今晚見老英經濟網戰略專家有下一段話﹕

In reality, sending every homeowner a check would be more sensible than the current plan. According to U.S. Global Investors, just $1 trillion would be enough to buy all of the single-family and multi-family residences in the state of Texas. -----by Jennifer Barry
Global Asset Strategist
http://www.globalassetstrategist.com

這句話﹐太公早就說過很多次吧﹖

 引用文章妖形與本尊 

幾家歡樂幾家愁﹐窮則變﹐變則通﹔但人再變﹐不能忘本殺父弒母﹐藍綠雞鴨共棄中華民國﹐去抱日本大腿﹐跪求中共認父。

唉﹗適者生存﹐聯網雞鴨很行﹐祝君你等有機押運﹐得特大樂透紅獎。咱仙鶴沒這本事﹐只能肩義摃龜（故人﹑固國）﹐效凱恩斯說﹕『沒那狗屎運』。《這是凱恩斯名言﹐當他從美國談判返回倫敦﹐一群記者追問﹕『您是否出賣英國﹖英國將很快成老美一州』時﹐他回言﹕『『沒那狗屎運』“No such luck.”》

引用文章謝謝提及為政之道﹐酒醉駕車的奧娑馬總統﹗

<><>

"The Zombie IdeasHave Won"-Paul Krugman on $1 Trillion Geithner Plan to Buy Toxic Bank Assets

 

Gee! Paul krugman, a Nobel Prize economist, is so kind to let me know "Zombie's idea."  I have never known a Zombie has an idea.

Our smart bureaucrats are so determined to trade our taxpayer's dollars of $ 1 trillion for those banks' toxic notes.  That is a coming reality we as an "invisible" average American have no say.  Hope they know what they are doing much better than those Nixon's guys did in the end of 1971-2.

Jude wrote, "... The monetary crises of 1971, viewed in world capitals as an international "attack on the U.S. dollar, seemed to have subsided with President Nixon's shock treatment of August 15, 1971... series of steps to stimulate the economy and reduce the growing unemployment...The foundation had been laid for global peace and prosperity for at least the rest of the decade and perhaps the century or so it was said.  The world's economists, almost withot exception, failed to anticipate the convulsions brewing just beyond the horizon.  As 1973 opened, commodity prices soared around the world, a general worldwide inflation ensued... and before spring began the Smithsonian Agreement collapsed altogether."

Well, today's stock surged 7%.   Very good!  As Amy said, "Cash for Trash."  There is a saying that "one's trash is other's gold."  So you tell me who the idots are out of this trade?  Who takes money and who is going to hold the trash bag?

Who knows what comes out next.  Just like I said, "folks, be very cautious about Geithner's plot."

03/23/2009

Thank You for Mentioning "Governing," DUI Pres. Obama

0

50

35

(NOTE: within 30 minutes, the numbers show how many clicks on the topic at the American Webinar.)

        感謝曾老先生和市長的鼓勵。

        首先澄清一下，我沒有批判令狐老先生（zgr?）的意思，我所針對的是臺灣網絡上一種“老農救中國”的論調，認爲中共利用小恩小惠誘惑老百姓把“棺材本、保命錢”，這要不是別有用心，也是太小看了掀起大陸改革開放第一波浪潮的大陸農民的智慧。 就令狐先生的文章意思來講，令狐先生的説法是沒錯的——大陸内需不足按馬克思主義理論的觀點也是“生産過剩”，絕對不可以採用西方的一套。

     “屁股決定腦袋”的事情總是存在的。我始終認爲美國是一個充滿理想主義的國度，為國家利益而不計個人得失的政治家也是存在的。但是“AIG事件”就是一個“屁股決定腦袋”的醜聞。美國以其強大的科技、軍事和經濟實力通過美元印刷權掠奪世界財富，提高本國各界層的生活水平，美國可能也是階級矛盾最緩和的國家之一。在美國對外的財富掠奪和控制中其所吹捧的經濟自由化制度特別是金融自由化是主要途徑，因此就救經濟政策而言，美國讓然強調資本的自由流動，而其他國家特別是發展中國家加強對金融領域的監控也必然是“屁股決定腦袋”的另外一種體現。

總算有人看到九牛重心﹐但有人願說明老美何以顧左右而言他﹐為何會採這樣的愚民策略嗎﹖

Bait and Switch

The Real AIG Conspiracy

By MICHAEL HUDSON March 18, 2009

It may seem odd, but the public outrage against $135 million in AIG bonuses is a godsend to Wall Street, AIG scoundrels included. How can the media be so preoccupied with the discovery that there is self-serving greed to be found in the financial sector? Every TV channel and every newspaper in the country, from right to left, have made these bonuses the lead story over the past two days.

What is wrong with this picture? Is there not something over-inflated about the outrage led most vociferously by Senator Charles Schumer and Rep. Barney Frank, the two leading shills for the bank giveaways over the past year? And does Pres. Obama perhaps find it convenient that finally, at long last, he has been able to criticize something that he believes Wall Street has done wrong? Even the Wall Street Journal has gotten into the act. The government’s takeover of AIG, it pointed out, “uses the firm as a conduit to bail out other institutions.” So much more greed is involved than just that of AIG employees. The firm owed much more to other players – abroad as well as on Wall Street – than the assets it had. That is what drove it to insolvency. And popular opposition has been rising to how Obama and  McCain could have banded together to support the bailout that, in retrospect, amounts to trillions and trillions of dollars thrown down the drain. Not really down the drain at all, of course – but given to financial speculators on the winning “smart” side of AIG’s bad financial gambles.

“The Washington crowd wants to focus on bonuses because it aims public anger on private actors,” the Journal accused in a March 17 editorial. But instead of explaining that the shift is away from Wall Street grabbers of a thousand times the amount of bonuses being contested, it blames its usual all-purpose bete noire: Congress. Where the right and left differ is just whom the public should be directing its anger at!

Here’s the problem with all the hoopla over the $135 million in AIG bonuses: This sum is only less than 0.1 per cent – one thousandth – of the $183 BILLION that the U.S. Treasury gave to AIG as a “pass-through” to its counterparties. This sum, over a thousand times the magnitude of the bonuses on which public attention is conveniently being focused by Wall Street promoters, did not stay with AIG. For over six months, the public media and Congressmen have been trying to find out just where this money DID go. Bloomberg brought a lawsuit to find out. Only to be met with a wall of silence.

Until finally, on Sunday night, March 15, the government finally released the details. They were indeed highly embarrassing. The largest recipient turned out to be just what earlier financial reports had rumored: Paulson’s own firm, Goldman Sachs, headed the list. It was owed $13 billion in counterparty claims. Here’s the picture that’s emerging. Last September, Treasury Secretary Paulson, from Goldman Sachs, drew up a terse 3-page memo outlining his bailout proposal. The plan specified that whatever he and other Treasury officials did (thus including his subordinates, also from Goldman Sachs), could not be challenged legally or undone, much less prosecuted. This condition enraged Congress, which rejected the bailout in its first incarnation.

It now looks as if  Paulson had good reason to put in a fatal legal clause blocking any clawback of funds given by the Treasury to AIG’s counterparties. This is where public outrage should be focused.

Instead, the leading Congressional shepherds of the bailout legislation – along with Obama, who came out in his final, Friday night presidential debate with McCain strongly in favor of the bailout in  Paulson’s awful “short” version – have been highlighting the AIG executives receiving bonuses, not the company’s counterparties.

There are two questions that one always must ask when a political operation is being launched. First, qui bono --  who benefits? And second, why now? In my experience, timing almost always is the key to figuring out the dynamics at work.

Regarding qui bono, what does Sen. Schumer, Rep. Frank, Pres. Obama and other Wall Street sponsors gain from this public outcry? For starters, it depicts them as hard taskmasters of the banking and financial sector, not its lobbyists scurrying to execute one giveaway after another. So the AIG kerfuffle has muddied the water about where their political loyalties really lie. It enables them to strike a misleading pose – and hence to pose as “honest brokers” next time they dishonestly give away the next few trillion dollars to their major sponsors and campaign contributors.

Regarding the timing, I think I have answered that above. The uproar about AIG bonuses has effectively distracted attention from the AIG counterparties who received the $183 billion in Treasury giveaways. The “final” sum to be given to its counterparties has been rumored to be $250 billion, do Sen. Schumer, Rep. Frank and Pres. Obama still have a lot more work to do for Wall Street in the coming year or so.

To succeed in this work – while mitigating the public outrage already rising against the bad bailouts – they need to strike precisely the pose that they’re striking now. It is an exercise in deception.

The moral should be: The larger the crocodile tears shed over giving bonuses to AIG  individuals (who seem to be largely on the healthy, bona fide insurance side of AIG’s business, not its hedge-fund Ponzi-scheme racket), the more they will distract public attention from the $180 billion giveaway, and the better they can position themselves to give away yet more government money (Treasury bonds and Federal Reserve deposits) to their favorite financial charities.

Let’s go after the REAL money given to AIG – the $183 billion! I realize that this has already been paid out, and we can’t get it back from the counterparties who knew that Alan Greenspan and George Bush and Hank Paulson were steering the U.S. economy off a real estate cliff, a derivatives cliff and a balance-of-payments cliff all wrapped up into one by betting against collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and insuring these casino bets with AIG. That money has been siphoned off from the Treasury fair and square, by putting their own proxies in the key government slots, the better  to serve them.

So let’s go after them altogether. Sen. Schumer said to the AIG bonus recipients that the I.R.S. can go after them and get the money back one way or another. And it can indeed go after the $183-billion bailout recipients. All it has to do is re-instate the estate tax and raise the marginal income and wealth-tax rates to the (already reduced) Clinton-era levels.

The money can be recovered. And that’s just what Mr. Schumer, Mr. Frank and others don’t want to see the public discussing. That’s why they’ve diverted attention onto this trivia. It’s the time-honored way to get people not to talk about the big picture and what’s really important.

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com

謝謝發言指導﹐看來您並不同意令狐兄的隨意口沬﹐曲解中共政策喔﹗

但是﹐令狐兄提到銀行國有時﹐很顯然﹐是針對西方資本主義國家而言。

又但是﹐太公雖推薦汝回應﹐純粹鼓勵性質﹐並非同意汝言『各國（應該包括中共吧﹖）屁股決定腦袋』的說法﹐事情並非如此單純。

正如老丏﹐心中單純﹐觀事『有容』﹐只說老美『有權有錢階級』﹐圖的是『以公權謀私利』的一面而已。

對於破筍﹑病垃圾﹑蓋的啦等人一路走來﹐卻蕭規曹隨﹐所採策略儼然一致﹔老美政府換人﹐黑白頭對調﹐何以政略仍相同﹖如不能知『彼心』﹐就當然不知其『所然』﹐更不會知道『何以然』。

蓋人一有大病﹐醫生有高明醫術者﹐會知前進及保守的各種治術﹐如華陀向曹操提出『開腦』﹐如大長今向韓主試『開肚換腸』﹐皆屬猛進法﹐在保守者言﹐那是太有可能被斥責為『革命』性的過激手段﹐華陀因而命喪黃泉﹐大長今也得流放。

要知老美為維新演進的社會﹐一向平和﹔民主共和兩黨智士﹐仍有有識之士﹐千萬不能小觀﹐以其為聯網雞鴨﹐如太公盡放屁言﹐輕視為『屁股』也。

就太公半年觀之﹐並非老美不知病因﹐亦非無對症下藥的決心﹐而是兩黨策略﹐完全偏向以保持現狀為本﹐能夠行『軟著路』為主要取向或考慮。渠等切入決事的方法﹐腦袋僵化﹐亦如中國治水之鯀﹐牛角尖認定動用政府公權﹐強固金融体系﹐係唯一可行的作法﹐乃不得不然﹑『不得已也』。

當然﹐認定何為『革命』或過激﹐何為前進或保守﹖涉及認識問題﹐有多少理性和知識多寡的實質問題﹐井蛙自難言天道。也涉及解決問題切入法( approach ）的程序（ process ）層次﹐常依人心而有大異。例如在太公看﹐房地產乃期貨商品﹐可以也應該用來作市場交易﹐以獲其利﹐但是﹐在某些人看﹐那就成『變賣祖產大逆不道』矣。

再進而言現象界﹐外表溫和老實﹐可能內心剛猛狠毒﹐如台諺說﹕《暗暗吃三碗公半》﹐中國人說『人不可貌相』﹐老外言『書不可用書面量』﹔同理﹐策略也難以用外在表面言其果﹐而斷其執行後果。康梁變法﹐就慈禧觀﹐乃過激之策﹐加以拒納﹔如果康梁能成中國明治﹐絕對斷孫文革命路﹐慈禧的保守﹐反造成過激革命之果。依『東周列國誌』寫文法則﹐光緒慈禧﹐何為『過激』﹐何為『保先人祖業』﹐豈不明哉﹖

故今日老美破筍﹑病垃圾作法﹐在表面及執行上﹐狀似保守﹔但在太公觀﹐早已說過﹕渠等已經過激到摧毀資本体制的命根老脈而不知。不信乎﹖請看老外下文﹐對過去十八月的觀察﹐您能不有同感﹐嘆說『自由市場去了何方』﹖
 

Market meltdown refutes 'efficient markets' theory

By Kate Gibson, MarketWatch Last update: 12:30 p.m. EDT March 18, 2009
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The stock market collapse calls into
question the soundness of one cornerstone of modern financial theory -- the idea of "efficient markets" -- since all the components that conspired to produce the mess were in plain sight, contends one analyst.

唉﹗佛曰﹕『不可說』﹔天機不可洩﹔太公已指明『九牛一毛』﹔若眾人仍不覺渠等考慮問題的核心﹐當然難窺老美廟堂之『堂奧』﹔看盡聯網『應然』就是『實然』論調﹐太公心力老﹐就簡言至此。

       銀行國有化從馬克思理論而言，不過是爲了防止資本控制國家命脈，頗有“三民主義”節制資本的意味，中共一貫如此，不是反金融危機的權宜之計。

       家電下鄉的試點也是在金融危機之前的2005年已經展開了，本意是爲了改善農民的生活水平，大陸連續7年把中央大多數預算用在解決“三農問題”，所謂的“家電下鄉”、“汽車下鄉”不是心血來潮。

     以上政策本來就是政治問題，跟經濟危機的關係不大；不過今天各國對付金融危機的方法倒是體現了“屁股決定腦袋”的政治經濟鉄律。

高高洋狗對上低低土狗 (2)

曾太公

2009/03/08 17:59

0

51

1

哈﹗何時令狐兄﹐也跟太公一樣﹐變成低低土狗﹐狗嘴出象牙喔﹖簡言之﹐老祖有言﹕『民為國本﹐藏富於民』﹐方是『為人民服務』﹐也是『為統治者服務』﹐治國之本也。

蓋古今中外﹐只聞苛捐雜稅﹐民不潦生﹐未見簡稅國庫瘦﹔只見饑荒﹐人民桿起﹐未聞衣食足﹐梁山賊寨立﹗

但有二疑﹕

『世界前三大銀行全是大陸的』﹐這話何所本﹖全世界三大﹐是何三大﹖井蛙觀天﹐台灣銀行就是最大﹗

『汽車產業是經濟的火車頭』﹐這話又何所本﹖民生企業﹐私車非必需﹐銷售額亦居次﹐房事仍最火大﹗

註﹕鑑之國際實踐﹐可知銀行收歸國有﹐乃下下之策﹐『掩耳盜鈴﹐移花接木』之舉﹐非正視病根之道﹔以之解決今日經濟﹐誠係令狐兄言『本末倒置』。是故可知﹐令狐兄矛盾未開﹐此處所見所言﹐純係『種瓜得豆』﹐『栽花柳蔭』﹐瞎貓碰死鼠﹐捧中共之『言外』餘果﹗非其有一週全大策在心﹐非其真的成為老台土狗也。