Log in

View Full Version : Crisis in Capital?



DancingLarry
15th September 2008, 03:08
Just a week after the government takeover of FNMA and FHLMC, two of the biggest names in capitalism, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers came to the end of the line today. According to the Gray Lady (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin), Merrill Lynch was bailed out by a $50 billion takeover bid by Bank of America (further concentrating the ownership of capital) while Lehman is heading for the junk heap of bankruptcy and total liquidation. I wonder what government inducements, what socialization of loss, was necessary to motivate Bank of America to take over Merrill, and the fact that Lehman is being allowed to fail suggests that in the ongoing crisis, the size now required to be "too big to fail" just went up several notches.

DancingLarry
15th September 2008, 04:04
Add AIG to the list as the financial and insurance giant is now seeking $40 billion in government loans: more from the NYT (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/aig-seeks-fed-aid-to-survive/index.html).

Comrade Pumblechook
15th September 2008, 18:27
With AIG and H-Bos looking shakey, looks like this might not just be another Boom and Bust. Probably bigger than the Capitalist media have been letting on.

*Shock Horror*

As bad as the repercussions may be for the working class, it is all morbidly exciting.

bayano
16th September 2008, 03:12
is very exciting, i think. some deaths in finance capital.

the questions for anticaps, i think, is to figure out exactly whats going on, and for those who do get it, to explain it to everyone else in the clearest possible terms. finance capital is full of so many ghosts and jargon meant to cover up a lot of nothing (that has a high price tag), and as more of these firms go under, we need to understand whats going on

but of course, we've gotta understand it in a tangible way, beyond what the business press covers. so, how does this affect jobs, the cost of living, the US economic control of other countries, investors (and who are the investors, cuz in some cases they include a company's workers), international financial institutions, corporations like those of insutrial capital. what are the practical effects of these amazing developments, and how can we relate to/use them?

ckaihatsu
16th September 2008, 06:05
In a nutshell, what's happened is the classic case of capitalist overproduction, but in this case it's in the financial sector.

As capitalist economies mature they build up a massive surplus of capital, which is wealth, or stored-up labor value.

I came up with a rough analogy: As the newly emergent U.S. was to the British Empire in 1776, so is China to the U.S. Empire today.

Britain was an imperial power in 1776, when the U.S. formed and broke away from being one of Britain's colonies. The U.S. was just developing its own industry, which allowed it to eventually develop its own financial surplus -- especially after it unified after the Civil War, 1865.

In the twentieth century the U.S. rose to the prominent place formerly occupied by the British Empire, and created its own world empire. Now wielding the hegemonic currency of the world, the U.S. dollar, it commanded the surplus labor value from many indebted, Third World countries all over the world.

The biggest turning point in recent history came in 1989, with China's crushing of its own proletarian uprising in Tiananmen Square, China's capitalists were able to virtually enslave the Chinese industrial workforce -- as U.S. Founding Fathers did to Africans and urban labor in the 19th century -- thus paving the way for Chinese factories to become the sweatshops to world finance (U.S.) in the current period.


---


Inevitably capitalism, once started, will reach the stage where it produces a glut of commodities, whether tangible, manufactured goods, or financial goods (capital). The most advanced economies will produce a massive surplus of capital reserves, and ultimately capital looks for *someplace* to invest in. Lacking any healthy, manufacturing-based sectors nearby to invest in (all gone overseas to where labor costs are much cheaper) -- capital parks itself into non-productive sectors like housing, and even basic, everyday commodities like food, which is where we're at right now.

So we've been seeing massive bubbles of speculation in mortgage-backed securities -- leading to price rises far beyond simple supply-and-demand -- which have now become untenable, all at once, causing immense problems for major banks that had nowhere else to park their capital reserves.

It *is* morbidly exciting, because it proves our point that capitalism is brainless and destructive, not only for the working class and its human needs for employment and finance, but also to the system as a whole. We've just lived through a seven-year period of genocidal, imperialist aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq because capital had nothing better to do than invest in the extraction of basic, non-productive commodities like oil.

Now that the system is seizing up for good, with its economic growth and military advancement both stuck in quagmires, we are left to gawk at a now-visible, gargantuan machine that has rusted to a halt.

This doesn't mean that we have a proletarian-based alternative in place, all ready to go, but we do have the knowledge and means with which to create one, globally, in short order, if we collectively do it. Labor has no better opportunity to take back control of its own efforts and products.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Tower of Bebel
16th September 2008, 09:33
In a nutshell, what's happened is the classic case of capitalist overproduction, but in this case it's in the financial sector.
I don't think their exists a real overproduction in the financial sector. Though it looks like this because super profits are not invested and not used to pay off debts. There is an overproduction in the industrial section since the late 60's, early 70's though. The crises up to now and a whole stratum of neoliberal reforms never got the chance to get rid of this overproduction. What neoliberalism did was steeling capital from public spending, wages and loans in order to maximize profits. Industrial production was unable to do so, so capitalists simply took money away from "labour" in order to keep the flow of "capital" steady. Banks even took money from people by giving them a loan they couldn't pay off.
Since the markets had overcome the crises of the 70's more and more profits were based on the transaction of capital instead of the production and exchange of commodities. But you cannot for ever make profits on capital that does not represent a commodity. So more and more debts arise and ultimately after some serious profits on debts as well the financial sector encounters serious problems. Too many workers cannot bye what they had to produce, too many workers cannot pay off their debts, too much capital is fake, too many banks suffer from losses, too many companies lose value on the stock markets, etc. The financial sector quits booming and catches up with overproduction in commodities: crisis hits both.

cyu
16th September 2008, 19:01
As bad as the repercussions may be for the working class, it is all morbidly exciting.

It would only be bad for the working class if capitalists remained in control of course... Anyway, from http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/stock_market__pyramid_scheme

STOCK MARKET = PYRAMID SCHEME

To be fair, a real pyramid scheme has little basis in "true" value, while stock prices reflect a mixture of both a rational assessment of value and just jumping on a bubble-based bandwagon. The question is, what fraction of the stock price is reflected in bubble-based behavior? Anyway, on to the thought exercise:

Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and all the money in the world had disappeared. All stocks, all bonds, all the numbers in a banker's computer. The end of the world? Will you die? Will investors be jumping out of windows? No. Your house is still there (or at least the house you say is yours). Supermarkets still have food. Electric companies can still produce electricity.

The world would only end if people stopped going to work. It would only end if mass destruction follows. If people burned houses and smashed computers. If human lives are wasted in violence. Knowledge is still there, labor is still there. Real products can STILL be produced.

So what does happen if everyone suddenly dumped their stock and all life savings went to zero? Probably not much if people kept their cool. It's time this pyramid scheme was revealed as the get rich quick scam that it is. The emperor has no clothes.

DancingLarry
17th September 2008, 00:59
It is now being announced that in return for an $85 billion "loan" from the taxpayers, the US government is taking an 80% equity interest in AIG. Who knew we'd see such vast nationalizations of the private sector in this time and place. Comrades! Da Zdravstvuyte Comrade Dubya!

Sendo
17th September 2008, 01:23
It's a crisis of finance, overproduction, and overconsumption, too. Banks are failing, companies are shrinking, infrastructure is breaking down, we're inefficient, oil's disappearing, floods/droughts, too. They're all linked. Part of the problem is a debt-dependent economy and an economy which can no longer expand to repay those debts without creating long-term problems. A cheap oil economy with disposable internal combustion automobiles is fine in the 1950s, but we see the problems today. The foreclosures are being made on back payments that are merely in the hundreds of dollars. If oil were $25/barrel these people would have had a bit more income. If we had public transit we could spend our dollars more wisely. If we had universal health care we could spend more wisely. It's all connected. The system is fucked sooner or later and I hope to God people wake up.


http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09082008.html


Is a good bit on the current crash

I also like the comments on how the stock market HAS NO REAL VALUE. As food prices skyrocket I'm reminded of the Cree saying: "Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money"

ontheleftneil
17th September 2008, 03:16
The market is a shaky, shaky place ... and banks are only as strong as the market ground their standing on. We're living in bizarre, uncertain times.

Martin Blank
17th September 2008, 04:14
It is now being announced that in return for an $85 billion "loan" from the taxpayers, the US government is taking an 80% equity interest in AIG. Who knew we'd see such vast nationalizations of the private sector in this time and place. Comrades! Da Zdravstvuyte Comrade Dubya!

We are now seeing the rise of the corporate welfare state in the U.S., an expected outcome of the corporatist regime that seized power in 2000 and will continue either under McCain or Obama next year. At least, it was expected by us....


This merger of economic and political power ushers in new forms of political and economic dominance. Economically, this merger leads to the rise of the corporate welfare state — a capitalist state that acts as a broker for the ruling capitalist class, providing subsidies to sectors of finance capital. Such a state reorganized Keynesian economics to meet the immediate needs of finance capital: Taking Keynes’ argument that the “dynamic actors” in the economy were investors and government, and that massive private investment, stimulated by loosened credit and low interest rates, could resolve the problems of economic recession and depression, society, through the state, becomes the financier of finance capital, and society itself becomes inextricably bound to the ebb and flow of the capitalist economy.

Politically, the merger leads to the dominance of corporatism — the doctrine of the supremacy of corporate power and government being organized “like a business.” Corporatism as government doctrine plays a dual role: on the one hand, it secures the allegiance of the ruling class through a circuitous process of patronage and tribute; on the other hand, it relieves the government of “excessive” tasks and responsibilities, freeing up resources for more essential services, such as defense and state authority. In terms of the former, this generally takes the form of the selective issuance of government contracts in exchange for donations and other forms of compensation. In terms of the latter, this generally takes the form of privatizing state services and increasing funds (and, in turn, the related bureaucracy) to the arms of state authority. ("Five Years: A Review of the World Situation since September 11, 2001," Workers' Republic, Autumn 2006)

Zurdito
17th September 2008, 04:37
In a nutshell, what's happened is the classic case of capitalist overproduction, but in this case it's in the financial sector.

As capitalist economies mature they build up a massive surplus of capital, which is wealth, or stored-up labor value.


hmmm I think youīre joining together overproduction and overaccumulation...



Inevitably capitalism, once started, will reach the stage where it produces a glut of commodities, whether tangible, manufactured goods, or financial goods (capital). The most advanced economies will produce a massive surplus of capital reserves, and ultimately capital looks for *someplace* to invest in. Lacking any healthy, manufacturing-based sectors nearby to invest in (all gone overseas to where labor costs are much cheaper) -- capital parks itself into non-productive sectors like housing, and even basic, everyday commodities like food, which is where we're at right now.


I partly agree. I think a very broad explanation, but fundamentally correct, is that since the 1970īs the imperialist bourgeoisieīs to various degrees (some, i.e. US and UK much more than Germany) found it less to profitable to maintain their old manufacturing capacities at a rate of profit comparable to that which could be gained by moving production overseas (but importantly remaining owners of the huge producers) than it would was to follow a tight monetary policy leading to high currencies and the ability to buy up the third world and ex-soviet/maoist economies, i.e. through privatising formerly state owned services, buying the land and resources at sometimes risible prices, etc.

the corner they are in now is that, as you say, the financial sector has reached a point where the bubble is bursting. I am not sure if this can be counted as over-accumulation or over-production. if you look at captial accumulated, itīs pretty low, in hsitorical terms a huge amount of profits are being lent straight back out rather than reinvested in capital. also over-production would mean that loans are losing valu because they are being offered in too great quantities, which wasnīt exactly what happened, that may appear a symptom now as demand falls but I donīt understand this to have been the fundamental cause.

From what I understand this crisis comes from the very fact that over-accumulation and over.production were avoided by inventing markets, and that this was a way which at least sicne the dotcom crash has increasingly been an addiction of the anglo-saxon economies. however ofcourse utliamtely they couldnīt avoid the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, because by the very act of avoiding either over-accumulation or over-production, they had to avoid producing anything of value and instead lurch towards privatisation of naything possible and replacing wages with credit, and creating consumers by lending to those who couldnīt pay back.

I donīt mean to be pedantic I just picked you up on this point because I used to think the exact same way as you, but then someone explained it to me. The roots fo this crisis are int he marxist tendencies otwards the fallign rate of profit and the tendency to over-accumulation and over-production, but I think it is important to be specific because this crisis was borne out of the ways in which the borugeoisie avoided these last two tendencied, and is not exactly a crisis of these two tendencies. I say this because if you are arguing with a bourgeois economsit and he asks you to show "where is the over-accumulation" and "where is the over-production", you wonīt be able too,because these htings have been avoided this time.


Now that the system is seizing up for good, with its economic growth and military advancement both stuck in quagmires, we are left to gawk at a now-visible, gargantuan machine that has rusted to a halt.

hmmI donīt believe itīs over for good, if the rulign class can make the workers pay for the crisis and get the rate of profit back, capitalism will rebound.

one thing is true: the Friedmanite, high-currency polciy of the imeprialsits is no longer sustainable, but they are so dependent on this that it will be very hard to move away from this model to a neo-keynesian polciy of devaluation and returning to manufacturing.so in one sense you are right, this is a deep crisis of globalsiation and it looks as if any solution which saves capitalism will be very painful and bloody.

Robespierre2.0
17th September 2008, 06:33
Uh oh.

I wonder what change this will bring.

Obviously this is going to affect the whole world as well as the U.S.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/09/15/world.markets.ap/index.html
As you can see, South America and Asia are feeling the heat as well. Just a shot in the dark, but perhaps this universal slump in the private sector will cause Chavez to move more to the left.

Also, I wonder what the Maoist Third-Worldists will think of this if it actually blossoms into a real crisis. What will happen to the labour aristocracy?

Zurdito
17th September 2008, 06:43
Just a shot in the dark, but perhaps this universal slump in the private sector will cause Chavez to move more to the left.



well his reforms are based on high oil prices, which are under threat. quite liekly he willmove to the right as mateiral conditions no longer permit his bourgeois reformism.

our hope shold be that the Venezuelan workers move to the left, not Chavez, anyway. Vanguardist organisation in Venezuela are fighting tobreak the boli-bourgeoisieīs hold on the working class which only serves to weaken the class for the ned of the good times permitted by inflated oil prices. support them!

http://www.lts.org.ve/

bayano
17th September 2008, 14:24
Well, I still haven't really received the explanation of my dreams (what's URPE saying on this?), but let's talk practical effect.

Wait, we don't need to look to the third world, though. There has already been an increase in the number of lay-offs of white collar workers in North America over the past several years, and this looks sure to increase that. Meanwhile, we have all these cities and towns with thousands to tens of thousands of abandoned buildings, and the increasing number of foreclosures over the past few years coupled with the crisis this year is pushing ever more working families out of their homes. And to live where?

So, more workers, of every collar, out of work. Joblessness increases. Home ownership goes down just as many cities are trying to root out rental (Chicago, NOLA, NYC) to expel the poor. An increase in privatization in many sectors, like health care (at least at some municipal levels), education and prison, while the government takes over huge companies in their dire moments (to surely sell them off when they're doing fine again), and spend war budget-sized numbers in emergency funds to prop up other Hindenburgs. And who knows how many yuppies and white collared finance-sector workers will be declasse (now serving at the Starbucks) or perhaps spiraling into depression or suicide.

What are the other effects, particularly where people are here live? What can radicals be doing right now to organize around it? We have so little infrastructure in place in most communities to try to organize folks, but what can we be doing?

cyu
18th September 2008, 18:54
What are the other effects, particularly where people are here live? What can radicals be doing right now to organize around it? We have so little infrastructure in place in most communities to try to organize folks, but what can we be doing?


You can do what people in Argentina did after their own economic collapse. From http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1869037

The Take (2004)

"Jobs are coming back - jobs are being taken back."
A documentary about the occupied factories of Argentina.

AFI Film Festival: Grand Jury Prize
Cleveland International Film Festival: Best Documentary

Directed by Avi Lewis.
Written by Naomi Klein.
Official site: http://thetake.org

My first reaction while watching this film was that for a documentary about workplaces so much like what anarcho-syndicalists have been calling for, there is a surprising amount of respect for (or at least, fear of) the government. Warning: spoilers follow.

Background

Under Juan Perón, Argentina had the most prosperous middle class in Latin America. That was many decades ago. Then came the Carlos Menem years. Menem presided over what were at first boom years. He followed the U.S. approved IMF policy recommendations - like privatization and deregulation of big business.

Eventually, half the country fell below the poverty line and the currency collapsed. As a result, the government froze all bank accounts in the country. The people rioted. Banks were attacked. And history experienced "the largest sovereign debt default in world history."

Under these circumstances, one would expect if your company went under, that was the end of the story. Not so in Argentina. That was just the beginning.

As workers gathered outside one such closed business, they were saying forget the back wages they were owed, they should just take the factory. A representative from the National Movement of Recovered Factories arrived to lend his support and to give workers options.

Forja

Forja San Martin was a closed auto parts factory. Before it closed down, Freddy Espinosa and his wife got by. Now with just his wife's job, they can either afford to feed their daughters or pay their debts, but not both. So their debts piled up.

The former employees of Forja formed a cooperative. However, these weren't fired up anarchists, they were just family men, trying to make a living to support their wives and children. Instead of taking it upon themselves to assume ownership of the factory, they asked the bankruptcy court for permission to inspect the factory - evidence that the former owners sold factory contents gave them a legal case to take over the factory.

They would all be administrators. They decided they would have equal salaries and that they would work harder because their interests would now be much more in line with company goals. The former employees decided to guard the factory to prevent it from being emptied out.

Their goal was to be like other recovered factories, like Zanon.

Zanon

The sign for Zanon Ceramics had this description below it: "belongs to the workers". Zanon was one of the first businesses to be taken over by employees. It had been democratically run for 2 years at the time of filming (2004). One worker, one vote - it was run by employee assemblies. There were 300 employees total. Everyone had equal salaries.

At the time Zanon closed down, the employees argued the company belonged to the community, because of the debts it owed and the public subsidies it had received. The owner had claimed that it wasn't profitable, got government subsidies, and still ran up debts. The former owner has now returned, trying to get the government to give him back the factory.

Zanon is now under 24 hour guard by employees armed with slingshots. Their real weapon, however, is the support of the community. Says one community member, "There are many companies that should be in the hands of the workers. But it seems that this is not politically convenient. That's the real problem."

Zanon donates tiles to hospitals and schools. Employees, with massive help from supporters in the community, have fought off 6 eviction orders carried out by police - forcing the retreat of the government. Instead of using the word "stealing" they prefer another word: expropriation. However, unlike other nations where this happens from above because of government leaders, here it is happening from below.

More than 15,000 people work in occupied businesses (at the time of filming). The number of takeovers was doubling every year. They included a private school, a health clinic, a shipbuilder, an ice cream factory, and a suit factory.

The Wait

Meanwhile, back at Forja auto parts, the former employees elected Freddy as president. He describes how the legal process is taking much longer than expected and holds back tears. While watching this, I thought they were far too concerned with obeying the law, but with children who needed them, it probably wouldn't have done much good to risk going to jail.

Menem was running for re-election again. Says one worker in an occupied company of Menem: "Rich politicians, and the people dying of hunger." Néstor Kirchner was the alternative. The film shows the tension between a daughter Maty (just hired by Zanon) who won't vote for either and her mother Anna who is campaigning for Kirchner and says she's a Peronist.

Freddy, along with other representatives from Forja, goes to a worker owned tractor factory, Zanello. Here, not all employees earn the same salary. Like the model of decentralized democracy of anarchism, each occupied factory has its own rules. Forja and Zanello make a deal - Forja would supply them with parts. Freddy hopes to impress the judge with the deal they've struck. Unfortunately, the judge is not friendly, because they've occupied the factory before getting legal permission to take ownership.

Meanwhile, there is even a Menem supporter in the occupied factory - hoping for stability and jobs.

Representatives from the IMF are again in Argentina, meeting with the presidential candidates. It is calling for cuts to public programs and higher prices in privatized utilities, in return for loans to pay off the interest of other loans.

The Forja workers are forced to next go to politicians, having failed with the judge to get the legal right to manage the plant.

The results of the first round of the election came in: Menem won a plurality, with 24% to Kirchner's 21.7%. There would have to be a runoff.

Back at Forja, the employees are cleaning the factory, but not actually using it. They fear eviction. It's not long before they get the news that the Brukman suit factory has been evicted.

Brukman

Brukman was the factory that started it all. It was taken over by its seamstresses after it was abandoned by the owners. Says one employee, "There have always been bosses and workers. But we are fighting for worker control... I don't know if I'm getting ahead of myself here, but maybe we can run the country this way."

After letting the factory operate for years, the police were finally ordered to close it down. They have to weld shut the factory gate and build a tall security fence around the entire area. A large crowd gathered outside the police guarded Brukman - many elderly women among them, protesting. People started arriving from around the country to protest. Thousands arrived. The crowd attempted to enter Brukman but it was no match for the police's weapons. They fled.

Epilogue

There was good news for Forja, however, as police attacked the crowd outside Brukman. The expropriation law for Forja was passed.
There was also good news for workers in democratic workplaces that feared Menem would put an end to all their efforts. Menem dropped out of the runoff election, perhaps fearing he couldn't win.

Six months later, Forja was humming along. The Brukman employees won back their factory from the legislature. Unfortunately, Kirchner was no great alternative. He signed a deal with the IMF much like previous deals.

ckaihatsu
19th September 2008, 04:32
hmmm I think youīre joining together overproduction and overaccumulation...


[...]



the corner they are in now is that, as you say, the financial sector has reached a point where the bubble is bursting. I am not sure if this can be counted as over-accumulation or over-production.


Aren't these two terms synonymous, as far as we (Marxists) are concerned?



if you look at captial accumulated, itīs pretty low, in hsitorical terms a huge amount of profits are being lent straight back out rather than reinvested in capital.


How can anyone "reinvest in capital"? There is no such thing because all capital can do is activate labor in order to exploit it in the process of production. Even with the banks' fractional reserve lending there *still* has to be some sort of productive enterprise at the heart of it, one which necessarily deploys capital *and* labor....



also over-production would mean that loans are losing valu because they are being offered in too great quantities, which wasnīt exactly what happened,


What??? What do you think this whole mortgage-backed securities fiasco is about?!!! As my subject line notes, this is *all* about capital overhang, or a situation of too much capital chasing too few profitable investment opportunities. Bad loans is *always* what happens when capital accumulation exceeds demand for what the capital could possibly invest in to produce.

In other words, the state of the economy is usually described as a whole, continuous system, when in fact that conventional description fails to account for the yawning class divide. Capital accumulation *is* an overhang at the highest reaches -- but despite the vast supply there is *not* a demand at the common level for the products (goods and services) it could potentially produce, if it *could* be put into motion for manufacturing. So we have a double-hump kind of reality, where there's plenty of capital, and there's plenty of idle labor, but the system is incapable of putting the two together for worthy projects for humanity because there are no opportunities for profit in a general atmosphere of deflation, or lack of liquidity, thanks to the assault on workers' wages / buying power.



[loans losing value] may appear a symptom now as demand falls but I donīt understand this to have been the fundamental cause.


The world right now is in supply-side hell -- we can easily tell supply-siders to go fuck themselves because here we have plenty of capital reserves, so we *should* be in the best of all possible worlds, according to their theory, and yet we're not.

This, of course, is because labor has been bled dry, even stripped of the equity in their homes, so now there's no fucking funding on the *demand* side of the equation.



From what I understand this crisis comes from the very fact that over-accumulation and over.production were avoided by inventing markets, and that this was a way which at least sicne the dotcom crash has increasingly been an addiction of the anglo-saxon economies.


Oh, okay, so you're saying that excess capital has been funneled into exotic, hyper-leveraged financial positions, including credit, which can be thought of as "markets", but these positions never actually activate labor for real productivity, so then it's basically down to gambling.



however ofcourse utliamtely they couldnīt avoid the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, because by the very act of avoiding either over-accumulation or over-production, they had to avoid producing anything of value and instead lurch towards privatisation of naything possible and replacing wages with credit, and creating consumers by lending to those who couldnīt pay back.


Right -- exactly.

I'd like to offer a diagram I did awhile back, in anticipation of times like these -- please take a look:


A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

http://tinyurl.com/2bvq3a




I donīt mean to be pedantic I just picked you up on this point because I used to think the exact same way as you, but then someone explained it to me. The roots fo this crisis are int he marxist tendencies otwards the fallign rate of profit and the tendency to over-accumulation and over-production, but I think it is important to be specific because this crisis was borne out of the ways in which the borugeoisie avoided these last two tendencied, and is not exactly a crisis of these two tendencies.


I think you're speaking to the issue of cause-and-effect, or disease-and-symptom. We could go around and around in trying to prove that the falling rate of profit causes over-production / over-accumulation, or that over-production / over-accumulation causes the falling rate of profit. It quickly becomes a chicken-or-the-egg kind of thing, so let's just say that the two phenomena are correlated.



I say this because if you are arguing with a bourgeois economsit and he asks you to show "where is the over-accumulation" and "where is the over-production", you wonīt be able too,because these htings have been avoided this time.


Well, no, they *haven't* been avoided -- they're there, and we know because even prospective homeowners with bad credit were offered home loans. Obversely, mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given top-shelf ratings by the rating agencies, when these were based on securities from a sector THAT'S NOT EVEN A PRODUCTIVE SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY. At best, finance, insurance, and real estate are drains on workers' wages, so to merely create credit and gamble on top of that is the very definition of futility. These mortgage-backed securities should have had junk bond status from the very start.



hmmI donīt believe itīs over for good, if the rulign class can make the workers pay for the crisis and get the rate of profit back, capitalism will rebound.


Well, I've heard this line, even from Marxist sources, but I'd first like to know where workers are going to get the purchasing power from. As things stand all workers need to do is become conscious of their latent power in the economy right now -- capital is going to continue to collapse in on itself, as credit-based positions go poof, but still there won't be any forward progress if workers have no rewards to look forward to. They would have to then either be mindfucked again somehow (think: 9-11), or else driven into slave-like conditions in order to get productivity going again.



one thing is true: the Friedmanite, high-currency polciy of the imeprialsits is no longer sustainable, but they are so dependent on this that it will be very hard to move away from this model to a neo-keynesian polciy of devaluation and returning to manufacturing.so in one sense you are right, this is a deep crisis of globalsiation and it looks as if any solution which saves capitalism will be very painful and bloody.


The capitalists have done all of the devaluation they can -- the fictitious capital, from ultra-fractional-reserve lending, has been plowed into the economy, and we're seeing the avalanches anyway. I've heard murmurs about some New Deal-like government programs being needed -- beyond the nationalization of AIG -- and I don't really see what other options the U.S. would have right now.



Following emergency consultations between the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury and the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress, the Federal Reserve on Tuesday night announced a bailout of the Wall Street insurance giant American International Group (AIG).

According to reports posted by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, under the emergency plan the Fed will provide the failing firm with an $85 billion loan in exchange for 80 percent of its assets.

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/econ-s17.shtml

Zurdito
23rd September 2008, 13:06
Aren't these two terms synonymous, as far as we (Marxists) are concerned?
no, why do you say that?


How can anyone "reinvest in capital"? There is no such thing because all capital can do is activate labor in order to exploit it in the process of production. Even with the banks' fractional reserve lending there *still* has to be some sort of productive enterprise at the heart of it, one which necessarily deploys capital *and* labor....


sorry, I meant to write reinvest as capital.
yes you're right that this is all capital does, which is why lending out profits as credit is a way of avoiding reinvesting them as capital.


What??? What do you think this whole mortgage-backed securities fiasco is about?!!! As my subject line notes, this is *all* about capital overhang, or a situation of too much capital chasing too few profitable investment opportunities. Bad loans is *always* what happens when capital accumulation exceeds demand for what the capital could possibly invest in to produce.

yes but this didn't ahppen, the manufacturing giants of the US aren't in recession, they avoided this through the credit boom, which is why I say there was no over-accumulation or over-production. They chased where they could find the highest profits, profitability in manufacturing was not in crisis in itself.
this does not mean that the problem of the falling rate of profit has been overcome, obviously not, but you can't look at the manufacturing multinationals of the US today and say that for the last cycle (let's say since 2001) they have been in a crisis of over-accumulation or over-production. why? because the booming financial sector both offered an outlet for their profits and created markets for them.


Capital accumulation *is* an overhang at the highest reaches -- but despite the vast supply there is *not* a demand at the common level for the products (goods and services) it could potentially produce, if it *could* be put into motion for manufacturing. So we have a double-hump kind of reality, where there's plenty of capital, and there's plenty of idle labor, but the system is incapable of putting the two together for worthy projects for humanity because there are no opportunities for profit in a general atmosphere of deflation, or lack of liquidity, thanks to the assault on workers' wages / buying power.

This is one theory, but in my understanding Marx's explanation for the tendency of the rate of profit to fall was not due to disaprity between capital accumulated and buying power, but because of the fact that all value is the product of human labour, and that as the cycle of accumulation progresses the proportion of capital to workers becomes ever more uneven.
But in any case I don't dispute the theory of over-accumulation, I agree that this explains the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and that the need to avoid this tendency explains the current crisis.



Oh, okay, so you're saying that excess capital has been funneled into exotic, hyper-leveraged financial positions, including credit, which can be thought of as "markets", but these positions never actually activate labor for real productivity, so then it's basically down to gambling.

I would say that there are employees in these sectors who are epxloited, just that over-accumulation in relation to labour in the financial sector was not the immediate cause of this crisis.

which just to insist again, I do not think in any way suggests that over-accumulation as the root of the falling rate of profit has been overcome as the central tendency behind the crises of capitalism.


Well, no, they *haven't* been avoided -- they're there, and we know because even prospective homeowners with bad credit were offered home loans.

correct, I shouldn't have said avoided.



Well, I've heard this line, even from Marxist sources,

any Marxist source should say this,because Marx's understanding was that crises were central to capitalism. You can't have capitalism without crises so to say that an economic crisis in itself is the end of capitalism doesn't make sense to me.


but I'd first like to know where workers are going to get the purchasing power from.

I don't know. Not all profit has to come from selling to workers. Wars are a great source of demand. Capitalists trade with and invest with each other, as they do with states, etc. Think reconstruction post-WW2.


As things stand all workers need to do is become conscious of their latent power in the economy right now

well yes. that's the key question for all of us who call ourselves marxists. it's not as easy as it sounds though, I have lived through one serious economci crisis, in argentina, and it's amazing the amount of shit you can do to someone without them fighting back as long as no realistic alternative exists in the popular consciousness. at least, for a time.


-- capital is going to continue to collapse in on itself, as credit-based positions go poof, but still there won't be any forward progress if workers have no rewards to look forward to.

no, in a depressiont here is no forward progress, but this doesn't in itself destroy capitalism. it may well bankrupt a number of weak capitalists and cause the state to expropriate many more if there is mass unrest which needs to be bought off, but the bourgeoisie as a whole can just withdraw it's wealth throughout a recession or depression until there is once again space for profitable reinvestment.


They would have to then either be mindfucked again somehow (think: 9-11),

well this is a big possibility, yes, it's happened all throughout historyl. as marxists that is what we are up against and should expect recessions and depression to bring out the most reactionary sectors of the bourgeoisie


or else driven into slave-like conditions in order to get productivity going again.


in every recession condition working conditions deteriorate, the more serious the recession the greater the degree. recessions cause unempliyment which weakens labour's hand and undercuts wages and conditions and makes employed workers less willing to strike for fear of losing the small amount they have held onto, whilst creating a reserve army of potential strike breakers.

therefore I thinkt he traditional marxist analysis is correct, that just as capitalism contains within itself the possibility for its own overthrow, it also contains within each crisis the conditions to voercome that crisis if marxists are unable to lead the working to consciously replace capitalism.

ckaihatsu
24th September 2008, 03:51
no, why do you say that?


Hmmmmm, seems to me that over-production and over-accumulation -- if they are to be treated as separate things -- are at least related and correlated. Would you mind clarifying the difference, in Marxist terms?



yes but this didn't ahppen, the manufacturing giants of the US aren't in recession, they avoided this through the credit boom, which is why I say there was no over-accumulation or over-production. They chased where they could find the highest profits, profitability in manufacturing was not in crisis in itself.

this does not mean that the problem of the falling rate of profit has been overcome, obviously not, but you can't look at the manufacturing multinationals of the US today and say that for the last cycle (let's say since 2001) they have been in a crisis of over-accumulation or over-production. why? because the booming financial sector both offered an outlet for their profits and created markets for them.


I will have to disagree here -- I think there's a definite glut of goods, both domestic and foreign, in the U.S., which has led capital to look elsewhere -- including into credit-based speculation -- for profit-seeking. I think the following excerpt makes my point for me:

---

Over the last three decades, in order to free up capital from unprofitable industries and pump billions into the stock market, the dot.com bubble, the subprime mortgage and housing boom and other forms of financial speculation, Wall Street has carried out a deliberate policy of deindustrialization, wiping out nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs since 1982 and decimating communities like Detroit and Buffalo.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/axle-a12.shtml

---



This is one theory, but in my understanding Marx's explanation for the tendency of the rate of profit to fall was not due to disaprity between capital accumulated and buying power, but because of the fact that all value is the product of human labour, and that as the cycle of accumulation progresses the proportion of capital to workers becomes ever more uneven.

But in any case I don't dispute the theory of over-accumulation, I agree that this explains the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and that the need to avoid this tendency explains the current crisis.


Yeah, we certainly don't have any theoretical disagreement here.



I would say that there are employees in these sectors who are epxloited, just that over-accumulation in relation to labour in the financial sector was not the immediate cause of this crisis.

which just to insist again, I do not think in any way suggests that over-accumulation as the root of the falling rate of profit has been overcome as the central tendency behind the crises of capitalism.


Yeah....



any Marxist source should say this,because Marx's understanding was that crises were central to capitalism. You can't have capitalism without crises so to say that an economic crisis in itself is the end of capitalism doesn't make sense to me.


Well, yeah, I can see the argument, but I'm just wondering where the *actual* growth could possibly come from that would jumpstart the global economy. Even the frenetic Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani economies are going to be hitting the wall soon -- shuffling numbers around and jockeying mercenaries abroad for oil just doesn't cut it for global growth....

And, also, as revolutionaries, we have to keep the subjective factor in mind and not just leave capitalism to its own clockwork...(!)



I don't know. Not all profit has to come from selling to workers. Wars are a great source of demand. Capitalists trade with and invest with each other, as they do with states, etc. Think reconstruction post-WW2.


So you have regional trade wars, leading to actual conflagrations, in mind? There's plenty heating up around the NATO-Russia thing -- but at the same time the U.S. empire is much more immobilized than it used to be for economic, diplomatic, and logistical reasons. I think the playing field is leveling out to a great extent, which could conceivably lead to the regional trade wars thing I mentioned.... But it wouldn't be a jumpstart for a globalized economy -- it would be for a subdivided, balkanized world....



well yes. that's the key question for all of us who call ourselves marxists. it's not as easy as it sounds though, I have lived through one serious economci crisis, in argentina, and it's amazing the amount of shit you can do to someone without them fighting back as long as no realistic alternative exists in the popular consciousness. at least, for a time.


Sure, but it's surprising to hear you say that about Argentina -- people there got quite vocal, circa 2000...!



no, in a depressiont here is no forward progress, but this doesn't in itself destroy capitalism. it may well bankrupt a number of weak capitalists and cause the state to expropriate many more if there is mass unrest which needs to be bought off, but the bourgeoisie as a whole can just withdraw it's wealth throughout a recession or depression until there is once again space for profitable reinvestment.


Yes, but capital needs to come up with some excuse with which to mobilize labor. Usually it's war, but I don't think they can find much leverage with that argument, at least these days.... And today, especially, with mature communications and entertainment technologies, the consumer / non-worker is more able than ever to have customized and satisfying lifestyles without needing to resort to work. I'd imagine that capital is finding it more than ever like trying to herd cats....

Edelweiss
24th September 2008, 11:51
Saturday’s $700 billion junk mortgage bailout is the largest and worst giveaway since a corrupt Congress gave land grants to the railroad barons a century and a half ago. If it goes through, it will shape the coming century by giving finance unprecedented power over debtors – homebuyers, industry, state and local government, and the federal government as well.

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson09222008.html

Zurdito
24th September 2008, 12:32
Hmmmmm, seems to me that over-production and over-accumulation -- if they are to be treated as separate things -- are at least related and correlated. Would you mind clarifying the difference, in Marxist terms?

over-production refers to commodities surpassing demand for them in the market, over-accumulation relates to capital being accumulated to the point that it can no longer be profitably reinvested.

of ocurse they are connected but they are not the same thing. Marxism needs to be specific as well as all-encompassing. I'm not an advanced economist by any means but I took time to learn these basics because they are important. Marx used distinct and specific terms for a reason. he looked at what was actually happening in each crisis and what was the immediate cause, as well as forming a general theory of the tendencies of capitalism which made crises as a whole inevitable.



I will have to disagree here -- I think there's a definite glut of goods, both domestic and foreign, in the U.S., which has led capital to look elsewhere -- including into credit-based speculation -- for profit-seeking. I think the following excerpt makes my point for me:

---

Over the last three decades, in order to free up capital from unprofitable industries and pump billions into the stock market, the dot.com bubble, the subprime mortgage and housing boom and other forms of financial speculation, Wall Street has carried out a deliberate policy of deindustrialization, wiping out nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs since 1982 and decimating communities like Detroit and Buffalo.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/axle-a12.shtml


I am not sure I understand. I admit that the tendency to over-accumulation is crucial to the tendency to the falling rate of profit, and that needing to overcome the saturation of the industrial sector was what caused the move towards Friedmanite policies, deindustrialisation, and the prominence of finance capital.

however, if we ask the question, what is the immediate cause of the US today going into recession, the answer is the default on loans to lenders in the financial sector by subprime borrowers. the cause is not that the industrial sector can't find a market for its produce.

this is all I am saying, I think you are working on a higher theoretcial level than me. but the problem is that if you do not differentiate between specifics, then every crisis is the same. this was not Marx's method, he differentiated between crises of over-production, crises of over-accuulation, and credit crises.

here is Marx speaking on a "credit crunch", btw:



“This contradiction comes to a head in those phases of industrial and commercial crises which are known as monetary crises. Such a crisis occurs only where the ever-lengthening chain of payments, and an artificial system of settling them, has been fully developed. Whenever there is a general and extensive disturbance of this mechanism, no matter what its cause, money becomes suddenly and immediately transformed, from its merely ideal shape of money of account, into hard cash. Profane commodities can no longer replace it. The use-value of commodities becomes valueless, and their value vanishes in the presence of its own independent form. On the eve of the crisis, the bourgeois, with the self-sufficiency that springs from intoxicating prosperity, declares money to be a vain imagination. Commodities alone are money. But now the cry is everywhere: money alone is a commodity! As the hart pants after fresh water, so pants his soul after money, the only wealth. In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and their value-form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradiction. Hence, in such events, the form under which money appears is of no importance. The money famine continues, whether payments have to be made in gold or in credit money such as bank-notes.”




Well, yeah, I can see the argument, but I'm just wondering where the *actual* growth could possibly come from that would jumpstart the global economy. Even the frenetic Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani economies are going to be hitting the wall soon -- shuffling numbers around and jockeying mercenaries abroad for oil just doesn't cut it for global growth....


I don't know exactly. If the working class and the masses are not strong neough to prevent a large transfer of their wealth upwards (through inflation, unemployment, taking their savings, cutting real wages, raising realtaxes, etc.) to pay for the mistakes of the big corporations, then these will find a way to stay in business.


And, also, as revolutionaries, we have to keep the subjective factor in mind and not just leave capitalism to its own clockwork...(!)

yes this my point! if we do leave it up to its own clockwork, it will survive! this is why the subjective factor is all important, the crisis in itself wil not end capitalism, only the workers resistance will.


So you have regional trade wars, leading to actual conflagrations, in mind? There's plenty heating up around the NATO-Russia thing -- but at the same time the U.S. empire is much more immobilized than it used to be for economic, diplomatic, and logistical reasons. I think the playing field is leveling out to a great extent, which could conceivably lead to the regional trade wars thing I mentioned.... But it wouldn't be a jumpstart for a globalized economy -- it would be for a subdivided, balkanized world....

I haveno idea what might happen. this is one possibility, yes, they are talking of the "crisis of globalisation", well to me this seems to mean reversion to more and hostile trading blocs, protectionism, etc. but for this to work, somehow first you need a mass destruction/devaluation of capital - you couldn't have had the "golden years" of post-WW2 reconstruction, without having the destruction of the Depression and WW2 first, could you?

how could the US resort back to a significantly more manufacturin based economy, for example, within the limtis of capitalism, without a heavy devaluation of the Dollar? But yet, no-one is currently seriosuly suggesting this, it would cause massive unrest, and the whole econoy is far too geared to the financial sector, which needs a strong dolalr, to make this possible.

again like I say, this is why I see this crisis as very serious and there is no ovious way out. this is why there could be a long an complicated depression ahead of us.





Sure, but it's surprising to hear you say that about Argentina -- people there got quite vocal, circa 2000...!


sure they did. but capitalism survived and no alternative was seriously discussed. also the employed workign class was pretty absent from the protests. worlkers were desperate to hold onto their jobs, and with mass unemployment, it was very hard to have a successful strike. the employed workign class was ocmpletely dmeoralised and you couldn't even mention politics ina factory, you would be chased out by the workers for being a danger .

this, the absence of the employed owkring class, was the reaosn that the movement of 2001/2002, was easily won over behind a very soft, reformist President Kirchner.

I am not completely pessimsitic about this either of course. 2001/02 deavlued workers wages enormously, leading to a huge boom in industry which no-one ever thoguht would return. communities which had previously been fragmented and dead were turned into sources of hugely profitable, super-exploited labour. today, because of this - the experience of 2001/02 shwoing the nature of the system to the workign class, as well as the changes int he material conditions since 2003, Argentina now has a goriwng, militant sector of yougn vanguard workers, fighting to get back the wages that existed before the devaluation without this being accompanied by the uneployment that existed at the time. and the boom in industry has given the owkring class a storng hand. there is now the most militant labour movement that has existed since the 1970'2 in Argentina.

My point here is just that nothing is predetermined. As Marx said each crisis is shaped by the way in which the last one was overcome. the capitalists survived the 2001/02 crisis without any real threat to their position, but it was part of an overrall process of decline of capitalism which does threaten them. Long term, people began to question. Long term, the fall in conditions made workers more miltiant once the recession was over - which will make the resolving of the next crisis harder. Long term, the full implications of the last crisis were avoided through state intervention expropriating the middle class, strategic support from other states, etc. No crisis is ever "fully resovled", if you like.

in any case this all rests a lot ont he workign class' subjective response, which we can't predict today.



Yes, but capital needs to come up with some excuse with which to mobilize labor.

well int he long term it needs ideology to convince people to subjectively accept the system, yes, but surviving day to day is enough to mobilise labour in itself. individualism is in itself a useful bourgeois ideology for convincing workers, of course.


Usually it's war, but I don't think they can find much leverage with that argument, at least these days.... And today, especially, with mature communications and entertainment technologies, the consumer / non-worker is more able than ever to have customized and satisfying lifestyles without needing to resort to work. I'd imagine that capital is finding it more than ever like trying to herd cats....

well honestly I don't think it's possible to tellt he future. all I am saying is capitalism has brought us WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, countless third world crises, mass starvation at many times and in many countries, and today, a world where the majority lives in poverty and has for the last 30 years being seeing even basic welfare taken away. yet capitalism has survived. so all I am saying is that it can survive the coming crisis.

ckaihatsu
25th September 2008, 03:35
Saturday’s $700 billion junk mortgage bailout is the largest and worst giveaway since a corrupt Congress gave land grants to the railroad barons a century and a half ago. If it goes through, it will shape the coming century by giving finance unprecedented power over debtors – homebuyers, industry, state and local government, and the federal government as well.


Yeah, the most recent news makes that WSWS news excerpt (from post #17) outdated and inaccurate -- (newer articles from WSWS clarify things) -- what's really happened is *not* a _nationalization _, but rather a wholesale *hand-over* of hundreds of billions of dollars of public monies to the ultra-rich. The U.S. government is *not* receiving *any* securities assets from the "bailout". It is truly unprecedented.

To me it brings to mind the term "global village" -- in the darkest sense of the term.

ckaihatsu
25th September 2008, 04:49
over-production refers to commodities surpassing demand for them in the market, over-accumulation relates to capital being accumulated to the point that it can no longer be profitably reinvested.

of ocurse they are connected but they are not the same thing. Marxism needs to be specific as well as all-encompassing. I'm not an advanced economist by any means but I took time to learn these basics because they are important. Marx used distinct and specific terms for a reason. he looked at what was actually happening in each crisis and what was the immediate cause, as well as forming a general theory of the tendencies of capitalism which made crises as a whole inevitable.


Yes, agreed.



I am not sure I understand. I admit that the tendency to over-accumulation is crucial to the tendency to the falling rate of profit, and that needing to overcome the saturation of the industrial sector was what caused the move towards Friedmanite policies, deindustrialisation, and the prominence of finance capital.

however, if we ask the question, what is the immediate cause of the US today going into recession, the answer is the default on loans to lenders in the financial sector by subprime borrowers. the cause is not that the industrial sector can't find a market for its produce.


Yes, agreed, too.



this is all I am saying, I think you are working on a higher theoretcial level than me.


No, we both know that there is no such thing -- the class divide is the top-most division in society, which, in contemporary times, is dominated by finance capital.

I think our slippage stems from our coverage of different spans of time -- you are talking about the most recent developments, and I have been attempting to introduce the general trend of over-production in the U.S. which resulted from the postwar boom, then leading into the period of deindustrialization and the rise of finance capital.



how could the US resort back to a significantly more manufacturin based economy, for example, within the limtis of capitalism, without a heavy devaluation of the Dollar? But yet, no-one is currently seriosuly suggesting this, it would cause massive unrest, and the whole econoy is far too geared to the financial sector, which needs a strong dolalr, to make this possible.


I agree with you entirely up to this point, but I'd like to put something forward for your consideration:

The amount of fictitious capital in circulation has reached such heights that economics itself is becoming / has become a fiction. The numbers are failing to provide any real meaning -- something also being pointed out by bourgeois commentators.... In a situation like this we have to look at the *political* side of things, and look to what sorts of ruling class pretexts are driving what sorts of mass labor projects (whether it's sweatshops in China, legitimization of the financial layer, the violence of the nation-state's armed forces, etc.).

I agree that capitalism is very good at re-animating itself, but I'd also like to point out the distinct difference about the times we are living in -- the ready access to information, particularly through the Internet, means that the ruling class does *not* have a monopoly over cultural production anymore. Cultural imperialism is more difficult than ever to pull off -- the Disney-ized version of normative reality is more a museum relic than active propaganda -- it seems more quaint, and thus belittled, by the average culture-savvy person.

So if the economic layer is fictional, and the cultural layer is too diffuse to be controlling, then all we have left is the political, which more people are going to quickly become aware of, in its full rawness....

BraneMatter
25th September 2008, 19:24
They have just announced that a deal has been reached on the "bailout" scheme.

Wall Street is up today on the news of the latest theft.

I guess it's party time with OUR money...

If all this does not clear the scales off people's eyes, then I don't know what it will take.

And so Bush goes out as the president who fleeced the people more than any other president in history.

Pelosi says she has another "stimulus package" for us. Wow! Cold comfort. Won't everyone be paying out a lot more in taxes, and what will our dollar be worth now?

I can't even get a decent cost-of-living increase in my Social Security Disability check. My daughter is sick, but has no health care. If I did not have free rent from my former employer, we would both be on the street right now.

I watched all the hearings, and NEVER before has the savage nature of capitalist exploitation been so blatant and in-your-face! We are in the vise grips of a global criminal cartel of robber barons, who, as Dylan once said, play with our world like it was a toy. They already have all the money they could ever need, so it's all about manipulation -- just because they can.

I wish I could say I see hope for socialist revolution in the U.S., but I am old, sick, tired, and worn out. My generation had its day, and even though we changed a lot of things in the Sixties and Seventies, we failed in the end to change the root cause, the system itself. I fear for the children today. There is still so much exploitation in the world, so many still in slavery...

Bronsky
26th September 2008, 20:08
Biggest Bank collapse today with Washington Mutual going under after a run on the bank. Fed closed it down and sold its assets off to JP Morgan. T

Three other bans look unstable. No agreement over the bail out, looks like another busy weekrnd for capitalists on Capital Hill I guess they will have to get their act together before Monday.

Bloomberg is better than a soap opera. read a good article on the World Socialist Web Site about Chryslers bail out in 1979, were the workerswere made to pay for the collapse of the car giant

peaccenicked
26th September 2008, 22:09
It is time for action. inthesenewtimes.com is the only website with a comprehensive digest of the best articles on the web, this one is on web activity (http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/09/26/bailout-outrage-races-across-the-web/)

ckaihatsu
27th September 2008, 15:54
[What follows are excerpts from a report in the Grantist press.
Several lines praising the NYC cops have been omitted.--YM]

Report on NYC Anti-Bailout R ally
Written by Mark Rahman
Saturday, 27 September 2008

...

On Thursday [September 25], the AFL-CIO organized a rally against the
bail-out plan on Wall Street at 12 noon. It seems like the leadership
called it for this time because they didn't want it to coincide with
a similar rally that was being planned by several left groups which
was to take place at 4 pm, in order to keep the trade unionists
separate from the "radicals." At the union-organized demo there were
some 1,000 people present. Because of the bad time of day, the
general make up of the crowd was union staffers along with some
construction workers (who were almost certainly asked by the
leadership to sacrifice their lunch break to show up)....

... At around 3 o'clock, the comrades went to the location (the large
bull statue a few blocks down from Wall Street) to hand out flyers.
There is always a big crowd of tourists around the bull. But within
an hour, that crowd of tourists was transformed into 100s of people
against the bail-out plan. Many people were coming up to the comrades
to get copies of the leaflet. Much of the crowd was made up of people
who joined right off of the street....

Soon, a big chunk of the crowd went to the Stock Exchange, where
there must have already been another spontaneous rally against the
bail-out taking place, as this crowd was more like a couple of
thousand strong. It was impressive to see the stock exchange covered
with people who were chanting things like "You Broke it! You Buy it!"
and "Bail out is Bullsh*t!" and people with signs that read "Jump!
You Fu*kers!" (a blunt message to the big bankers in their offices up
above).

You could clearly see the generally working class make up of the
crowd. Of course there were the "usual suspect" activists, but the
bulk of the crowd was right off the street having just gotten off of
work....

Once again, the crowd moved to spontaneously march through
downtown.... The march went on for about an hour and a half all
throughout downtown....

... You could clearly see that the recent events surrounding the
economic crisis had driven many people to more clearly understand the
class divisions in society. It has also shaken many people's faith in
the capitalist system itself. The spontaneous mobilization of so many
people was impressive....

BraneMatter
27th September 2008, 16:59
The repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, specifically by the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act in 1999, allowed banks to become involved again in risky investment gambles. These paper deriviatives, such as repackaged mortgage securities and credit default swaps, are where the real debt lies.

Following the great crash of 1929, Glass-Steagall separated fundamental banking from these risky schemes driven by greed. Senator Phil Gramm, who now is McCain's chief economic advisor, was the main architect of the 1999 Act that deregulated the banking and investment industry. Then, there began in earnest the big push to create the "ownership society" where anyone could get a home mortgage, regardless of income, employment, or past credit history. These risky loans were then repackaged in with higher quality loans, and resold mostly to foreign investors, other banks, etc. And all sorts of investors bought into these repackaged securities through hedge funds, money market funds, etc.

Next thing you know, the tentacles of these securities and deriviative instruments extended throughout the whole system, and everyone was on the hook in one way or the other.

In fact, the total number of mortgages in default right now could be bought outright for $100 billion, so they only account for, at the most, only a seventh of the bad debt being held by the banks, investment firms, etc. And no one knows what the real amount is, because the deriviatives are too complex and muddled. It's a giant Ponzi scheme!

And no one really knows where all the debt lies, or how to value it, as the corruption extends to all sorts of instruments, hence, we have no way of knowing the true cost of the bailout. We could give them the $700 billion, and in a month or two, they could be back again for another trillion, and the blackmail will just continue. Many economists say the Paulson bailout plan will not come close to fixing the problem, and so it could all crash anyways.

Wall street has poured gasoline on itself, and is threatening to strike a match if we all don't pay up! "Be afraid," they say, "be VERY afraid!"

I say let it burn...

Personally, I'd sooner stand in a breadline than give in to the capitalist and fascist gangsters (I'm having to go to my local food bank most months now anyway, because my SS check is not enough to live on.)

Capitalism basically operates just like any other gang or criminal syndicate, such as the Bloods and Crips, or the Mafia. In this case, their "hood" is the whole world (the so-called global new world order) where they practice and carry-out terror, exploitation, and extortion. They are the ones who control the global narcotics and pharmaceutical traffic, traffic in weapons, the global food supply, and, through a system of central banks, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc., they control the creation of money out of thin air, and thus the global money supply and financial system.

ckaihatsu
27th September 2008, 17:22
Knowledgeable sources reported that the failed Wachovia bank is being sought by three possible purchasers, Banco Santander SA, Wells Fargo and Citigroup. Wachovia's faiure is attributed to the collapse of prices in real estate, Wachovia's own lending policies and a credit market panic. In the last 12 months, Wachovia shares have lost approximately 80% of their value. Specifically, Wachovia was done in by the fact that housing prices began their tumble as interest rates on Wachovia mortgages were rising. The bank gave borrowers the choice of paying only the interest on their mortgages, which means the amount owned by those clients grew with each payment, putting those folks into "negative amortization," an impossible situation that led to their defaulting on those loans.

With assets at over $812 billion, Wachovia will be the biggest US failed bank ever. That dubious distinction is currently held by WaMu, Washington Mutual, which was worth nearly $310 billion before it failed. Before WaMu, Continental Illinois National Bank, worth $40 billion at its demise in 1984, was the largest US failed bank.

Twelve banks have failed this year. Wachovia will be the thirteenth.

BraneMatter
27th September 2008, 18:28
I wonder how much taxpayer money was involved in the WAMU takeover by JPMorgan Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion. Such a deal!!!

Now Wachovia! Who's next?

Oh, I know, the working class taxpayers will go belly up next, and after the greedy crooks have cooked the very goose that laid the golden eggs, then who will they fleece?

ckaihatsu
27th September 2008, 19:26
Your previous post, BraneMatter, is to-the-point and poignant. Really, the economic system is now unwittingly making a full mockery of itself, while we have been saying all along that it's *always* been a mockery of genuine material accounting.

I think those who have been poo-pooing Marxism / socialism are now having to confront the dire reality of what living in a material world means, and now it happens to be one that has no alternative options for managing the world's resources -- at least none under the conventional profit-based mode of production.

Humanity itself is confronted with the underlying political questions during times of financial / economic crises like we're living through right now. What does "ownership" mean? What do the billions on paper mean? What does it mean to be human if one only lives by tending to the grinding of an unfixable machine? Shouldn't we collectively be managing the world's abundance in non-extortion-based ways?

Once humanity surpassed the point of living hand-to-mouth the question of allocation confronted us, and confronts us still. Without mass participation in revolutionary means of running society, we all remain victims of the gangsters who *do* get things done, but on their own terms, not ours.

BraneMatter
27th September 2008, 19:40
“This contradiction comes to a head in those phases of industrial and commercial crises which are known as monetary crises. Such a crisis occurs only where the ever-lengthening chain of payments, and an artificial system of settling them, has been fully developed. Whenever there is a general and extensive disturbance of this mechanism, no matter what its cause, money becomes suddenly and immediately transformed, from its merely ideal shape of money of account, into hard cash. Profane commodities can no longer replace it. The use-value of commodities becomes valueless, and their value vanishes in the presence of its own independent form. On the eve of the crisis, the bourgeois, with the self-sufficiency that springs from intoxicating prosperity, declares money to be a vain imagination. Commodities alone are money. But now the cry is everywhere: money alone is a commodity! As the hart pants after fresh water, so pants his soul after money, the only wealth. In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and their value-form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradiction. Hence, in such events, the form under which money appears is of no importance. The money famine continues, whether payments have to be made in gold or in credit money such as bank-notes.”


This seems to be an accurate description of the mess we are now in. In reality, when all the paper instruments of greed go up in smoke, the real wealth, i.e. commodoties (and the ability of workers to produce), is really still there, but production halts and the goods cannot be moved to market anymore because of the money crunch. It all seems so artificial. It's only the value form that is in crisis and clogged-up and halted, not the tangibles themselves. The land and factories are all still there and capable of operating and producing.

So does this not mean that for us average working class folks, our best bet and protection is to store all the tangibles we can (rice, beans, bullets, etc)? And if you can store extras for trade, then all the better.

ckaihatsu
27th September 2008, 20:14
It's revenge of the farms, against the cities, eh?

Lynx
28th September 2008, 01:44
Indeed. An artificial monetary accounting system, dependent upon belief, hence the need to "restore confidence".

ckaihatsu
28th September 2008, 04:10
This conflict, and the demands by the Democrats for more control over the money handed over to the banks, produced deadlock and a delay that upset the markets once again. After all, when the Market requests, it is used to being obeyed. The elected representatives of the Nation are not supposed to ask any questions! President Bush called on Congress to "keep the rescue bill focused on solving the crisis in our financial markets".

But Congress is under the pressure of public opinion, which, as we have seen, is reaching boiling point. Congressmen are being bombarded with telephone calls and emails, in which their constituents vent their rage against this scandalous handout to the rich. They ignore this mood at their peril! Therefore, they have hesitated to sign the deal. Congress blames the Administration for getting them into this mess. The President blames the Congress for holding up a deal that is supposed to save the US economy from collapse (Bush used precisely those words in an unprecedented television message to the nation).

Tempers flare on the floor of the House: Congressmen shout at each other and nearly come to blows. When can anybody remember such scenes on Capitol Hill? But then, when did anybody see the USA in a state of economic meltdown? And when can anyone remember the American people in such a rebellious and angry state of mind? The reason for the conduct of the Congressmen is that they can feel a fire under their backsides.

Whatever they do now will be wrong. If they sign the deal, they will earn the hatred of millions of ordinary Americans. One woman, interviewed last night on British television, when asked what she thought of the proposed bail-out, answered bitterly: "I have just come off an eleven hour shift and I work 60 hours a week. Now they want to take $2,300 off my pay to give to the bankers!" This must be typical of the attitude of millions of ordinary people in the USA. But if they refuse to sign, it will cause further sharp falls on the stock markets in the USA, posing the threat of a complete collapse on the lines of 1929. In other words, they are caught between a rock and a very hard place.

http://www.marxist.com/world-capitalism-in-crisis-1.htm

Lynx
28th September 2008, 04:50
Commentary by an American on BBC World News; "We no longer live in a republic, we live in a corporate welfare state. We live in the United States of Socialism!"
After years of rhetoric about 'free' markets it is no wonder Americans are angry and confused.

ckaihatsu
28th September 2008, 05:06
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122246914753880601.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Fannie and Freddie Get Flatter

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are rapidly stripping out management costs and acting more like government agencies than the shareholder-driven financial companies they used to be.

Three weeks after the mortgage companies' regulator seized control of them, Freddie Mac announced Friday the departure of three senior executives: Patricia Cook, chief business officer; Buddy Piszel, chief financial officer; and Timothy J. McBride, a senior lobbyist.
[Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac strip costs] Bloomberg News/Landov

The chief executive officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are currently in the middle of a major reorganization.

Ms. Cook's post was eliminated as part of a reorganization under which the heads of business lines will report directly to David Moffett, the chief executive officer installed three weeks ago by the regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA. Mr. McBride's job vanished because the regulator has told Fannie and Freddie to cease all lobbying. Freddie said it will search for a new CFO to succeed Mr. Piszel.

The shakeup comes a week after similar moves were announced at Fannie as part of what its new CEO, Herbert Allison, described as a shift to a "flatter" management structure.

[...]

ckaihatsu
29th September 2008, 11:23
THE ORGANIZER NEWSPAPER
P.O. Box 40009, San Francisco, CA 94140.
Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415) 626-1217.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, contact <[email protected]>
PLEASE EXCUSE DUPLICATE POSTINGS
------------------------------------------------

Labor Must Mobilize Against the $700 Billion Corporate Bailout
And Fight for an Emergency Plan to Bail Out All Working People

By the Editors of The Organizer Newspaper

Sept. 28, 2008 -- Leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties are working overtime with the Bush administration to pull off one of the greatest swindles in U.S. history. The aim of their $700 billion bailout plan is to nationalize the debt of the Wall Street bankers who profited from the home-mortgage speculative orgy.

A resolution adopted by the San Francisco Labor Council on Sept. 22, 2008, called on the U.S. Congress "to oppose the bailout of the bad debts of the financial industry." The resolution noted, in part:
"The proposed bailout will result in the same market manipulators profiting from the taxpayer-financed bailout while millions of everyday Americans continue to face bankruptcy and foreclosure -- loss of jobs, income and habitat. Š

"The leaders of this economy oppose even minimal government assistance for the people, but demand it by the billions for themselves when they run into trouble caused by their own greed."
Indeed. When more than 1 million people in the United States were foreclosed in 2007, the federal government did nothing. The beleaguered families received no emergency aid. The laws of the "free market" could not permit any such government intervention, they were told. Besides, there was no money available to come to their aid. But now when the Wall Street tycoons are threatened, it is an emergency, government intervention is required, and $1.3 trillion is available.

When hundreds of thousands of people -- mainly Black -- were abandoned in New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, and when they demanded federal funds for Reconstruction so that they could return to their homes and communities, they were not just ignored; they were put on buses and trains and shipped out, and told not to come back. More than 250,000 survivors of New Orleans have been permanently exiled in the U.S. Diaspora. The large majority of federal funds that have been sent to New Orleans have gone to shore up the hotels, clubs -- or the wealthy and tourist neighborhoods.

This bailout is another stampede by this administration, in cahoots with the Democratic Party, to steal hundreds more public billions and transfer them to the super-wealthy so they don't lose on their gambles. Meanwhile, the food banks have run out of food for the low-income working people and health care is out of reach.

More and more working people are seeing through this duplicitous language, and they are getting angry, real angry. The latest poll shows that 59% of the population opposes the proposed bailout plan, while only 20% support it.

A labor labor activist in San Francisco sent out a letter to fellow unionists decrying this new situation: "Is there anything wrong with this picture? Anything at all? Let's support the bankers! Somehow the benefits of this bailout will trickle down, won't they? And isn't the trickle down the best we can expect as dumb working people? I feel the trickle down all the time from deregulation, NAFTA and 'free trade,' and the oil wars."

Despite this massive rejection, however, it appears that a deal between Democrats and Republicans is in the works. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, working closely with presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain (whose campaigns have been funded generously by the Wall Street speculators), is spearheading the effort to reach a consensus.

At this writing, the media are reporting that an agreement has been reached that safeguards the essential elements of the Paulson bailout plan -- that is, the rescue of the speculators with massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars.

The San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 26) article noted: "Pelosi said that with the major changes that are being incorporated, both parties will swallow hard and pass it, convinced of its necessity by the dire warning of economic collapse by Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. ... Democrats said they would incorporate some suggestions in what is now being called 'the Paulson Plan'."

The initial plan has apparently been tweaked by the Democrats, who have been asking for more regulatory mechanisms and more oversight over the financial industry, some limits on the financial compensation packets for the CEOs, and some funds for mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, among other points. The Republicans might get some sharing of the bailout burden with the private sector. But all this is nothing but window-dressing and band-aids over a gaping wound.

If this consensus is reached, whatever the sweeteners, it will be a consensus directed at attacking the rights and gains of working people in this country and around the world like never before. It will be a consensus aimed at destroying the independence of the trade unions by demanding that the unions go along with the bailout consensus and discipline their members into accepting this poison pill. Thus co-opted, the trade unions -- the organizations that working people created through bitter struggles -- would be impeded from defending workers' jobs, wages and benefits, and working conditions.


What Working People Can Expect From this Bailout

Analysts are warning that some or all of the following can be expected -- that is, unless working people manage to get their class organizations, the trade unions, to mobilize and halt, or reverse, this historic swindle.

a) The U.S. Treasury will purchase worthless paper; the private banks will retain any assets of value. The likelihood that the Treasury will recover any value from their purchases of bad debt -- as Paulson argues -- is near zero. The taxpayers will be stuck with paper with no buyers.

b) The public debt will skyrocket, and interest payments on that debt -- already one of the government's largest budget items -- will undercut funding for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- not to mention public funding for urgently needed social services, education, hospitals, and public works.

Obama, in fact, is trying hard to position himself as a fiscal conservative in this roiling economy. On Sept. 22, he vowed he would slash federal spending on contractors by 10% and save $40 billion. He also said he would "cut funding for programs that are wasting taxpayers' money and would use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government."

This is language borrowed from the rightwing budget cutters and privatizers, for whom public education, public hospitals, and public transportation are "inherently inefficient" -- which is a blatant lie.

c) The bailout -- whatever the tweaking in the final bill -- turns its back on the financial needs of 10 million homeowners facing foreclosures. Home foreclosures, utility shut-offs and home evictions are bound to increase. The tent cities that have sprung up here and there will continue to proliferate across the country.

d) The economic recession that has already begun is bound to deepen and will lead to massive restructurings and layoffs, especially as financial credits for industry and the productive economy become more costly. The channeling of funds to Wall Street and the speculators will divert funds from getting us out of this deepening recession.

e) To finance this corporate bailout, the U.S. Treasury will have to print up massive sums of paper dollars, thereby fueling an inflationary cycle of large proportions. In addition, the dollar will devalue as the government debt will decrease its attractiveness overseas, increasing the cost of imports and adding to an inflationary spiral that will further undermine working people's living standards.

f) Against the backdrop of a shrinking economy, the bosses and the media will heighten their divide-and-rule strategy, further blaming immigrant workers for the crisis of the capitalist system and demanding more raids and deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Working people around the world are also going to be adversely impacted, as the financial meltdown will spread across markets worldwide and the U.S. bailout will be used to extort even greater sums of money from the countries (and therefore from the workers) around the world that have been financing the U.S. debt. Just one example: In the past week alone, 321 billion Euros were transferred from the European Union to the U.S. Treasury just to cover the bad loans of U.S. financial subsidiaries in Europe.

And if this bailout is not able to prevent the economic ship from sinking deeper into crisis in the coming period, as many economists predict, the current financial crisis could, in fact, detonate an economic depression -- and therefore blows against working people -- of untold magnitude.

A central question is therefore posed: Doesn't the U.S. labor movement have a major responsibility to to take on this consensus onslaught against working people? And if this is the case, what must be done?


The Labor Movement Must Mobilize Mass Opposition to the Corporate Bailout

The Democratic Party today is taking the lead to fast-track this corporate bailout. Nancy Pelosi has become the front-person for Paulson and Bush among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Pelosi and Obama -- both architects of this consensus -- are bound to tell us that thanks to their determined efforts and "deep changes," the flawed initial bailout plan has been transformed into something that working people can now support.

The leadership of the trade unions -- both in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win -- must not buy this snake oil. The very existence of the trade union movement, the very livelihood of millions of working people in this country, is at stake.

The trade unions, the only organized expression of the U.S. working class today, must break with the Democrats and champion the fight against this consensus corporate bailout. They must mobilize their members to stop the heist of the century.

Denis Mosgofian, the law and legislative director of the San Francisco Labor Council, sent a letter to the national AFL-CIO website to urge the federation to take a determined stand in opposition to the Paulson bailout. He wrote:

"The AFL-CIO must approach this [new situation] as if it were a powerful force representing millions of angry people. We are angry, and we have no other more powerful representative. Be the leaders! Act! ... The AFL-CIO could call a one-hour general strike across America and workers would respond, and there would be little or nothing the government could do, since so many many people across the board are pissed."

The Organizer newspaper joins these union activists in calling on the trade union leaders to break with their subordination to the Democratic Party on this crucial issue facing working people. The trade union movement must spearhead the most powerful united front in the streets to oppose the corporate bailout plan. There is no task more urgent than this today!

The time to start is now. The trade unions could call a nationwide mobilization and/or strike to demand "Not One One Taxpayer Dollar for the Bailout, For A National Emergency Plan to Bail Out America's Working People!"

And even if the Bush-Pelosi consensus bailout plan is reached within the next couple of days, it will not be too late for Labor to give voice to this anger and to mobilize in mass demonstrations and strikes in the coming days and weeks to compel the Congress to repeal its decision.

A determined response from the trade unions could open a crisis of major proportions in the U.S. ruling class and could compel reticent members of Congress, faced with a massive rebellion in the streets, to overturn a deal passed at gunpoint.


A Second Critical Question is Posed

But this struggle, in turn, raises a second critical question: How is it possible for the trade unions to call for a vote for a politician -- Barack Obama -- who is openly pushing a plan that is so brutal in its offensive against workers, students, and all the communities of the oppressed? Millions of working people hope that Obama will deliver on his plea for "change," but doesn't Obama's call to support the corporate bailout plan reveal for all to see the ruling class character of his candidacy? How is it possible for the trade unions to remain tied at the hip to the Democratic Party, the deal-maker of this consensus?

Bill Greider, writing in The Nation (Sept. 19), notes that, "if the [Paulson plan] deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics -- exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. ... This crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice."

Greider goes on to quote Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, a conservative critic, who put it plainly: "The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson's latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like another corporatist love-fest between Washington's one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks."

Anger with the Democrats is bound to reach new levels.

The corporate bailout plan, like all other anti-working class plans of late, could not be implemented were it not not for the subordination of the trade union movement to the Democratic Party

There is no doubt that if the trade unions were to mobilize against this anti-worker offensive, labor would once again feel its potential strength. The more committed sectors of the trade unions could then go on to take more decisive steps toward breaking with the Democratic Party -- by supporting the fledgling Labor Party that was created by OCAW leader Tony Mazzocchi in the late 1990s and by running Labor Party candidate for political office against the twin parties of the bosses, beginning at the local and state levels.

This is not pie in the sky. It is a necessary component of a fightback strategy needed to ensure that working people are not to be driven in greater numbers into the Tent Cities that are springing up across the country, having lost their jobs, homes and healthcare insurance.


No Corporate Bailout; Not One Taxpayers' Dollar for the Speculators!

Readers may not necessarily agree with our call on the trade unions to refuse to support Obama, to break with the Democratic Party, and to take steps toward forming their own political party -- a Labor Party based on the unions and open to all the oppressed. But one campaign around which everyone in the labor movement can unite today is the campaign to demand, "No Corporate Bailout; Not One Taxpayers' Dollar for the Speculators!"

This is essential. Many trade union organizations and activists, following the lead of liberal Democratic Party members, argue that there should be quid pro quos between the funds that the speculators and CEOs receive in the bailout and the funds that should go for working people, small farmers and students.

Working America, the online publication of the AFL-CIO, is demanding that, "Any bailout package that Congress passes must be balanced to help Main Street as well as Wall Street. The last thing we should do is compound the enormous imbalances in our economy with an enormously imbalanced rescue package."

Working America notes that, "Thankfully, our allies in Congress are pushing back against this dangerous and ill-conceived bill." This, of course, is hogwash. The Democrats are caving in to Bush's railroading tactics in this economic 9/11 much like they did after 9/11 in relation to the war on Iraq and the USA Patriot Act, when they gave away some of our basic Constitutional rights. Working people are looking at this cave-in, and they are mad as hell.

They are tired of being told that including "labor and environmental clauses" in the "free trade" agreements -- as the Democrats continuously propose, to sweeten the bitter pill of these anti-worker agreements -- will protect jobs, working conditions or the environment. They are tired of being told that an ever-more elusive timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will stop the blood-letting and ensure peace in that region.

No. Every dollar that goes to a speculator is one dollar less that could go to rebuilding the economy and putting millions of people back to work through a mass public works program. These speculators gambled and they lost. They are parasites. They are not needed. Their profits should be confiscated. There should be no pandering to them in the name of "helping Wall Street." Bailing them out is not necessary to stave off the financial crisis. On the contrary, it will only deepen the problem.


An Emergency Plan to Bail Out Working People and the Economy is Needed Urgently

From the moment the labor movement engages in struggle to stop this heinous bailout plan, the need immediately arises to present an alternative plan to bail out working people and the economy.

What would such a plan look like? Here are some essential components which we submit for the widest discussion among unionists and activists:

* Nationalize the Federal Reserve and Establish a Federally Owned, Public Banking System

This is necessary to make credit available for small businesses, homeowners, manufacturing operations, renewable energy and infrastructure investments.

The corporate bailout plan calls for nationalizing the debt, but not the assets and structures of the banking and financial industry. To succeed with a national recovery plan, it will be necessary to nationalize these assets, without compensation.

This (re)nationalization should begin with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that the government, through these two institutions, can stop all foreclosures.

Assuming ownership of the banking system means taking all the speculators and predatory institutions out of the financial equation, not keeping them in the saddle with bailouts so that tomorrow they can again continue swindling the shareholders and the taxpayers. Assuming ownership means enabling the government to enact an emergency plan that addresses the needs and demands of working people and the oppressed.

The bankers can't be trusted to provide investment capital and credit to the real economy. The government must fill that role. Credits to make the economy run will dry up under the consensus bailout plan. Only through a State-run Emergency Board will the real economy be able to get back on its feet, removed from its addiction to war and speculation.

Establishing a national bank -- that is, a rational banking system -- would also solve a number of other pressing problems, including the infrastructure crisis and the energy crisis.

The "free market" is what has created the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. The people who created this mess should not be allowed to continue to run the financial system.
* End all Funding for the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Close U.S. Military Bases Around the World, and Slash the Military Budget

In their debate on Sept. 26, both Bush and Obama vowed to increase the military spending in the Middle East. Their only difference was over how much and when to transfer the massive war funding from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain argued that the main military front remained Iraq, whereas Obama argued that this front had shifted to the surrounding countries, including Iran. But an intensification of the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran would lead to an even-more deadly quagmire.

The twin parties of the war are committed to Bush's "endless war" on the grounds that our national security requires that we wage and intensify the so-called "war on terrorism." But the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are hated by the peoples in those countries and by working people the world over. These wars have little support at home and are ruining our domestic economy.

All the funds that have been allocated to the U.S. wars and occupations around the world, and all the military bases needed to sustain these wars, must be re-oriented post-haste toward meeting human needs -- by funding public education, libraries, hospitals, roads, public housing, Reconstruction for the Gulf Coast, social services and more.

* Moratorium on All Home Foreclosures, Utility Shut-Offs and Evictions

Cynthia McKinney, presidential candidate of the Power to the People coalition, has put forward a comprehensive plan to deal with this burning issue for millions of working people. Her plan calls for the following:

1) enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now, before the next phase of ARM interest-rate increases take effect;

2) elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans. (The government could refinance mortgages to provide such long-term loans at reasonable rates of interest -- but at the current market value of their homes, not the inflated prices of the boom.);

3) establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;

4) elimination of all discriminatory practices in the publicly owned credit industry;

5) full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership; and

6) recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. government is a signatory, so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets.

A resolution adopted by the San Francisco Labor Council on June 9, 2008, also calls on the president and the Congress to "implement a moratorium on public housing demolition, and that such demolitions shall not be allowed to proceed until all such public housing units have first been replaced with affordable units, on the basis of one-for-one replacement at comparable rents.

* Massive National Reconstruction Public Works Program
A WPA-type program is needed urgently to rebuild the nation's schools, hospitals and crumbling infrastructure and to put millions of people back to work, with a living (prevailing) wage and with the unfettered right to join a union and to wield their collective strength, including through strike action (for which the repeal of Taft-Hartley is essential), to press for better wages and working conditions

A job must be guaranteed for everyone at a living wage of $15 per hour.

The country also needs a National Mass Transportation System administered by public-labor-community boards throughout the United States.

Cindy Sheehan, who is running for U.S. Congress against Nancy Pelosi as an independent in San Francisco's District 8, includes the following demands in her Labor Platform.

"The growing environmental and energy crisis cannot be solved under private ownership of the energy companies. We need a mass transportation system. This will be financed by the nationalization of the oil, gas, and other energy companies -- all of which have thwarted mass transportation to keep profits flowing to their corporate stockholders.

* Sliding Scales of Wages to Keep Up with Inflation
This will be needed to enable working people to offset the rising cost of living produced by the "staglation" that has already reared its ugly head and is bound to increase in the coming weeks and months.

* Repeal NAFTA and other "Free Trade" Agreements
The evidence is unmistakable: NAFTA has destroyed jobs, labor rights and standards, democratic rights, environmental and health standards -- and democracy itself -- in all three signatory countries.
James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters' union, is urging support for the NAFTA Accountability Act, or H.R. 4329. This legislation requires that action be taken to ensure that workers benefit from NAFTA by the end of 2008, or the U.S. must withdraw from NAFTA. (This deadline could be extended to the end of 2009.) This could be a positive step toward repealing NAFTA.

NAFTA and other similar "Free Trade" agreements are designed to depress wages and oppress workers in every country that are signed parties to these agreements. They must be repealed!

* Stop the ICE Raids and Deportations!

Tens of thousands of immigrant workers are being rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials across the country. These raids must be stopped today!

The only "crime" committed by undocumented immigrants is to work hard to support their families. The real criminal is the U.S. government and its Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is terrorizing and splitting up families across this country.

The raids are a crucial component of the reactionary drive to scapegoat immigrants for the problems caused by the crisis-ridden, profit-driven capitalist system: rising poverty, job losses, deepening inequality, and lower wages.
* For Universal, Single-Payer Healthcare!

H.R. 676, a bill that has overwhelming support in the U.S. labor movement, calls for taking the insurance companies out of the healthcare equation and creating a universal, single-payer healthcare system. Such a plan could be instituted immediately.


A Few Concluding Remarks

Readers may not necessarily agree with our call for a Labor Party, but one thing is certain: It is not possible to go along with the Pelosi-Bush corporate bailout of the speculators and banks. Everything must be done today to stop this broad-side attack on all working people -- on our rights, our gains and our very livelihoods.

For our part, we in The Organizer newspaper pledge to do everything in our power to help build the most powerful labor-led fightback movement to stop this corporate assault. What's at stake is the fate of millions of working people at home and abroad.


* * * * *

BraneMatter
29th September 2008, 18:31
The Fed, on its own authority, has pumped an additional $630 billion into the global financial system:




Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, comes as Congress prepares to vote on a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.

``Today's blast of term liquidity will settle the funding markets down, and allow trust to slowly be restored between borrowers and lenders,'' said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. On the other hand, ``the Fed's balance sheet is about to explode.''

Stocks around the world plunged the most since 1997 today and credit markets deteriorated further as authorities scrambled to save more financial institutions from collapse.

European Rescue
European governments have rescued four banks in two days and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said today it helped Citigroup Inc. buy the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. after its shares collapsed. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 3.8 percent and the cost of borrowing dollars for three months rose to the highest since January. The rate for euros hit a record.

``If people think the authorities may give in to fears, they are wrong,'' Financial Stability Forum Chairman Mario Draghi said today in Amsterdam, where the international group of regulators and finance officials is meeting. ``There is willingness and determination on winning the battle to restore confidence and stability.''

Banks and brokers have slowed lending as they struggle to restore their capital after $586 billion in credit losses and writedowns since the mortgage crisis began a year ago. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also sparked fears among banks they wouldn't be repaid by counterparties, driving up the cost of short-term loans between banks.

Funding Risk
``By committing to provide a very large quantity of term funding, the Federal Reserve actions should reassure financial market participants that financing will be available against good collateral, lessening concerns about funding and rollover risk,'' the central bank said.

The Bank of England and the ECB will each double the size of their dollar swap facilities with the Fed to as much as $80 billion and $240 billion, respectively. The Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan will also double their dollar swap lines, while the central banks in Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada tripled theirs.

All the banks extended their facilities until the end of April 2009.

The Fed is also increasing the size of its three 84-day TAF sales to $75 billion apiece, from $25 billion. That means the Fed will make a total of $225 billion available in 84-day loans. The central bank will keep the sales of 28-day credit at $75 billion.
Special Sales

In addition, the Fed will hold two special TAF sales in November totaling $150 billion so banks can have funding available for one or two weeks over year-end. The exact timing and terms will be determined later, the Fed said. The TAF program began in December, totaling $40 billion.

The bank-rescue plan being debated by Congress today would give the Fed more power over short-term interest rates by providing authority as of Oct. 1 to pay interest on reserves held at the central bank by financial institutions. That would make it easier for the Fed to pump funds into the banking system.

Paying interest on reserves puts a ``floor'' under the traded overnight rate, which would allow a central bank ``to provide liquidity during times of stress'' without affecting the rate, New York Fed economists said in a paper last month.





The billions just keep piling up, don't they!

Meanwhile, numerous economists and "experts" say the $700 billion bailout bill now before Congress will only be a temporary stopgap measure, and that more will be needed come January or February of '09.

Die Neue Zeit
29th September 2008, 21:07
An Emergency Plan to Bail Out Working People and the Economy is Needed Urgently

From the moment the labor movement engages in struggle to stop this heinous bailout plan, the need immediately arises to present an alternative plan to bail out working people and the economy.

What would such a plan look like? Here are some essential components which we submit for the widest discussion among unionists and activists:

* Nationalize the Federal Reserve and Establish a Federally Owned, Public Banking System

Why haven't more people recognized the sheer unconstitutionality of the privately-owned Federal Reserve system?


The corporate bailout plan calls for nationalizing the debt, but not the assets and structures of the banking and financial industry. To succeed with a national recovery plan, it will be necessary to nationalize these assets, without compensation.

This (re)nationalization should begin with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that the government, through these two institutions, can stop all foreclosures.

The government has nationalized those two banks already, but without the Federal Reserve nationalized, these two nationalizations will tantamount to squat.


3) establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;

[...]

6) recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. government is a signatory, so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets.

[...]

* Massive National Reconstruction Public Works Program
A WPA-type program is needed urgently to rebuild the nation's schools, hospitals and crumbling infrastructure and to put millions of people back to work, with a living (prevailing) wage and with the unfettered right to join a union and to wield their collective strength, including through strike action (for which the repeal of Taft-Hartley is essential), to press for better wages and working conditions

[...]

* Sliding Scales of Wages to Keep Up with Inflation
This will be needed to enable working people to offset the rising cost of living produced by the "staglation" that has already reared its ugly head and is bound to increase in the coming weeks and months.

This sounds like the good ole' Transitional Program to me... except it also shows why these demands will probably need to be raised as dynamic minimum demands in the here and now, with the formulation of new transitional demands.

Djehuti
29th September 2008, 21:52
Keep an eye on http://econospeak.blogspot.com/

ckaihatsu
30th September 2008, 04:31
I realize the real need for liquidity, under the current economic arrangements, but all I can say is that if this was any other country there'd be runaway hyper-inflation by now....

Really, it's starting to feel like Mt. Olympus around here, because we keep rising higher and higher into the clouds while not much happens. Without actual, real growth in the economy we're just watching ponds of Play-Doh money dry out in the sun....

Look, since we're making shit up at this point -- to the tune of $11 trillion -- can't we hasten the day at which we dispense with currency altogether and run a wholly public sector with goods and services provided by personal volition and open networking, with real and meaningful numbers cascading in the background, visible to all...? Call it a honey-bee society, if you like, but right now it's just too much a farce, whatever this is we're living in right now....


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Psy
30th September 2008, 04:45
I realize the real need for liquidity, under the current economic arrangements, but all I can say is that if this was any other country there'd be runaway hyper-inflation by now....

Really, it's starting to feel like Mt. Olympus around here, because we keep rising higher and higher into the clouds while not much happens. Without actual, real growth in the economy we're just watching ponds of Play-Doh money dry out in the sun....

Look, since we're making shit up at this point -- to the tune of $11 trillion -- can't we hasten the day at which we dispense with currency altogether and run a wholly public sector with goods and services provided by personal volition and open networking, with real and meaningful numbers cascading in the background, visible to all...? Call it a honey-bee society, if you like, but right now it's just too much a farce, whatever this is we're living in right now....


Chris



Basically we traded stagnation that plagued the U.S.A in the 70's (and the U.S.S.R till its end) for a economy based on rampant speculation

ckaihatsu
30th September 2008, 04:51
Basically we traded stagnation that plagued the U.S.A in the 70's (and the U.S.S.R till its end) for a economy based on rampant speculation


Well, shit, that explains the entire generation I grew up in -- the future's not even interesting once it gets here because it's already been bought and sold ten times over and bled dry by the time it arrives...!

ckaihatsu
30th September 2008, 05:07
...and I can roam anywhere around the world I like, as long as I stay within my playpen!

Bronsky
30th September 2008, 11:10
Do you have a link for that newspaper Ckaihatsu, like to read some more from them ...cheers?

ckaihatsu
30th September 2008, 11:29
Yeah, there's an email address there....

Bronsky
2nd October 2008, 22:34
Cheers do I have to email to get the link ....is that a dumb question?

DancingLarry
3rd October 2008, 00:49
The "made-up" money is bigger than any of us imagines. I heard a number, it's one so large that I cannot truly wrap my head around it. There is a whole section of the securities market, "derivatives", most of which are pure gambling with no underlying real asset whatsoever. The classic example are "stock index options" which are essentially bets on whether the overall Dow Jones will go up or down. More recently stranger and fancier "derivatives" have sprung up like weeds, such as the "credit default swaps" we've heard some talk about. But it's in these "derivatives" markets where the really big made up money numbers are. According to a leading German financial expert, the total value of these "derivatives" as they sit out there on the "over-the-counter" market right now is $700 Trillion (that's Trillion with a T). That comes to about 15 times the total global annual economic activity. Moreover, that indicates a growth of 500% in less than 6 years, with the increases happening at an increasing rate of speed, the classic bubble. Many banks, brokerages, hedge funds and other investors have used the notional value of these derivatives to leverage their purchase of real assets.

So what happens when this bubble pops? We think of this $700 Billion bailout as huge, but what if it's only a 0.1% down payment on what we'll be expected to bail the billionaires out from? All bubbles in history have popped, and deflated, today's derivatives bubble is the largest such bubble in human history, by several orders of magnitude.

Psy
3rd October 2008, 01:19
The big issue is under all this fictitious value is a stagnating economy that has been suffering from falling rates of profits for about four decade as the fictitious capital was how the west was mopping up surplus value. As for what happens now,we are going to in for the most unstable period of human history, it impossible to know how this will play out but it sure won't be pretty.

ckaihatsu
3rd October 2008, 02:12
Cheers do I have to email to get the link ....is that a dumb question?


Bronsky, I somehow got on their mailing list, so I have been receiving issues in my inbox, via email. I'd recommend emailing them to request being put on their mailing list as well -- it was a question worth asking.


Chris

ckaihatsu
3rd October 2008, 02:14
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:09 AM
Subject: *** FLASH TRAFFFIC ** EXTREMELY URGENT *** ONE WEEK LONG bank holiday coming soon

Wednesday, October 1, 2008
*** FLASH TRAFFFIC ** EXTREMELY URGENT ***
Reliable word that Bank of America branch managers just received a message via the U.S. Federal Reserve Wire system from the US Federal Reserve instructing them to "perhaps be ready for a one-week universal shut-down of the banking system", including access to checking accounts, savings accounts, credit cards and ATM's.

Reliable word also has it that BofA bank branches received a shipment of signs last week, reading "We're sorry, but due to circumstances beyond our control, we cannot be open at this time."

This raises the likelihood of a ONE WEEK LONG bank holiday coming soon.

It would be wise to have some cash around because checks, credit cards, CDs don't work when the banks are closed and it appears ATM's will be offline too. If you have CDs it might be worthwhile to cash them even though there is a penalty. If you have anything inside Safe Deposit Boxes in the bank that you may need, make certain you empty those safe deposit boxes tomorrow!

Additional word as of 8:08 PM EDT is that a silent run is taking place on many U.S. Banks with customers withdrawing huge amounts from all banks almost everyday. My source says that unless Congress comes through with a plan which will stop the silent run, Banks will be forced to close to stop the run.

The US Senate is voting tonight on a 400 page Bill to address the financial crisis and it is expected the US House of Representatives would take up the Senate Bill by Friday. If this new Bill is defeated the same way the last one was defeated, it is likely all US banks would be ordered to close as soon as ALL OF NEXT WEEK.

More details as they become available. . . . . .

UPDATE 9:00 PM EDT: The U.S. Senate HAS PASSED a 400 page Bill which must now also be passed by the House of Representatives. But passage is NOT guaranteed since it was the House of Representatives that killed the first bill.

Spread the word.

http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/

Posted by HalTurnerShow.com at 7:04 PM 15 comments

--
Fred Smart
847-878-8090

"Lord I have no plans of my own save those you shall reveal to me." - Dean Fagerstrom, The Mission of Anglion"

Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
10 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then
delete it. Thank you.

BraneMatter
3rd October 2008, 05:23
CNBC reports $4.9 billion dollars lent out at the Fed window just this past week.

Where the hell is this "window" so I can get some???

Billions upon billions being passed out to the bankers and speculators, but we just can't manage universal health care or free college.

piet11111
3rd October 2008, 18:57
so when is the house of representatives supposed to vote for the second time ?

ckaihatsu
3rd October 2008, 20:32
[From http://www.ft-ci.org/]
[From La Verdad Obrera Nš 297, Buenos Aires]

Millions for a bailout for businesses, poverty for workers and the
people By Celeste Murillo

The social crisis has already arrived

The latest report on US unempoyment brought no good news: in
September alone, 100,000 jobs were destroyed. These are in addition
to the 84,000 jobs lost in August, when unemployment climbed to 6.1%;
since the beginning of this year, more than 600,000 jobs have
disappeared. This index is one of the highest since the 2001
recession; it is in addition to the price increase of basic products,
fuel and the enormous indebtedness of working-class families.

The first social consequences of the crisis are reflected in
unprecedented pictures like the "tent cities," that have grown
alongside the big cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. This is
one of the most somber snapshots: thousands of people live in their
cars or tents with their families. Many of the inhabitants of these
precarious "cities" are working-class families (in large part, black
and Latino, the sectors most affected by "garbage" mortgages). Many
left their homes, fleeing from evictions and debts. Fuel to heat
houses has already increased 30% since 2007, and some months before
winter in the US, the government is threatening to reduce heating
assistance for low-income households, as part of the cuts in social
programs (largely underfunded, because of tax cuts for the rich).

In April, the government had already announced that 28 million people
would need food stamps to be able to bring food to their tables: the
biggest increase since the 1960's.

The most serious thing is the fact that the bursting of the real
estate bubble, begun in 2007, is deepening bad conditions of life for
a big part of the workers and popular groups (it is estimated that
only 25% have wages that cover their needs including health
insurance). Before the crisis erupted, in the richest country on
earth, 51.7 million were already living in poverty, 35 million
suffered hunger during 2006, and 50 million had no medical insurance
(there is no public health system nor union benevolent funds).

In August alone, more than 300,000 homes got an eviction notice: 1
out of every 416 properties in the US (CNBC, September 12). Although
an assistance package for small debtors was approved in May, this was
hardly enough to refinance the debts of one sector, but millions of
foreclosures are continuing.

With this background, the biggest bailout in history was
orchestrated: billions of dollars to bail out the firms that got rich
during recent decades. Despite the defeat of the first vote in
Congress, both the Democratic candidate Barack Obama and the
Republican John McCain, as well as the leaders of both parties, have
shown their desire to support the big firms and the Bush
administration, the most unpopular in the history of the country (see
<http://www.ft-ci.org/article.php3?id_article=1482>). Despite its
hypocritical campaign speeches, the Democratic Party has proven once
again that it is no alternative for the millions that are hoping
for "the change" that Obama is hawking so much.

Voices of protest are heard

Dissatisfaction with the economic situation grew with the rejection
of the bailout plan of Paulson & Co. Everyone knows who will pay the
bill. Bush was clear: "These measures will require that we use a
significant amount of taxpayer dollars," referring to the $700
billion they are trying to pass in Congress. According to opinion
polls, more than 70% reject the measure because they see that it will
be them, the ones who lose their job, those who owe money, the
workers and the impoverished middle sectors, who will pay for the
crisis.

Although so far the main obstacles have come from the opposition
inside Congress, the rejection has made itself felt, even though
passively, till now. Protests have been carried out, mobilizations in
front of banks and public offices, and in the very heart of Wall
Street, against the " Bailout." The main slogans aim against the
Republican administration and rescuing the firms with tax dollars.

As in the election race, in spite of the hypocrisies that get
broadcast on television, neither of the parties is an alternative.
With few differences, Democrats and Republicans have shown their
loyalty to Wall Street and the big firms, not to workers or the
people. The only way to alleviate this crisis is to force the ones
who provoked it, to pay: it is necessary to suspend all foreclosures,
distribute the hours of work among all available workers to fight
against unemployment, put into operation a public works plan under
workers' control, to repair the infrastructure of the country and
create millions of jobs financed by taxes on the big fortunes. Not
one dollar for the banks!

These and all the measures necessary to confront the crisis can only
be imposed through the mobilization of workers and the impoverished
sectors, independent of the Democratic and Republican parties.