Who in their right mind WOULD want to inherit this nearly-impossible mess? That’s why no one with a real resume is running.

I have no serious objection to Obama’s positions, though I disagree with some of them (i.e. health care). But I look at his experience and think, man, that’s the best we can do? And McCain is only marginally more experienced (and I have no idea what he stands for anymore– he’s become Clintonesque). Neither candidate has any real foreign policy experience. Neither has ever served in an executive branch, much less served as an executive. Neither has any experience in finance, budgeting, or banking. Neither has ever practiced diplomacy. Neither has ever run a business. They are both mind-numbingly unqualified to be President, especially in this time of crisis.

My theory: whichever party wins will have such a diasaster on their hands that they won’t see the White House again for a generation. So be careful what you wish for. Neither candidate has a clue how to deal with the financial crisis, the wars, the budget deficit, or our increasingly extremism-torn society. Whichever wins, they’re going to get clobbered by reality.

$400 billion in Lehman CDS settled today at less than 9 cents on the dollar. So, some entities are out $360 billion. But no one knows who because the transactions are private. Hence the risk level. WaMu CDS settled in a week or so.

It’s good to know that China and the former Soviet Union have never had such problems as war, environmental destruction, and oppression of minorities. I’m sure the Soviet Jews, Tibetans and Chinese Muslims will be happy to hear that. And all those troops on both sides of the Sino-Soviet border for all those years were just vacationing. The polluted rivers of the Eastern block (China’s Yellow River is now one of the most polluted in the world)– well, that’s probably just America slipping something into the water.

Oh, but none of them were doing it “our” way. If I was running the country, things would be different…

It’s supposed to work such that the Prime Rate is slightly higher than inflation. Bank 1 borrows at 2.5% when inflation is 2%. They reloan to consumers at 5%. Good business deal. And if they need extra cash, they borrow from Bank 2 at 2.75% or 3%. Everybody’s happy because there’s little risk. Even if Bank 1 fails to repay its overnight loan, Bank 2 has plenty of sources for extra cash because everyone’s making money. They’ll lend not only Fed money, but depositors’ money, and they’ll make a profit doing it.

But consider the present situation: Bank 2 can borrow money from the Fed at 1.5%. But if they can’t repay it, there’s NO supply of cheap money in the market because the Fed is the ONLY source of funds below inflation. Let’s say Bank 2 relends its 1.5% funds to Bank 1 at 2%. Good deal, right? But Bank 1 loans it out at 6% for residential mortages that are slow to pay, and it can’t repay Bank 2 on time. Where does Bank 2 go to repay its overnight loan? No one but the Fed will loan money at below inflation.

If the Fed has an unlimited supply of money, everything’s groovy. But everyone knows the Fed can’t do that without creating hyperinflation– something even Bernanke isn’t stupid enough to encourage. So there’s a limited supply of cheap money in the market. This is key: if I’m a bank that runs out of 1.5% money, I WON’T LOAN YOU MY OWN MONEY because I’d lose 4.2% on it. So why take the risk? That’s exactly what happened to the Icelandic banks: the supply of cheap money dried up and they couldn’t repay their short-term loans.

Extend that outward: Corporations use to be able to get cheap short-term loans. Now they can’t. They have to borrow at a rate that is far enough above inflation to limit the risk of the lending bank from current and future inflation. These days, that’s 6.5% or more instead of 2%. That’s NOT cheap money.

nonsense, the system is responsible for all the horrors we’re against.. war, environmental destruction, oppression of women and nationalities, and yes, poverty. there has never been, nor will there ever be again, so many people living on the brink of starvation, in horrible poverty, as right now, at the height of global capitalism.

why? because the system requires the exploitation of those on the bottom for the luxury of those on top. the end of capitalism can ONLY be a good thing in the long run for the huge majority of humanity and the planet, just as was the collapse of the Roman Empire, Mayan, etc.

does that mean we cheer the collapse, sit back, and wait for socialism to arrive? no, of course not. we organize, just like we always do. we do as you said, “First, help them. Then deliver the message.”

exactly. now, how can we help?

how about if some of that $850 billion went towards health care, or education (i’m a student organizer and college debt is skyrocketing, why not bail us out?), ending foreclosures, providing millions of green jobs for low-income folks… things like urban organic gardening, home weatherization, refitting suburbia to something sustainable, etc. that need to be done anyway? there’s unemployed people right there already in the community, just need the funds.

bush vetoed $6 billion for children’s health insurance, then finds $850 billion for the largest and wealthiest banks.

and what have they spent it on? well, AIG took a vacation to a resort and spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars with their bailout check.

anyway, i’m sure everyone already agrees with all these points. the only one that i really want to stress is that there’s absolutely nothing inherently bad about the end of capitalism - the worst plague in human history.

the only question is, what will replace it, a system trying to maintain the privileges of the powerful, i.e. fascism, or a system based on freedom, justice and democracy? it’s up to us to decide.

alex
students for a democratic society
http://endofcapitalism.com

We ’bout to find out…