Maybe BushCo did it by accident– yet it fits so well with their obvious goal of destroying our democracy (in favor of an “imperial” presidency) that if it wasn’t planned, it sure was serendipitous.

I never credited BushCo with being all that bright, but when repeated “accidents” continually move the administration toward its unstated goals, I have to wonder whether I’ve underestimated them.

(BTW, Andrew Sullivan suggests that Clinton would be the perfect president to continue this consolidation of imperial power– with Giuliani as a second “choice”– and I tend to believe him. Our democracy is at great risk these days.)

That’s what’s been popping up on financial blogs for a few weeks now and is now in mainstream news. Serious questions about whether huge banks like Citi are solvent and what kind of systemic shocks are coming. Something which would hurt them too.

That’s why they’re doing the SIV fund. To stave off disaster. Maybe.

Not sure why destroying democracy would get them more money, and that’s their primary aim. (We’re talking capitalists here, not ideologues like BushCo.)

At first, I agreed with Bob that the neo-Keynesians are just clueless about reality. But the more I think about Thomas’s question, the more intrigued I am.

I have always accepted the Capitalist party line that there is more wealth equality in a democracy because democracy promotes wealth equality. But as I look around the world, especially those places I have seen personally, it occurs to me that perhaps the contrapositive is true: democracy only works where there is relatively high wealth equality.

If this is the case, then if you wanted to destroy democracy, you would promote greater divide between rich and poor. What better way than to disrupt the economy so it hurts those on the lower end?

I’ve just been curious about that number, and where it comes from.

thanks.

E.D.

What if they are?

Gross also may have a vested interest in lower rates, depending on how many SIVs etc. PIMCO owns.

Many of the more exotic financial instruments are based on borrowing short-term low interest money and investing it long-term, getting a higher rate. If short-term rates rise, they get squeezed.

The only way out as I see it is to RAISE interest rates, save the dollar, and take the economic hit for a while (as Carter did, killing his political career but ushering in decades of prosperity). Nobody will like that answer, except our children.