|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << September29, 2008 - [India Thinkers Net] Owaisi no more , Jamia teachers , sit in dharna |
October04, 2008 - [India Thinkers Net]Don't deny AIDS treatment , Nun's rape admitted >> |
|
[1] From: bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@yahoo.com Date: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:12 pm Subject: Comment on the Bailout Bill Failing in the House Comment on the Bailout Bill Failing in the House Monday, September 29, 2008 Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow: The failure of the bailout plan essentially shows the huge lack of confidence among the public that it would achieve its objectives. It also registers doubt about the government's ability to implement it successfully. The impasse shows how blunt fiscal policy is and how inept politicians are in managing the economy. The current set of problems did not arise overnight--they festered in the form of government favoritism toward housing finance companies which overextended their operations and ultimately toppled over. Now, those policies have come full circle to rest at Congress's doorstep. Problem is, they will soon visit our doorsteps too in the form of a weaker economy. Now that the bailout proposal has failed, Congress may seek a new approach. More likely, the existing plan will be tweaked to enable passage in a re-vote. But delay and political drama will further sap public confidence in Congress and weaken consumer confidence in the economy. That may mean a deeper recession and trigger calls for still larger bailouts to salvage the financial sector in the future. But a larger bailout package will also be more dangerous. Larger short-term increases in federal borrowing may destabilize international capital inflows are reduce confidence in the dollar. Overall, it's not a pretty picture--but score one for supporters of the free market who insist on allowing market reorganization of the financial sector to continue unimpeded... albeit at high risk to the economy over the next few months. Daniel J. Mitchell, senior fellow: The current turmoil in financial markets is the result of bad government policy, particularly easy-money policy by the Federal Reserve and unsustainable subsidies to housing by Fannie and Freddie. The bailout did not address these problems. Instead, it sought to compound the problem by increasing government intervention. Ideally, politicians now will shift gears and seek to reduce government barriers to economic revitalization. Unfortunately, the political insiders from both parties almost surely will close ranks and seek cosmetic changes in hopes of ramming the bailout through Congress. ------------- [2] From: "Sukla Sen" <sukla.sen@gmail.com Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:10 am Subject: Meltdown of Financial Sector in US: Two Comments [The subprime crisis, which made its appearance almost unobtrusively, has now further evolved and assumed a huge proportion despite constant tinkering by the Administration - whose economic management or lack of it must be having a major role in its making, and assurances to the contrary. The "bailout package" - the huge proposed giveaway to the failed, greedy and pampered, gods, worked out by those who did miserably fail to discharge their mandated duties and avoid such a predicament, for evident reasons severely lacks moral legitimacy and also credibility. Wonder of wonders! The US Congress has rejected the package. At least for a while. That shows the depth of popular disenchantment with the economic managers and their moral integrity and also intellectual capabilities. The collapse of the Lehman Brothers - the jewel in the crown, like a pack of cards, just not highlights the serious flaws of the current financial order and ideological bankruptcy; it also exposes, like nothing else, the utter vacuity of the intellectual pretence of the financial czars. There is an air of allround uncertainty about the coming days. Though the present meltdown is being repeatedly compared with the Great Depression -crisis of the late twenties and early thirties - producing monstrous fascism on the soil of Europe, the likely outcome of the ongoing crisis remains utterly fuzzy despite all sorts of profound prognostications floating around. Only one thing can be predicted with certain degree of certainty that capitalism never falls on its own just because of "economic crisis" without appropriate political intervention. And the political intervention is, by no stretch of imagination, an automatic product of the crisis. There is no better illustration than the rise of German fascism. And political intervention would also call for an alternate vision, howsoever rudimentary and tentative, qualitatively better than the present order which can fire up millions and millions. And this vision cannot come into being without an honest acknowledgement of its sheer absence at the moment on the mental radar of the masses. On the flip side, market fundamentalism cannot but suffer grievous injuries ? both moral and political - as a result of the escalating meltdown. How grievous remains to be seen.] I. The US Financial Crisis: Collapsing Sand Castles Arun Kumar [Published in The Tribune, September 30, 2008.] Since August 2007 the crisis in the US financial system is big news. It is the deepest crisis in the last eighty years. Initially, the US establishment denied that there was a crisis. A deteriorating situation forced a financial package of tax cuts and bail out of Bear Sterns. Then came the crisis of the two housing mortgage giants, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. After much dithering the government took over these two companies to prevent a collapse of the US financial system. [......]The US budget deficit is likely to balloon and create fresh problems since the rest of the world is unlikely to hold this uncertain asset which can also collapse. The crisis is systemic and a Tsunami is moving in. II. The fruit of hypocrisy Dishonesty in the finance sector dragged us here, and Washington looks ill-equipped to guide us out September 15, 2009 The Guardian © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/16/economics.wallstreet Joseph Stiglitz Houses of cards, chickens coming home to roost - pick your cliche. The new low in the financial crisis, which has prompted comparisons with the 1929 Wall Street crash, is the fruit of a pattern of dishonesty on the part of financial institutions, and incompetence on the part of policymakers. We had become accustomed to the hypocrisy. The banks reject any suggestion they should face regulation, rebuff any move towards anti-trust measures - yet when trouble strikes, all of a sudden they demand state intervention: they must be bailed out; they are too big, too important to be allowed to fail. Eventually, however, we were always going to learn how big the safety net was. And a sign of the limits of the US Federal Reserve and treasury's willingness to rescue comes with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, one of the most famous Wall Street names. The big question always centres on systemic risk: to what extent does the collapse of an institution imperil the financial system as a whole? Wall Street has always been quick to overstate systemic risk - take, for example, the 1994 Mexican financial crisis - but loth to allow examination of their own dealings. Last week the US treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, judged there was sufficient systemic risk to warrant a government rescue of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; but there was not sufficient systemic risk seen in Lehman. The present financial crisis springs from a catastrophic collapse in confidence. The banks were laying huge bets with each other over loans and assets. Complex transactions were designed to move risk and disguise the sliding value of assets. In this game there are winners and losers. And it's not a zero-sum game, it's a negative-sum game: as people wake up to the smoke and mirrors in the financial system, as people grow averse to risk, losses occur; the market as a whole plummets and everyone loses. Financial markets hinge on trust, and that trust has eroded. Lehman's collapse marks at the very least a powerful symbol of a new low in confidence, and the reverberations will continue. The crisis in trust extends beyond banks. In the global context, there is dwindling confidence in US policymakers. At July's G8 meeting in Hokkaido the US delivered assurances that things were turning around at last. The weeks since have done nothing but confirm any global mistrust of government experts. How seriously, then, should we take comparisons with the crash of 1929? Most economists believe we have the monetary and fiscal instruments and understanding to avoid collapse on that scale. And yet the IMF and the US treasury, together with central banks and finance ministers from many other countries, are capable of supporting the sort of "rescue" policies that led Indonesia to economic disaster in 1998. Moreover, it is difficult to have faith in the policy wherewithal of a government that oversaw the utter mismanagement of the war in Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina. If any administration can turn this crisis into another depression, it is the Bush administration. America's financial system failed in its two crucial responsibilities: managing risk and allocating capital. The industry as a whole has not been doing what it should be doing - for instance creating products that help Americans manage critical risks, such as staying in their homes when interest rates rise or house prices fall - and it must now face change in its regulatory structures. Regrettably, many of the worst elements of the US financial system - toxic mortgages and the practices that led to them - were exported to the rest of the world. It was all done in the name of innovation, and any regulatory initiative was fought away with claims that it would suppress that innovation. They were innovating, all right, but not in ways that made the economy stronger. Some of America's best and brightest were devoting their talents to getting around standards and regulations designed to ensure the efficiency of the economy and the safety of the banking system. Unfortunately, they were far too successful, and we are all - homeowners, workers, investors, taxpayers - paying the price. ? Joseph E Stiglitz is university professor at Columbia University and recipient of the 2001 Nobel prize in economics josephstiglitz. com ------------- [3] From: Dolphy D'Souza To: contact@bcsabha.org September 30, 2008 4:46 PM Subject: SCRAP THE SKYWALK ALONG THE MMC ROAD DEMANDS, THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC SABHA. URGENT PRESS STATEMENT. RE: SCRAP THE SKYWALK ALONG THE M. M. C ROAD DEMANDS ,THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC SABHA. The news of the proposed SKYWALK along the M. M. C Road has come as a shock to the residents of Mahim. The reasons for scrapping the SKYWALK are as follows: -The proposed skywalk will be a major threat to the privacy of all the residents along the SKYWALK. -Will lead to the destruction of a number of trees along the way. - It will affect the smooth functioning of a renowned institution namely Canossa High School which is a girls school and also runs a Night School. We are also surprised of the proposed plan when there are two broad footpaths on either side of the broad road which normaly can accomodate four vehicles at a time and there is no particular heavy vehicular traffic. In the light of the above we say: WE DO NOT NEED A SKYWALK. To demand its scrapping a public meeting has been organised at 4.00 p. m. on October 02 on the grounds of the Canossa High School, M. M. C Road, Mahim West. We request you to depute your "Reporter" to cover this event. Best Regards, Dolphy D'souza President The Bombay Catholic Sabha St Michael's Church, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016. Tel: 9820226227 Email: contact@bcsabha.org contact@bcsabha.org ----------------- [4] From: "Aditya Mishra" <aditya11@sbcglobal.net Date: Wed Oct 1, 2008 12:14 pm Subject: Re: The testimony of one Christian While it is refreshing to find a convert from Islam to atheism on this list, you are contradicting yourself by claiming that your atheism is based on faith and at the same time you want to change your faith on the basis of logic or evidence. Faith is never based on logic or evidence. Julio is correct in the need to do away with conversions from one illogical faith to another. - "SMShahed" <smshahed@... wrote: I will actually also be happy if someone in this process can show me that my "faith" is wrong and theirs is right. I will happily "convert", i. e. change my mind. Right now, given my unrepentant atheism of at least 52 years (I converted when I was 12-13), it is highly unlikely but I urge you not to give up your (and my) right to convert i. e. change opinion based on (or lack thereof) evidence/logic. -------------- |
|
| << September29, 2008 - [India Thinkers Net] Owaisi no more , Jamia teachers , sit in dharna |
October04, 2008 - [India Thinkers Net]Don't deny AIDS treatment , Nun's rape admitted >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |