NOBEL ECONOMIST PAUL KRUGMAN AND I AGREE IN LARGE MEASURE, AT LEAST ON THE MUNDANE LEVEL

Krugman says, "The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering."

The issue is that while a boom is made of irrational exuberance inflating demand, the laissez-faire capitalist, as opposed to the mixed economist, believe that during a bust, there is an irrationality working in the other direction deflating demand (which is true enough); but, those laissez-faire, or more laissez-faire leaning (think deregulation) economists skew the psychology to the boom-side throughout the entire cycle. What I mean here is that they don't view the stability of the middle of the cycle as the more realistic target but want to buy low and ride the irrational wave again to sell high while the rest of the masses haven't a clue that stability is the enemy of the greedy. Therefore, and Paul Krugman agrees with me, we see the neoliberal economists in the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve working to prop up the exotic derivatives that no one is working to sort out because there's not enough value left after that process apparently or because there's money to be made in passing off the same old toxic sludge with whatever might have been of value in those tranches. Remember, they bundled the good with the bad and effectively dissolved the audit trail behind them. They can't tell which mortgage and which property, bank, borrower, etc., is behind which portion of the securitized bundle of mortgages, or so we've been led to believe (just trust us, say the Bernie Madoff's of the world to the flies), and the credit default swaps ostensible to insure those are consequently too risky. We're talking tens and even hundreds of trillions of dollars of superheating air that has blasted away with the bursting of the huge bubble.

2 million mortgages have gone belly up. AIG is on the line for many policies against which it can't pay off. The people are being asked to cover the bad underwriting. Why? The rest of the people only have a very small and low safety net below them if one may rightly call it that. Why do the superrich not have to fall to the safety net (street) with the average workers?

Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke are throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars at artificially re-inflating the bubble for the sake of those holding the worthless garbage. This is what they mean by the psychology of the markets. Rather than the bubble bursting, the truth is that the curtain was drawn back so the people can now see how the sausage was being made. Bernie Madoff was far from the only Ponzi scheme artist. The boom was the result of confidence men.

They want all to fall back into having confidence in them again. It's where we get the term conmen. Good Risk Management tells the honest not to fall for it.

Those with a gambling addiction and who are wild risk takers, even daredevils, want to get back into the game as soon as possible to take the suckers. These are professional riverboat gamblers who know every trick (cheat) in the book and have perfected their art of deception.

As The Real Liberal Christian Church looking out for the best interests of the Christian fold and the lost and soon to be found lambs and sheep, I want you to be fully aware of the capitalist sorcerers constantly conjuring up new twists on old schemes.

You see, the "unknown unknowns" can really be anticipated. We are given visions and dreams. We know them by their fruits. We know not to trust them. We know that in the end though, God is just. We know that leaving the flesh, we are our souls.

Do you want to gamble and if so with whom do you want to sit at the table? What measures are in place to detect and to stop cheats before they take you?

The question at-large is, do the people nationalize the banks to put into place the detection features and preventative features before allowing the plutocrats to continue building up the lending pyramid via the privately controlled Federal Reserve System and its underlying fractional-reserve banking, debt financing of the national budget deficits ($3.6 trillion 2010 fiscal-year federal-budget plan with an estimated $1.7 trillion deficit - 50% red ink added on which to owe interest to the private bankers for no good reason) and cumulative National Debt? It's no way to run a global economy for the highest and best interest of the people at-large.

The deficits are a problem because the spending is not all productive. Were it productive, future earnings would amortize it. As it is now, much of it is simply designed to transfer wealth from the bottom to the top via interest payments for no service received. It's just free money to the superrich. You and I, the middle and working class, are paying for it with our hard work and long hours.

Concerning the Geithner Plan (Public-Private Investment Program) released Monday, March 23rd 2009, Paul Krugman made the following, prescient, common-sense statement on his blog:

The Geithner plan has now been leaked in detail. It's exactly the plan that was widely analyzed - and found wanting - a couple of weeks ago. The zombie ideas have won.

The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system - that what we're facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.

To this end the plan proposes to create funds in which private investors put in a small amount of their own money, and in return get large, non-recourse loans from the taxpayer, with which to buy bad - I mean misunderstood - assets. This is supposed to lead to fair prices because the funds will engage in competitive bidding....

This plan will produce big gains for banks that didn't actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won't be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.

(Source: "The Big Dither," by Paul Krugman. New York Times. March 5, 2009.)

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.