Krugman for President.

Hell, I’d even be happy with Krugman for Sec. Treas….

Centrist Senators Say They Oppose Health Care Bil

Deep question: when did “to the right of your constituents” become “centrist”?

I’d be happier with Krugman as a replacement for Summers. Ms Warren would fit the bill as SecTreas quite well.

Mornin’ BT, pups

Obama keeps listening to Summers, Geithner and Wall Street our country will really be in the shitter this time next year.

Everybody’s afraid to use the term “neoliberal” for these people.

Note to Obama’s economic “team”:

Job creation does not start on the stock exchange or at investment banks. Those entities do the exact opposite, suck jobs and wealth from the workers, who are the real creators of wealth.

I wonder which countries are benefiting the most from the Wall Street environment? It would be a big amount of info to pull together because you would even need to look at individual investors benefiting the most and track if they are contributing to non-profits that serve as arms of a nation.

My guess is, we would be motivated as a nation to rebuild regulatory measures once we saw that list of nations.

I don’t think it is a country thing. While we continue to think of corporations as american or british or whatever, the reality is that they are entities unto themselves. Their loyalties are to themselves and their bottom line.

DING!

I think it’s more overseas investment banks than corporations. Look at where so much of the bailout money for AIG went. The same is true for GS. The entities that make all this tremendous profit and brought the world’s economies to their knees are those trading paper amongst themselves.

Paddy Chayefsky, Network, Boardroom Scene – ’nuff said.

Mornin’ ‘Dogs :)

Exactly. I first realized that in the Opec oil embargo of 1973. It worked fine for such (at-the-time) “American” companies as Humble Oil, Gulf Oil, etc. That has become increasingly apparent in the current century. It should be obvious, given that labor supply, funding, and consumer markets are now worldwide, rather than national, any emotional attributes of a corporation (like patriotism) are purely for propaganda purposes. Companies are artificial sharks, designed and intended to keep moving forward in search of profit. If they don’t they die. It’s only okay if that is recognized and they are regulated by government to serve national purposes.

This is true just look at how much GS gave themselves in bonuses vs how much they are making available in loans. But then we have Westinghouse moving its operations to Mexico, GM building new plants in China, where are the windmills coming from to build new windfarms. They are all corporations from GS to Mattell.

True, but overseas investment banks aren’t the ones packing up their factories and shipping them off to whereever they can hire folks for $1 an hour.

I’de still do the research on it. The point is in regards to “sphere of influence.”

I “get” multinational corps. However, we must not overlook the element of economic threats. We used a variety of elements to wage a silent economic war once.

Why is it a war. The armies that have been used in this “war” are the workers and who can get the most out of them while giving them the least.

While linked in various ways, I think they are two separate issues. The shift from an economy based on manufacturing to one based on finance was the beginning of corporations moving their operations overseas, becoming little more than importers in the process. The trading of shares became more profitable than manufacturing commodities. Investment banks took it even further with the introduction of all these exotic financial instruments once Glass-Steagall was out of the way.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,365

US KIA Afghanistan: 927

US MBS 2009; 40,424

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

Jane has a new post up

I think it would be an act of “stopping short” to not look at the possibility of economic threats that go beyond the corporate threat we unfortunately know too well currently.

Non-allies are constantly looking at our economic vulnerabilities as a way to weaken our nation or control our nation in order to gain influence. We would be one “hot” catch to manipulate from a global perspective. We could be quite helpful “weight” in directing global policies or in build another nation’s power.

re: the ‘tax cuts and deregulation’ item contrasting China and the U.S. – One of the more dissonant notes struck within PNAC/Neocon/Cheneyite philosophy was/is – How do you create an everlasting American global empire and drown it in the bathtub at the same time?
Something has to pay for all that government-based, military-backed financial hegemony, and it sure as sunrise wasn’t going to be a tax-cut surfeited corporation or the Scrooge McDucks of the Right, neither of whom were big on regime maintenance responsibilities when it cost them directly.

Neocons couldn’t have both states of existence simultaneously in an untrammeled form, and the one they eventually brought into being was more the product of a boy-king’s Oedipal whims and his sociopathic regent’s counter-machinations than any organized ideological design.

So much for iron dreams.

;>)