Thanks for a fine post, Gail. Many questions, indeed.

Who ever would have thought the USA, under a Republican administration, would nationalize private business?

It may or may not be a good idea to do such a thing, but the manner in which it was done suggests a coup d'état rather than some sort of rational plan. Of course, it could just be panicked reaction to events that are spinning out of control -- but again, the timing and the direction the nationalization is taking, and the speed with which consent was manufactured in Congress, in the media, and (almost) in popular opinion suggest careful prior planning, The selection of Goldman Sachs executives to manage this financial wizardry, while not entirely without merit --after all, they are the most successful of the standing troops -- just has an off-odor.

I know nothing, but I talk to a lot of people, from a lot of different backgrounds, every day. And to most of us, this feels like rapid progress to something like the USSR. And we know where that led. I don't see how this can really go anywhere except to 1. A thug state or 2. a full-fledged oligarchy in the style of ancient Rome.

Many people have said this, of course. I just want it out there to see if such considerations are completely off base. Maybe the Government is really doing the best it can under the circumstances. I'm glad I don't have to be making the decisions.

As a conservative (I'm not neccessarily a Republican anymore...) I find what has gone on under the Bush administation very disappointing. Everytime I hear, "we must take drastic action immeadiately," red flags go off in my head. Bush is not acting like a leader and neither is congress. I'm hoping somebody comes forward and leads (it's not looking like Obama or McCain) by telling the American people that they are in control of their own destiny. Financial prudence and knowledge is the responsibility of every American person. A free, capitalist society cannot work if the general population is not somewhat intelligent in their decision making processes. If the American people continue to fail at managing the basic aspects of their lives, we will slide into Socialism. Everybody will be equally miserable.

MW

"telling the American people that they are in control of their own destiny" what's needed is telling the people they are RESPONSIBLE for their own destiny. Unfortunately the nature of democracies is that the people vote for politicians that tell them the good times will continue or get better.

Above, "And to most of us, this feels like rapid progress to something like the USSR."
"we will slide into Socialism. Everybody will be equally miserable."
Why do Americans keep insisting that any sort of collective social action is communism?

Why do Americans keep insisting that any sort of collective social action is communism?

Because their society is screwed in the head. Everywhere else I go there is some kind of public health system. but I talk to my brother in law in Indiana and he thinks it's SOCIALISM!!! And if the health care system goes to gov't we're all on the way to the gulag. He's typical, and he's an idiot. I would think he's a singularity, but I've met his neighbours and they are all of the same view.

It's as sad as it is pathetic, and is one of the reasons I left. I just got sick of the stupidity. There's plenty of stupidity elsewhere, but at least I'm away from that particular variety of wilful ignorance combined with wishful thinking and obdurant adherence to superstition and narrowminded idiocy.

Stuart. I know what you are saying--I live in Indiana where universal health care is socialism but nationalizing Wall Street is not. I guess it comes from listening to Rush Limbaugh, but you would think that even a little bit of common sense would show the fallacy here.

"Fascists promote corporatism, ... which typically allows a significant degree of freedom from state intervention for private interests that are operating well independently or are outside of national interests, but if areas of the economy vital to national interests are operating poorly, or require direction to operate in accordance to national interest, state intervention is utilized."

Well hello, and who is this here here then?

National Heath Care is socialism because and only because it is currently very profitable. Our insurance for self employed under 50's is 14,000 per year. The politicians can talk all they want that $5,000 rebate or what ever. This is a bridge to nowhere.
health insurance is cheap when everybody has it. Thanks to the Hill-Burton act those without get to pay nothing and we get to pay extra via higher and higher insurance premiums.
So we have de-facto national health care. Like everything else there are too few payee's.

Because people have been trained that way. Collective action is the only chance for survival for a species as physically weak as human beings. But the drive for individual survival (which is abetted by the power of hydrocarbon energy) has allowed "the leadership" to proclaim, for a few years that anything other than individual aggrandizement is "wrong." Those people have mis-appropriated a perfectly good word "socialism" and converted it into a punching bag for their own sinister purposes.

Why do Americans keep insisting that any sort of collective social action is commmunism? Because Rush Limbaugh told them so.

Why do they keep listening to that creep? That is a question I would like answered.

I'll tell you what question boggles my mind NeverLNG: Let's forget about banks and stuff like that for a minute and take a commodity like, say, water. How is it possible that collectively, people would allow water to be "owned" by a single person, and then pay money to that person in order to have access to that self-same water? Why would anyone allow water to be controlled by a corporation whose sole purpose is to make a profit? That boggles my mind completely.

I think "the people" don't allow it in the sense that they "vote" for it. Because of a corrupt system, they elect "leaders" who pass laws making common resources (The Columbia River, say) into a commodity that they can buy and sell -- and they (those "leaders") sell the River to the highest bidder-- and the bidders are all working with each other in a rigged auction.

Then the people, who didn't really get the money anyway, have to buy it back.

The system is so well tested and perfected -- English "inclosure laws" were very effective, and it the pirates' techniques have improved greatly since then. Maude Barlow: The Growing Battle for the Right to Water

Don't know where you live, dtbks, but here in the arid west water is a scarce commodity and the rights to it are defended to the death. AFAIK, we can't even collect rainwater in a barrel because that water has already been claimed. Talk about mind-boggling.....

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/colorado.html

http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/7/the-cistern-conundrum_397.cfm

"Why do they keep listening to that creep? That is a question I would like answered."

Because people have lost the will to search for their own answers. There is so much information and misinformation out there making it very difficult to research your own answers. It is much easier to just listen to a so-called "expert" who has culled the data for you and boiled it down into easily digested info bits. This is particulary the case with older folks that are not so comfortable with the internet.

The real problem is that people willing and able to provide honest and true answers would never think of ever doing the sort of self-promoting publicity-seeking stuff the Limbaugh types do in order to hold onto their power bases.

Collective action is the only chance for survival for a species as physically weak as human beings.

Are you sure? How about a crowd collective stampede over the cliff?

For the survival to have some chance, the action has to be:
1. Sane organized by sane people, OR
2. Voluntary so that the sane people can opt out.

I want to opt out from the Privatization plan. Tell me how!

Obviously, voluntary organized collective suicide is deadly for some madmen, but mandated organized collective suidice is deadly even for the sane.

Those people have mis-appropriated a perfectly good word "socialism" and converted it into a punching bag for their own sinister purposes.

No matter what word you like for it, the concept mandatory government stealing wealth redistribution is as destructive as stealing.

"we will slide into Socialism. Everybody will be equally miserable."
Why do Americans keep insisting that any sort of collective social action is communism?

Because by the definition Communism is when such collective social action is forcend upon everyone without individual way to opt out.

Hi Tony (and Suart, et al.)

"Why do Americans keep insisting that any sort of collective social action is communism?"

I tried to resist replying to your rhetorical question, I really did, but since I actually know the answer it seemed dishonest to remain silent.

But first, the disclaimer: I am in no way a conspiracy theorist and have no faith in the efficacy of tin foil hats (although a full scale Farraday Cage might be prudent.... joke). Here's the deal. To live is to conspire. Wherever two or more creatures are gathered in the name of mutual self-interest, there is conspiracy. A football huddle is conspiracy. A closed door Board Meeting is conspiracy. Have I made the point?

Americans keep insisting that 'any sort of collective social action is communism' because dedicated professional propagandists have worked very diligently for many years to make that prejudicial assumption a core belief of as many people as possible.

It's not difficult, just expensive. All ya gotta do is say it often enough from as many sources as you can hire using as many channels of communication as you can afford.

Chief among the conduits for the specific bullshit you asked about were Time/Life Publishing under the direction of Claire Booth Luce and the then U.S. Office of Special Services (later to become CIA) for whom similar patriotic services were performed as part of the defense effort of the Second World War. The company pretty well bracketed the readership spectrum, with TIME mag for the upper-middle, LIFE mag for the mainstream, Readers Digest for the unwashed masses, and My Weekly Reader for innocent tykes in schools across the nation.

(So if reading any of those has ever left you feeling intellectually soiled, now you have a hint about why)

Basically all of this grew out of the coordinated intelligence efforts between England, Canada and the United States starting with the run-up to World War II. After knocking out the Nazi's and Nips by the middle of 1945 they turned their sights to the next target looming on the horizon: Joe Stalin's Russia.

Because the OSS (later CIA) were staffed up originally from the ranks of Industry and the Ivy League the 'flavor' lingered, so anything that did not please these elites that was even remotely similar to Communism got a severe dose of what we gave Hitler and Iron Joe (socialism, trade unions, liberals, etc.)

The non-fiction book "A Man Called Intrepid" , by William Stevenson is an excellent read if that sort of thing interests you, But be forewarned, the book itself is a smoothly presented piece of propaganda, and as such is likely to leave you not nearly as well informed as you will feel it does.

So, to make a long answer too short: we've been brain washed and it weren't no accident.

There is no group of humans more socialist in thinking and behaviour than the superrich. The average human with a net worth exceeding 30 million US has a far more extensive social network and social support than the average person. Most billionaires literally have hundreds of friends that can help them out financially and in other ways-the average person is lucky to have a handful. The rich are socialist because socialism works.

The rich are socialist because socialism works.

Yes,

May I add, the rich probably do not have problem with socialism, because they do not have problem with stealing. Many of them, benefited from it in the past, some even became rich that way.

And socialism or tax and wealth redistribution sound much nicer than theft<?B>.

And remember, every time you take from some, before you give it to another,something sticks under the fingernails. And the recipients of the leftover benefit may even praise you!

There are many leaders out there. Don't dispair because you see the President (tial Choice) as "The Leader". That's what democracy /was/ trying to alleviate/correct. What other leaders are out there? Well looking at one! definition of leadership, it could be one who is followed. Why are we following those who sell/lead/ us the new big SUV? or the newest fastest computer, or the bigger house? Where are the education and values being taught? TV and other media outlets, maybe. Why do we have a culture where two income families are pretty much a necessity, and teachers are one of the lowest paid professions, along with others that protect and serve? Perhaps a focus on more and better education is the only way for the next ( or its too late for any but the next next) generataion.

There are many leaders out there. Don't dispair because you see the President (tial Choice) as "The Leader". That's what democracy /was/ trying to alleviate/correct. What other leaders are out there? Well looking at one! definition of leadership, it could be one who is followed. Why are we following those who sell/lead/ us the new big SUV? or the newest fastest computer, or the bigger house? Where are the education and values being taught? TV and other media outlets, maybe. Why do we have a culture where two income families are pretty much a necessity, and teachers are one of the lowest paid professions, along with others that protect and serve? Perhaps a focus on more and better education is the only way for the next ( or its too late for any but the next next) generataion.

I think this is all "kicking the can down the road a ways". There is no way in my mind that the government can tax the rest of the economy enough to pay for all of the things it would like to help. The nature of the problem is that there is no way the government can maintain our current standard of living with this approach.

To me, it looks like there is a significant chance of a fast crash at some point down the road, once the solvent portion of the rest of the world decides it is no longer going to fund America's extravagance. After such a crash, one doesn't really know what would be left: Would US government stand in its current form? Would some states form their own governments? Would universal electricity continue? Would there be enough gasoline available to talk about allocation?

I suppose there is also a possibility of a muddle through solution. The government takes over these programs, but sets its goals very low. GM is shrunk to 10% of its previous size, and makes electric bicycles. Resources are allocated to the programs we need most--maintaining food production, keeping electrical service, providing some limited form of transportation. It is hard to see governmental officials heading in this direction, though.

Gail,

I quite often here this 'financial crash' type scenario where everyone dumps their Dollars but I have to ask if this is reasonable and under what circumstances? It seems to me that the fiat currency based world is so intertwined that to suddenly abandon the dollar would be death to those that did it as well, like a poker game where everyone is all-in but no-one reveals their hands...

So isn't it more likely that we will simply see debt continue to rise and rise 10 Trillion, 20 Trillion, 50 Trillion, perhaps with some Inflation until the numbers are at such dizzying heights that... well, some would say we are already there I guess...

Nick.

It seems like the interest rate the government will have to pay on bonds will have to go up for anyone to buy the huge quantity that would be necessary. Paying the higher interest rates would become a major strain on the economy.

Or if the current monetary system is working too badly, it would seem like the government (once it has nationalized a huge amount of things), could just change it (with congress's consent). Simply start issuing fiat currency as needed, without a tie to debt. That would likely mean huge inflation, and a big drop relative to other currencies.

Gail -- what do you suppose is actually meant by "nationalizing" a business or an industry? That would actually seem to be shorthand for "take it from whoever claims to own it now, and give it to whoever the Regime favors."

I don't see the average American sharing in any benefits of "ownership" of Freddy, Fanny, AIG or the rest. And what's next? Steel? Oil companies?

At the same time, there seems to be a rush to "privatize" things that really should be in common ownership -- water and highways come to mind.

I boggle.

I think that we are suddenly going to start to run into problems with the things we have recently privatized, and state governments will be called on to take back over the functions that someone else had been paid to do. Of course, state finances are being stretched already, and they really aren't able to borrow. All of these could go together to reduce the level of services we are able to obtain.

If the re-investment of spent monies back into US treasuries is what has kept interest rates low -which appears the case- then a slowdown/crash in US consumer spending would send the thing into reverse. Not only would we see a global recession but this return flow would be seriously curtailed. Mmmm, not good.

Are there any key indicators that would show a reversal of this feedback loop -I have been watching the VIX (all time high) and Baltic Dry Index (falling off a cliff)...

Nick.

I also get the feeling that the central banks will eventually have to start purchasing government treasuries with new money. Other countries such as China will also inflate (but less) to keep their exchange rate reasonable. I think the recent concerted interest rate cut is part of this 'race to the bottom' for global fiat currencies. Whilst some will fair better than others, non-fiat money will do best of all (once the paper markets are shown to be fraudulently manipulated).

At this point however, the private ownership of precious metals may once again be outlawed, allowing only the elite to monopolise the function it offers as a store of wealth. The rest of us will have to find other ways to hedge against the tide of inflation.

Gail, the government has avoided raising taxes to pay for things for the last few years and as you say it is just not possible to raise taxes to cover all the bills. For years America and others have been living beyond their means and now there are hard times ahead. Imagine if taxes had been raised to cover the Iraq war, just imagine how quickly the adventure would have been over.

Your points above:
IMHO a national grid is required to ensure that electricity can be efficiently transmitted across the nation rather than having individual companies controlling their own regions.

Railroad tracks should be controlled by the government so that long term plans can be undertaken.

Airline industries to smaller cities should not be subsidised, otherwise how long do you think these subsidies should continue, 5, 500 years or until reached by rail?

Auto manufacturers have fought tooth and nail to prevent reasonable CAFE limits to be introduced, have bought and closed down railroads. Let them go bust and someone will buy the assets from the receivers and use them more efficiently.

Housing problems, stop falling prices?? I thought one of the problems has been a house price bubble? Surely lower prices are more affordable and will increase demand to remove the overhang of new houses?

Government to provide support to the new manufacturers? I will be manufacturing pork barrels and bridges to nowhere at low cost for voters, how much can i have?

State and local governments, this is a cash flow problem caused by the freeze of the money markets. Sure government can help out.

Failing banks, now there's a question, hang on just got to get back to work.

To me, it looks like there is a significant chance of a fast crash at some point down the road, once the solvent portion of the rest of the world decides it is no longer going to fund America's extravagance.

I am having a hard time figuring out who exactly is solvent right now or even what solvency means in the current context. With Ireland, Iceland, Germany, etc. guarenteeing all of their bank accounts, it is difficult to think of a solvent country of significant size. China and India perhaps are solvent but how can one be solvent holding onto large numbers of dollars. Maybe this is where we get one world government. Oops, I almost forgot Canada. Canada does not seem to have much exposure. Of course they balance that by having an environmentally collapsing province in Alberta. But damn few people live in Alberta, so why not turn it into the world´s largest toxic waste pit.

I would suggest that a country can potentially be solvent if it has food and water security. Perhaps we should get away from the idea of solvent countries and start thinking about solvent small safehavens.

"once the solvent portion of the rest of the world"
Gail, which portion would that be? :)

I suppose it might be pretty small. It would probably be mostly oil exporters and possibly China. I'm not sure that Russia would be in it.

An awfully lot of counties have joined the club and borrowed like rapidly growing economies would continue forever.