 2009 fiscal year is now projected to be $410 billion, or about 3.3 percent of gross domestic product. That's not too worrying.
But if the Treasury shovels out the full $700 billion of bailout money next year, the deficit could balloon to more than 6 percent of gross domestic product, the highest since 1983. And if the nation plunges into a deeper recession, with tax revenues dropping and domestic product shrinking, the deficit will be even larger as a proportion of the economy. Yet all is not what it seems. First, the $700 billion bailout is less like an additional government expense than a temporary loan or investment. The Treasury will take on Wall Street's bad debts - mostly mortgage-backed securities for which there's no market right now - and will raise the $700 billion by issuing additional government debt, much of it to global lenders and foreign governments...
Both presidential candidates have been criticized for failing - at Tuesday's debate and previously - to name any promises or plans they're going to have to scrap because of the bailout and the failing economy.
That criticism is unwarranted. The assumption that we are about to have a rerun of 1993 - when Bill Clinton, newly installed as president, was forced to jettison much of his agenda because of a surging budget deficit - may well be mistaken.
At first glance, January 2009 is starting to look a lot like January 1993. Then, the federal deficit was running at roughly $300 billion a year, or about 5 percent of gross domestic product - way too high for comfort. By contrast, the deficit for the 2009 fiscal year is now projected to be $410 billion, or about 3.3 percent of gross domestic product. That's not too worrying.
But if the Treasury shovels out the full $700 billion of bailout money next year, the deficit could balloon to more than 6 percent of gross domestic product, the highest since 1983. And if the nation plunges into a deeper recession, with tax revenues dropping and domestic product shrinking, the deficit will be even larger as a proportion of the economy. Yet all is not what it seems. First, the $700 billion bailout is less like an additional government expense than a temporary loan or investment. The Treasury will take on Wall Street's bad debts - mostly mortgage-backed securities for which there's no market right now - and will raise the $700 billion by issuing additional government debt, much of it to global lenders and foreign governments...
Here again, there's marked difference between 1993 and 2009. Then, some of our highways, bridges, levees and transit systems needed repair. Today, they are crumbling. In 1993, some of our children were in classrooms too crowded to learn in, and some districts were shutting preschool and after-school programs. Today, such inadequacies are endemic. In 1993, some 35 million Americans had no health insurance and millions more were barely able to afford it. Today, 50 million are without insurance, and a large swath of the middle class is barely holding on. In 1993, climate change was a problem. Now, it's an emergency.
Moreover, without adequate public investment, the vast majority of Americans will be condemned to a lower standard of living for themselves and their children. The top 1 percent now takes home about 20 percent of total national income. As recently as 1980, it took home 8 percent. Although the economy has grown considerably since 1980, the middle class' share has shrunk.
That's a problem not just because it strikes so many as being unfair, but also because it's starting to limit the capacity of most Americans to buy the goods and services they produce without going deep into debt. The last time the top 1 percent took home 20 percent of national income, not incidentally, was 1928. Perhaps it should not be surprising, then, that the Wall Street bailout has generated so much anger among middle-class Americans.
Moreover, without adequate public investment, the vast majority of Americans will be condemned to a lower standard of living for themselves and their children. The top 1 percent now takes home about 20 percent of total national income. As recently as 1980, it took home 8 percent. Although the economy has grown considerably since 1980, the middle class' share has shrunk.
That's a problem not just because it strikes so many as being unfair, but also because it's starting to limit the capacity of most Americans to buy the goods and services they produce without going deep into debt. The last time the top 1 percent took home 20 percent of national income, not incidentally, was 1928. Perhaps it should not be surprising, then, that the Wall Street bailout has generated so much anger among middle-class Americans.
Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of "Supercapitalism."'
Het is niet mogelijk een ziekte achteraf met een ziekte te bestrijden. Get the picture?
1 opmerking:
Een ziekte met een ziekte bestrijden. Immigratie? Onverzekerden. Volle klaslokalen. 30 miljoen armen erbij geeft problemen.
Een reactie posten