Liberals appear to be concerned that the Geithner plan will result in the people who wrecked finance finding themselves rewarded for the wrecking. This, I'll suggest, is the plan's principal aim. The euphemism of "risk" is indicative of the accuracy of my reading. Baby fall down, go boom. Mommy lift baby back up. Economic dislocation has so far been not nearly prolonged or severe enough for the ruling class to do otherwise. A quiescent public poses no threat, and the GOP opposition is playing its role nicely, acting with such unceasing lunacy that anything Obama proposes seems the epitome of reasonableness and rationality in comparison. Grampappy Floodpants Falsetto Frownsalot, AKA Candidate-in-Exile John McCain, and the rest of the absurdist choir make delicious nonsense by proposing that a naked sop to the poor, poor fortunes of our rich, rich banksters is Leninism, decrying always-popular federal spending on local projects, and claiming that unemployment insurance is Treason. Against this even the sallow, foppish, out-of-his-depth SecTres seems a paragon of virtuous intellect.
As noted yesterday, I doubt the plan will succeed even on its own terms, let alone that the economy will be all peaches and bundles of cash by early next year, although the ability of our Accounts Overlords in Government to manipulate Wall Street's regnant innumerates with confidence game pronouncements may yet get the Dow back into 8-9,000 territory . . . briefly. To use a metaphor currently popular, we appear to be witnessing our officials breathing a sigh of relief that the hurricane didn't directly hit the city.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Levee
Labels:
Capitalism,
Economy,
Obama,
State Capital
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Yesterday? What happened to Sunday?
In all seriousness, though, I have a minor question: does the rightwing have a plan in all this? You say they're playing a part; is this a charade or are they playing a role, easing things along without knowing it?
Or is it both? Do they know that their rantings are useless, base-growing exercises in the short-term, but believe that, once things really hit bottom, they'll be embraced as prophets?
The plan is to double the number of sandbags!
Seems to me the Krugman's aren't worried that the people who fucked up are rewarded, the Krugman's are worrying that the plan isn't good enough to succeed (and reward the people who fucked up).
He's not agitating for a new system, he's agitating for a better plan to save the old system, albeit with a few minor restricter plates to help save the fuckers from themselves.
a gut on the local public radio at lunch time said the government is now addressing the two major problems with the economy: "housing and banks."
it brings me joy, the notion that housing and banks are the problems rather than (what is it IOZ is always saying?) a "Ponzi-themed fantasy-game of infinitely rising home prices."
pfft, they'll fix it, much in the same way the mob used to fix prizefights. Wall Street will convince themselves things have been fixed and everyone will treat the swaps like you do Uncle Rickey that touches the nieces and nephews if you're dumb enough to leave them alone with him, and the house of cards will be stacked anew. There's no money in complete collapse, y'all.
Cüneyt,
I'd say that the right is playing a role much like the opposing team in a sporting match. Unless it's the New Jersey Generals you're talking about, they're really out to beat the other team.
However, like their opponents, they both have a vested stake in the perceived integrity of the game and the stability of the shared framework of rules under which they play.
Matt Taibbi sums up rather nicely just how royally fucked we are.
on monday the dow market rose more than 5% in a single day. anyone who thinks that growth represents anything aproaching stability or market confidence is a fool.
the imaginary money has yet to evaporate completely, and as long as it still exists, it will be put to work in whatever numbers game wall street is offering.
this will result in wildly volatile market swings that absolutely do not represent growth. i think the problem is that the labor that americans do does not produce wealth, for the most part. until this is altered somehow, i can't imagine how things "improve".
Post a Comment