Bloomberg headline: "Saving Capitalism No Sure Thing as Statism Undermines Worldwide Economies"

[marmar]

:wtf: ....Well thank goodness capitalism hasn't undermined the world's economies at all, n'est-ce pas? :eyes: :sarcasm:



from Bloomberg (Capitalist Pig) News Service:



Saving Capitalism No Sure Thing as Statism Undermines Economy
By Simon Kennedy, Matthew Benjamin and Rich Miller


Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- What’s good for General Motors may not ultimately be best for the global economy.

The Bush administration’s $13.4 billion rescue of GM and Chrysler is a fitting finish to a year in which governments around the world expanded their role in the economy and markets after three decades of retreat.

The intervention comes at what may prove to be a steep price. Future investment may be allocated less efficiently as risk-averse politicians make business decisions. Whenever banks decide to lend again, they are likely to find new capital requirements that will curb how freely they can do it. Interest rates may be pushed up by government borrowing to finance trillions of dollars of bailouts.

“We’re seeing a more statist world economy,” says Ken Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and now a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “That’s not good for growth in the longer run.”

It’s not good for stocks either, says Paola Sapienza, associate professor of finance at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Slower economic growth means lower profits. Shares might also be hurt by investor uncertainty about the scope and timing of government intervention in the corporate sector.

“If the rules of the game are changing, people are reluctant to invest in the stock market,” Sapienza says. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aDjmuEpDoctc&refer=home

[truedelphi]

1. And where were these experts when the SIV's and Credut Default

Swaps were giving new meaning to the term "Ponzi scheme?"

What has this Sapienza guy said up to now? Did he favor the Milton Friedman policies and NAFTA, and globalization? Or did he maybe think the arcane theories of well paying jobs for the middle class might help keep the economy moving along merrily? It has turned out that the "passe" theory that jobs for the middle calss would have been the one thing that maybe would have kept theeconomy rolling along.

And if the actions of his colleagues at the IMF are any indication, Ken Rogoff was probably too busy running around the globe ripping off third world nations rather than formulating working policies for the economy here at home. But hey, now he can teach a whole new batch of spoiled rich kids mis-truths about the economic order.

[Runcible Spoon]

2. I read that garbage.

I can't believe they can still sit there with a straight face and pretend like "statism" wasn't in bed with capitalism from the very beginning. Instead of responsible controls and sane trade agreements, we got lop-sided policies that gutted non industrial countries and our own middle and lower classes while making the Masters of the Universe insanely rich. And when the banking Ponzi schemes couldn't continue to pay out and got too big, they were given a no questions asked cash infusion while the auto unions are all but broken for their bailout.

[mikehiggins]

3. Well, that's sort of what that Christ guy was saying, wasn't it?

Modern capitalism is much better than the old version, but again it only really works if you are a major corporation or very, very rich.

We really should encourage everyone to slide unobtrusively (sp?) into some form of socialism, call it what you will.

Let us see the economy of the world work for the benefit of the people of the world. WOuldn't that be a nice Christmas present?

[DJ13]

4. Why do these people only bitch after a blue collar industry gets help?