Il Vero Fine degli Aiuti alle Banche
(2 voti, media: 3 su 5)
Loading ...March 4th, 2009 by Leonardo
987 Views - 
Il 24/2 u.s. Bernanke ha fatto il punto sullo stato della congiuntura, sulle prospettive, e quindi sugli effetti di quanto finora fatto da Fed e Governo USA. Quando si parla di economia USA è noto che si guarda quel che con molta probabilità si avrà in Europa nel giro di un anno, e questo rende il tutto piuttosto interessante. Sappiamo della cascata di “moneta” riversata dalla Fed sui mercati, delle garanzie che lo Stato si è accollato, dei salvataggi e delle iniezioni di capitale nelle banche, per non parlare degli aiuti all’industria (o a una certa industria); il tutto ufficialmente per accorciare questa crisi. Ma a che punto siamo?
Siamo al punto che il Governatore della Fed prevede la fine della crisi (USA) con il 2009, quindi l’inizio della ripresa nel 2010. Questo significa almeno due anni e mezzo di discesa prima di ricominciare a salire, senza considerare che per recuperare quanto fino al momento perso ci potrebbe volere un altro anno. Tre anni e mezzo (per me come minimo) per “far pari”; e questo sarebbe il fantastico risultato di una coordinata e ciclopica politica economica come mai la storia ha visto? Complimentoni.
Ho sempre detto, sia su IHC che su Giornalettismo, che questa volta non ci sarebbe stato modo di risollevare il ciclo economico, che questa volta lo squilibrio tra domanda aggregata e risparmio reale avrebbe disegnato, senza via d’uscita, il tracciato del Business Cycle di Hayek; e sempre ho temuto che il tutto si risolvesse, come nelle attese di quel menagramo di Mises, in una scusa per l’estensione del socialismo di fatto. Tutto questo ritorna se leggiamo quanto precisamente detto da Bernanke, e se valutiamo l’aspetto azionario delle banche.
Bernanke ha detto che “se le azioni prese dall’Amministrazione, da Congresso, e dalla Federal Reserve avranno successo nel ristabilire un certo grado di stabilità finanziaria - e solo in questo caso, secondo me [me Bernanke, non me Leonardo, non facciamo casino] – c’è una ragionevole prospettiva che la corrente recessiva cessi nel 2009 e che il 2010 sia un anno di recupero”. Attenzione: “se le azioni prese … e solo in questo caso…”. Un grosso “se” incombe sulle attese di Bernanke, perché il mercato da solo si “vuol” tuffare in recessione (e noi sappiamo che c’è del fisiologico in questo, e non ce ne stupiamo), e non è per nulla certo che i titanici sforzi statali siano serviti a qualcosa. Non è certo. Un anno e mezzo di interventi eccezionali potrebbero non essere serviti a nulla, e nessuno negli USA (salvo Ron Paul) che chieda la chiusura di quel circo della Federal Reserve?!
Inoltre si continua a pensare che la soluzione alla crisi passi dal mercato bancario, volendo ignorare questo la crisi sia insita nel lato “reale” dell’economia e discende da errori lontani e ripetuti della dottrina monetaria. Come ho detto altre volte, la politica monetaria sarebbe stata sicuramente inefficace nel risollevare l’economia, se non altro perché è stata lei la causa del ciclo economico; le crisi bancarie sono solo un sintomo (e neppure condiviso da tutte le economie).
In realtà gli sforzi dello Stato a qualcosa, negli USA, sono serviti: le banche sono piene di capitali statali in forma ad esempio di “azioni privilegiate convertibili”, piuttosto costose in termini di dividendi. In compenso la loro conversione in azioni ordinarie (opzione contrattualmente prevista) eliminerebbe l’obbligo dei dividendi, trasformando qualcosa di idealmente associabili a un “prestito” in vero e proprio capitale di rischio. Chi ha fatto i calcoli (analisti veri, non io) ha verificato che si rischia in molti casi una maggioranza statale nelle banche, e considerato che le prospettive sono per ulteriori interventi, quel che si vede è una nazionalizzazione strisciante (come se non bastasse già l’attuale influenza di Fed, Tesoro o altre Autorità). Insomma, il vero problema negli USA è capire quando e se (ancora un grosso “se”) il Governo lascerà la presa sul sistema bancario, più che valutare il pericolo di una massiva nazionalizzazione.
Appunto come negli incubi di Mises: lo Stato ne risolve i problemi, ma approfitta di questi per espandersi. Mi si dica pure che non erano queste le intenzioni, ma questo è comunque il risultato.
Pugno alzato per gli USA, United Socialists of America!
Prometeo Says
[…]the only real-socialist contry in the world, the United States of America[…] because power is not a mean, is an end.
http://workingideas.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/free-market-is-non-existing/
Mar 5th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Leonardo Says
Risposta (non riesco a metterla sul tuo sito)
as to the socialism part, i agree.
as to the zionist part, i do not agree; i cannot see religion as a mark to divide good from bad guys; this does not means that a religion is not a “door” for somebody to enter a certain “group” (surely a not hebrew Paulson wouldn’t be where he now is, the same as “mafiosi” must be catholic), but your exposition seems to track a strict parallel to even conclude that hebrews are the source of Central Bank madness…
people seek something for themselves to gather adn recognize, it can be religion or political parties or skin colour… whether a certain group ends up to an economic conspiracy is another problem: they would have done anyway even if gathered as a Mickey Mouse Fan Club.
I repeat: Cosa Nostra, Sacra Corona Unita, ‘Ndrangheta… all these organisations are catholic. But they do not need to be catholic to explain the power exerted worldwide… and they are not zionist. Chinese Mafia and Yakuza are neither catholic nor hebrew… this does not make them less perillous.
It’s a problem of which power level an organisation has succeded to reach to; hebrew were constraints to manage money in our medieval era, as christians were not allowed to… As they were the first to enter the bank system, the can be those who have reached farther.
I do find all this chatting of zionist and hebrew very perillous
Mar 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
libertyfirst Says
I agree with Leo.
Mar 6th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Prometeo Says
Paulson is a jew btw, his father was a jewish wholesale jewels reseller.
I am a bit in hurry, so I will just very quickly highlight what I will further explain later.
I do agree that chatting about Hebrews and especially Zionist is extremely perilous, both because it is a snap to fall offtrack and a get classified as “anti-Semite”, and also because the Jewish lobby is as powerful in Italy as in the US.
Anyway, from my point of view, Zionism beholds the historical roots of socialism. Before Karl Marx (a Jew btw) “revealed” socialism to be atheistic, socialism was Jew and it was called Zionism.
To investigate the historical roots of socialism necessarily involves to dip the nose into Zionism.
Much before Marx wrote his manifesto of Communism, which at statement #5 writes:”a government hold central bank is a key issue of communism”, the “Jewish lobby” had a long before experimented the success of central banking with the Rothshild family and his employee Goldman and Sachs in France, England, Italy (Camillo Benso comte of Cavour converted the so called “Banca del Piemonte” in “Banca d’Italia” to finance the construction of the north Italy railway network with the money of Hambro, eventually called Ambro, that was the italian arm of Rothshild, that eventually established their headqaurter in Naples, closed down by Mussolini after the nationalization of the debt that Mussolini paied back in gold stocks to “Banca d’Italia”) and Germany of course…
Mar 8th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Leonardo Says
I am sure that being “the first people” of the Bibble, and having been constrained to manage money has given the highest chances to hebrews to climb the social pyramid.
I disagree that socialism must been considered, for practical purposes and not a mere historical research, side by side with zionism. The Res Publica Romana was relevantly socialist in the sense of central power and money control too. And they were all but zionist. Any other empire I can remind, such as Persian, Chinese, Japanese… or even the Sacred Roman Empire, I cannot remember they embedded any real liberalist view.
Maybe just Vikings, with their quasi-anarchist order, might be considered the farther from a socialist framework. Perhaps Etrurian too. Which could explain the tendency to individualism in north Europe and in Tuscany (maintained together with a great deal of socialist opportunism).
Mar 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Prometeo Says
The core of the problem is that power, whatever form or name it has, is based on the same rules.
You are right when you mention non-zionist nations, nevertheless even Egiptian power was based on the same structure.
The “problem” with Zionists is that this is the only culture in world that is rooted and based on the principles of Power.
And it is the only culture that consider each individual a means to the total Power, to be achieved for the highest purpose of preparing this world for the Lord. (in the most ancient greek text of the Bible whenever Jeshua mentions “this world” calls it “cosmos tou tou” that means something different from “this world” meaning “this life”, it means, “this way of running the material things”).
Beside that, the Zionists have been prosecuted since the time of the ancient Pharaohs of Egipt because of their cultural trait and ability of embodying the means of the “official” power to subvert it on the altar of their own higher mission.
No matter if you call it socialism, communism, fascism or elective democracies. What the “proles” do, if they vote, if they don’t vote, if they like their Lord or dislike, if they like their power or not, is a bit more than just fun once the “structure” of power is established.
And for what that concerns this post, and in general , for what concerns the power nowadays, the control of the monetary system is “the Power”.
“Let me issue and control a Nation’s currency and I care not who makes its Laws”
by Amselm Meyer Rothschild
The mechanism you know very well…
The “core” of the problem is allowing speculation in between a symbol and a worth. Once you climb backward the pyramid of values and symbols what’s left is merely life in the form of time.
A currency, any currency, was meant to make labour store-able and transportable. If you read it “to make life store-able and transportable” it is so evident why speculation in between the symbol (the currency) and its back-up worth (life) is so immoral… and why… the effect of loose monetary policies is “moral hazard”.
Yet again, you can use this device (the currency) to actually speculate or to store worth.
If you know the problem… and you misuse it to speculate even further this is what you get:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UH1mytL1Jw&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/?tab=my&feature=player_embedded
So even nowadays, or better, still nowadays again, after the Egyptians, the Jews, the Bible, the Roman Empire, all the other forms of socialism like Fascism and real Communism… yet again, and again… the outcome of the speculation over the symbols is “even more State and even faster”.
Even more power… and… faster.
Probably the real question is:” is there any other form of Power that is not statlist socialism?”
I have started to believe that the answer is “no”.
Mar 9th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Leonardo Says
I do appreciate your exposition, and I acknowledge relevant traits of truth therein. It is sure that the culture you own prepares you to face or manage various features of the surrounding reality. This means it can be true that hebrew culture allows you to take mor profit by the power structure.
It still cannot mean that zionism is the source of all evil; anybody, despite his origin, can be educated to exploit power. Even though this can explain why so many hebrew are closer to the source of power.
By my point of you, you better stress that these organisations or the like who actually manage the top of the power pyramid exploit the teachings from ancient, wise or smart, zionists to effectly exert their power, and are not expression of zionism itself. It may look like a formal game with words, but it could avoid you the dangerous label of racist, antizionist, and the like. Intellectual honesty is ok, but don’t be silly, given the environment surrounding.
Mar 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
prometeo Says
I perfectly understand what you mean.
Despite what one might understand, I am not anti-Zionist. Beside considering myself “liberal”, I don’t believe in “liberalism” because I don’t believe in the capabilities of the masses (or the “proles”) to be free.
Masses are today and have always been, naturally, shaped to fear freedom.
Of course no effort has ever been made by any govern to teach the masses what freedom means, nevertheless, even in this respect, Zionism has a lot to say.
By defining better than any other what domination, power and lack of freedom means, therefore they define what freedom means.
And the concept of freedom herein becomes really deep and scary, at times.
Why would a orthodox zionist like to go around like this?
http://workingideas.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=710
To the point of the most complete denial of the self or at least, the denial of the “appearence”, of the “symbol” of the “true” self, that leads to the opposite expression of the fullest anti-narcissism…
The Zionist culture has always and everywhere, until the very recent past, prosecuted by the “apparently” most different forms of Power, counting within the most obvious fascism and socialism (especially in Russia, but also in France, Germany and many other countries).
Therefore, the shocking thought I am twisting around sounds more or less like this:
“if the Zionists are among those people that culturally and religiously are the most power-aware, and have the ability to shape their communities to be basically independent from the “formal” power ruling any country to the point that they have always been prosecuted by any sort of power… then maybe… they know how to be free?”.
Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Leonardo, IHC Says
your last question should be explored by the point of view of the “mass” and the “individual”. who’s free, the zionist as a whole or the single one who must (or chooses to) follow it?
Mar 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am