Activism Discussion: Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be For Neoliberalism What Fall Of Berlin Wall Was For Communism

Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be For Neoliberalism What Fall Of Berlin Wall Was For Communism
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

EconomicDemocracy Coop
2008-10-06 13:40:50 EST
Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
Berlin Wall Was for Communism

As the world reels from the financial crisis on Wall Street and the
taxpayer-funded $700 billion bailout, we spend the hour with Naomi
Klein on the economy, politics and “disaster capitalism.” The Shock
Doctrine author recently spoke at the University of Chicago to oppose
the creation of an economic research center named after the
University’s most famous economist, Milton Friedman. Klein says
Friedman’s economic philosophy championed the kind of deregulation
that led to the current crisis. [includes rush transcript–partial]

Naomi Klein, journalist and author of the books The Shock Doctrine:
The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and No Logo.

AMY GOODMAN: The credit crunch is spreading to financial markets
around the world. Nearly 160,000 jobs were lost here in the United
States in September. That’s not including losses directly resulting
from the financial meltdown. Wall Street might be breathing a little
easier since Congress passed the more-than-$700-billion bailout plan
Friday, but there are no signs of an easy or quick recovery.

Today we take a look back at the economic philosophy that championed
the kind of deregulation that led to this crisis. We spend the hour
with investigative journalist and author Naomi Klein, bestselling
author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Naomi Klein spoke at the University of Chicago last week, invited by a
group of faculty opposed to the creation of an economic research
center called the Milton Friedman Institute. It has a $200 million
endowment and is named after the University’s most famous economist,
the leader of the neoliberal Chicago School of Economics.

NAOMI KLEIN: When Milton Friedman turned ninety, the Bush White
House held a birthday party for him to honor him, to honor his legacy,
in 2002, and everyone made speeches, including George Bush, but there
was a really good speech that was given by Donald Rumsfeld. I have it
on my website. My favorite quote in that speech from Rumsfeld is this:
he said, “Milton is the embodiment of the truth that ideas have
consequences.”

So, what I want to argue here is that, among other things, the
economic chaos that we’re seeing right now on Wall Street and on Main
Street and in Washington stems from many factors, of course, but among
them are the ideas of Milton Friedman and many of his colleagues and
students from this school. Ideas have consequences.

More than that, what we are seeing with the crash on Wall
Street, I believe, should be for Friedmanism what the fall of the
Berlin Wall was for authoritarian communism: an indictment of
ideology. It cannot simply be written off as corruption or greed,
because what we have been living, since Reagan, is a policy of
liberating the forces of greed to discard the idea of the government
as regulator, of protecting citizens and consumers from the
detrimental impact of greed, ideas that, of course, gained great
currency after the market crash of 1929, but that really what we have
been living is a liberation movement, indeed the most successful
liberation movement of our time, which is the movement by capital to
liberate itself from all constraints on its accumulation.

So, as we say that this ideology is failing, I beg to differ. I
actually believe it has been enormously successful, enormously
successful, just not on the terms that we learn about in University of
Chicago textbooks, that I don’t think the project actually has been
the development of the world and the elimination of poverty. I think
this has been a class war waged by the rich against the poor, and I
think that they won. And I think the poor are fighting back. This
should be an indictment of an ideology. Ideas have consequences.

Now, people are enormously loyal to Milton Friedman, for a
variety of reasons and from a variety of sectors. You know, in my
cynical moments, I say Milton Friedman had a knack for thinking
profitable thoughts. He did. His thoughts were enormously profitable.
And he was rewarded. His work was rewarded. I don’t mean personally
greedy. I mean that his work was supported at the university, at think
tanks, in the production of a ten-part documentary series called
Freedom to Choose, sponsored by FedEx and Pepsi; that the corporate
world has been good to Milton Friedman, because his ideas were good
for them.

But he also was clearly a tremendously inspiring teacher, and he
had a gift, like all great teachers do, to help his students fall in
love with the material. But he also had a gift that many ideologues
have, many staunch ideologues have—and I would even use the word
“fundamentalists” have—which is the ability to help people fall in
love with a perfect imagined system, a system that seems perfect,
utopian, in the classroom, in the basement workshop, when all the
numbers work out. And he was, of course, a brilliant mathematician,
which made that all the more seductive, which made those models all
the more seductive, this perfect, elegant, all-encompassing system,
the dream of the perfect utopian market.

