[lbo-talk] on Doug's latest show, Galbraith

c b cb31450 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 09:36:36 PST 2012


Carrol Cox

What would happen if the U.S. government simply repudiated its national debt?

Account for the U.S. military in your answer.

Account for employment in China in your answer.

Carrol

^^^^^

CB: When I suggested forgiving the national debt back in 1998 here ( see below) I think Max pointed out that many of the creditors are working class Americans.

This was an early use of the term "Too Big to Fail" . Long Term capital gain hedgefund bailout.


>From the market to the Marxit

Forgive the national debt ! The People do not owe the monied classes 100's of billions of dollars.

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1998/1998-September/007977.html

Rough Draft of anger at lies that Private Property is most efficient Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Sep 28 10:20:24 PDT 1998

Previous message: German election

Next message: HIPCs and Single-Payer

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Search LBO-Talk Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author

Sort by: Reverse Sort

The NYT of Thurs. , Sept. 24, 1998 has a headline that pisses me off:

"Seeing a Fund as Too Big to Fail, New York Fed Assists Its Bailout"

What happened to risk taking and taking the loss of the risk ? What happened to the holy discipline of the market as shaking out losers and inefficiency ? I never believed that risktaking and market efficiency b.s., but those are among the lies upon which are based a lot of bourgeois market ideology rationalization for things from privatization of public wealth and institutions to the Cold War on socialism as inefficient.

The list has dubbed the Long Term circled wagons group "crony capitalism". The irony of this reverse name calling against the hoity toity American billionaires is well placed.

Are these rich people nakedly collectivizing their wealth among their central committee members like rentiers monopolizing life boats for the upper deck class of the Titanic ?

I've wanted to do a movie review of the movie on the Titanic tragedy, but I haven't seen the movie and do not plan to , because I have heard about the Titanic off and on all of my life and it is a real boring subject to me. Something like Humpty Dumptly. However from this backround I know enough about the plot of the movie to say the obvious. Doesn't it sound like a real simple Freudian type of unconscious symbol of sinking Capitalism ?

I digress.

The inefficiency of the PRIVATE sector is enormous in economic history. the propaganda of privatization is just a small part of the hoax that private enterprise is more efficient than public enterprise. the Public will bail out another Chrysler, another Continental Illinois Bank, another batch of S and L thieves, only the biggest yet.

The free enterprise, laissez-faire, capitalist engine of prosperity makes these horrendous messes of bankruptcy and then erases them from the memory of economic historians the next time they want to claim that the private mode of production is more efficient than the socialist/public mode.

What does every capitalist rag journal turn to for rescue now in East Asia , Russia and the USA ? The GOVERNMENT that

reaganthatcherpaleoliberalism said was inefficient and socialist. In the next bull run that government saved capital from its wasteful orgies will be wiped from the mass memory banks, in the heathen rites of Wall Street.

Even the old US Constitution is more progressive than today's political norm. That Constitution says government is to provide for the General Welfare. Welfare should be promoted not abolished.That's unAmerican.

Idealistic, arcane Americanism is more progressive than actual America 1998. This is how decadent American civilization has become. It cannot live up to its own best standards.

Privatmania must be driven from our Peoples.

Forgive the national debt ! The People do not owe the monied classes 100's of billions of dollars.

Charles Brown


>From the market to the Marxit


>>> <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> 09/26 4:49 PM >>>
The NYT article suggests that the assets of the principals will be protected. Is that surprising? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list