As the modern system of capitalism faces the most serious challenge of its existence since Adam Smith, the name of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) is being regularly invoked by economists, politicians, bankers, and the media. And with good reason. Born in Cambridge, England, in 1883, the year Karl Marx died, Keynes probably saved capitalism from itself and kept Communists at bay. Keynesian Economics advocates the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment with low inflation.
Keynes described Capitalism in the following words: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
A well-known anti-Semite, Keynes once said, "It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains." As in the past financial crises, powerful Jews on Wall Street and in Washington are being held responsible by many as the culprits of the current economic collapse.
In response to a severe recession or possible depression, Keynes suggested: "The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up." He advocated massive spending by government to stimulate demand when all else fails.
Who was Keynes? Here is how UC Berkeley's Robert Reich described him a few years ago: "A Cambridge University don with a flair for making money, a graduate of England's exclusive Eton prep school, a collector of modern art, the darling of Virginia Woolf and her intellectually avant-garde Bloomsbury Group, the chairman of a life-insurance company, later a director of the Bank of England, married to a ballerina, John Maynard Keynes--tall, charming and self-confident--nonetheless transformed the dismal science into a revolutionary engine of social progress."
Keynes was clearly a very smart man. His ideas of modern Capitalism have created unprecedented wealth and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And his ideas may still help save capitalism yet again. At least, that is the hope of the Obama administration and the backers of the massive stimulus package of about $800 billion recently passed by the US Congress. However, what Keynes couldn't have imagined are the new heights of avarice and wickedness of the modern political-industrial elite in America that has threatened the very foundations of the system that brought them wealth and power. During the last decade, the behavior of American capitalists and politicians has been unbelievably self-destructive.
Even Alan Greenspan, the icon of modern US capitalism, was forced to show contrition in October, 2008. The former Federal Reserve Chairman told a House committee that the banking and housing crisis is a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami." When asked if his ideology pushed him to make bad decisions, Greenspan said he found a "flaw" in his governing ideology that has led him to re-examine his thinking. There has, however, been no acceptance of any responsibility for the current crisis by the members of US Congress and powerful finance, banking and appropriations committees responsible for overseeing the US finance and economy.
The American economy continues to deteriorate rapidly with the devastating credit crunch and major loss of confidence by consumers, businesses and investors. At this point, tax cuts or just handing out cash to banks or big infrastructure projects or re-regulation are not likely to help hasten economic recovery. The Obama administration will need to take more drastic measures, including nationalization and recapitalization of major banks to ensure that the much needed credit to businesses and consumers starts flowing again. Ideological aversion to nationalization will only delay recovery and take a much heavier toll on ordinary Americans in terms of job losses, home foreclosures and loss of other basic necessities of life.
The problem that some of the the critics of the Obama economic team and their Congressional overseers, derived mainly from the Clinton administration and the hold-overs from Bush-era, point out is articulated well by Nassim Taleb, the author of Black Swan. “We have the same people in charge, those who did not see the crisis coming,” he said recently on CNBC.
The roots of the current crisis can be traced to the Reagan revolution. Beginning in the early 1980s, Reaganomics transformed the United States in fundamental ways. Since the world saw the fall of the Soviet Union and collapse of Communism, the Conservative Republican ideas of less government and more deregulation have continued to change the economic landscape in America and the rest of the world. This revolution has now lasted almost three decades under various US administrations including Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. The Reagan ideas have also been adopted and preached by international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
The continued wave of deregulation engineered and supported by America's predominantly Jewish political-industrial elite has led to the creation and trading of what Warren Buffet describes as "financial weapons of mass destruction". Such newfangled, unregulated financial derivative products as some mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps and other wildly speculative futures and commodities contracts have produced hundreds of billions of dollars worth of personal gains for the financial industry executives and hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions for American politicians who are now grand-standing as saviors of the American and the world economy.
The fate of many new-comers from the emerging economies of the world is closely tied to the success or failure of capitalism in America. It appears that some of the countries such as Brazil, Russia, China and India, who embraced the conservative American ideas of "economic reform" and "deregulation", may already be too late for the party. However, the European and Asian nations with substantial population of savers and entrepreneurs will recover rapidly and thrive again, as long as they keep their banks and financial institutions on a tight leash. In particular, the world's top creditor nations such as China , Japan and Germany with high savings rates, massive trade surpluses and large central bank cash reserves are likely to come out ahead at the end of the current crisis. Others may not be so lucky. But all the follower nations that have essentially been copying the US model will have to develop their own original ideas with financial systems and economic models to move forward in uncharted waters. Clearly, any new models will require a deep understanding and introspection of what has worked and where has the American capitalism gone wrong.
Related Links:
China's Nuclear Option
Senator Schumer: The Champion of Wall Street on the Hill
Pay to Play is the Name of the Game in Washington
Are Jews Culprits of Collapse on Wall Street?
Keynes on Jews
Democrats and Republicans Share Blame for Financial Collapse
Jewish Network in US Congress
Jewish Power Dominates at Vanity Fair
Photo Quiz: What is this guy doing?
9 hours ago
4 comments:
To better understand the reasons for the credit crisis, one needs to understand the basics of the present day economic system, ie, the post industrial revolution human resource based systems as against the pre-industrial revolution natural resource and agriculture based systems. Easiest to understand is the simplified basis in Marxist writings, see the link
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm
This simplistic rendering of M-C-M shows the ways in which the theory is out-dated, but works well for the credit crisis example. The banks did end up lending money without proper criteria based on the forecast of higher price for the same commodity which is why it all came tumbling down. Europe avoided the real estate bust because they never let go of their historical criteria to get a mortgage for property.. the most basic being 20% downpayment. Now with derivatives like futures, options, swaps, hedgings etc, the problem as stated by Marx has increased multifolds.
The post industrial revolution system is characterized by the addition of M-C-M relationship that was not present in the previous systems, which were C-M-C based. This system comprises of two main types of activities, as follows:
a) the manufacturing/ service sector activity where, in the M-C-M relationship, human labor and services are bought as a commodity and the value added products sold at a higher value. The workforce on its part generally sells its services for a value which is more than their subsistence needs and thus generate savings.
b) for the above to be accomplished, it is necessary to build factories, service centers, commercial centers, housing etc which require funds to build. These funds are concentrated from the savings of the people by the financial sector, the second important link of the system. These funds, surplus to spendings on human sustenance/ pleasures and available for investment are called capital and hence the definition of the system as capitalism. So firstly one must understand capitalism as it is, and not as a negative connotation as done by most people nowadays.
In the M-C-M relationship, the financial sector uses money as commodity which it buys from one source at a lower value and sells to others at a higher value (in very basic terms called interest). However, since the available funds generally exceed the demand and with more and more demand for quick profits, the financial system gets dominated by what can be called the "carpetbaggers", the advent of which is the root problem with the capitalist system. Government controls are always there to some extent but the tactics of the carpetbaggers find ways to circumvent these, and financial crises arise.
To control the damage to economy by carpetbaggers, Marx's solution is state control of the financial sector. With Democrats in power in the US for the next many years, the nationalization being done through bailouts can become irreversible. This will be a definite shift towards socialism even if the term is not used officially or in the media.
Another control mechanism is Islamic Finance which is probably better suited to the American political economic perception. This essentially works on the principle that interest (or profit) is only to be offered by banks on money which the bank lends directly for setting up projects or for purchase of commodities for human sustenance, ie limiting investment to the extent of the financial requirements of the economic system. In practical terms, not every one wishing to invest will be able to do so like happens now, in which case interest rates can go down to near zero levels. This system demands a strict state regulation on the financial sector, but not state control as in socialism.
Nice, thanks for your astute (and anti-semitic) economic analysis. I notice that you have been talking about economics, coffee tea and pee in your recent posts. The elephant in the room, however, is the fact that your country has shamefully surrendered to the Taliban in Swat. Congrats. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Anon:
You suggest, "The elephant in the room, however, is the fact that your country has shamefully surrendered to the Taliban in Swat. Congrats. I would love to hear your thoughts on it."
As you can imagine, I am not happy about what I consider appeasement in Swat. Please read my post and comments about the Swat situation in a recent post titled "Pakistan's Growing Insurgency"
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has argued in favor of bank nationalization in his NY Times column today. Here's an excerpt from it:
The case for nationalization rests on three observations.
First, some major banks are dangerously close to the edge — in fact, they would have failed already if investors didn’t expect the government to rescue them if necessary.
Second, banks must be rescued. The collapse of Lehman Brothers almost destroyed the world financial system, and we can’t risk letting much bigger institutions like Citigroup or Bank of America implode.
Third, while banks must be rescued, the U.S. government can’t afford, fiscally or politically, to bestow huge gifts on bank shareholders.
Let’s be concrete here. There’s a reasonable chance — not a certainty — that Citi and BofA, together, will lose hundreds of billions over the next few years. And their capital, the excess of their assets over their liabilities, isn’t remotely large enough to cover those potential losses.
Arguably, the only reason they haven’t already failed is that the government is acting as a backstop, implicitly guaranteeing their obligations. But they’re zombie banks, unable to supply the credit the economy needs.
To end their zombiehood the banks need more capital. But they can’t raise more capital from private investors. So the government has to supply the necessary funds.
But here’s the thing: the funds needed to bring these banks fully back to life would greatly exceed what they’re currently worth. Citi and BofA have a combined market value of less than $30 billion, and even that value is mainly if not entirely based on the hope that stockholders will get a piece of a government handout. And if it’s basically putting up all the money, the government should get ownership in return.
Still, isn’t nationalization un-American? No, it’s as American as apple pie.
Lately the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has been seizing banks it deems insolvent at the rate of about two a week. When the F.D.I.C. seizes a bank, it takes over the bank’s bad assets, pays off some of its debt, and resells the cleaned-up institution to private investors. And that’s exactly what advocates of temporary nationalization want to see happen, not just to the small banks the F.D.I.C. has been seizing, but to major banks that are similarly insolvent.
Post a Comment