Hoe zou het toch komen dat de VK-corrrespondent en de NRC-correspondent in Washington nooit Howard Zinn citeren en wel allerlei rechtse Amerikanen?
Let's not waste $700 billion on a bailout, but use "big government" for what it's best at - shaping a society that is fair and peaceable.
This current financial crisis is a major way-station on the way to the collapse of the American empire. The first important sign was 9/11, with the most heavily-armed nation in the world shown to be vulnerable to a handful of hijackers.
And now, another sign: both major parties rushing to get an agreement to spend $700 billion of taxpayers' money to pour down the drain of huge financial institutions which are notable for two characteristics: incompetence and greed.
There is a much better solution to the current financial crisis. But it requires discarding what has been conventional "wisdom" for too long: that government intervention in the economy ("big government") must be avoided like the plague, because the "free market" will guide the economy towards growth and justice.
Let's face a historical truth: we have never had a "free market", we have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry. They had no quarrel with "big government" when it served their needs.
It started way back, when the founding fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the constitution. The first big bailout was the decision of the new government to redeem for full value the almost worthless bonds held by speculators. And this role of big government, supporting the interests of the business classes, continued all through the nation's history.
The rationale for taking $700 billion from the taxpayers to subsidise huge financial institutions is that somehow that wealth will trickle down to the people who need it. This has never worked.
The alternative is simple and powerful. Take that huge sum of money and give it directly to the people who need it. Let the government declare a moratorium on foreclosures and give aid to homeowners to help them pay off their mortgages. Create a federal jobs programme to guarantee work to people who want and need jobs and for whom "the free market" has not come through.
We have a historic and successful precedent. Roosevelt's New Deal put millions of people to work, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and, defying the cries of "socialism", established social security. That can be carried further, with "health security" - free health care - for all.
All that will take more than $700 billion. But the money is there. In the $600 billion for the military budget, once we decide we will no longer be a war-making nation. And in the swollen bank accounts of the super-rich, by taxing vigorously both their income and their wealth.'
This current financial crisis is a major way-station on the way to the collapse of the American empire. The first important sign was 9/11, with the most heavily-armed nation in the world shown to be vulnerable to a handful of hijackers.
And now, another sign: both major parties rushing to get an agreement to spend $700 billion of taxpayers' money to pour down the drain of huge financial institutions which are notable for two characteristics: incompetence and greed.
There is a much better solution to the current financial crisis. But it requires discarding what has been conventional "wisdom" for too long: that government intervention in the economy ("big government") must be avoided like the plague, because the "free market" will guide the economy towards growth and justice.
Let's face a historical truth: we have never had a "free market", we have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry. They had no quarrel with "big government" when it served their needs.
It started way back, when the founding fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the constitution. The first big bailout was the decision of the new government to redeem for full value the almost worthless bonds held by speculators. And this role of big government, supporting the interests of the business classes, continued all through the nation's history.
The rationale for taking $700 billion from the taxpayers to subsidise huge financial institutions is that somehow that wealth will trickle down to the people who need it. This has never worked.
The alternative is simple and powerful. Take that huge sum of money and give it directly to the people who need it. Let the government declare a moratorium on foreclosures and give aid to homeowners to help them pay off their mortgages. Create a federal jobs programme to guarantee work to people who want and need jobs and for whom "the free market" has not come through.
We have a historic and successful precedent. Roosevelt's New Deal put millions of people to work, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and, defying the cries of "socialism", established social security. That can be carried further, with "health security" - free health care - for all.
All that will take more than $700 billion. But the money is there. In the $600 billion for the military budget, once we decide we will no longer be a war-making nation. And in the swollen bank accounts of the super-rich, by taxing vigorously both their income and their wealth.'
8 opmerkingen:
"The first important sign was 9/11, with the most heavily-armed nation in the world shown to be vulnerable to a handful of hijackers."
Toch weer jammer dat ook Zinn niet door deze mythe kan heenprikken.
Om het grote graaien te stoppen moet er gewoon genationaliseerd worden. Alle bedrijven met meer dan 500 medewerkers lijkt mij een prima eerste stap. Het moet toch gebeuren dus maar beter zo snel mogelijk. Er zijn natuurlijk wat nuances maar die komen later wel.
Succes, Ben
En voordat ik het vergeet. De Amerikaanse belastingbetaler betaalt natuurlijk helemaal niks. De kas is leeg dus wordt er gewoon geld gedrukt. Zoals al vele jaren. Dus: de rest van de wereld betaald.
Was onlangs in de VS en kwam er achter dat men daar 2 a 3 keer minder betaald voor kleding etc dan wij in Europa. Wie legt dat verschil bij? Vast niet de bail out.
We kunnen natuurlijk niet de Amerikaanse belastingbetaler verantwoordelijk stellen voor wat er gebeurt. Echter collectief veel onnozeler kun je niet zijn. En qua onnozelheid doen we in ons land natuurlijk goed mee.
Succes, Ben
ben,
de amerikaanse belastingbetaler betaalt wel degelijk. al vanaf 1978 is het reeel inkomen van de amerikaanse werknemer niet gestegen. wel gestegen zijn de overheidsuitgaven aan de rijken, via belastingvoordelen en subsidies, en de uitgaven aan de oorlogsindustrie. die zijn onvoorstelbaar gestegen, met als gevolg dat de belastingbetaler de dupe werd, wat betreft de gezondheidszorg, scholing, inkomen en bezit en het onderhoud aan de infra-structuur
stan
Inderdaad. Daarboven betaalt de Amerikaanse burger in de vorm van inflatie, de "onzichtbare belasting".
Stan en Yelamdenu,
Jullie hebben zeker gelijk. Het gaat ook ten koste van de gewone Amerikaan.
Een belangrijk punt wat mij betreft in deze is dat er dollars gedrukt worden om USA uitgaven te financieren. Daar zijn in de loop der jaren heel wat berekeningen aan uitgevoerd en rapporten over geschreven. Ik kan mij nog uit de Vietnamtijd een rapport herinneren waarin werd berekend dat deze oorlog eigenlijk door de rest van de wereld gefinancierd werd dmv oliedollars en een reeks van andere financiele trucs. Verder financiert de rest van de wereld feitelijk al jaren de Amerikaanse kerstinkopen. Ook rapporten over gezien. En nog veeeel meer van dat. Hoe je ook wendt of keert: alle Amerikanen zijn hier medeverantwoordelijk. "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" is geen argument.
Tot slot. Alles is daar zoveel goedkoper dat het met de effecten van de inflatie best wel meevalt. Zoals eerder aangegeven.
Succes, Ben
ben,
daar heb je zeker gelijk in, maar wat er peperduur is, is een doodnormale ziektekostenverzekering voor de meer dan 40 miljoen amerikanen die het niet kunnen betalen, of bijvoorbeeld betaalbaar gezond voedsel voor de armen, zoals ik gemerkt heb.
Stan,
Helemaal eens.
Succes, Ben
Een reactie posten