Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: $7.4 Trillion

  1. #1

    $7.4 Trillion

    Report: Government prepared to lend $7.4 trillion
    Bloomberg News
    Nov. 24, 2008, 11:46AM

    The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

    The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $2.8 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the only plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

    When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.

    “Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”

    Bloomberg News tabulated data from the Fed, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and interviewed regulatory officials, economists and academic researchers to gauge the full extent of the government’s rescue effort.

    The bailout includes a Fed program to buy as much as $2.4 trillion in short-term notes, called commercial paper, that companies use to pay bills, begun Oct. 27, and $1.4 trillion from the FDIC to guarantee bank-to-bank loans, started Oct. 14.

    William Poole, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said the two programs are unlikely to lose money. The bigger risk comes from rescuing companies perceived as “too big to fail,” he said.

    The government committed $29 billion to help engineer the takeover in March of Bear Stearns Cos. by New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. and $122.8 billion in addition to TARP allocations to bail out New York-based American International Group Inc., once the world’s largest insurer. Yesterday, Citigroup Inc. received $306 billion of government guarantees for troubled mortgages and toxic assets. The Treasury Department also will inject $20 billion into the bank after its stock fell 60 percent last week.

    “No question there is some credit risk there,” Poole said.

    Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said risk is lurking in the programs that Poole thinks are safe.

    “The thing that people don’t understand is it’s not how likely that the exposure becomes a reality, but what if it does?” Issa said. “There’s no transparency to it so who’s to say they’re right?”

    The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $23 trillion, or 38 percent, of the value of the world’s companies and brought down three of the biggest Wall Street firms.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average through Friday is down 38 percent since the beginning of the year and 43 percent from its peak on Oct. 9, 2007. The S&P 500 fell 45 percent from the beginning of the year through Friday and 49 percent from its peak on Oct. 9, 2007. The Nikkei 225 Index has fallen 46 percent from the beginning of the year through Friday and 57 percent from its most recent peak of 18,261.98 on July 9, 2007. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is down 78 percent, to $53.31, on Friday from its peak of $247.92 on Oct. 31, 2007, and 75 percent this year.

    Regulators hope the rescue will contain the damage and keep banks providing the credit that is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy.

    Most of the spending programs are run out of the New York Fed, whose president, Timothy Geithner, is said to be President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be Treasury Secretary.

    The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country’s mortgages.

    “It’s unprecedented,” said Bob Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Vineland, New Jersey-based Cumberland Advisors Inc. and an economist for the Atlanta Fed for 10 years until January. “The backlash has begun already. Congress is taking a lot of hits from their constituents because they got snookered on the TARP big time. There’s a lot of supposedly smart people who look to be totally incompetent and it’s all going to fall on the taxpayer.”

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, when almost 10,000 banks failed and there was no mechanism to bolster them with cash, is the only rival to the government’s current response. The savings and loan bailout of the 1990s cost $209.5 billion in inflation-adjusted numbers, of which $173 billion came from taxpayers, according to a July 1996 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office.

    The 1979 U.S. government bailout of Chrysler consisted of bond guarantees, adjusted for inflation, of $4.2 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation report.

    The commitment of public money is appropriate to the peril, said Ethan Harris, co-head of U.S. economic research at Barclays Capital Inc. and a former economist at the New York Fed. U.S. financial firms have taken writedowns and losses of $666.1 billion since the beginning of 2007, according to Bloomberg data.

    “This is the worst capital markets crisis in modern history,” Harris said. “So you have the biggest intervention in modern history.”

    Bloomberg has requested details of Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral.

    Collateral is an asset pledged to a lender in the event a loan payment isn’t made.

    “Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,” Bernanke said Nov. 18 to the House Financial Services Committee. “We think that’s counterproductive.”

    The Fed should account for the collateral it takes in exchange for loans to banks, said Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Chicago-based Northern Trust Co. and a former research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

    “There is a lack of transparency here and, given that the Fed is taking on a huge amount of credit risk now, it would seem to me as a taxpayer there should be more transparency,” Kasriel said.

    Bernanke’s Fed is responsible for $4.4 trillion of pledges, or 60 percent of the total commitment of $7.4 trillion, based on data compiled by Bloomberg concerning U.S. bailout steps started a year ago.

    “Too often the public is focused on the wrong piece of that number, the $700 billion that Congress approved,” said J.D. Foster, a former staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers who is now a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “The other areas are quite a bit larger.”

