It is a given in the U.S. that recapitalizing the banks is the way to go. Why? Oh, I understand the reasons that have been written. None of them question the underlying system that is capitalism. Why isn't capitalism on the table? Why is it sacrosanct? I don't consider capitalism as the Holy Grail of how to run a household.
Here's part of what Alan Greenspan wrote in the Financial Times, April 6, 2008:
I do have an ideology. So does each of the members of the Forum. I trust our views are subject to the same standards of evidence that apply to all rational discourse. My view of how the efficiency of global capitalism has evolved over the decades as new evidence has appeared contradicting some earlier judgments and confirming others. I have been surprised by the fierceness of investors in retrenching from risk since August. My view of the range of dispersion of outcomes has been shaken, but not my judgment that free competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We have tried regulation ranging from heavy to central planning. None meaningfully worked. Do we wish to retest the evidence?
The superrich pay everyone to take the position that questioning capitalism is out of the question. That's intellectual dishonesty.
Well, leave it to the Machiavellians. They are the experts, wink, wink. Deception is a virtue to moral idiots. These are the people about whom one says his or her moral compass is broken.
Now, America is torn right down the middle. Half believe in honesty as the best policy. The other half believes that being dishonest is required.
So, how do you trust your economy to liars? You see, the idea is that the Americans who go along with dishonesty are duped into thinking that their leaders are only going to be dishonest with outsiders.
What's going to happen? Europe will now move more from the nationalism pressures felt after the fall of the Soviet Union back to more social democracy, that's parliamentarian socialism. It's the middle of the road between state capitalism under a one-party dictatorship such as Joseph Stalin's on one hand and Herbert Hoover's laissez-fair, Roaring Twenties, pre-collapse capitalism on the other hand.
This means nationalization, the exact thing that the free-marketeers whined about toward Hugo Chavez. So, why was Hugo wrong then, but now it's just pragmatic? It's called hypocrisy and double talk. Hugo wasn't any more wrong before than the nationalizers are today in Britain.
When Alan Greenspan was last on DemocracyNow,:
Well, remember what populist politics is. It's a very special brand of short-term focus, which invariably creates very difficult long-term problems. A goodly part of the book, as you know, is written about how populism has gripped, say, many Latin American countries to their detriment. And the term "populist politics" is essentially another way of saying short term versus longer term. And people who emphasize short-term benefits for long-term costs end up with very little in the way of economic growth and prosperity.
I wrote the following over a year ago about what he had to say:
That is not the definition of Populism. He's lying. Populism is for the people, as in government of, by, and for the people. Populism is against consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few greedy ones who pay off dupes to beat down the people who restrain themselves out of their good nature from tearing the rich apart limb from limb. Populists do not have a short-term focus. Jesus was a Populist under God and had an eternal vision. Greenspan is for the overlord system to which Jesus was diametrically opposed. It's one of the reasons they murdered him. Large scale movements to Populism have always been crushed by rabid capitalists long before the benefits of cooperation could show through. The capitalists have done this for the very reason that benefits would show through if cooperation were not violently crushed and economically cutoff from so-called open markets. Alan Greenspan is either ignorant or disingenuous. We say Greenspan is knowingly taking a deliberately hardhearted approach.
The currency belongs to the people. It should be nationalized. The Federal Reserve should be done away with. Privatized national banks are terrible. They are for the greediest of the greedy: The plutocrats and kleptocrats. We don't need such selfishness. It's always been evil. Usury (interest on loans) is awful. It's bloodsucking. It's financial vampirism.
The New Deal is coming back and then some. If you're going to have a democracy, why vote for what is bad for everyone? If you're going to coerce each other, the least you can do is the lesser of evils. The democratic socialism of Eugene V. Debs is where the U.S. and Europe will have to end up just to stave off total collapse a little longer then if they stick with laissez-faire.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit ... If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take, but we must give as well. — Franklin Roosevelt, first Inaugural Address
The problem is that the money changers came back with a vengeance and the people forgot the truth. What will happen this time? This cycle cannot continue repeating.
Soak-the-rich is the mundane thing to do. It won't work in the end though. I don't recommend it. It's just a bandage on an un-healable wound. The right thing to do is to move straight to Christianity as I've outlined on this website for the world to see. (The Christian Commons Project™.)