Thursday, October 30, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Greenspan: A "flaw" you say?
Greenspan is shocked to find "flaw" in his "conceptual framework" for interpreting realty (AKA, his neo-liberal ideology).
I suppose this means that's it. We win! One couldn't of a more damning indictment of the ideology underpinning the capitalist system.
Here are exerpts from his testimony before the HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM;SUBJECT: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE ROLE OF FEDERAL REGULATORS, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C., October 23, 2008 Thursday. (From LexisNexis)
WAXMAN: [Y]ou said in your statement that you delivered, the whole intellectual edifice of modern risk management collapsed. You also said, "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief," end quote.
Now, that sounds to me like you're saying that those who trusted the market to regulate itself, yourself included, made a serious mistake... Well, where do you think you made a mistake, then?
MR. GREENSPAN: I made a mistake in presuming that the self- interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such (as that ?) they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. And it's been my experience, having worked both as a regulator for 18 years and similar quantities in the private sector, especially 10 years at a major international bank, that the loan officers of those institutions knew far more about the risks involved in the people to whom they lent money than I saw even our best regulators at the Fed capable of doing.
So the problem here is, something which looked to be a very solid edifice, and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets, did break down. And I think that, as I said, shocked me.
I still do not fully understand why it happened. And obviously, to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I will change my views. And if the facts change, I will change.
WAXMAN: Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
MR. GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to -- to exist, you need an ideology.
The question is whether it is accurate or not.
And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I've found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I've been very distressed by that fact.
I suppose this means that's it. We win! One couldn't of a more damning indictment of the ideology underpinning the capitalist system.
Here are exerpts from his testimony before the HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM;SUBJECT: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE ROLE OF FEDERAL REGULATORS, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C., October 23, 2008 Thursday. (From LexisNexis)
WAXMAN: [Y]ou said in your statement that you delivered, the whole intellectual edifice of modern risk management collapsed. You also said, "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief," end quote.
Now, that sounds to me like you're saying that those who trusted the market to regulate itself, yourself included, made a serious mistake... Well, where do you think you made a mistake, then?
MR. GREENSPAN: I made a mistake in presuming that the self- interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such (as that ?) they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. And it's been my experience, having worked both as a regulator for 18 years and similar quantities in the private sector, especially 10 years at a major international bank, that the loan officers of those institutions knew far more about the risks involved in the people to whom they lent money than I saw even our best regulators at the Fed capable of doing.
So the problem here is, something which looked to be a very solid edifice, and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets, did break down. And I think that, as I said, shocked me.
I still do not fully understand why it happened. And obviously, to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I will change my views. And if the facts change, I will change.
WAXMAN: Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
MR. GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to -- to exist, you need an ideology.
The question is whether it is accurate or not.
And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I've found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I've been very distressed by that fact.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Palin on the Brian
For the life of him anthropologist Brendan Cooney can't understand the Left's obsession with Sarah Palin. He should have read David Rosen's "The Great Fear: The Sexual Politics of Sarah Palin."
Here's a hint:
Obviously a bit of PhotoShop here: 1) Palin is much hotter!! as Jason Jones was kind enough to point out last night!), and 2) as a religious fundamentalist Palin would never allow herself to be photographed in a bikini- that is unless the vaunted title of "Ms. Alaska" was on the line.
McCain's strategy of surrounding him self with pagaentists seems to be backfiring. Chris Matthews brought out the neanderthal yesterday to berate lancome rep, turned McCain rep Nancy Pfotenhauer over the fine points of the constitution with regard the powers of the Veep (didn't the Veep used to be the guy that got second place in the election???). Somehow I don't remember Chris grilling George Bush or anyone in his admin about constitutional authority for war making, or with regard to search and seizure laws, etc... In Chris's world, if your a woman and blond- you better know your constitution. If your a stogy old white man, or Michael Steel, hey let's get real, what the constitution but old relic anyway ...
Here's a hint:
Obviously a bit of PhotoShop here: 1) Palin is much hotter!! as Jason Jones was kind enough to point out last night!), and 2) as a religious fundamentalist Palin would never allow herself to be photographed in a bikini- that is unless the vaunted title of "Ms. Alaska" was on the line.
McCain's strategy of surrounding him self with pagaentists seems to be backfiring. Chris Matthews brought out the neanderthal yesterday to berate lancome rep, turned McCain rep Nancy Pfotenhauer over the fine points of the constitution with regard the powers of the Veep (didn't the Veep used to be the guy that got second place in the election???). Somehow I don't remember Chris grilling George Bush or anyone in his admin about constitutional authority for war making, or with regard to search and seizure laws, etc... In Chris's world, if your a woman and blond- you better know your constitution. If your a stogy old white man, or Michael Steel, hey let's get real, what the constitution but old relic anyway ...
Will the real working class please stand up?
"Joe the (asst.) Plumer" as representative of the American working class... Hmmmn, "Corey D. B. Walker, assistant professor of Africana studies at Brown University and the author of A Noble Fight: African American Freemasons and the Struggle for Democracy in America" begs to differ.
Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Conservatives bail on the Republican Party as a hopelessly compromised vessel and flock to the Obama band wagon.
Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Conservatives bail on the Republican Party as a hopelessly compromised vessel and flock to the Obama band wagon.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What?! Something other than neo-liberal orthodoxy on the Farm?
Something exciting happened on campus and I missed it:
Author Naomi Klein Discusses Bailout, Economy at Stanford
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Krugman as an aplogist for global captialism?
Mary Lynn Cramer wonders what Krugman got his Nobel for.
Stiglitz and Krugman on the bailout.
Aziz Huq on US imperial decline.
Mike Davis on the crash of "casino capitalism."
Juan Cole on the insanity of the Drug War.
Stephen Kinzer on the Afghan War.
Stiglitz and Krugman on the bailout.
Aziz Huq on US imperial decline.
Mike Davis on the crash of "casino capitalism."
Juan Cole on the insanity of the Drug War.
Stephen Kinzer on the Afghan War.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A Green Deal?
UCB economist Robert B. Reich on the state of the American economy: "The top 1 percent now takes home about 20 percent of total national income. As recently as 1980, it took home 8 percent."
He calls for a massive investment in a public works/ job-creation program on the model of FDRs New Deal. In this vein, Google CEO Eric Schmidt "calls for a bold move into solar and wind power. It would cost $2.7 trillion through 2030. However, Schmidt says it would generate $2.1 trillion in energy savings. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And help fight global warming."
He points outs out that many of these jobs would be produced in rural areas where unemployment is highest, and would be in sectors like construction and engineering that are hard hit by the current situation. I personally wouldn't mind a high-speed rail link connecting Medocino County with the Bay Area. Why we don't already have a high-speed rail line running from San Diego to Seattle is beyond me.
Now is as good a time as any to re-engineer our energy systems and redistribute wealth and income in America (and globaly), but the brilliant Mike Davis points to three key reasons why the FDR's New Deal model is not relevant to the current situation: this is not your grand pappy's industrial capitalism - financial captialism is a whole new, and even more predatory (and volitile) beast. More on Davis' analysis to follow.
He calls for a massive investment in a public works/ job-creation program on the model of FDRs New Deal. In this vein, Google CEO Eric Schmidt "calls for a bold move into solar and wind power. It would cost $2.7 trillion through 2030. However, Schmidt says it would generate $2.1 trillion in energy savings. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And help fight global warming."
He points outs out that many of these jobs would be produced in rural areas where unemployment is highest, and would be in sectors like construction and engineering that are hard hit by the current situation. I personally wouldn't mind a high-speed rail link connecting Medocino County with the Bay Area. Why we don't already have a high-speed rail line running from San Diego to Seattle is beyond me.
Now is as good a time as any to re-engineer our energy systems and redistribute wealth and income in America (and globaly), but the brilliant Mike Davis points to three key reasons why the FDR's New Deal model is not relevant to the current situation: this is not your grand pappy's industrial capitalism - financial captialism is a whole new, and even more predatory (and volitile) beast. More on Davis' analysis to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