    The Fed’s rescue attempts began last December with the creation of the Term Auction Facility to allow lending to dealers for collateral. After Bear Stearns’s collapse in March, the central bank started making direct loans to securities firms at the same discount rate it charges commercial banks, which take customer deposits.

    In the three years before the crisis, such average weekly borrowing by banks was $48 million, according to the central bank. Last week it was $91.5 billion.

    The failure of a second securities firm, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., in September, led to the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, or MMIFF. The two programs, which have pledged $2.3 trillion, are designed to restore calm in the money markets, which deal in certificates of deposit, commercial paper and Treasury bills.

    “Money markets seized up after Lehman failed,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse Group in New York and a former aide to Fed chief Paul Volcker. “Lehman failing made a lot of subsequent actions necessary.”

    The FDIC, chaired by Sheila Bair, is contributing 20 percent of total rescue commitments. The FDIC’s $1.4 trillion in guarantees will amount to a bank subsidy of as much as $54 billion over three years, or $18 billion a year, because borrowers will pay a lower interest rate than they would on the open market, according to Raghu Sundurum and Viral Acharya of New York University and the London Business School.

    Congress and the Treasury have ponied up $892 billion in TARP and other funding, or 12 percent.

    The Federal Housing Administration, overseen by Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Steven Preston, was given the authority to guarantee $300 billion of mortgages, or about 4 percent of the total commitment, with its Hope for Homeowners program, designed to keep distressed borrowers from foreclosure.

    Most of the federal guarantees reduce interest rates on loans to banks and securities firms, which would create a subsidy of at least $6.6 billion annually for the financial industry, according to data compiled by Bloomberg comparing rates charged by the Fed against market interest currently paid by banks.

    Not included in the calculation of pledged funds is an FDIC proposal to prevent foreclosures by guaranteeing modifications on $444 billion in mortgages at an expected cost of $24.4 billion to be paid from the TARP, according to FDIC spokesman David Barr. The Treasury Department hasn’t approved the program.

    Bernanke and Paulson, former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, have also promised as much as $200 billion to shore up nationalized mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FDIC arranged for $139 billion in loan guarantees for General Electric Co.’s finance unit.

    The tally doesn’t include money to General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC. Obama has said he favors financial assistance to keep them from collapse.

    Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee Nov. 18 that the $250 billion already allocated to banks through the TARP is an investment, not an expenditure.

    “I think it would be extraordinarily unusual if the government did not get that money back and more,” Paulson said.

    ‘We Haircut It’

    In his Nov. 18 testimony, Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee that the central bank wouldn’t lose money.

    “We take collateral, we haircut it, it is a short-term loan, it is very safe, we have never lost a penny in these various lending programs,” he said.

    A haircut refers to the practice of lending less money than the collateral’s current market value.

    Requiring the Fed to disclose loan recipients might set off panic, said David Tobin, principal of New York-based loan-sale consultants and investment bank Mission Capital Advisors LLC.

    “If you mark to market today, the banking system is bankrupt,” Tobin said. “So what do you do? You try to keep it going as best you can.”

    “Mark to market” means adjusting the value of an asset, such as a mortgage-backed security, to reflect current prices.

    Some of the bailout assistance could come from tax breaks in the future. The Treasury Department changed the tax code on Sept. 30 to allow banks to expand the deductions on the losses banks they were buying, according to Robert Willens, a former Lehman Brothers tax and accounting analyst who teaches at Columbia University Business School in New York.

    Wells Fargo & Co., which is buying Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia Corp., will be able to deduct $22 billion, Willens said. Adding in other banks, the code change will cost $29 billion, he said.

    “The rule is now popularly known among tax lawyers as the ‘Wells Fargo Notice,’” Willens said.

    The regulation was changed to make it easier for healthy banks to buy troubled ones, said Treasury Department spokesman Andrew DeSouza.

    House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said he was angry that banks used the money for acquisitions.

    “The only purpose for this money is to lend,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. “It’s not for dividends, it’s not for purchases of new banks, it’s not for bonuses. There better be a showing of increased lending roughly in the amount of the capital infusions” or Congress may not approve the second half of the TARP money.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bus ... 29318.html

    "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

    -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

  2. #2
    Senior Member anaxarchos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Hurricane Alley
    Posts
    5,321
    Part of this 7.4 T is gonna be simple expenditures which increase the debt, piss off the G20 (by makin' them pay for "America's Debt"), and generally screw with international economies for a long time. Another part will be an expansion of the money supply, and that by a significant amount. For the time being, with Recession, the Credit Freeze, and the breakdown, it won't do nothin'. But, when the prospect of "recovery" starts to appear, then a great big wad of stinkin' "extra" cash is gonna be sitting in the middle of the living room. That's when all those "fears" about "inflation", "stagflation", and the "Japanese decade of stagnation" are gonna come outta the closet. And then, it is gonna be somebody's job (guess who) to start talking about "sacrifice", and "tightening belts".

    The IMF is gonna hit Indiana and the World Bank is gonna nestle in Washington State. The Zambian or Argentinian Solution is headed for a theatre near you.

    I can't imagine what the Obama 2.0 is gonna look like: Barack "the Hammer" Obama - "Give up all Hope and gimme your Change".
    .

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by anaxarchos
    Part of this 7.4 T is gonna be simple expenditures which increase the debt, piss off the G20 (by makin' them pay for "America's Debt"), and generally screw with international economies for a long time. Another part will be an expansion of the money supply, and that by a significant amount. For the time being, with Recession, the Credit Freeze, and the breakdown, it won't do nothin'. But, when the prospect of "recovery" starts to appear, then a great big wad of stinkin' "extra" cash is gonna be sitting in the middle of the living room. That's when all those "fears" about "inflation", "stagflation", and the "Japanese decade of stagnation" are gonna come outta the closet. And then, it is gonna be somebody's job (guess who) to start talking about "sacrifice", and "tightening belts".

    The IMF is gonna hit Indiana and the World Bank is gonna nestle in Washington State. The Zambian or Argentinian Solution is headed for a theatre near you.

    I can't imagine what the Obama 2.0 is gonna look like: Barack "the Hammer" Obama - "Give up all Hope and gimme your Change".
    .
    This is gonna give 'pragmatism' a bad name.
    Social relationships have their inherent logic; as long as people live in given mutual relationships they will feel, think and act in a given way, and no other. Attempts on the part of public men to combat this logic also would be fruitless; the natural course of things (this logic of social relationships) would reduce all his effort to nought. But if I know in what direction social relations are changing owing to given changes in the social-economic process of production, I also know in what direction social mentality is changing; consequently, I am able to influence it. Influencing social mentality means influencing historical events. Hence, in a certain sense, I can make history, and there is no need for me to wait while "it is being made."

  4. #4
    Why i am not a Democrat in one easy lesson:
    "Democrats believe in a free market."
    Nancy Pelosi September 28,2008

    http://www.abn.info.ve/banner/psuv.jpg

  5. #5
    Why i am not a Democrat in one easy lesson:
    "Democrats believe in a free market."
    Nancy Pelosi September 28,2008

    http://www.abn.info.ve/banner/psuv.jpg

  6. #6

    The IMF is gonna hit Indiana and the World Bank is gonna nestle in Washington State. The Zambian or Argentinian Solution is headed for a theatre near you.

    I can't imagine what the Obama 2.0 is gonna look like: Barack "the Hammer" Obama - "Give up all Hope and gimme your Change".
    .
    Made me think of this:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2817317115

    This has been coming no matter how much denial is tossed into the basket. It has always been here in fact.
    "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

    -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by chlamor

    The IMF is gonna hit Indiana and the World Bank is gonna nestle in Washington State. The Zambian or Argentinian Solution is headed for a theatre near you.

    I can't imagine what the Obama 2.0 is gonna look like: Barack "the Hammer" Obama - "Give up all Hope and gimme your Change".
    .
    Made me think of this:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2817317115

    This has been coming no matter how much denial is tossed into the basket. It has always been here in fact.
    Russia, Japan, Mexico, Argentina..gonna start looking an awful lot like something plucked from those places in the 90s.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by chlamor

    The IMF is gonna hit Indiana and the World Bank is gonna nestle in Washington State. The Zambian or Argentinian Solution is headed for a theatre near you.

    I can't imagine what the Obama 2.0 is gonna look like: Barack "the Hammer" Obama - "Give up all Hope and gimme your Change".
    .
    Made me think of this:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2817317115

    This has been coming no matter how much denial is tossed into the basket. It has always been here in fact.
    Yeah,pretty much the same group responsible for both...
    Why i am not a Democrat in one easy lesson:
    "Democrats believe in a free market."
    Nancy Pelosi September 28,2008

    http://www.abn.info.ve/banner/psuv.jpg

  9. #9
    Obama is going to try to IMF us, isn't he? We are in a really volatile situation.

  10. #10
    Senior Member anaxarchos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Hurricane Alley
    Posts
    5,321

    Exactly right...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike
    Obama is going to try to IMF us, isn't he? We are in a really volatile situation.
    If it deepens, he hasn't exactly proposed the New Deal. It will be serious.

    If it "stabilizes", we are going to be IMFed. Exactly correct.

    You've just invented a new verb.
    .

  11. #11
    Senior Member anaxarchos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Hurricane Alley
    Posts
    5,321

    Here we go...

    Quote Originally Posted by anaxarchos
    Part of this 7.4 T is gonna be simple expenditures which increase the debt, piss off the G20 (by makin' them pay for "America's Debt"), and generally screw with international economies for a long time. Another part will be an expansion of the money supply, and that by a significant amount. For the time being, with Recession, the Credit Freeze, and the breakdown, it won't do nothin'. But, when the prospect of "recovery" starts to appear, then a great big wad of stinkin' "extra" cash is gonna be sitting in the middle of the living room. That's when all those "fears" about "inflation", "stagflation", and the "Japanese decade of stagnation" are gonna come outta the closet. And then, it is gonna be somebody's job (guess who) to start talking about "sacrifice", and "tightening belts".

    The IMF is gonna hit Indiana and the World Bank is gonna nestle in Washington State. The Zambian or Argentinian Solution is headed for a theatre near you.

    I can't imagine what the Obama 2.0 is gonna look like: Barack "the Hammer" Obama - "Give up all Hope and gimme your Change".
    .
    Citigroup says gold could rise above $2,000 next year as world unravels
    Gold is poised for a dramatic surge and could blast through $2,000 an ounce by the end of next year as central banks flood the world's monetary system with liquidity, according to an internal client note from the US bank Citigroup
    .
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... avels.html

    The "gold" part of this is less important than the IMFing (trademark Mike) part:

    The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter century was forcing the world's authorities to take steps that had never been tried before.

    This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold.

    "They are throwing the kitchen sink at this," said Tom Fitzpatrick, the bank's chief technical strategist.

    "The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed though into an inflation shock.

    "Or it will not work because too much damage has already been done, and we will see continued financial deterioration, causing further economic deterioration, with the risk of a feedback loop. We don't think this is the more likely outcome, but as each week and month passes, there is a growing danger of vicious circle as confidence erodes," he said...

  12. #12
    Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret


    By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 31 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

    But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

    "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

    The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

    None of the banks provided specific answers.

    "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

    Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

    "We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.

    The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

    There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.

    "It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

    But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.

    Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

    "Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"

    Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

    A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.

    But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

    "We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.

    Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

    Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."

    Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.

    "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.

    Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."

    The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.

    Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

    "What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going."

    Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.

    "It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.

    But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.

    "If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.

    Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

    "A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_ ... wn_secrets
    "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

    -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

  13. #13
    Headline on today's Spartanburg Herald Journal stated that said institutions provided top brass with 1.6B in bonuses. What incredible hubris, they do our work for us.
    Social relationships have their inherent logic; as long as people live in given mutual relationships they will feel, think and act in a given way, and no other. Attempts on the part of public men to combat this logic also would be fruitless; the natural course of things (this logic of social relationships) would reduce all his effort to nought. But if I know in what direction social relations are changing owing to given changes in the social-economic process of production, I also know in what direction social mentality is changing; consequently, I am able to influence it. Influencing social mentality means influencing historical events. Hence, in a certain sense, I can make history, and there is no need for me to wait while "it is being made."

  14. #14
    Senior Member anaxarchos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Hurricane Alley
    Posts
    5,321
    Quote Originally Posted by blindpig
    Headline on today's Spartanburg Herald Journal stated that said institutions provided top brass with 1.6B in bonuses. What incredible hubris, they do our work for us.
    They will sell us the rope...

  15. #15
    I heard an interesting thing the other day, chlamor, that puts some of these numbers into perspective. A local community farming advocate was speaking, and someone asked what it would take right now to feed the hungry around the world and how that would compare with the $700 billion going to Wall Street. She said about $10 billion. "To address the immediate crisis, you mean?" someone asked. She said, no, to solve the problem permanently. She explained that $10 billion would mean a million dollars each for 10,000 critical areas, and were that invested into local agricultural infrastructures in each location the people could feed themselves indefinitely.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •