Comments on: Chart of the day: projected US government deficit http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/chart-of-day-projected-us-government.html Finance, Economics and Markets Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Edward Harrison http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/chart-of-day-projected-us-government.html#comment-59017 Edward Harrison Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:37:00 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/chart-of-the-day-projected-us-government-deficit.html#comment-59017 I use that particular comment a lot as a demonstration of the corporatist mindset in the Obama administration. The thinking is "these things were necessary because the economy can't function without these banks on their feet." Implicitly, this is trickle down economics. Geithner is saying we must feed the big banks first and that will lead to lending and economic growth. This is the epitome of a corporatist mindset. And this seems to be the modus across a variety of sectors: business first, taxpayers and consumers will follow. I use that particular comment a lot as a demonstration of the corporatist mindset in the Obama administration. The thinking is “these things were necessary because the economy can’t function without these banks on their feet.” Implicitly, this is trickle down economics. Geithner is saying we must feed the big banks first and that will lead to lending and economic growth. This is the epitome of a corporatist mindset. And this seems to be the modus across a variety of sectors: business first, taxpayers and consumers will follow.

]]> By: Potomac Oracle http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/chart-of-day-projected-us-government.html#comment-59014 Potomac Oracle Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:53:00 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/chart-of-the-day-projected-us-government-deficit.html#comment-59014 The "Random Quote" by Giethner is a gross exaggeration. There was no imaginative approach, there was no national necessity to do what they did they way they did it. Geithner and company wanted to secure the capital base and profit streams of the major players on the backs of the taxpayers because that's what they've always done going back to the banking crash of 1907. They should have monetized the asset value of some of the trillions in public property. Loaned that to the banksters at 2%, relieving the taxpayer of any "real" loss. Alternatively, the Federal Reserve could have majically increased its capital base with "fiat" money and using fractional reserve principles provided the miscreants all of the "holy money" they needed to preserve their criminal enterprise. But the best alternative would have been to let these thieves go into Chapter 7, 11, or 13. Create a new banking system with smaller banks, re-enact Glass-Steagall and call it a day. But that takes to much away from the banking cabal, and no one has the stones to do that. The “Random Quote” by Giethner is a gross exaggeration. There was no imaginative approach, there was no national necessity to do what they did they way they did it. Geithner and company wanted to secure the capital base and profit streams of the major players on the backs of the taxpayers because that’s what they’ve always done going back to the banking crash of 1907.
They should have monetized the asset value of some of the trillions in public property. Loaned that to the banksters at 2%, relieving the taxpayer of any “real” loss. Alternatively, the Federal Reserve could have majically increased its capital base with “fiat” money and using fractional reserve principles provided the miscreants all of the “holy money” they needed to preserve their criminal enterprise. But the best alternative would have been to let these thieves go into Chapter 7, 11, or 13. Create a new banking system with smaller banks, re-enact Glass-Steagall and call it a day.

But that takes to much away from the banking cabal, and no one has the stones to do that.

]]>