W's speech

[Supercilious]

I got my hands on a copy of the speech. Short summary in one sentence:
"The American taxpayer has weapons of mass destruction."

[Thailandnotes]

Re: W's speech

"There is, in a way, a kind of talent required to tell the nation that it’s teetering on the brink of disaster in a way that makes the viewers’ attention wander."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/op...hp&oref=slogin

[sishya]

Re: W's speech

Friends,

I am a little concerned after the President's speech. Maybe I am one of sheeple(baaah...baaah.). But the words he utttered has made me rethink the gravity of this whole situation.Companies who were barely profitable earlier and were borrowing heavily issuing bonds will go under and cause a lot of unemployment. Many manufacturing companies can be destroyed. Only a dollar devaluation or trade barrier can help such companies.

I am a naturalized citizen and I don't want USA to go down in flames.

[The Outback Oracle]

Re: W's speech

Jim Rogers

"If we keep voting for these turkeys....they're gonna keep sending us turkeys"

[D-Mack]

Re: W's speech

mighty words from Peer

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss

Germans Receive Bush Speech Coldly


By ERIC PFANNER
Published: September 25, 2008

PARIS — Trans- Atlantic sniping over the global financial crisis intensified Thursday after President Bush cited an influx of foreign money into the United States as one of the root causes of the tight credit market.

Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister, countered in a speech in Berlin that the conditions that gave rise to the current turmoil in the markets were allowed to develop because of a reckless pursuit of short-term profit and huge bonuses in “Anglo-Saxon” financial centers — along with a lack of political backbone to stand up to what he characterized as bankers’ greed.

“Investment bankers and politicians in New York, Washington and London were not willing to give these up,” he said. “The financial market crisis is above all an American problem”

The long-term consequences, Mr. Steinbrück added, could be serious for the United States. “The U.S. will lose its status as the superpower of the world financial system,” he told the Bundestag. “The world financial system will become multipolar.”


...

[don]

Re: W's speech

A remarkable speech. The Bushmaster didn't blame the 'terr-ists'.

Man-on-the-street note: My wife commutes with a guy that works the backroom in a downtown SF firm. Him and his wife run 2 pizza joints as a side venture in his commuter town. They have made a series of blunders over the last year or so and have committed everything- including 401K, property back in NY, etc. to this doomed enterprise. His analysis- it's the terrorists. They've infiltrated our economy. I kid you not. Of course, on the other hand, he's right but they're not the folks he has in mind....

[Mega]

Re: W's speech

"Hugo & Fidel" thought it rocked!
;)
Mike

[nathanhulick]

Re: W's speech

A remarkable speech. The Bushmaster didn't blame the 'terr-ists'.

Man-on-the-street note: My wife commutes with a guy that works the backroom in a downtown SF firm. Him and his wife run 2 pizza joints as a side venture in his commuter town. They have made a series of blunders over the last year or so and have committed everything- including 401K, property back in NY, etc. to this doomed enterprise. His analysis- it's the terrorists. They've infiltrated our economy. I kid you not. Of course, on the other hand, he's right but they're not the folks he has in mind....

not sure if that is funny or sad really...

[Supercilious]

Re: W's speech

Mr. Bush acknowledged Wednesday night that the bailout would be a "tough vote" for lawmakers. But he said failing to approve it would risk dire consequences for the economy and most Americans.

"Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold," Mr. Bush said as he worked to resurrect the unpopular bailout package. "Our entire economy is in danger."

The President is actively participating in implementing a Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario against the american people. Period.

[don]

Re: W's speech

not sure if that is funny or sad really...

The only rationalization I could muster on that one is it's an easy out for making all the wrong moves. Bizarre, sad in a way, ridiculous and ultimately pathetic.

[ASH]

Re: W's speech

Friends,

I am a little concerned after the President's speech. Maybe I am one of sheeple(baaah...baaah.). But the words he utttered has made me rethink the gravity of this whole situation.Companies who were barely profitable earlier and were borrowing heavily issuing bonds will go under and cause a lot of unemployment. Many manufacturing companies can be destroyed. Only a dollar devaluation or trade barrier can help such companies.

I am a naturalized citizen and I don't want USA to go down in flames.

Hi Sishya. You should be aware that opinion among regular posters to the iTulip forums is divided. As near as I can tell, one group perceives this as either an engineered -- or entirely phony -- crisis, for purposes such as the concentration of power and the enrichment of well-connected private parties. The other group (which I fall into) is that this is a real crisis, caused primarily by mundane mismanagement and short-sightedness rather than conspiracy, and that if one's goal is to keep credit markets functional, then some sort of massive intervention will mitigate the risk of a systemic failure of the credit markets. I think both groups generally agree that the outcome of intervention will be what the conspiracy-minded types suggest, which is to say an increase in government power and a decrease of freedom for both individuals and markets. Note that I am only saying I think an intervention actually is required to keep the credit markets functional -- not that I support the intervention.

Had the Treasury proposal been blocked entirely, we would have had a partial opportunity to test the "phony crisis" version of the conspiracy theory, because the failure of a catastrophic downturn to materialize would support the view that the urgency of the matter was trumped up. (That said, risk management is not about certainties but rather possibilities -- failure of catastrophe to strike could merely mean we got lucky.) However, as with Iraq, such an outcome would tend to indicate the certainty of the risk was oversold. Now, should disaster fail to materialize, it will be arguable whether this is so because of the intervention or in spite of it.

I still believe that the policy choice was between a deflationary bust (absent intervention) or an inflationary bust (with intervention). I also think that regarding danger to personal and economic freedom, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Hard economic times -- whether deflationary or inflationary -- invite greater government power and more extreme politics. The main difference I see is that the interventionist route starts out immediately down the statist path, whereas I merely suppose that more statist policies will result from efforts to recover from a deflationary bust. For what it's worth, I think the non-intervention route is morally superior, because it doesn't immediately bail-out the guys who got us into this mess. I just don't think the practical outcome will be superior in the long run.

... And since iTulip has been predicting massive intervention and an inflationary bust for years now, and since my allocations are aligned to that theory, the intervention is probably better for my personal wealth in the near term. (Holding onto that wealth in the face of capital controls, etc., is another matter -- but likely to be hard in either type of bust.)

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: W's speech

mighty words from Peer

This is probably the first time a minister of the German government has referred to the "Anglo-Saxon" financial centers since 1945.

This is indeed a major change in the world, and further proof the post-war US/UK domination has come to an end. Of course, we'll only know this when the US occupation of Central Europe finally ends. But, it's going to be downhill from here.

[don]

Re: W's speech

This is probably the first time a minister of the German government has referred to the "Anglo-Saxon" financial centers since 1945.

This is indeed a major change in the world, and further proof the post-war US/UK domination has come to an end. Of course, we'll only know this when the US occupation of Central Europe finally ends. But, it's going to be downhill from here.

I'm reading a piece on "Guerra A Muerte", the non-USA America's war of independence, in this case with Spain. As most Americanos, I'm poorly informed on most things that happened over a hundred years ago (1810-1824) south of the border. It took the Euro-Colonists 14 years to get rid of Spain. Germany's on 60+ years and counting with the USA.

[ASH]

Re: W's speech

This is probably the first time a minister of the German government has referred to the "Anglo-Saxon" financial centers since 1945.

That might be true of official government ministers, but I'm not so sure. I gather that "Anglo-Saxon" is a term often used in France and Germany to talk about perceived shortcomings of the American (and to some extent, British) economies -- particularly as regards risk, the division of wealth, the distribution of social benefits, and business practices. I even think the Americans and British have been known to use the term, as a reasonable means of demarking the differences in economic style between the British-derived countries and continental Europe. I've seen the term come up in printed articles repeatedly. It would surprise me if German ministers actually avoided using the term, because I don't think it is politically sensitive.

[D-Mack]

Re: W's speech

That might be true of official government ministers, but I'm not so sure. I gather that "Anglo-Saxon" is a term often used in France and Germany to talk about perceived shortcomings of the American (and to some extent, British) economies -- particularly as regards risk, the division of wealth, the distribution of social benefits, and business practices. I even think the Americans and British have been known to use the term, as a reasonable means of demarking the differences in economic style between the British-derived countries and continental Europe. I've seen the term come up in printed articles repeatedly. It would surprise me if German ministers actually avoided using the term, because I don't think it is politically sensitive.

The Russians use it, too

Russia and the World in the 21st Century 09-08-2008 15:27

© "Russia in Global Affairs". № 3, July - September 2008

...

Russia views itself as part of a European civilization with common Christian roots. The experience of this region offers material that can be used to simulate forthcoming global processes. Thus, even a superficial analysis suggests the conclusion that the overcoming of the Cold War has not solved the problem of ways for social development. Rather, it has only helped to avoid extreme approaches and come closer to its solution on a more realistic basis – especially considering that ideological considerations very often distorted the effect of market forces, as well as the idea of democracy.
The rigid Anglo-Saxon model of socio-economic development has again started to fail, as it did in the 1920s. This time, the failure is due to the isolation of the U.S. financial system from the real sector of economy. On the other hand, there is the socially oriented Western European model, which was a product of European society’s development throughout the 20th century, including the tragedies of the two world wars, the Cold War, and the Soviet Union’s experience. The Soviet Union played no small role in this process, as it not only served as the “Soviet threat” that consolidated the West, but also motivated Western Europe to “socialize” its economic development.

Therefore, by proclaiming the goal of creating a socially oriented economy, the new Russia appeals to our common European heritage. This is yet more evidence of Russia’s compatibility with the rest of Europe.

The end of the Cold War coincided in time with attempts to unify European development according to the Anglo-Saxon model. However, there is an impression that Europe will hardly give up its development model which meets its views of life and which has a more solid financial and economic foundation. Rebalancing is possible and, apparently, inevitable on both sides of the Atlantic. This brings to mind Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal policy, which marked a time of convergence in America’s development.

http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/24/1210.html