| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fran
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
 |
|
On Nov 16, 1:46 pm, "Green Lantern" <gr...@peril.com> wrote:
| Quote: | ... has dealt very harshly with ...
|
the business of meeting the needs of humanity. The mkore invisible the
hand was, the more it stole from working people.
By late 2007, the invisible hand was out of control, taking credit for
things it had nothing to do with, until there was no credit left to
take, and not even the richest people on the planet could trust each
other.
By September 2008, all that was solid had melted into air, and even
the invisible hand's most devoted legions of followers in the
government thought it needed to become visible and open to
manipulation (the movement of *other hands*).
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy" (a worshipper of the invisible hand and a member of
the skull and bones society) and other invisible stuff like god, but
even he had to admit he was frightened what, left to its own devices,
the hand might get up to. He was worried it might make the market even
more depressed that it was in the 1930s, and so at the G20, he agreed
that many hands were needed to give it a hand job (I think he spoke of
"physical stimulus" but I may have misheard) so that the market could
start growing again.
Now the worshippers of the invisible hand are wondering if it can ever
go back to being invisible again. Now that we've seen it and touched
it and had a good fiddle, will most people ever again pray to it as if
it were the Oracle at Delphi?
The invisible hand's days may be over.
Fran |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
fasgnadh
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: The G20 and the NWO Globally Co-ordinated Response! Nati |
|
|
fasgnadh wrote:
| Quote: | fasgnadh wrote:
On Sep 28, 5:33 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It was as the Global Economic Crisis started to unravel
and the current failure of Capitalism became apparent,
while PM Rudd was in New York, originally intending to address
the UN on Climate Change, but changing his address to the
need for a global response to the crisis, that i initiated
discussion on what I referred to as "the emerging, global,
New World Economic Order."
And despite the wailing about such a New World Financial
Order emerging, or Rudd's part in it.. that is precisely what
is coming about, as I predicted, and Rudd is playing a central
role, as i described from the outset:
"Bush invites world leaders to crisis summit"
- CNN 22/10/2008
"Post-election meeting to gather heads of G20 to
find ways to reform regulation of markets."
"Bretton Woods II
- five key points on the road to a new global financial deal"
- The Guardian, Friday November 14 2008
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/11/13/keynes460x276.jpg
- John Maynard Keynes in 1944 at the UN International Monetary
Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire.
The summit's agreement shaped with postwar economic effort.
Photograph: Hulton Archive
International institutions
==========================
"While the summit is almost certain not to create a
new "Bretton Woods" system overnight, countries led by
Britain and France want an enhanced role for the International
Monetary Fund, to improve surveillance of complex financial
markets and help prevent such excesses building up in future.
They also favour increased funding for the IMF.
Gordon Brown made well-publicised efforts to persuade
Gulf states to make large contributions to its coffers, while
there is also pressure on China, and Japan has pledged $100bn
of reserves.
The additional money would enable the IMF to finance more
bail-outs to countries suffering runs on their currencies and banks.
The US is less keen on this because new streams of funding would
dilute its voting rights within the Washington-based institution.
Similarly, the keenness of oil-rich Gulf states to contribute will be
tested now that oil prices have more than halved from their summer peaks.
Global regulation
=================
There is a widespread recognition that regulation of financial markets
has been far too weak in recent years. Authorities have been
increasingly aware of the excesses building up in such markets, like
those for mortgage-backed securities, but have failed to increase
regulation.
There is also, though, a recognition that too hasty regulation in
response to a crisis, like that of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act brought in by
the US Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal (and designed
to improve corporate responsibility and combat corporate and accounting
fraud), could be counter-productive.
So, there will be discussion of a new global regulator that can force
banks and hedge funds to be more transparent about their borrowings and
their investment positions.
Such an organisation would force banks to hold greater capital cushions
or make them pay bonuses in shares that would have to be held in a
company for, say, five years, to make sure it was the longer-term
interests of the shareholders that was the focus rather than the
bankers' own short-term interests.
There is also discussion of a temporary suspension of "mark to market"
accounting rules under which banks are required to report the current
value of their assets at times when pricing those assets - such as
sub-prime mortgages - is virtually impossible.
Recapitalisation of banks
=========================
This is already happening around the world, with most countries
following the British model. The US government announced changes to its
$700bn bail-out for its banking system on Wednesday, under which it will
buy fewer toxic mortgage-backed securities from banks and instead
recapitalise banks by buying shares.
This weekend's G20 meeting will discuss a possible response to the
problem of banks running out of capital - which probably would be based
on a Spanish-style system whereby banks have to hold a bigger capital
cushion in good times, which they can draw upon in bad times.
Building such a system will not happen overnight but G20 leaders will
probably commit themselves to such action. There is also likely to be
discussion of new rules to simplify derivatives products and improve the
transparency of the markets in which they are traded.
Fiscal/monetary policy
======================
One aim of the G20 summit is to coordinate global action on interest
rates in an effort to pump some life back into the world economy and
avoid deflation, or falling prices.
Most governments have already begun to cut and many are also either
embarking on, or considering, tax cuts or spending increases to help
reflate countries' economies - especially as the impact of interest rate
cuts in many economies is being hampered now by the poor availability of
credit.
Brown is trying to lead globally coordinated tax cuts. But public
deficits in Britain have grown so large in recent years that the country
is one of the worst-placed of the main economies to afford a big fiscal
giveaway.
New world order
===============
Recent decades have been dominated by western industrialised nations
grouped together under the banner of the Group of Seven, but the summit,
this weekend, billed as G20, marks a significant shift.
Large-scale economies such as China, India and Brazil now have a place
at the table and are demanding a much greater say in global economic
oversight because they consider the old "Anglo-Saxon" free-market dogma
to be dead.
Reflecting this shift, Brown has indicated that it could be possible to
get an agreement on the Doha round of trade talks, which collapsed in
Geneva earlier this year amid bitter recriminations between the US and
India.
The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, for his part, will use the summit
to suggest that the days of the dollar as the world's reserve currency
are over."
|
Full text: Group of 20 summit communique
- Reuters 15/11/2008
WASHINGTON -- Following is the full text of the communique released by
the leaders of Group of 20 on Saturday.
DECLARATION
SUMMIT ON FINANCIAL MARKETS AND THE WORLD ECONOMY November 15, 2008
1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, held an initial meeting in
Washington on November 15, 2008, amid serious challenges to the world
economy and financial markets. We are determined to enhance our
cooperation and work together to restore global growth and achieve
needed reforms in the world's financial systems.
2. Over the past months our countries have taken urgent and exceptional
measures to support the global economy and stabilize financial markets.
These efforts must continue. At the same time, we must lay the
foundation for reform to help to ensure that a global crisis, such as
this one, does not happen again. Our work will be guided by a shared
belief that market principles, open trade and investment regimes, and
effectively regulated financial markets foster the dynamism, innovation,
and entrepreneurship that are essential for economic growth, employment,
and poverty reduction.
Root Causes of the Current Crisis
3. During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and
prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought
higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed
to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting
standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and
opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to
create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and
supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate
and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with
financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of
domestic regulatory actions.
4. Major underlying factors to the current situation were, among others,
inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies,
inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global
macroeconomic outcomes. These developments, together, contributed to
excesses and ultimately resulted in severe market disruption. Actions
Taken and to Be Taken
5. We have taken strong and significant actions to date to stimulate our
economies, provide liquidity, strengthen the capital of financial
institutions, protect savings and deposits, address regulatory
deficiencies, unfreeze credit markets, and are working to ensure that
international financial institutions (IFIs) can provide critical support
for the global economy.
6. But more needs to be done to stabilize financial markets and support
economic growth. Economic momentum is slowing substantially in major
economies and the global outlook has weakened. Many emerging market
economies, which helped sustain the world economy this decade, are still
experiencing good growth but increasingly are being adversely impacted
by the worldwide slowdown.
7. Against this background of deteriorating economic conditions
worldwide, we agreed that a broader policy response is needed, based on
closer macroeconomic cooperation, to restore growth, avoid negative
spillovers and support emerging market economies and developing
countries. As immediate steps to achieve these objectives, as well as to
address longer-term challenges, we will:
Continue our vigorous efforts and take whatever further actions are
necessary to stabilize the financial system.
Recognize the importance of monetary policy support, as deemed
appropriate to domestic conditions.
Use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand to rapid effect, as
appropriate, while maintaining a policy framework conducive to fiscal
sustainability.
Help emerging and developing economies gain access to finance in current
difficult financial conditions, including through liquidity facilities
and program support. We stress the International Monetary Fund's (IMF)
important role in crisis response, welcome its new short-term liquidity
facility, and urge the ongoing review of its instruments and facilities
to ensure flexibility.
Encourage the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs)
to use their full capacity in support of their development agenda, and
we welcome the recent introduction of new facilities by the World Bank
in the areas of infrastructure and trade finance.
Ensure that the IMF, World Bank and other MDBs have sufficient resources
to continue playing their role in overcoming the crisis.
Common Principles for Reform of Financial Markets
8. In addition to the actions taken above, we will implement reforms
that will strengthen financial markets and regulatory regimes so as to
avoid future crises. Regulation is first and foremost the responsibility
of national regulators who constitute the first line of defense against
market instability. However, our financial markets are global in scope,
therefore, intensified international cooperation among regulators and
strengthening of international standards, where necessary, and their
consistent implementation is necessary to protect against adverse
cross-border, regional and global developments affecting international
financial stability. Regulators must ensure that their actions support
market discipline, avoid potentially adverse impacts on other countries,
including regulatory arbitrage, and support competition, dynamism and
innovation in the marketplace. Financial institutions must also bear
their responsibility for the turmoil and should do their part to
overcome it including by recognizing losses, improving disclosure and
strengthening their governance and risk management practices.
9. We commit to implementing policies consistent with the following
common principles for reform.
Strengthening Transparency and Accountability: We will strengthen
financial market transparency, including by enhancing required
disclosure on complex financial products and ensuring complete and
accurate disclosure by firms of their financial conditions. Incentives
should be aligned to avoid excessive risk-taking.
Enhancing Sound Regulation: We pledge to strengthen our regulatory
regimes, prudential oversight, and risk management, and ensure that all
financial markets, products and participants are regulated or subject to
oversight, as appropriate to their circumstances. We will exercise
strong oversight over credit rating agencies, consistent with the agreed
and strengthened international code of conduct. We will also make
regulatory regimes more effective over the economic cycle, while
ensuring that regulation is efficient, does not stifle innovation, and
encourages expanded trade in financial products and services. We commit
to transparent assessments of our national regulatory systems.
Promoting Integrity in Financial Markets: We commit to protect the
integrity of the world's financial markets by bolstering investor and
consumer protection, avoiding conflicts of interest, preventing illegal
market manipulation, fraudulent activities and abuse, and protecting
against illicit finance risks arising from non-cooperative
jurisdictions. We will also promote information sharing, including with
respect to jurisdictions that have yet to commit to international
standards with respect to bank secrecy and transparency.
Reinforcing International Cooperation: We call upon our national and
regional regulators to formulate their regulations and other measures in
a consistent manner. Regulators should enhance their coordination and
cooperation across all segments of financial markets, including with
respect to cross-border capital flows. Regulators and other relevant
authorities as a matter of priority should strengthen cooperation on
crisis prevention, management, and resolution.
Reforming International Financial Institutions: We are committed to
advancing the reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions so that they can
more adequately reflect changing economic weights in the world economy
in order to increase their legitimacy and effectiveness. In this
respect, emerging and developing economies, including the poorest
countries, should have greater voice and representation. The Financial
Stability Forum (FSF) must expand urgently to a broader membership of
emerging economies, and other major standard setting bodies should
promptly review their membership. The IMF, in collaboration with the
expanded FSF and other bodies, should work to better identify
vulnerabilities, anticipate potential stresses, and act swiftly to play
a key role in crisis response.
Tasking of Ministers and Experts
10. We are committed to taking rapid action to implement these
principles. We instruct our Finance Ministers, as coordinated by their
2009 G-20 leadership (Brazil, UK, Republic of Korea), to initiate
processes and a timeline to do so. An initial list of specific measures
is set forth in the attached Action Plan, including high priority
actions to be completed prior to March 31, 2009. In consultation with
other economies and existing bodies, drawing upon the recommendations of
such eminent independent experts as they may appoint, we request our
Finance Ministers to formulate additional recommendations, including in
the following specific areas:
Mitigating against pro-cyclicality in regulatory policy;
Reviewing and aligning global accounting standards, particularly for
complex securities in times of stress;
Strengthening the resilience and transparency of credit derivatives
markets and reducing their systemic risks, including by improving the
infrastructure of over-the-counter markets; Reviewing compensation
practices as they relate to incentives for risk taking and innovation;
Reviewing the mandates, governance, and resource requirements of the
IFIs; and
Defining the scope of systemically important institutions and
determining their appropriate regulation or oversight.
11. In view of the role of the G-20 in financial systems reform, we will
meet again by April 30, 2009, to review the implementation of the
principles and decisions agreed today. Commitment to an Open Global Economy
12. We recognize that these reforms will only be successful if grounded
in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law,
respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive
markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems. These
principles are essential to economic growth and prosperity and have
lifted millions out of poverty, and have significantly raised the global
standard of living. Recognizing the necessity to improve financial
sector regulation, we must avoid over-regulation that would hamper
economic growth and exacerbate the contraction of capital flows,
including to developing countries.
13. We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and
not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard,
within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to
investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export
restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO)
inconsistent measures to stimulate exports. Further, we shall strive to
reach agreement this year on modalities that leads to a successful
conclusion to the WTO's Doha Development Agenda with an ambitious and
balanced outcome. We instruct our Trade Ministers to achieve this
objective and stand ready to assist directly, as necessary. We also
agree that our countries have the largest stake in the global trading
system and therefore each must make the positive contributions necessary
to achieve such an outcome.
14. We are mindful of the impact of the current crisis on developing
countries, particularly the most vulnerable. We reaffirm the importance
of the Millennium Development Goals, the development assistance
commitments we have made, and urge both developed and emerging economies
to undertake commitments consistent with their capacities and roles in
the global economy. In this regard, we reaffirm the development
principles agreed at the 2002 United Nations Conference on Financing for
Development in Monterrey, Mexico, which emphasized country ownership and
mobilizing all sources of financing for development.
15. We remain committed to addressing other critical challenges such as
energy security and climate change, food security, the rule of law, and
the fight against terrorism, poverty and disease.
16. As we move forward, we are confident that through continued
partnership, cooperation, and multilateralism, we will overcome the
challenges before us and restore stability and prosperity to the world
economy. Action Plan to Implement Principles for Reform This Action Plan
sets forth a comprehensive work plan to implement the five agreed
principles for reform. Our finance ministers will work to ensure that
the taskings set forth in this Action Plan are fully and vigorously
implemented. They are responsible for the development and implementation
of these recommendations drawing on the ongoing work of relevant bodies,
including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an expanded Financial
Stability Forum (FSF), and standard setting bodies.
Strengthening Transparency and Accountability
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009
The key global accounting standards bodies should work to enhance
guidance for valuation of securities, also taking into account the
valuation of complex, illiquid products, especially during times of stress.
Accounting standard setters should significantly advance their work to
address weaknesses in accounting and disclosure standards for
off-balance sheet vehicles.
Regulators and accounting standard setters should enhance the required
disclosure of complex financial instruments by firms to market participants.
With a view toward promoting financial stability, the governance of the
international accounting standard setting body should be further
enhanced, including by undertaking a review of its membership, in
particular in order to ensure transparency, accountability, and an
appropriate relationship between this independent body and the relevant
authorities.
Private sector bodies that have already developed best practices for
private pools of capital and/or hedge funds should bring forward
proposals for a set of unified best practices. Finance Ministers should
assess the adequacy of these proposals, drawing upon the analysis of
regulators, the expanded FSF, and other relevant bodies.
Medium-term actions
The key global accounting standards bodies should work intensively
toward the objective of creating a single high-quality global standard.
Regulators, supervisors, and accounting standard setters, as
appropriate, should work with each other and the private sector on an
ongoing basis to ensure consistent application and enforcement of
high-quality accounting standards.
Financial institutions should provide enhanced risk disclosures in their
reporting and disclose all losses on an ongoing basis, consistent with
international best practice, as appropriate. Regulators should work to
ensure that a financial institution' financial statements include a
complete, accurate, and timely picture of the firm's activities
(including off-balance sheet activities) and are reported on a
consistent and regular basis.
Enhancing Sound Regulation Regulatory Regimes
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009.
The IMF, expanded FSF, and other regulators and bodies should develop
recommendations to mitigate pro-cyclicality, including the review of how
valuation and leverage, bank capital, executive compensation, and
provisioning practices may exacerbate cyclical trends.
To the extent countries or regions have not already done so, each
country or region pledges to review and report on the structure and
principles of its regulatory system to ensure it is compatible with a
modern and increasingly globalized financial system.
To this end, all G-20 members commit to undertake a Financial Sector
Assessment Program (FSAP) report and support the transparent assessments
of countries' national regulatory systems.
The appropriate bodies should review the differentiated nature of
regulation in the banking, securities, and insurance sectors and provide
a report outlining the issue and making recommendations on needed
improvements. A review of the scope of financial regulation, with a
special emphasis on institutions, instruments, and markets that are
currently unregulated, along with ensuring that all
systemically-important institutions are appropriately regulated, should
also be undertaken.
National and regional authorities should review resolution regimes and
bankruptcy laws in light of recent experience to ensure that they permit
an orderly wind-down of large complex cross-border financial institutions.
Definitions of capital should be harmonized in order to achieve
consistent measures of capital and capital adequacy.
Prudential Oversight
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009
Regulators should take steps to ensure that credit rating agencies meet
the highest standards of the international organization of securities
regulators and that they avoid conflicts of interest, provide greater
disclosure to investors and to issuers, and differentiate ratings for
complex products.
This will help ensure that credit rating agencies have the right
incentives and appropriate oversight to enable them to perform their
important role in providing unbiased information and assessments to markets.
The international organization of securities regulators should review
credit rating agencies' adoption of the standards and mechanisms for
monitoring compliance. Authorities should ensure that financial
institutions maintain adequate capital in amounts necessary to sustain
confidence. International standard setters should set out strengthened
capital requirements for banks' structured credit and securitization
activities.
Supervisors and regulators, building on the imminent launch of central
counterparty services for credit default swaps (CDS) in some countries,
should: speed efforts to reduce the systemic risks of CDS and
over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions; insist that market
participants support exchange traded or electronic trading platforms for
CDS contracts; expand OTC derivatives market transparency; and ensure
that the infrastructure for OTC derivatives can support growing volumes.
Medium-term actions
Credit Ratings Agencies that provide public ratings should be
registered. Supervisors and central banks should develop robust and
internationally consistent approaches for liquidity supervision of, and
central bank liquidity operations for, cross-border banks.
Risk Management
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009
Regulators should develop enhanced guidance to strengthen banks' risk
management practices, in line with international best practices, and
should encourage financial firms to reexamine their internal controls
and implement strengthened policies for sound risk management.
Regulators should develop and implement procedures to ensure that
financial firms implement policies to better manage liquidity risk,
including by creating strong liquidity cushions.
Supervisors should ensure that financial firms develop processes that
provide for timely and comprehensive measurement of risk concentrations
and large counterparty risk positions across products and geographies.
Firms should reassess their risk management models to guard against
stress and report to supervisors on their efforts.
The Basel Committee should study the need for and help develop firms'
new stress testing models, as appropriate.
Financial institutions should have clear internal incentives to promote
stability, and action needs to be taken, through voluntary effort or
regulatory action, to avoid compensation schemes which reward excessive
short-term returns or risk taking.
Banks should exercise effective risk management and due diligence over
structured products and securitization.
Medium-term actions
International standard setting bodies, working with a broad range of
economies and other appropriate bodies, should ensure that regulatory
policy makers are aware and able to respond rapidly to evolution and
innovation in financial markets and products.
Authorities should monitor substantial changes in asset prices and their
implications for the macroeconomy and the financial system.
Promoting Integrity in Financial Markets
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009
Our national and regional authorities should work together to enhance
regulatory cooperation between jurisdictions on a regional and
international level. National and regional authorities should work to
promote information sharing about domestic and cross-border threats to
market stability and ensure that national (or regional, where
applicable) legal provisions are adequate to address these threats.
National and regional authorities should also review business conduct
rules to protect markets and investors, especially against market
manipulation and fraud and strengthen their cross-border cooperation to
protect the international financial system from illicit actors. In case
of misconduct, there should be an appropriate sanctions regime.
Medium-term actions
National and regional authorities should implement national and
international measures that protect the global financial system from
uncooperative and non-transparent jurisdictions that pose risks of
illicit financial activity.
The Financial Action Task Force should continue its important work
against money laundering and terrorist financing, and we support the
efforts of the World Bank - UN Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative.
Tax authorities, drawing upon the work of relevant bodies such as the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), should
continue efforts to promote tax information exchange. Lack of
transparency and a failure to exchange tax information should be
vigorously addressed.
Reinforcing International Cooperation
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009
Supervisors should collaborate to establish supervisory colleges for all
major cross-border financial institutions, as part of efforts to
strengthen the surveillance of cross-border firms. Major global banks
should meet regularly with their supervisory college for comprehensive
discussions of the firm's activities and assessment of the risks it faces.
Regulators should take all steps necessary to strengthen cross-border
crisis management arrangements, including on cooperation and
communication with each other and with appropriate authorities, and
develop comprehensive contact lists and conduct simulation exercises, as
appropriate.
Medium-term actions
Authorities, drawing especially on the work of regulators, should
collect information on areas where convergence in regulatory practices
such as accounting standards, auditing, and deposit insurance is making
progress, is in need of accelerated progress, or where there may be
potential for progress.
Authorities should ensure that temporary measures to restore stability
and confidence have minimal distortions and are unwound in a timely,
well-sequenced and coordinated manner.
Reforming International Financial Institutions
Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009
The FSF should expand to a broader membership of emerging economies.
The IMF, with its focus on surveillance, and the expanded FSF, with its
focus on standard setting, should strengthen their collaboration,
enhancing efforts to better integrate regulatory and supervisory
responses into the macro-prudential policy framework and conduct early
warning exercises.
The IMF, given its universal membership and core macro-financial
expertise, should, in close coordination with the FSF and others, take a
leading role in drawing lessons from the current crisis, consistent with
its mandate.
We should review the adequacy of the resources of the IMF, the World
Bank Group and other multilateral development banks and stand ready to
increase them where necessary. The IFIs should also continue to review
and adapt their lending instruments to adequately meet their members'
needs and revise their lending role in the light of the ongoing
financial crisis.
We should explore ways to restore emerging and developing countries'
access to credit and resume private capital flows which are critical for
sustainable growth and development, including ongoing infrastructure
investment.
In cases where severe market disruptions have limited access to the
necessary financing for counter-cyclical fiscal policies, multilateral
development banks must ensure arrangements are in place to support, as
needed, those countries with a good track record and sound policies.
Medium-term actions
We underscored that the Bretton Woods Institutions must be
comprehensively reformed so that they can more adequately reflect
changing economic weights in the world economy and be more responsive to
future challenges. Emerging and developing economies should have greater
voice and representation in these institutions. The IMF should conduct
vigorous and even-handed surveillance reviews of all countries, as well
as giving greater attention to their financial sectors and better
integrating the reviews with the joint IMF/World Bank financial sector
assessment programs. On this basis, the role of the IMF in providing
macro-financial policy advice would be strengthened.
Advanced economies, the IMF, and other international organizations
should provide capacity-building programs for emerging market economies
and developing countries on the formulation and the implementation of
new major regulations, consistent with international standards.
¿ Thomson Reuters
http://www.g20.org/G20/webapp/publicEN/publication/communiques/doc/2000_canada.pdf
Summary
"WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - The following are
excerpts from the Group of 20 communique as read to
Reuters by a source close to the negotiations.
The source said the G20 had agreed on a final statement.
'Regulators must ensure that their actions support market
discipline (and) avoid potentially adverse impacts on
other countries, including regulatory arbitrage.'
'We pledge to ... ensure that all financial markets,
products and participants are regulated or subject
to oversight.'
'We commit ... (to) protecting against illicit finance
risks arising from noncooperative jurisdictions.'
'We will also promote information sharing, including
with respect to jurisdictions that have yet to commit
to international standards with respect to bank secrecy
and transparency.'
'We agreed that a broader policy response is needed,
based on closer macroeconomic cooperation, to restart
growth, avoid negative spillovers and support emerging
market economies and developing countries.'
'(We) will use fiscal measures.'
'(We) recognize the importance of monetary policy
support, as deemed appropriate to domestic conditions.'
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/11/15/afx5698923.html
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will host world
leaders November 15 for a summit to confront the
world financial crisis.."to discuss the financial
markets and the global economy," White House spokeswoman
Dana Perino said.
The leaders will try to "agree on a common set of principles" for
reforming regulation of the markets"
Bush said the summit will include developed and
developing nations from around the world and
suggested it could be the first of a series of
high-level meetings.
The G20 countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom,
the United States and the European Union.
The managing director of the International Monetary Fund,
the president of the World Bank, the United Nations
secretary-general, and the chairman of the Financial
Stability Forum also have been invited to participate".
[video: Is capitalism deteriorating?]
http://money.cnn.com/video/#/video/news/2008/10/21/news-romans-1021082.cnnmoney
fasgnadh wrote:
"The truth is that Rudd was exactly where Australia's
Prime Minister should have been in a week when the
global financial crisis was the dominant issue."
- Laurie Oakes Herald Sun 27/9/2008
"Australia has a big stake in all this."
....
Anything that helps put the Australian Government in
a position to influence US decisions that could have
a serious impact here is important."
...
"leaders of the world's major economies were all there
in New York, attending the United Nations but devoting
most of their attention to the meltdown and the kind of
regulatory reforms and international action required to
deal with it."
.....
And the US Bankers who created this mess are NOT the people
who are going to shape NEW OPTIONS....they are the past.. the
rest of the WORLD is going to make changes!!!! B^)
Rudd and the other world leaders will look to Europe, China,
India and Russia to play a much more active role in a much more
DISTRIBUTED Global financial system, probably trading in Euros.
On CNN, during the Presidential debate four out of five ads
were for GLOBAL, NON-US, emerging Financial Giants such as
Doha Bank, Malaysia International Islamic Financial Centre,
and Dubai International Financial Centre!
A more diverse INTERDEPENDENT New World Economic Order.
You will see a lot of that phrase over coming years, but you
heard it first in the context of this Global Economic Crisis,
from me, in Usenet, ...because while the Friedmanites are
still trying to come to terms with the FAILURE which has just
occurred, others, who had anticipated it, were looking to the
future, and the emergence of the modern analogue to the
Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944.
Next: What will the New World Economic Order look like?
---------
"A Spiritual Solution to Economic Problems"
- http://www.uhj.net/bahaiprinciples/economics.html
"There is no cut and dried system of economics.
Baha''u'lla'h establishes certain principles and
leaves it to us to build the structure.
There is a danger of the popular term "new world order"
conjuring up a picture of something for nothing,
of state supported individuals enjoying all the
advantages of prosperity without any adequate
contribution of hard work or service.
Baha''u'lla'h requires every-one to work,
no idle rich and no idle poor.
"The most despised of men before God is he who
sits and begs. ...
The best men are they that earn a livelihood by their
calling and spend upon themselves and upon their
kindred for the love of God, the Lord of all worlds."
- Baha'u'llah
--------- |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Benway
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 16, 1:46?pm, "Green Lantern" <gr...@peril.com> wrote:
... has dealt very harshly with ...
the business of meeting the needs of humanity. The mkore invisible the
hand was, the more it stole from working people.
By late 2007, the invisible hand was out of control, taking credit for
things it had nothing to do with, until there was no credit left to
take, and not even the richest people on the planet could trust each
other.
By September 2008, all that was solid had melted into air, and even
the invisible hand's most devoted legions of followers in the
government thought it needed to become visible and open to
manipulation (the movement of *other hands*).
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy" (a worshipper of the invisible hand and a member of
the skull and bones society) and other invisible stuff like god, but
even he had to admit he was frightened what, left to its own devices,
the hand might get up to. He was worried it might make the market even
more depressed that it was in the 1930s, and so at the G20, he agreed
that many hands were needed to give it a hand job (I think he spoke of
"physical stimulus" but I may have misheard) so that the market could
start growing again.
Now the worshippers of the invisible hand are wondering if it can ever
go back to being invisible again. Now that we've seen it and touched
it and had a good fiddle, will most people ever again pray to it as if
it were the Oracle at Delphi?
The invisible hand's days may be over.
Fran
******************************************** |
Now that Aussies have had non-core John's invisible
hand interfering in their pockets and their lives,
the invisible hand may be applying to Centrelink
for bare sustenance, if not relevance.
*********************************** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
lorad
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 15, 8:13 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 16, 1:46 pm, "Green Lantern" <gr...@peril.com> wrote:
... has dealt very harshly with ...
the business of meeting the needs of humanity. The mkore invisible the
hand was, the more it stole from working people.
By late 2007, the invisible hand was out of control, taking credit for
things it had nothing to do with, until there was no credit left to
take, and not even the richest people on the planet could trust each
other.
By September 2008, all that was solid had melted into air, and even
the invisible hand's most devoted legions of followers in the
government thought it needed to become visible and open to
manipulation (the movement of *other hands*).
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy" (a worshipper of the invisible hand and a member of
the skull and bones society) and other invisible stuff like god, but
even he had to admit he was frightened what, left to its own devices,
the hand might get up to. He was worried it might make the market even
more depressed that it was in the 1930s, and so at the G20, he agreed
that many hands were needed to give it a hand job (I think he spoke of
"physical stimulus" but I may have misheard) so that the market could
start growing again.
Now the worshippers of the invisible hand are wondering if it can ever
go back to being invisible again. Now that we've seen it and touched
it and had a good fiddle, will most people ever again pray to it as if
it were the Oracle at Delphi?
The invisible hand's days may be over.
Fran
|
The New World Order has many helping hands.. sort of like a Hydra..
"physical stimulus"... hahahaha |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: |
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
|
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
|
I'm merely quoting Bush about himself
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081112-1.html
Fran |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
|
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
Now I'm as ready to make fun of Bush's laboured and at times
eccentric
syntax as anyone, but it seems to me that this is really a cheap
shot, and if you examine what Bush says below, if the worst thing
were
eccentric syntax, then the world would be in far better shape. As
much
as this passage (and the rest of what Bush says underlined his modest
intellectual and academic accomplishments, what is really disturbing
is the disconnect one can see between the Bush administration and the
world in which it operates. Years ago, Bush apparatchiks spoke
arrogantly to Suskind of 'the reality-based community' -- a
disparaging reference to those of us who look for evidence on which
to
base our inferences. They contrasted this with themselves --
history's
actors, who would be the source for our analysis, since they'd be
making the reality that we could study.
Sadly, for Bush, reality has mugged them and as this piece below
acknowledges, they had nothing better than elements of the reality
based community to lead the Bush gang out of the mire into which
their
instincts had led them.
|||
I found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how
it
is necessary to get something done quickly, and I think we will.
And we'll continue to work with them. It is essential that the
package
be robust and strong to address the problem. I know — look, I'm sure
there are some of my friends out there saying, I thought this guy was
a market guy; what happened to him?
Well, my first instinct wasn't to lay out a huge government plan. My
first instinct was to let the market work until I realized, upon
being
briefed by the experts, of how significant this problem became.
And so I decided to act and act boldly. It turns out that there's a
lot of interlinks throughout the financial system. The system had
grown to a point where a lot of people were dependent upon each
other,
and that the collapse of one part of the system wouldn't just affect
a
part of the financial markets; it would affect the average citizen —
and how. Well, it affect their capacity to borrow money to buy a
house
or to finance a college loan. It affect the ability of a small
business to get credit. In other words, the system risk was
significant, and it required a significant response, and Congress
understands that. And we'll work to get something done as quickly and
as big as possible.
....
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor, and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*. Instinct is of course, not based on reason, but, to the
extent one can accept it as an explanator, it's a programmed response
-- in common parlance, a kneejerk reaction. In effect, he is
admitting
that his responses were made through his own fundamentalist blinkers
-- being "a market guy". And all this 8 years into the job of being
president and after a stint as a Governor of Texas.
Clearly, this is a guy with no time for analysis or reflection. His
other big instinct was of course to invade Iraq because for sure, we
didn't want a mushroom cloud over Washington. Yet even when his
instinct proved utterly unreliable, he learned nothing at all about
the limits of gut reactions. And in this speech above, in the course
of a couple of sentences, he acknowledges, again, that his instincts,
if followed, would have led to a disaster, that indeed, the only way
to save the market system, was to depart from the temple of market
fundamentalism at which he daily prays. If he had the slightest
capacity for reflection and a shred of integrity, he'd have had an
epiphany and said "as it turns out, market forces aren't nearly as
efficient and effective in serving public utility as I've assumed,
because now I have no good alternative but to impose upon the most
vital parts of the economy to rescue the most moribund, buying up
what
experts whose advice I accept describe as toxic debt, and agreeing to
impose the debt service on this on every American for perhaps a
decade
and a half."
But no, he has no insight and no integrity. He lives in his bubble.
It
wasn't that Bush was asleep at the wheel as Obama and to some extent
Palin have charged. It was that he was wearing a VR display,
programmed by people who filled his head with soothing images of US
flags, the national anthem, platitudes about market forces, and faith
and worrying images of fearsome terrorists and WMDs, aborted babies
and gays in the military.
He was the ultimate intellectual bubble boy -- he lived entirely
within a reality composed by his handlers, those who were "creating
history" but now that he is getting new content into his bubble, he
believes something else, and isn't quite sure why. One can feel a
little sorry for him, but sorrier still for everyone else who
suffered
as a result of Bush being the empty vessel for the impulses of
others.
And to think, on the transecendent issues of policy, McCain says he
agrees with Bush. But with whom does Bush agree? It depends who is
doing the feed I suppose.
McCain, who admits his economic expertise is limited, would likely be
the star, if he survives the audition, in the New Adventures of
Bubble
Boy.
Fran |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 17, 8:37 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
[...]
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
|
| Quote: | It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
|
I'm referring to the "house of cards" (which is a metaphor) "start
[ing] to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the sense of the effects
of failure."
Houses of cards don't "stretch" "in [any] sense" unless they are
metaphorically put on the rack and tortured.
| Quote: | and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*.
You're an idiot, and I say that with nothing but affection.
|
How nice of you ...
| Quote: | Attempting to analyze spoken words is your first mistake. Analyzing the
spoken words of the Great Articulate Intellectual Hero of the Left,
Obama X, will yield even worse results.
|
No, it wouldn't, even if it were relevant here.
| Quote: | For instance:
"Why did you start running for president?"
[...]
"I'm running for president because of -- because I have two daughters
just like you. One's seven and one's 10. And they are perfect, just like
I'm sure your dad will tell me you're perfect.
\ |
It's vacuous, but not an intellectual mess.
| Quote: | "And I think about what kind of America they're growing up in and what
life's going to be like for them 20 years from now or 30 years from now,
when they're raising their own families.
|
Ok ...
| Quote: | "I think about the idea that maybe this country's become more divided
instead of more unified. And maybe our economic opportunities have
shrunk, so only a few people are able to make it into the middle class,
and we have a lot of people who're just struggling day to day, and not
able to live out their American dream. And I think about us still being
so dependent upon foreign energy that our economy is grinding to a halt,
and our planet, because we didn't adjust from fossil fuels, has gone up
two or three degrees and the polar ice caps have melted, and the oceans
have gone up. And, suddenly, our ways of life have changed, and America
is no longer what it could be; what it once was."
|
A ramble about his fears for the future and his children's life
chances. It's a reasonable rationale. The last two lines are again
vacuous polspeak but not plainly wrong (though I'd challenge his
rather rose-coloured view of what America once was).
Fran |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
On Nov 17, 11:24 am, TigerLuck <TigerLuck@wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fran wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
Now I'm as ready to make fun of Bush's laboured and at times
eccentric
syntax as anyone, but it seems to me that this is really a cheap
shot, and if you examine what Bush says below, if the worst thing
were
eccentric syntax, then the world would be in far better shape. As
much
as this passage (and the rest of what Bush says underlined his modest
intellectual and academic accomplishments, what is really disturbing
is the disconnect one can see between the Bush administration and the
world in which it operates. Years ago, Bush apparatchiks spoke
arrogantly to Suskind of 'the reality-based community' -- a
disparaging reference to those of us who look for evidence on which
to
base our inferences. They contrasted this with themselves --
history's
actors, who would be the source for our analysis, since they'd be
making the reality that we could study.
Sadly, for Bush, reality has mugged them and as this piece below
acknowledges, they had nothing better than elements of the reality
based community to lead the Bush gang out of the mire into which
their
instincts had led them.
|||
I found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how
it
is necessary to get something done quickly, and I think we will.
And we'll continue to work with them. It is essential that the
package
be robust and strong to address the problem. I know — look, I'm sure
there are some of my friends out there saying, I thought this guy was
a market guy; what happened to him?
Well, my first instinct wasn't to lay out a huge government plan. My
first instinct was to let the market work until I realized, upon
being
briefed by the experts, of how significant this problem became.
And so I decided to act and act boldly. It turns out that there's a
lot of interlinks throughout the financial system. The system had
grown to a point where a lot of people were dependent upon each
other,
and that the collapse of one part of the system wouldn't just affect
a
part of the financial markets; it would affect the average citizen —
and how. Well, it affect their capacity to borrow money to buy a
house
or to finance a college loan. It affect the ability of a small
business to get credit. In other words, the system risk was
significant, and it required a significant response, and Congress
understands that. And we'll work to get something done as quickly and
as big as possible.
...
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor, and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*. Instinct is of course, not based on reason, but, to the
extent one can accept it as an explanator, it's a programmed response
-- in common parlance, a kneejerk reaction. In effect, he is
admitting
that his responses were made through his own fundamentalist blinkers
-- being "a market guy". And all this 8 years into the job of being
president and after a stint as a Governor of Texas.
Clearly, this is a guy with no time for analysis or reflection. His
other big instinct was of course to invade Iraq because for sure, we
didn't want a mushroom cloud over Washington. Yet even when his
instinct proved utterly unreliable, he learned nothing at all about
the limits of gut reactions. And in this speech above, in the course
of a couple of sentences, he acknowledges, again, that his instincts,
if followed, would have led to a disaster, that indeed, the only way
to save the market system, was to depart from the temple of market
fundamentalism at which he daily prays. If he had the slightest
capacity for reflection and a shred of integrity, he'd have had an
epiphany and said "as it turns out, market forces aren't nearly as
efficient and effective in serving public utility as I've assumed,
because now I have no good alternative but to impose upon the most
vital parts of the economy to rescue the most moribund, buying up
what
experts whose advice I accept describe as toxic debt, and agreeing to
impose the debt service on this on every American for perhaps a
decade
and a half."
But no, he has no insight and no integrity. He lives in his bubble.
It
wasn't that Bush was asleep at the wheel as Obama and to some extent
Palin have charged. It was that he was wearing a VR display,
programmed by people who filled his head with soothing images of US
flags, the national anthem, platitudes about market forces, and faith
and worrying images of fearsome terrorists and WMDs, aborted babies
and gays in the military.
He was the ultimate intellectual bubble boy -- he lived entirely
within a reality composed by his handlers, those who were "creating
history" but now that he is getting new content into his bubble, he
believes something else, and isn't quite sure why. One can feel a
little sorry for him, but sorrier still for everyone else who
suffered
as a result of Bush being the empty vessel for the impulses of
others.
And to think, on the transecendent issues of policy, McCain says he
agrees with Bush. But with whom does Bush agree? It depends who is
doing the feed I suppose.
McCain, who admits his economic expertise is limited, would likely be
the star, if he survives the audition, in the New Adventures of
Bubble
Boy.
Fran
I wish I was even half as capable as you
|
I'm glad you liked it.
Fran |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
I'm merely quoting Bush about himself
|
Exactly!
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:37 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
|
[...]
| Quote: |
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor,
|
What are you referring to? The "house of cards?"
It's not a tortured metaphor, it's a cliché.
| Quote: | and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*.
|
You're an idiot, and I say that with nothing but affection.
Attempting to analyze spoken words is your first mistake. Analyzing the
spoken words of the Great Articulate Intellectual Hero of the Left,
Obama X, will yield even worse results.
For instance:
"Why did you start running for president?"
[...]
"I'm running for president because of -- because I have two daughters
just like you. One's seven and one's 10. And they are perfect, just like
I'm sure your dad will tell me you're perfect.
"And I think about what kind of America they're growing up in and what
life's going to be like for them 20 years from now or 30 years from now,
when they're raising their own families.
"I think about the idea that maybe this country's become more divided
instead of more unified. And maybe our economic opportunities have
shrunk, so only a few people are able to make it into the middle class,
and we have a lot of people who're just struggling day to day, and not
able to live out their American dream. And I think about us still being
so dependent upon foreign energy that our economy is grinding to a halt,
and our planet, because we didn't adjust from fossil fuels, has gone up
two or three degrees and the polar ice caps have melted, and the oceans
have gone up. And, suddenly, our ways of life have changed, and America
is no longer what it could be; what it once was."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
TigerLuck
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: The Invisible Hand Of The Market ... |
|
|
Fran wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 12:30 am, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Fran wrote:
George Bush was in a quandary, and not for the first time. He was a
"free market guy"
No, he isn't/wasn't a "free market guy."
--
NeoLibertarian
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft
You or others might like to read something I wrote on Bush and his
intellectual framework on Sept 23 ...
Now I'm as ready to make fun of Bush's laboured and at times
eccentric
syntax as anyone, but it seems to me that this is really a cheap
shot, and if you examine what Bush says below, if the worst thing
were
eccentric syntax, then the world would be in far better shape. As
much
as this passage (and the rest of what Bush says underlined his modest
intellectual and academic accomplishments, what is really disturbing
is the disconnect one can see between the Bush administration and the
world in which it operates. Years ago, Bush apparatchiks spoke
arrogantly to Suskind of 'the reality-based community' -- a
disparaging reference to those of us who look for evidence on which
to
base our inferences. They contrasted this with themselves --
history's
actors, who would be the source for our analysis, since they'd be
making the reality that we could study.
Sadly, for Bush, reality has mugged them and as this piece below
acknowledges, they had nothing better than elements of the reality
based community to lead the Bush gang out of the mire into which
their
instincts had led them.
|||
I found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how
it
is necessary to get something done quickly, and I think we will.
And we'll continue to work with them. It is essential that the
package
be robust and strong to address the problem. I know — look, I'm sure
there are some of my friends out there saying, I thought this guy was
a market guy; what happened to him?
Well, my first instinct wasn't to lay out a huge government plan. My
first instinct was to let the market work until I realized, upon
being
briefed by the experts, of how significant this problem became.
And so I decided to act and act boldly. It turns out that there's a
lot of interlinks throughout the financial system. The system had
grown to a point where a lot of people were dependent upon each
other,
and that the collapse of one part of the system wouldn't just affect
a
part of the financial markets; it would affect the average citizen —
and how. Well, it affect their capacity to borrow money to buy a
house
or to finance a college loan. It affect the ability of a small
business to get credit. In other words, the system risk was
significant, and it required a significant response, and Congress
understands that. And we'll work to get something done as quickly and
as big as possible.
...
At first I thought we could deal with this — deal with the problem
one
issue at a time. We made the decision on Fannie and Freddie because
there was systemic risk to our mortgage markets. And then obviously
AIG came along, and Lehman came along and it was — it declared
bankruptcy; then AIG came along and it — the house of cards was much
bigger, beyond — started to stretch beyond just Wall Street, in the
sense of the effects of failure. And so when one card started to go,
we were worried about the whole deck going down, and so therefore
moved, and moved hard.
|||
One can laugh at the tortured metaphor, and Bush's description of the
once invincible market as a 'house of cards' but golly gosh: The
world's financial and production markets are interconnected, and that
this would affect average citizens? Who'd have guessed? Not Bush,
certainly.
It's very telling that he describes his first impulse as deriving
from
*instinct*. Instinct is of course, not based on reason, but, to the
extent one can accept it as an explanator, it's a programmed response
-- in common parlance, a kneejerk reaction. In effect, he is
admitting
that his responses were made through his own fundamentalist blinkers
-- being "a market guy". And all this 8 years into the job of being
president and after a stint as a Governor of Texas.
Clearly, this is a guy with no time for analysis or reflection. His
other big instinct was of course to invade Iraq because for sure, we
didn't want a mushroom cloud over Washington. Yet even when his
instinct proved utterly unreliable, he learned nothing at all about
the limits of gut reactions. And in this speech above, in the course
of a couple of sentences, he acknowledges, again, that his instincts,
if followed, would have led to a disaster, that indeed, the only way
to save the market system, was to depart from the temple of market
fundamentalism at which he daily prays. If he had the slightest
capacity for reflection and a shred of integrity, he'd have had an
epiphany and said "as it turns out, market forces aren't nearly as
efficient and effective in serving public utility as I've assumed,
because now I have no good alternative but to impose upon the most
vital parts of the economy to rescue the most moribund, buying up
what
experts whose advice I accept describe as toxic debt, and agreeing to
impose the debt service on this on every American for perhaps a
decade
and a half."
But no, he has no insight and no integrity. He lives in his bubble.
It
wasn't that Bush was asleep at the wheel as Obama and to some extent
Palin have charged. It was that he was wearing a VR display,
programmed by people who filled his head with soothing images of US
flags, the national anthem, platitudes about market forces, and faith
and worrying images of fearsome terrorists and WMDs, aborted babies
and gays in the military.
He was the ultimate intellectual bubble boy -- he lived entirely
within a reality composed by his handlers, those who were "creating
history" but now that he is getting new content into his bubble, he
believes something else, and isn't quite sure why. One can feel a
little sorry for him, but sorrier still for everyone else who
suffered
as a result of Bush being the empty vessel for the impulses of
others.
And to think, on the transecendent issues of policy, McCain says he
agrees with Bush. But with whom does Bush agree? It depends who is
doing the feed I suppose.
McCain, who admits his economic expertise is limited, would likely be
the star, if he survives the audition, in the New Adventures of
Bubble
Boy.
Fran
|
I wish I was even half as capable as you. |
|
| |
|
