DC
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Dorene Cornwell <dorenefc at gmail.com> wrote:
> NPR thread has Bernanke fixated on the Depression where he thought the
> government took too long to respond.
>
> But now we have a 24-hour news cycle and the internet where all the markets
> are interconnected and instantaneously intertwined. We can have global panic
> two dozen times in a month and might or might not be better off for anyone
> but speculators as a result.
>
> I think panic begets more panic and I think there is nothing like Bernanka
> and Paulsen yammering about panic to ensure that the panic will get worse. I
> know it's their JOB to alert the public to things to panic about and I do
> remember Greenspan on "irrational exuberance," I am still being obtuse
> though about why this time is so much worse than all the other times when
> the smart money says just hang tough and the declines will recover.
>
> On a slightly different note,maybe it's too late to ask this but since the
> timeliness of reaction is at issue, I am gong to ask this question anyway.
>
> There was about a 3-year gap in my reading of this list for reasons not
> having anything to do with interest in the topic. Y'all were going on about
> the real estate bubble 3 years ago and I do not remember any coherent
> conversationsa bout what to DO about the bubble, either how to protect
> oneself and one's retirement funds or how to let the air out slowly. I KNOW
> Congress was in the hands of the Repubs and Ralph Nader to pick one random
> example probably wasn't any nearer to anything topical and policy-oriented
> than he is now, but if you could have intervened three years ago, what would
> you have done, I mean politically as well as economically?
>
> DC
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:15 PM, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
>> At 10:17 AM 10/1/2008, rayrena wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > i've always seen him as speaking to people who want
>>> > radical change, with the primary target being the
>>> > elimination of capitalism. people who under most
>>> > circumstances recognize that the change isn't going to
>>> > come about through electoral politics. ("under most"
>>> > because in years divisible by four, they get
>>> > distracted....)
>>>
>>> Then why does he criticize people for not being practical,
>>> i.e., for not coming up with some sort of alternative
>>> bailout plan? Practicality in a capitalist society is always
>>> capitalist practicality. Why does he insist on other people
>>> saving the very thing he wants eliminated?
>>>
>>
>> it may be the stress from work, which is making me physically ill at the
>> mo', but i don't understand your question.
>>
>> in his original piece, he criticized people for being opportunists with
>> regard to obama. he criticized them for falling in love with the guy, buying
>> into empty rhetoric about hope. he criticized them for not being able to
>> think strategically and tactically about elections.
>>
>> it seems to me that this latest missive to doug is similar: people are
>> criticizing the bailout, pushing for all kinds of pie-in-the sky reforms or
>> simply projecting on the bailout revolt some kind of grand awakening among
>> the masses (like people project onto obama's candidacy the vision of a
>> leftist biding his time, saying the right things to get elected whereupon
>> he'll take off the clark kent duds and transform himself into Magic NegroMan
>> and save the world).
>>
>> but they aren't thinking about any of it strategically and tactically.
>> albeit galbraith seems to be iyam.
>>
>> but again, i welcome corrections because the double negative above is
>> fucking with me pea brain at the mo'
>>
>>
>> http://cleandraws.com
>> Wear Clean Draws
>> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>