This is very well produced but highly biased account of the use of government spending geared to appeal to pro-capitalists and libertarians in the US.
One can't look at government spending without taking into account the positive effects of the multiplier effect say in the context of recovery during the great depression, the growth of public infrastructure and provision of welfare services to the citizens. It's a tool of economic policy, one that has been used to great success in many other first world nations that have better health and economic indicators then the US.
One can't take one policy scheme and then essential lay all of a nations ills on it. Is it a problem right now for the US? yes. Is it a necessary tool considering the state of the US economy currently. yes. Rock and a hard place.
He is right and wrong, this looks at actions after and not actions before that lead to a crisis like this.
Hudson claims fault with the government bailouts, yes a bailout by the US government is always a bad idea, but one must understand the root cause of why such an action took place, CDOs and subprime exposures were intertwined in complex financial instruments that exposed all the banks, Lehman had so much debt that no one wanted to touch it neither the US nor the UK government, Barclay's walked on buying it because no government wanted to under write it. After Lehman collapsed it spiraled confidence downwards in all sectors of the financial market. Government money and bailout was then needed to reignite confidence and loosen money and start allow interbank loaning to take place. If this didn't happen we would have been in a far worse position, is there problems with other incentives the government took? yes but one must understand the pressure induced by both the populace and economic interests to take all and any action, most of which was to shore up confidence in the financial sector.
How did this come about? the financial sector and believers like Alan Greenspan always believed that the financial market could always self regulate themselves to not taken actions that would lead to their own demise, CDOS and subprime packages actually evolved from greed and abnormal profits. This lead to a whole slew of deregulated financial instruments like NINJA loans, which allowed firms to give loans to people no have No Income No Job or Assets. Who would have prevented this? the SEC and Fed which were both pushed into taking more lenient positions with regards to financial markets (same thing happened before with junk bonds and derivatives).
But great sift indeed, I totally agree with his views on dissuading borrowing and creation of more debt. Financial markets do not produce wealth. They only transfer it. Old school investment doesn't occur, as its multinational and money doesn't have incentive to invest in the US then say China.
That's your opinion coming from a pro capitalistic viewpoint, almost all these industries themselves pressed for government intervention and consequentially benefited massively from protectionist policies (see big 3 auto industry case vs Japan auto industry in the 70s oil crisis), the government representatives benefit because the states where these firms are based would vote with their jobs and lively hood. So on a economic standpoint you can argue its wrong, but not from a social one, an economist would allow GM to fail but we live in a society that needs to support its workers.
Such collusion is not the fault of the government, because they way you phrase it you make it sound like its a government initiative, when in reality its the industries themselves that consistently press for protectionist policies to distort the market for their own benefits and profit. The EU farming fiasco right now taking place in France is a clear example, the agricultural sector is pressing for a return to a quota system to allow prices to rise artificially, Brussels has stated it will take no such action as right now agro prices are completely out of sync with world prices and this only benefits the minority agricultural sector.
Am sorry but your opinions fail to ever encompass reality of the situation. Rather you simply have a pro-right beef with what you call government growth, because its a buzz word of the republican right wing. You rail against taxes and government spending without ever thinking that government spending in the 40s and 50s has built up the very infrastructure right that connects America with roads and telecom systems, government subsidies in cases like Canada have allowed the sprouting of a telecom network in its early years because no profit orientated firm would ever dream to lay down telecom networks because its a cost loss.
Its just like when I watch C-SPAN and see republicans complain about stimulus and subsidy packages when i know full well their state presses for the same stimulus and subsidy packages year on year to support their state industries.
Is there hope? Yes? Does it take years? yes Smoot hawley put into effect one of the largest protectionist drives in the world post great depression it has taken 80yrs for GATT, WTO and other international incentives to return to a trade freedom that comes somewhere close to pre-1930 levels. The system of protectionism and industry subsidization takes years to unravel because industries influence government policy more then government policy influences industries.
I watched this and thought it was the most beautifully filmed but most retarded film to ever have the audacity to think it comes anywhere near Anderi Tarkovsky's work.
Eminem's "Without me" in Klingon (SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' )
Story Of Government Spending:FDR to Present
One can't look at government spending without taking into account the positive effects of the multiplier effect say in the context of recovery during the great depression, the growth of public infrastructure and provision of welfare services to the citizens. It's a tool of economic policy, one that has been used to great success in many other first world nations that have better health and economic indicators then the US.
One can't take one policy scheme and then essential lay all of a nations ills on it. Is it a problem right now for the US? yes. Is it a necessary tool considering the state of the US economy currently. yes. Rock and a hard place.
TYT: Limbaugh's Crazy Obama Conspiracy Theory
But wow it's so good I started laughing 2 minutes in.
Crystal Castles - Crimewave
Reminds me so much of Ladytron.
The NEW 2D Super Mario Bros. Game!!
I will tell you now. I bought nintendo DS just to play the New Super Mario Bros DS. I sold it the moment I finished that game.
Am so tempted again now.
You Are A Debt Peon - Economist Michael Hudson Tells You Why
Hudson claims fault with the government bailouts, yes a bailout by the US government is always a bad idea, but one must understand the root cause of why such an action took place, CDOs and subprime exposures were intertwined in complex financial instruments that exposed all the banks, Lehman had so much debt that no one wanted to touch it neither the US nor the UK government, Barclay's walked on buying it because no government wanted to under write it. After Lehman collapsed it spiraled confidence downwards in all sectors of the financial market. Government money and bailout was then needed to reignite confidence and loosen money and start allow interbank loaning to take place. If this didn't happen we would have been in a far worse position, is there problems with other incentives the government took? yes but one must understand the pressure induced by both the populace and economic interests to take all and any action, most of which was to shore up confidence in the financial sector.
How did this come about? the financial sector and believers like Alan Greenspan always believed that the financial market could always self regulate themselves to not taken actions that would lead to their own demise, CDOS and subprime packages actually evolved from greed and abnormal profits. This lead to a whole slew of deregulated financial instruments like NINJA loans, which allowed firms to give loans to people no have No Income No Job or Assets. Who would have prevented this? the SEC and Fed which were both pushed into taking more lenient positions with regards to financial markets (same thing happened before with junk bonds and derivatives).
But great sift indeed, I totally agree with his views on dissuading borrowing and creation of more debt. Financial markets do not produce wealth. They only transfer it. Old school investment doesn't occur, as its multinational and money doesn't have incentive to invest in the US then say China.
Pushing for a Green Collar Economy in the USA
Such collusion is not the fault of the government, because they way you phrase it you make it sound like its a government initiative, when in reality its the industries themselves that consistently press for protectionist policies to distort the market for their own benefits and profit. The EU farming fiasco right now taking place in France is a clear example, the agricultural sector is pressing for a return to a quota system to allow prices to rise artificially, Brussels has stated it will take no such action as right now agro prices are completely out of sync with world prices and this only benefits the minority agricultural sector.
Am sorry but your opinions fail to ever encompass reality of the situation. Rather you simply have a pro-right beef with what you call government growth, because its a buzz word of the republican right wing. You rail against taxes and government spending without ever thinking that government spending in the 40s and 50s has built up the very infrastructure right that connects America with roads and telecom systems, government subsidies in cases like Canada have allowed the sprouting of a telecom network in its early years because no profit orientated firm would ever dream to lay down telecom networks because its a cost loss.
Its just like when I watch C-SPAN and see republicans complain about stimulus and subsidy packages when i know full well their state presses for the same stimulus and subsidy packages year on year to support their state industries.
Is there hope? Yes? Does it take years? yes Smoot hawley put into effect one of the largest protectionist drives in the world post great depression it has taken 80yrs for GATT, WTO and other international incentives to return to a trade freedom that comes somewhere close to pre-1930 levels. The system of protectionism and industry subsidization takes years to unravel because industries influence government policy more then government policy influences industries.
Katie Piper's Struggle After Rape and Acid Attack
The Doors - Alabama Song (Whiskey Bar) Live!
Shihan - "Love Like" slam poem
Yellow Rage - Asian Pwnage
Hey, we haven't had a poll in awhile! (User Poll by SlipperyPete)
Stalker - the pool sequence (Tarkovsky-Artemiev)
Don Diablo - Hooligans Never Surrender
Antichrist - Fox Scene (creeeepy)
Vangelis - Blade Runner - Love Theme
Trick r' Treat Trailer
Pushing for a Green Collar Economy in the USA
tell that to the banks
the auto industry
the agricultural industry
the defense sector
the pharmaceutical industry
Camp Lo - Luchini (This Is It)
Philosophy (Blog Entry by laura)