Now, one of the things that comes up again and again in the
writings of University of Chicago economists of the Friedman
tradition, people like Arnold Harberger, is this appeal to nature, to
a state of nature, this idea that economics is not a political science
or not a social science, but a hard science on par with physics and
chemistry. So, as we look at the University of Chicago tradition, it
isn’t just about a set of political and economic goals, like
privatization, deregulation, free trade, cuts to government spending;
it’s a transformation of the field of economics from being a hybrid
science that was in dialogue with politics, with psychology, and
turning it into a hard science that you could not argue with, which is
why you would never talk to a journalist, right? Because that’s, you
know, the messy, imperfect real world. It is beneath those who are
appealing to the laws of nature.

Now, these ideas in the 1950s and ’60s at this school were
largely in the realm of theory. They were academic ideas, and it was
easy to fall in love with them, because they hadn’t actually been
tested in the real world, where mixed economies were the rule.

Now, I admit to being a journalist. I admit to being an
investigative journalist, a researcher, and I’m not here to argue
theory. I’m here to discuss what happens in the messy real world when
Milton Friedman’s ideas are put into practice, what happens to
freedom, what happens to democracy, what happens to the size of
government, what happens to the social structure, what happens to the
relationship between politicians and big corporate players, because I
think we do see patterns.

Now, the Friedmanites in this room will object to my
methodology, I assure you, and I look forward to that. They will tell
you, when I speak of Chile under Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin and
the Chicago Boys, China under Deng Xiaoping, or America under George
W. Bush, or Iraq under Paul Bremer, that these were all distortions of
Milton Friedman’s theories, that none of these actually count, when
you talk about the repression and the surveillance and the expanding
size of government and the intervention in the system, which is really
much more like crony capitalism or corporatism than the elegant,
perfectly balanced free market that came to life in those basement
workshops. We’ll hear that Milton Friedman hated government
interventions, that he stood up for human rights, that he was against
all wars. And some of these claims, though not all of them, will be
true.

But here’s the thing. Ideas have consequences. And when you
leave the safety of academia and start actually issuing policy
prescriptions, which was Milton Friedman’s other life—he wasn’t just
an academic. He was a popular writer. He met with world leaders around
the world—China, Chile, everywhere, the United States. His memoirs are
a “who’s who.” So, when you leave that safety and you start issuing
policy prescriptions, when you start advising heads of state, you no
longer have the luxury of only being judged on how you think your
ideas will affect the world. You begin having to contend with how they
actually affect the world, even when that reality contradicts all of
your utopian theories. So, to quote Friedman’s great intellectual
nemesis, John Kenneth Galbraith, “Milton Friedman’s misfortune is that
his policies have been tried.”


AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, author of the bestselling book The Shock
Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. We’ll come back to her
speech at the University of Chicago in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to Naomi Klein, bestselling author of The Shock
Doctrine, talking at the University of Chicago on Wednesday about the
current economic crisis and the legacy of Milton Friedman.

NAOMI KLEIN: This process of measuring an elegant perfect,
beautiful, inspiring ideology against a messy reality is a painful
process, and it’s a process that anyone who has tried to free
themselves from the confines of fundamentalist thinking, from
ideological constraints, has faced. My grandparents, for instance,
were pretty hardcore Marxists. In the ’30s and ’40s, they believed
fervently in the dream of egalitarianism that the Soviet Union
represented. They had their illusions shattered by the reality of
gulags, of extreme repression, hypocrisy, Stalin’s pact with Hitler.

I bring this up, because the left has been held accountable for
the crimes committed in the name of its extreme ideologies, and I
believe that it’s actually been a very healthy process for the left,
one that isn’t over, that is continuing. But I think that the process
of having to examine the unacceptable compromises that were made in
the name of hard ideology, that they are paying off in the way the
left today is being reborn and re-imagined.

You know, the most left-wing place on the planet at the moment
is, interestingly enough, the first place where Chicago School
ideology made that leap from the textbook into the real world, and
that’s Latin America. And that happened for a very specific reason, as
you know. This—in the 1950s, there was great concern at the State
Department about the fact that Latin America, then as now, as it seems
to do, was moving to the left. There was concern about what they
called the “pink economists,” the rise of developmentalism, import
substitution, and, of course, socialism. And, of course, this was a
concern because it greatly affected American and European interests,
because the crux of the argument of import substitution was that
countries like Chile and Argentina, Guatemala, should stop exporting
their raw natural resources to the north and then importing expensive
processed goods to the south, that it didn’t make economic sense, that
they should use the same tools of protectionism, of state supports,
that built the economies of Europe and North America. That was that
crazy radical idea, and it was unacceptable.

So, this plan was cooked up—it was between the head of USAID’s
Chile office and the head of the University of Chicago’s Economics
Department—to try to change the debate in Latin America, starting in
Chile, because that’s where developmentalism had gained its deepest
roots. And the idea was to bring a group of Chilean students to the
University of Chicago to study under a group of economists who were
considered so extreme that they were on the margins of the discussion
in the United States, which, of course, at the time, in the 1950s, was
fully in the grips of Keynesianism. But the idea was that there would
be—this would be a battle to the—a counterbalance to the emergence of
left-wing ideas in Latin America, that they would go home and
counterbalance the pink economists.

And so, the Chicago Boys were born. And it was considered a
success, and the Ford Foundation got in on the funding. And hundreds
and hundreds of Latin American students, on full scholarships, came to
the University of Chicago in the 1950s and ’60s to study here to try
to engage in what Juan Gabriel Valdes, Chile’s foreign minister after
the dictatorship finally ended, described as a project of deliberate
ideological transfer, taking these extreme-right ideas, that were seen
as marginal even in the United States, and transplanting them to Latin
America. That was his phrase—that is his phrase.

But today, we see that these ideas are reemerging in Latin
America. They were suppressed with force, overthrown with military
coups, and then Chile and Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil all became, to
varying degrees, laboratories for the ideas that were taught in the
classrooms of the University of Chicago. But now, because there was
never a democratic consent for this, the ideas are reemerging.

But one of the things that’s interesting about the new left in
Latin America is that democracy is at the very center. And, you know,
the first thing that Rafael Correa did when he was elected president
of Ecuador, for instance—well, the first thing he did was give an
interview. They said, “What can we expect of your economic program?”
He said, “Well, let’s put it this way: I’m no fan of Milton
Friedman’s.” And then he called a constituent assembly. He created an
incredibly open political process to rewrite the country’s
constitution. And that’s what happened in Bolivia, and that’s what’s
happened in many Latin American countries, because democracy is being
put at the center of these projects, because there has been a learning
process of looking at the mistakes that the left has made in the past,
the ends-justify-the-means mistakes.

So, I think all ideologies should be held accountable for the
crimes committed in their names. I think it makes us better. Now, of
course, there are still those on the far left who will insist that all
of those crimes were just an aberration—Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot; reality
is annoying—and they retreat into their sacred texts. We all know who
I’m talking about.

But lately, particularly just in the past few months, I have
noticed something similar happening on the far libertarian right, at
places like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation. It’s a kind
of a panic, and it comes from the fact that the Bush administration
adapted—adopted so much of their rhetoric, the fusing of free markets
and free people, the championing of so many of their pet policies.
But, of course, Bush is the worst thing that has ever happened to
believers in this ideology, because while parroting the talking points
of Friedmanism, he has overseen an explosion of crony capitalism, that
they treat governing as a conveyor belt or an ATM machine, where
private corporations make withdrawals of the government in the form of
no-bid contracts and then pay back government in the form of campaign
contributions. And we’re seeing this more and more. The Bush
administration is a nightmare for these guys—the explosion of the debt
and now, of course, these massive bailouts.

So, what we see from the ideologues of the far right—by far
right, I mean the far economic right—frantically distancing themselves
and retreating to their sacred texts: The Road to Serfdom, Capitalism
and Freedom, Free to Choose. So that’s why I’ve taken to calling them
right-wing Trotskyists, because they have this—and mostly because it
annoys them, but also because they have the same sort of frozen-in-
time quality. You know, it’s not, you know, 1917, but it’s definitely
1982. Now, the left-wing Trots don’t have very much money, as you
know. They make their money selling newspapers outside of events like
this. The right-wing Trots have a lot of money. They build think tanks
in Washington, D.C., and they want to build a $200 million Milton
Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago.

Now, this brings up an interesting point. It’s an interesting
point about the think tanks, in general, which has to do with the fact
that it does seem to take so much corporate welfare to keep these
ideas alive, which would seem to be a contradiction of the core
principle of free market ideology—I mean, and particularly now, in the
context of the Milton Friedman Institute. I mean, I could see it in
the ’90s, but now, is the world really clamoring for this? Is there
really a demand that you are supplying here? Really?

I think this points to a larger issue, and this comes up—has
come up for me again and again in talking about this ideology, this
ideological campaign. You know, is it—is it really fueled by true
belief, and—or is it just fueled by greed? Because it’s not—the
thoughts are so very profitable. So they are distinctive in that way,
distinctive from other ideologies. And, of course, you know, certainly
we know that religion has been a great economic partner in
imperialism. I mean, this isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. But this
is a question that comes up a lot. And I think it’s very difficult to
answer, and it’s clear, certainly at this school, that much of it is
fueled by belief, by true belief, by falling in love with those
elegant systems.

But I think we also need to look particularly at this moment,
who this ideology benefits directly economically, keeping it alive in
this moment, and how, even in this moment, when everybody is saying,
you know, this is the end of market fundamentalism, because we’re
seeing this betrayal of the basic tenets of the non-interventionist
government by the Bush administration—you know, I believe this is a
myth and that the ideology has just gone dormant, because it’s ceased
to be useful. But it will come roaring back, and I’ll talk a little
bit more about that.

But, you know, I was interested that yesterday the Heritage
Foundation, which has always been a staunch Friedmanite think tank,
that they came out in favor of the bailout. They came out in favor of
the bailout; they said it was vital. And what’s interesting about that
is, of course, the bailout is creating a crisis in the economic—in the
public sphere. It’s taking a private crisis, a crisis on Wall Street,
which of course isn’t restricted to Wall Street, and it will affect
everyone, but it is moving it, moving those bad debts, onto the public
books.

And now the Bush administration has already left the next
administration, whoever it is, with an economic crisis on their hands,
but with this proposed transfer, they’re dramatically increasing that
crisis. So, we can count, I would argue, on the Heritage Foundation
refinding their faith, refinding their faith when it becomes necessary
and useful to once again argue that the way to revive the American
economy is to cut taxes, cut regulation, to stimulate the economy—and,
by the way, we can’t afford Social Security; we’re going to have to
privatize it, because we’ve got this terrible debt and deficit on our
hands. So, the ideology is far from dead, and what we are, I think,
seeing with this proposed monument to Friedmanism is really a way of
entrenching it and making sure that it is always available to come
back, to come roaring back.

So, I said I would talk a little bit about Friedmanism and the
links to the current crisis. And, you know, it’s pretty direct. Milton
Friedman is pretty much accepted as the godfather of deregulation. And
this was—this ideology was the rationale for turning the financial
sector into the casino that we see today. You know, Milton Friedman
was clear about this. He believed that “history took a wrong turn,”
and that’s a quote; it’s a quote from a letter he wrote to Augusto
Pinochet. He said, “History took a wrong turn in your country, as well
as mine.” And he was referring to the responses to the Great
Depression. In Chile, it was the rise of import substitution and
developmentalism. But in the United States, he was of course referring
to the New Deal.

And I think that the Chicago School of Economics is properly
understood as a counterrevolution against the New Deal, against
regulations like Glass-Steagall, that was put in place in 1934 after
having seen people lose their life savings to the market crash, and it
was a firewall, a very simple, sensible law that said if you want to
be an investment bank, if you want to gamble, gamble with your
investors’ money, but the government isn’t going to help you because
it’s your own risk. You can fail. And if you want to be a commercial
bank, then we will help you. We will offer insurance to make sure that
those savings are safe, but you have to restrict the risks that you
take. You cannot gamble. You cannot be an investment bank. And a
firewall was put up between investment banks and consumer banks.

And now we look at the way in which this crisis is supposedly
being solved, and what we see, actually, is a wave of mergers in the
banking sector, a wave of mergers with the banks getting bigger and
bigger until ultimately—you know, the Financial Times was predicting
today that eventually the United States will have three big banks,
just like Japan does. That’s where it’s heading. And, of course, all
of those banks will be too big to fail. So they all have this implicit
guarantee; it’s not just Fannie and Freddie. It’s any function that is
too important to fail has this implicit guarantee.

Phil Gramm is the person, you know, on the legislative side who
did the most to create the legislative context for what we’re seeing
right now in the financial sector. You know, I think everyone knows
that Phil Gramm, most famously, recently is the one who said that
America was in a mental recession and a bunch of whiners and all of
that. And so, he’s not officially an adviser to McCain, but there is
talk that if he were to win the elections, he would be Treasury
Secretary. You know, I point—I bring him up because Phil Gramm was a
Milton Friedman fanatic. I think you know this. In 1999, the same year
that he led the charge to strike down Glass-Steagall, he also—Phil
Gramm—pressed Congress to get the Medal of Honor for Friedman. When he
ran in the—when he made his 1996 presidential run, McCain was the co-
chair of his campaign. Phil Gramm was asked, “If you had to rely on a
single person as your foremost economic policy adviser, who would it
be?” And he replied, “Dr. Milton Friedman.” So we see the connections
between deregulation and Friedmanism.

I also think there’s something else at play in the kind of
politicians that are attracted to this particular ideology. You know,
Reagan was the first really to embrace it, and Nixon was the great
disappointment to Friedman. I’m sure you all know that. You know, he
writes in his memoir that when Nixon was elected, he was euphoric. I
mean, he couldn’t imagine an American president more closely aligned
ideologically than Richard Nixon. But Richard Nixon insisted on
governing, and he wanted to win elections, and he imposed wage and
price controls. And Milton Friedman sort of had a bit of a temper
tantrum and declared him the most socialist president in modern
American history. But, you know, it was—so it was really Reagan who
campaigned, you know, with his copy of Capitalism and Freedom on the
campaign trail, who was the first person to really put Friedmanism
into practice.

And I raise this because, you know, one of the things that we
hear about McCain is that he doesn’t really know about economics, and
so I think that makes us inclined not to take his economic ideas
seriously, not to think he would be a really serious economic force. I
think just the opposite. And I think if you look at his campaign
platform, you see just the opposite. He wants to privatize Social
Security. He is saying that in the first 100 days they’ll look at
every single government program, and they will either reform it or
shut it down if it is not serving taxpayers. I mean, they are talking
about a sort of hundred-day economic shock therapy period. And I think
it’s the fact that he doesn’t know about economics, and that Sarah
Palin, I suspect, knows a little less, that actually makes them so
dangerous.

And I don’t—you know, I don’t think it is—not to be too flippant—
I’m sure that I’ve, you know, offended everyone, so I may as well just
say bad things about Ronald Reagan—but I do think that, you know, that
it isn’t a coincidence that, you know, a movie star president
champions these ideas, or a body-builder governor, you know, who says,
“Dr. Friedman changed my life”—I don’t know if you’ve seen Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s introductions to Freedom to Choose, but they’re good.
You should. YouTube them. But the appeal of these ideas, I think, to
politicians who are actually in over their head on economics—and, by
the way, this goes for military dictators, too, like Pinochet—who get
control over a country and are totally clueless about how to run an
economy, is that it lets them off the hook completely. It says
government is the problem, not the solution. Leave it to the market.
Laissez-faire. Don’t do anything. Just undo. Get out of the way. Leave
it to us.


AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein is author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of
Disaster Capitalism, speaking at the University of Chicago against the
naming of the economics institute there after its most famous
economist, Milton Friedman. We’ll come back to the conclusion of her
address in a minute.

[break]
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =


= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** New email: econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com



Jerry Kraus
2008-10-06 13:52:12 EST
On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> Berlin Wall Was for Communism


Excellent analogy. Brilliant historical parallel. Nice one, Naomi!!

Game over, for the neocons. Swedish style social democracy comes to
the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
2009.




Pyjamarama
2008-10-06 14:58:16 EST
On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> 2009.

Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...

You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
pay them back...

See what a failure "socialism" is?

No more free shit for you.

<snicker>

Jerry Kraus
2008-10-06 15:08:01 EST
On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> > 2009.
>
> Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
> buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>
> You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
> who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
> pay them back...
>
> See what a failure "socialism" is?
>
> No more free shit for you.
>
> <snicker>

'fraid not, neocon. Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
money. Too bad, eh? And your stocks are becoming worthless

http://finance.yahoo.com/

No more money for your military-industrial complex. How'll you earn a
buck? How'll you pay for cops to protect your property? Huh?

You spread the resources around, or you die. Get the picture,
neocon? Can't steal it anymore, you lying crook.

Or, the resources are just going to be taken from you. See what a
failure Capitalism is, neocon?

<snicker>




Pyjamarama
2008-10-06 15:49:13 EST
On Oct 6, 12:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> > > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> > > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> > > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> > > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> > > 2009.
>
> > Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
> > buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>
> > You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
> > who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
> > pay them back...
>
> > See what a failure "socialism" is?
>
> > No more free shit for you.
>
> > <snicker>
>
> 'fraid not, neocon.  Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
> money.  Too bad, eh?  And your stocks are becoming worthless

Wealth producing, productive people will continue to have money,
slappy...

To make up the difference from de-leveraged markets, they'll simply
hire fewer workers, give less to charity, protect capital from
exposure, etc. etc...

Thus leaving you out in the cold.

No more free shit for you, numbnuts...

You're on your own now.

See what a failure socialism is?

See what a failure YOU are?

<snicker>

> You spread the resources around, or you die.  Get the picture,
> neocon?  

Oh looky -- another death threat from Herr Kraus...

Surprise, surprise...


Jerry Kraus
2008-10-06 16:01:24 EST
On Oct 6, 2:49 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> > > > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> > > > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> > > > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> > > > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> > > > 2009.
>
> > > Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
> > > buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>
> > > You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
> > > who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
> > > pay them back...
>
> > > See what a failure "socialism" is?
>
> > > No more free shit for you.
>
> > > <snicker>
>
> > 'fraid not, neocon.  Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
> > money.  Too bad, eh?  And your stocks are becoming worthless
>
> Wealth producing, productive people will continue to have money,
> slappy...
>
> To make up the difference from de-leveraged markets, they'll simply
> hire fewer workers, give less to charity, protect capital from
> exposure, etc. etc...
>
> Thus leaving you out in the cold.
>
> No more free shit for you, numbnuts...
>
> You're on your own now.
>
> See what a failure socialism is?
>
> See what a failure YOU are?
>
> <snicker>
>
> > You spread the resources around, or you die.  Get the picture,
> > neocon?  
>
> Oh looky -- another death threat from Herr Kraus...
>
> Surprise, surprise...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Always nice to hear from neocon scum, scared to give their names,
hiding behind their guns and their money. Makes me feel pretty damn
good about myself.

I do hope you enjoy the 90% income tax brackets Mr. Obama is going to
put in, in January.

Of course, you may just be a nutty loser, like most neocons. No
money, no brains. And what would the rich do without nutty losers who
lick their feet? Why, they'd be strung up, of course! As you are
well aware, aren't you neocon?












GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
2008-10-06 16:14:12 EST
pyjamarama wrote:

> On Oct 6, 12:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
>> > > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>>
>> > > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>>
>> > > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
>> > > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
>> > > 2009.
>>
>> > Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
>> > buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>>
>> > You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
>> > who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
>> > pay them back...
>>
>> > See what a failure "socialism" is?
>>
>> > No more free shit for you.
>>
>> > <snicker>
>>
>> 'fraid not, neocon.  Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
>> money.  Too bad, eh?  And your stocks are becoming worthless
>
> Wealth producing, productive people will continue to have money,
> slappy...
>
Now you know why my sig is so utterly honest.

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

Pyjamarama
2008-10-06 16:16:54 EST
On Oct 6, 1:01 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:49 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> > > > > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> > > > > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> > > > > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> > > > > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> > > > > 2009.
>
> > > > Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
> > > > buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>
> > > > You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
> > > > who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
> > > > pay them back...
>
> > > > See what a failure "socialism" is?
>
> > > > No more free shit for you.
>
> > > > <snicker>
>
> > > 'fraid not, neocon.  Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
> > > money.  Too bad, eh?  And your stocks are becoming worthless
>
> > Wealth producing, productive people will continue to have money,
> > slappy...
>
> > To make up the difference from de-leveraged markets, they'll simply
> > hire fewer workers, give less to charity, protect capital from
> > exposure, etc. etc...
>
> > Thus leaving you out in the cold.
>
> > No more free shit for you, numbnuts...
>
> > You're on your own now.
>
> > See what a failure socialism is?
>
> > See what a failure YOU are?
>
> > <snicker>
>
> > > You spread the resources around, or you die.  Get the picture,
> > > neocon?  
>
> > Oh looky -- another death threat from Herr Kraus...
>
> > Surprise, surprise...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Always nice to hear from neocon scum, scared to give their names,
> hiding behind their guns and their money.  Makes me feel pretty damn
> good about myself.

Being poor and posting death threats makes you feel good about
yourself?

Whatever...

> I do hope you enjoy the 90% income tax brackets Mr. Obama is going to
> put in, in January.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's
tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and
the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would
further hurt the economy," the Associated Press yesterday (Sep 17th
2008)


Pyjamarama
2008-10-06 16:27:06 EST
On Oct 6, 1:14 pm, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<*.@hotmail.com> wrote:
> pyjamarama wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 12:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> >> > > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> >> > > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> >> > > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> >> > > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> >> > > 2009.
>
> >> > Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
> >> > buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>
> >> > You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
> >> > who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
> >> > pay them back...
>
> >> > See what a failure "socialism" is?
>
> >> > No more free shit for you.
>
> >> > <snicker>
>
> >> 'fraid not, neocon.  Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
> >> money.  Too bad, eh?  And your stocks are becoming worthless
>
> > Wealth producing, productive people will continue to have money,
> > slappy...
>
> Now you know why my sig is so utterly honest.

Did you say something?

Who the fuck are you, again?






Jerry Kraus
2008-10-06 16:31:58 EST
On Oct 6, 3:16 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 1:01 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 2:49 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 12:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 1:58 pm, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 6, 12:40 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of
> > > > > > > Berlin Wall Was for Communism
>
> > > > > > Excellent analogy.   Brilliant historical parallel.  Nice one, Naomi!!
>
> > > > > > Game over, for the neocons.  Swedish style social democracy comes to
> > > > > > the U.S., courtesy of Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, come
> > > > > > 2009.
>
> > > > > Sorry, slappy -- whoever wins the presidency won't have the money to
> > > > > buy a hammer, let alone a hammer and sickle...
>
> > > > > You dumb bastards blew it all on giving guaranteed loans to deadbeats
> > > > > who couldn't qualify for them conventionally and sure as hell can't
> > > > > pay them back...
>
> > > > > See what a failure "socialism" is?
>
> > > > > No more free shit for you.
>
> > > > > <snicker>
>
> > > > 'fraid not, neocon.  Your greedy banker buddies ain't gonna get their
> > > > money.  Too bad, eh?  And your stocks are becoming worthless
>
> > > Wealth producing, productive people will continue to have money,
> > > slappy...
>
> > > To make up the difference from de-leveraged markets, they'll simply
> > > hire fewer workers, give less to charity, protect capital from
> > > exposure, etc. etc...
>
> > > Thus leaving you out in the cold.
>
> > > No more free shit for you, numbnuts...
>
> > > You're on your own now.
>
> > > See what a failure socialism is?
>
> > > See what a failure YOU are?
>
> > > <snicker>
>
> > > > You spread the resources around, or you die.  Get the picture,
> > > > neocon?  
>
> > > Oh looky -- another death threat from Herr Kraus...
>
> > > Surprise, surprise...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Always nice to hear from neocon scum, scared to give their names,
> > hiding behind their guns and their money.  Makes me feel pretty damn
> > good about myself.
>
> Being poor and posting death threats makes you feel good about
> yourself?
>
> Whatever...
>
> > I do hope you enjoy the 90% income tax brackets Mr. Obama is going to
> > put in, in January.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> "Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's
> tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes  the next president and
> the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would
> further hurt the economy," the Associated Press yesterday (Sep 17th
> 2008)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not scared of you, neocon scum. Are you scared of me?

But, we'll have to wait and see on Obama. He did say he would
implement an immediate social security tax on people earning more than
$250,000 a year or more. 6.2% right off the top, no deductions, no
shelters, paid off every paycheck. And, likely, that's just a start.
He wants "public service" -- that's code for workfare, bigtime. He'll
need money to pay for that. Only the rich have it. He wants
universal health care. He'll be expected to provide it. And with 60
or so Democratic Senators, he won't have to worry about filibusters in
Congress.


If you think there's going to be less for the poor come 2009 you've
missed a small point -- currently, in the U.S., the poor get nothing.


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron