Friends of the Earth issued a statement today arguing against the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of the troubled U.S. financial system.
"This financial crisis has exposed the right wing's anti-regulation philosophy as an abject failure," said Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder. "This hands-off approach to managing the economy has resulted in greedy corporate titans getting rich on the backs of working people. This same philosophy is causing irreparable harm to the planet. And now we face a trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded bailout. Enough is enough."
Rather than a bailout, the financial system needs "fundamental reform," Blackwelder said, including greater oversight and regulation. He said that any government plan to deal with the crisis should require financial institutions to bear the brunt of the losses, and only the bare minimum in taxpayer funds should be used to keep the system afloat. He also argued that the government should acquire an ownership stake in the institutions it bails out, and should take the appropriate actions to restore regulation of the markets.
"The days of the fox guarding the henhouse, with corporate lobbyists writing the laws that regulate their industries, must end," said Blackwelder. "And we must consider environmental impacts to be economic impacts as we move forward. While the risks posed to the economy by the current financial crisis are indeed dire, we also face long-term risks posed by the climate crisis. These problems are intertwined, and reforms of the financial system must take this into account."
Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope also weighed in on the bailout proposal on his blog today: "The amount being talked about -- $700 billion -- is roughly equal to this year's bill for imported oil. So if we really took ending our addiction to oil seriously, we could repay the Treasury for the bailout -- and it's hard to see any other pot of money lying around big enough."
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 1:44 pm
22 Sep 2008
I can keep taunting you forever. Might as well face the music. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:42 pm
22 Sep 2008
Something about an anvil that was packed with the parachute.
It's not the fall that hurt's you; it's the sudden stop at the end.
Paul Krugman agrees.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:42 pm
22 Sep 2008
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty- secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html
Didn't we get into this problem in the first place because of a lack of oversight, and a lack of regulation.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 12:34 am
23 Sep 2008
Likewise, I think we should retroactively bail out Enron. I say free money for everybody! While we're at it, we need to work on our infrastructure...let's upgrade everything and pave the streets with gold! Diamond-studded lamp posts, silver-plated parking meters, and bridges made of pure platinum. Also, I'd like the federal government to ensure that all Americans have at least 4,000 sq. feet of living space per person. They should build us all these mega-mega-mega mansions at tax-payer expense.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 12:50 am
23 Sep 2008
I do agree it has to come with a lot more regulation. But make no mistake, it's Joe Six Pack who will suffer the most if there's no bailout.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 1:24 am
23 Sep 2008
But whatever...what I say doesn't matter because I'm not rich enough to own a lobbyist. Basically, my understanding of government is that you should just assume that any and every action they take is designed to help out their rich friends. Keep playing with your monopoly money...
At least working at Taco Bell you get free burritos when the manager isn't looking, right?
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:24 am
23 Sep 2008
The financial crises is a crises of the Left. The Left controls the high density urban areas like Wall Street.
The Right is voice of freedom from the suburbs...Main Street.
The Democrat Party is funded by Liberal executives from companies like AIG.
These Liberals have created dense, dirty cities full of toxins and seek to keep people enslaved in them with Light Rail and other budget busting projects. The Democrats want high property values for urban homes so they don't have to work that hard. They wreck the environment and want to tax the cleaner, freer suburbs.
So, yes, it is an enviromental issue...the pollution of the cities is the product of dense-happy Democrats.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:07 am
23 Sep 2008
"The gap between the rich and the poor has been growing for the past 30 years and the gap has been growing much faster since the Bush tax cuts."
Yes, the gap has grown, but the gap isn't a problem is it? The fact is working class America is richer now than it was 30 years ago.
"Sociologists say that we have less upward mobility today than ever before. "
Care to name the sociologists? There are plenty of people who have made good - men like Bill Gates. He wasn't born rich.
"Work hard and you get to keep working hard....but if you're born with money you get to "invest" your money instead of working and you get to have more money."
You act as if that's bad. As if everyone should be born equal. I'll let you in on a little secret. Nothing in this universe ever had an equal deal. Not a bird, not a tree, not a leaf...... the world ain't fair, and it's not the job of government to make it fair.
"Not really an economic system that appeals to my democratic principles."
Then move to Sweden - you will pay taxes through the ass, but it's probably more to your liking. I ain't moving there.
"You really can't do anything to make the economy worse for the working poor who already can't afford to live on minimum-wage or nearly minimum wage jobs."
If you have a minimum wage job and a family, you are an idiot. And you don't think things can be worse? Try the Great Depression. Or the Depression of the 1890s. It was A LOT worse. Nobody in America is starving to death - which is normal in many places in the world. Places I used to live.
"I know a lot of older folks have worked their whole lives and have their pensions and retirement tied up in this mess but I think we're really ignoring the people who have been suffering for years."
Nobody is ignoring them. All of life's ills can not be solved, and certainly not by government.
"Let the economy crash. To my little brother who also lives in a trailer and has a baby on the way in December and works 72-hour weeks (on 12-hour night shifts) with no health insurance, if your "investments" evaporate into ethers, it makes no difference."
Sure it does. You don't think this is going to pound Joe Six Packs economic life? You don't think it can worse for your little brother? Try not being able to pay rent on the trailer, not being able to afford to buy even food when there's no job at all and no government assistance either. Make no mistake, if the economy collapses, you could see massive unemployment, lack of government ability to pay anything to anyone, and lots of starving people. Your brother could watch his family starve to death. Believe me, it can get a lot worse.
"But whatever...what I say doesn't matter because I'm not rich enough to own a lobbyist. Basically, my understanding of government is that you should just assume that any and every action they take is designed to help out their rich friends. Keep playing with your monopoly money..."
You get to vote for whoever you want, you can run for office, you can say whatever you want. Be happy you can. Again, I've lived in places where people can't do any of these things. They open their mouths complaining about their government like you are here and they get their brains blown out, or get to watch their wives gang raped as punishment. If you don't like you political leaders, elect different ones...... or run for office yourself. Anyone can whine.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
aieageoff Posted 4:34 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
jishica Posted 8:15 am
23 Sep 2008
But for the moment, a brief history of urbanism, for those of you who apparently think that it, too, is a liberal conspiracy. In fact modern cities exploded as a consequence of the closing of the commons (lands shared by a community, relic of feudalism) found in Europe by industrialists (capitalists) who needed a labor force. A labor force divested of land that they could use for their own subsistence, to become dependent upon wages to survive. American cities grew up around industry as well, and received and exploited hungry immigrants. What is indeed dirty about this is the venal and self-serving attitude of the industrialists who forced this situation. I suppose if you wanted to be cute, you could call it a liberal conspiracy - compared to the landed gentry, these people were the liberals of their time - BUT those "liberals" were free market capitalists.
The people who objected to the squalor and terrible conditions of the working poor, who organized communities and fought to improve the conditions tended to be social reformers and dare I say it, socialists. Today's liberals are a far tamer bunch then yesterday's socialists, but from listening to conservative talk-show hosts, you'd never know it.
But yes, as people have concentrated in cities, they seem to realize that acting out of a common interest spreads the benefits around. That we don't want to be held responsible for bailing out a few who have manipulated regulations and policy to benefit themselves should not be a shock. I don't want the nation to collapse either, but now would be a good time for Republicans to hold up their circa-1980 cry for personal responsibility, I certainly want to see accountability, and better policies so that people who are financially vulnerable can remain gainfully employed, have housing, and health & security in their old age. So says this liberal. I think it's about decency and responsibility.
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 2:21 pm
23 Sep 2008
This "crash" COULD be an opportunity!
Conservatives don't govern and they don't regulate, because they don't believe in government and they hate regulation, no matter what harm it prevents. Would you give the keys to your new car to a guy who hates cars? Are we surprised that he crashed it?
Progressive Greens: Please start articulating an alternative to "Republican-lite" -- most people instinctively avoid watered-down imitations. FDR boldly offered a "New Deal" -- that's the kind of leadership we need now! A New Green Deal!
Barak?
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:30 pm
23 Sep 2008
I think there's no question that while we don't want the institutions to fail, we certainly do not want those who caused this to get one red cent. If the government bails these institutions out, the government should take control of them. Original management hits the street with nothing but what they can carry out of their offices. I think everyone agrees with that.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:22 pm
23 Sep 2008
The real interest rate is rising as our currency falls in value. Our currency is failing because of imported oil and oil war.
700 billion is not going to get the job done, unless it's spent on a WW2-like effort to reduce oil use incrementaly quarter by quarter.
That much capital applied effectively to mass producing plugin hybrids, electric mass transit, and electric freight rail and the renewable energy to power it; WOULD actually get that debt under control and send it on a downward trend.
It would be better to let the corrupt institutions fail, and cushion the actual effect of the crisis. Mortgage default. Help the homeowners who have a chance to save their homes, save them, help the others move.
Meanwhile use the bailout money to revive the manufacturing base, jobs, and the tax base. Plenty of state and regional banks are just fine. these mega banks are not really banks anymore, they are actually multi-national criminal conspiracies.
One thing governmenmt could do is confiscate the assets of these corporations and their executives. Then let them sue, from prison, to get them back. Maybe the 700 billion could be provided by the confiscation? Even 100 billion put into this energy revolution would do the job.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:29 pm
23 Sep 2008
Let's start over from a firm financial footing, with real regulation and free and fair market trading.
"Derivative and bundled mortgage instrument"-free market economy anyone? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:48 pm
23 Sep 2008
Spoken like a true McBama-Bot.
Where? Why? How? These questions go unanswered as you try to bilk the American taxpayer to fund your party for a few years more.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:51 pm
23 Sep 2008
http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=3066&am ...
The only real wealth is in stocks. Stocks represent the value of ownership in entities that actually produce value. Land, oil, gold...and money...are all dependent on the health and success of our businesses. Money was invented as an information system...so that one persons value can translate into another...so that a baker could buy from a hatter
Permalink
naturescene Posted 11:40 pm
23 Sep 2008
The people involved in this are NOT free marketeers - they have NO principles. They're for whatever helps them out at the moment.
As easy as it is to blame this entire thing on greedy Wall Streeters, or even all the people taking loans they knew they couldn't afford, we should also remember that the regulatory system in place encouraged and in some cases required many banks to lend money to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for a loan - all in the name of affordable housing. At the same time, as the dot-com bubble burst, money flooded the construction industry. Construction lobbyists were successful in getting many communities to allow poor-quality housing, built at 2-4 units per acre, and sold at inflated prices -- all in the name of "Smart Growth" or (supposed) "Low-Impact Development" (a concept I think is past time for a new discussion among environmentalists). These problems were compounded by mark-to-market accounting requirements, hold-overs from the 30s, that forced companies to undervalue assets, almost encouraging them to file bankruptcy.
Wall Street isn't innocent, but neither is the government. We don't need more regulation (or deregulation - those terms are becoming meaningless), but we do need smarter rules put in place. Thankfully a 1999 act repealed some of the regulatory barriers between investment banks and commercial banks that were set up by the Depression-era Glass Stegall Act. Doing so is the only reason that JP Morgan was allowed to buy Bear Stearns and that Bank of America was allowed to buy Merrill Lynch. Here's a case of deregulation that actually kept this crisis from being even worse.
But there is no fundamentalist case to be made for either regulation or deregulation. There must be oversight, but at the same time regulations should not create perverse incentives. Oh how I wish it was easy.
Now to the bailout. Everytime I read about it I see "there is no alternative" or "if we don't have the bailout, things will be even worse!"
There's a strategy here: Say something enough times and people will start to believe it. You don't need facts, or even explanations. Kinda like WMDs and the Iraq War.
There are alternatives. For one, the capital gains tax could be lowering, likely encouraging money to flow back to the markets.
A contraction and some pain at this point is unavoidable. What the bailout does is put it off for a while - so new politicians have to deal with it. But it doesn't fix anything.
When someone tells you that the bailout is the only option, ask them how exactly it will work? How does a government, which itself has bad or toxic debts, have the ability to buy up other bad debts and make things ok? It doesn't. The bailout ensures that certain companies will continue to exist rather than making sure that there is a functioning market.
It's time for some of Schumpeter's creative destruction of the market to take over. Let the giants fall and new markets emerge. It'll hurt in the short term, no doubt, but in the long-term it's advantageous. The bailout is a short-term band-aid with disastrous long-term effects.
Permalink
Ztangi Posted 9:20 am
24 Sep 2008
Are we sheep and Paulson our shepherd?
Or are we citizens with the Constitution our guide?
Are we fools for their financial shock and awe?
Or are we wise to these masters of deceit?
If Wall Street is a brownfield of toxic debt -
then suit-up in hazmat our auditors to clean.
If the money-men want to be rescued -
why do they throw us the lifesaver?
Enough!
Enough of rule by edict from a place of fear.
Enough!
It's not enough to want change.
What we must reclaim is what they have sucked dry.
Power.
Power - to first - say NO!
Power.
Power - to second - call their bluff.
They threaten us with a financial strike,
but we can play that game too.
We can take a work-holiday!
They can shutdown the Street.
We can shutdown the city.
- axel ztangi
ZTANGI PRESS
PO Box 11255
Berkeley, CA 94701
Axel Z
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:15 pm
24 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:19 pm
24 Sep 2008
This is a serious financial crisis. If banks stop lending, businesses large and small are going to go under. That means ever more job loss. That means less money circulating in the economy. The depth of pain can be huge - look back again at what happened in the US in the 1930s.
Now, I have zero doubt that some people here WANT that. That's because they see the US as evil, or even modernity. They WANT it to crash. They want massive warfare and famine so the human population is brutally reduced. So they cheer every challenge and every set back to the human race and to the US in particular.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:25 pm
24 Sep 2008
"Breatharianism is a related concept, in which believers claim food and possibly water are not necessary, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana (the vital life force in Hinduism), or according to some, by the energy in sunlight."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:09 pm
24 Sep 2008
But when the wealthy piss away trillions of dollars on usurus loans and get caught out its 'stop the presses!!' We've got to bail George Bush's drinking buddies out or the economy will crash.
Well, my personal economy already crashed and nobody gives a rat's hiney; time for Wall Street to feel what personal responsibility feels like.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:24 pm
24 Sep 2008
Again, it's not a class war. You have probably ALWAYS resented the rich, always favored redistribution of wealth and always looked for an excuse for it.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:09 pm
24 Sep 2008
Ha ha....the rich will feel it alright! When they can't feed their kids, the poor are going to take their meaty, calloused hands, drag the pampered, manicured rich down the streets, and take off their heads. It's called a revolution and it happens every couple hundred years, Mac. What our government is saying to the poor right now is "let them eat cake."
Make no mistake (I love using that phrase since Bush uses it in every sentence), my brother Joe (you probably know him as "Joe six-pack" although he actually drinks malt liquor) will eat your pet poodle if he's hungry. You must really not know any poor Americans, Mac. I'm glad your comfy with your pension in Thailand. I guess given "love it or leave it", you chose to leave it, eh? Probably not a bad choice considering the circumstances.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:46 am
25 Sep 2008
I spent quite a bit of time in Somalia (two years in Somalia and the Ogaden) and Bosnia (One year in Sarajevo) and got to see the results of a "Revolution" up close. Most people don't realize this, but in the American Revolution we were EXTREMELY lucky in the outcome. Most revolutions end like China's did, or Cambodia's did, or the Congo, or Russia......... in all of these post Revolution scenarios some strong man takes over and promptly kills millions of his own people - or nobody takes over, you have anarchy, mass starvation and death. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WITH A REVOLUTION.
And for the most part it isn't the rich who die. As the security situation derails, and your national security and police forces come apart, the rich higher their own private security. As the poor show up with their calloused hands they are promptly executed by well trained and equipped security forces. This is the way things went in Somalia where everyone had a gun. You think the rich are the ones there who paid the price????
And your brother Joe isn't going to eat anything of mine (certainly not a poodle since I don't own one - I had a bull terrier who would have eaten your brother before he died). First off, I'd shoot him if he tried. And secondly, I doubt he's planning a boat trip up the Mekong where I live anytime soon.
I actually didn't leave America, as I was in Germany when I retired. But I chose Thailand because my wife is Thai. We had to pick someplace, and Thailand was cheap. That doesn't mean I hate America. But since you obviously hate American government and don't have faith in it's institutions, why don't you leave? It's a free country. Pack your bags and move someplace you like.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink