Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Wednesday, 03 December 2008

Who owns the world economic crisis?

22/09/2008 12:55:00 PM.  | Tim Brunero

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST FEATURES

It’s funny how all the warriors of the right are so keen at claiming the success of free market economics. But no one seems too keen to claim the failures.

And, conveniently for them, most of the public and the commentariat don’t seem very motivated to make them.

No-one seems to want to shout the virtue of cowboy capitalism when massive financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Babcock and Brown and are snapping like twigs.

That’s convenient, because apparently the rest of us should just shut up and pay for their mistakes anyway.

Case in point - today’s news that the world’s central banks last night poured $225 billion into the global banking system in a desperate bid to restore confidence to financial markets. Markets that are facing their biggest crisis since the Great Depression.

That’s public money. Our money.

Usually the faintest hint more public money is going to be spent on hospitals or schools or welfare would lead to howls of derision from the mahogany-lined halls of conservative cheerleaders across the world.

But when the billions are being used as corporate welfare to prop up their pin-stripe wearing mates in the private sector, who’s greed and failure has threatened our whole way of life, well that’s totally cool.

In these circumstances we simply have to shut up and bail them out.

There’s no reflection that perhaps it’s their greed, selfishishness and stupidity that’s got us to this point in the first place.

No discussion of the fact that nations like America might need to change its ways. Maybe by regulating their corporate cowboys. Or by properly punishing the corporate crooks.

Or that most of these shonks – who earn 30 times the average wage - should face proper pressure to bring their salaries into line with the rest of the population.

And what about occasionally these bail-outs lead to the people actually owning a bit of these market monoliths - when and if the crisis is over and done with.

No, we just hear the call for us to happy with the status quo. That there’s nothing weird about privatising the profits, and socialising the losses.

COMMENTS

Friday, 19 September 2008

Without those "pin-stripe wearing mates in the private sector" Tim, many of us, including you, could well be without employment. Deregulation began with Keating and the Opposition backed him on it..it was thought to be a good thing, creating competition..in hindsight it wasnt..lending practices shifted, and us little people got too greedy gobbling up the credit cards they offered us and spending money we didnt have and could not repay.Lending practices now need to be tightened. Will Rud do it ?

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Come on.. Deregulation in australia is a very long way from the US "free" market" (free to be rich when your neighbour starves). Tim is rightly pointing out that the American system supports manufacturing money from money with no responsibility - that's freedom for the rich only. Nice one Tim, been raving about this one being inevitable since the 80s. I'd be interested to see how the bailout figure compares to the bailout figure for the New Orleans floods... be sad i bet.

Posted by: Jeff Johns, Sydney

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

Yeah, CORPORATE COMMUNISM, is great. We live in a centrally planned economy in which the rich are able to make mega profits and then rely on the tax money of the poor to subsidise their investments, research and development and act as a safety net when their irresponsible business decisions go awry. But don't worry Susan, the great neoliberal project will continue and we will thus continue to privatise the gains and socialise the losses; socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor!

Posted by: Morgan Gibson, Strathpine, Brisbane

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

The reason certain businesses are bailed out is so that the entire system doesn't go into meltdown. A year ago it was widely reported that this was going to happen, & it was clearly stated that the US government would HAVE to bail them out to avoid a repeat of the great depression. No doubt there are stupid selfish corporate leaders, but there are many more stupid & selfish individuals who rack up massive debt then default - thats WHY the banks are suffering - lets not forget that!

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

Friday, 19 September 2008

Let's not all rush to blame the "stupid & selfish individuals". A mate of mine showed me a letter from one of the big 4 banks inviting his 11 year old son to open a credit card account with $8K pre-approved. It has gone over board and needs a correction! Over to you Pelican Swan...

Posted by: A Narchy, The Hills

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

CL, has answered the question well..I posted days ago it was the little people's greed that was causing the meltdown, we are lucky the past Govt left the economy in good condition, we may just weather the storm because of it.Had they not poured 'our' money into this financial crisis Tim, we could well have faced a depression...vast difference between that and a REcecession. I wonder how the the greedy selfish little people out there who borrowed beyond their means, would handle a depression.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

Its not borrowers being rescued, its banks. Banks who got too greedy, and pushed loans on to those unlikely to be able to pay( what the yanks call sub-prime). They then compounded the problesm with on-selling loans, hedge funds, and derivatives. Really cute, until the lot crashes. How many of the crashed banks were paying obscene salaries to management? Two lessons : beware of merchant bankers,and if we have to nationalise banks, why not in good times as well as bad.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

I think Tony Brunero is Macquarie Network's TOKEN left winger. He is just there to deflect accusations that this network is biased.

Posted by: A Narchy, The Hills

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

The market correct was forseeable. I foresaw it in 2006 when the Democrats took congress with Nancy Pelosi. It could be seen coming when the US subprime housing market imploded that year. It was clear the Democrats would try to use the disaster for political purposes. I know it is sexy to blame the Republican president, but it is the Democrat Congress that are the enemy, here. I have no problems with those wealthy men earning many billions. Company profitability is more important.

Posted by: Happy Fun Ball, Carramar/Sydney

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

Mick, governments that are committed to helping private banks make profits, such as Liberal and Labor governments, could not be relied upon to carry out bank nationalisation, but I believe we should be asking for a partial re-regulation of banks, with a social charter written into bank licence requirements. Tighten up their lending practices, and promote savings, before borrowings. A few old fashioned 'living within your means' lessons might come in handy too.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

Tim, simple question - if communism is that good why is it in decline? Why are there so many countries who used to be ruled by the left wing communists now try very hard to be a capitalist economy? Simple questions like this show your total ignorance in your comments. Period.

Posted by: W O, Turramurra

Friday, 19 September 2008

Nice authoritative way to finish a post, period. Very satisfying no doubt. Shame about what came before though. Communism is a bit like christianity, a great idea that has never been implemented. Both tend to degenerate into authoritiarian systems which are about control. Conversely, laissez faire capitalism, essentially greed untramelled by control, fails on a cyclical basis. And when they fail the polity suffer just as certainly as under any other form of regime.

Posted by: darren carrow, brisbane

Friday, 19 September 2008

Carrow, all regimes will have their pros and cons. I don't diagree with that. What I have problems with is Tim's attitude in blaming all the current financial crisis on so called greed in capitalist economies. Just imagine, if the entire world run on socialism there may never be any financial crisis - as everyone is equally poor or in equal misery. By comparison capitalism is a better and fairer option, even though it's not perfect.

Posted by: W O, Turramurra

Saturday, 20 September 2008

What I think the crisis reveals is the fallacious libertarian idea of 'choice'. The philosophy says: let markets operate unregulated, let banks choose to offer products which have massive risks to poeple who cannot afford them, let them take on those risky customers who probably cannot pay. From the consumer side it says that govt shouldn't tell people what choices to make, but uphelds sanctity of contract to enforce the choices. In the end the public $ pay for all these 'choices' in bail outs.

Posted by: darren carrow, brisbane

Saturday, 20 September 2008

Darren - I agree completely. Neither end of the spectrum is workable....human nature strives to achieve so communism will never work, conversely, human nature is inherantly flawed & reverts to animal dog eat dog instincts everytime so uncontrolled capitalism is a disaster waiting to happen. The US are far more capitalistic than we are. They have two right wing parties, albeit one is more left than the other, but none the less they are both right of centre. People & banks must be regulated.

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

Saturday, 20 September 2008

I agree with your comments regarding the centre right nature of the democrats. Sadly, I think Labor in Austrlalia is now also a centre right party. If you haven't already encountered Rawls, his theory of distributive justice, which tries to find the middle ground between the extremes of the spectrum can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice I would be interested in your view.

Posted by: darren carrow, brisbane

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

Susan, Governments in the US and Britain are deliberately buying banks and insurance companies to prevent them crashing. This is already, quite simply, nationalisation of financial institutions. The "greed is good" philosophy has failed yet again, with fear now ruling markets over greed. Banks have no motivation to act responsibly, and the use of hedge funds, derivatives and short selling has all contributed to the crisis. Regulate the banks, and don't trust merchant bankers.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

Friday, 26 September 2008

communism is actually on the rise in latin america and the majority of the people are far better off for it .a global communist economy need not lead to universal poverty.why would it? the resources would be used more efficiently due to no profit motive.a kibbutz is run along socialist lines and works well the world would be like one big kibbutz.capitalism relies on never ending consumerism to sustain it. leading to over exploitation of resources, more wars and slave labour to increase profit

Posted by: trevor crook, wiley pk

 

Friday, 19 September 2008

I agree Mick, re regulate the banks..... I would prefer re regulating to nationalising our banks, and more people borrowing responsibly. Stop the peddling of credit to those least able to repay....just my opinion.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Saturday, 20 September 2008

I find it RIDICULOUS that a Gov. would buy out the debt and leave the assests with the bank?? Why not put the people back into the homes they've been booted from and set a buyback scheme thats affordable to each previous owner? Surely then everybody wins. People should have this option presented as its their taxes being used to buy up the banks debt. The govt should own the homes not the banks. Same with the bussinesses, lease them back untill their debt is repayed.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

Saturday, 20 September 2008

Nick, if they don't, the system collapses & they end up with a depression...this was the lesson they learned from the great depression. It would be nice to give these people back their homes, but they cannot afford them - they should never have been given the money in the first place. If the financial sector crashes, businesses soon follow, people are out of jobs & the cycle continues. I hate the concept too, but it HAS to happen, what we need to do is not let it happen again through more regs.

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

Saturday, 20 September 2008

C.L.. I know why they're doing it, I have no issue with them doing it and understand it has to be done. My point is they should put the people back in them and MAKE them pay the things OFF. These people HAVE to pAy rent Where ever they go.They may as well pay it for these houses. No - one is running out to buy them, money is scarce. Why leave them for the BANKS to RE SELL???? The People own them Not the Bank. Perhaps we should doze them and cry about lack of housing again?!!

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

 

Saturday, 20 September 2008

A few could see this coming, the banks spruiking wanting people to borrow more and more, and the ordinary people spending and borrowing more and more.Dont tell me you all dont know someone maybe around 24 yrs, 400/500,000 home, and every mod con,flat screen, 2 cars, every new piece of technology..then one loses a job,or they both max the cards out.The 18 yr old with maxed out credit cards, and the oldies..How long did we think we could live like kings on a paupers wage.Time to get back to basics

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Saturday, 20 September 2008

Goood Gawwwwwd Darren, I have been saying that for weeks, perhaps you only took grabs of what i have posted. Labor lost its grass roots when it moved to the centre right. I also posted when Turnbull took leadership that there wouldnt be much difference between the 2 parties with him as leader. The old grass roots Labor disappeared years ago, and they have moved to centre right completely now.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Saturday, 20 September 2008

Hey Happy, I have been waiting for someone to post on McCains stand against them in 2005/06, he wanted the Govt to rein them in then, just yesterday he said had he been president they would have been sacked 3 years ago..( fannie mae etc)..no one has mentioned it...perhaps the "old" fella is a little more savvy than given credit for...might have averted this crash had the Congress and Republicans stopped calling him a maverick and listened to him.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Sunday, 21 September 2008

Right on Timmy! The thing is that all Central Banks are private institutions that control public money. Their boards are privately elected and they don't have to consult with government at all. In fact, they feel they're above politics. Elite high financiers find government and politics beneath them. So when they collectively pilfered public funds, I can bet they didn't tell a sole in their govts. They don't want parliamentary debate. They don't invite scrutiny. Just like interest rates...

Posted by: Jules B, suburb/city

 

Sunday, 21 September 2008

its not just the little people who are in over their heads. people who are in the higher wage range also spend more than they earn. they also have heaps of credit cards, have large mortgages, personal loans etc. the more you earn the more credit you can get, the more indebt you can get. some people can have 20 credit cards, their kids have them too. just dont think its a "little" person problem. everyone is in debt these days over their heads. banks love it

Posted by: Belinda Hummie, New lambton

 

Sunday, 21 September 2008

Tim if I was you I would buy some shares. Do some homework on it. Make some money and give it away if thats what you want to do with it. Me, I'll be keeping what I make so I can upgrade to a bigger boat.

Posted by: Phil A, Central Coast.

 

Monday, 22 September 2008

I am amazed at the litany of uninformed comment and lack of understanding in many of the previous posts. This collapse of stock markets and banks is directly attributable to pure, constant and excessive greed by the leaders of those banks involved - along with their share traders, dealers, futures traders and anyone else high up in the finance chain who had the ability to falsify and inflate, and live in a fantasy world. This is nothing less than white collar crime on a massive scale.

Posted by: Ron N, Perth, W.A.

 

Monday, 22 September 2008

The likes of 'Tophats Turdbull' boast about the success of previous governments and would have us believe that we are not part of the global economy. There is nothing more disgraceful then when true believer's of private enterprise come groveling to governments for a hand-out. The same can be said for those that gamble on the stock market. Investors are being sent to the wall while CEO's continue to receive their million dollar hand-outs for mismanagement? These same people have the audacity to criticise the unemployed. Corporate welfare. What a joke. Was it not Howard & Costello that paved the way for easy credit? It's no wonder I f@#***** despise Tories.

Posted by: Sean Ambrose, Helensburgh

Monday, 22 September 2008

Actually...no. It was the Keating Labor government that dergulated the financial market and removed all the brakes on easy finance. The Libs did not oppose it and every one thought it was a good move.

Posted by: A Narchy, The Hills

 

Monday, 22 September 2008

'Usury' and the problems associated with capatilism it are as old as the Roman empire. When Howard & Costello introduced the first home owners grant, this in turn stimulated demand. In time 'demand' caused the property market to become over-valued because demand out stripped supply. Interest rates were never low, it was an illusion because the population never realised that they were paying more for a house now then ever before. The money lenders and the estate agents win again. Do the maths.

Posted by: Sean Ambrose, Helensburgh

 

Monday, 22 September 2008<