Senator Sanders (independent) is my hero: he proposes that the 700 billion USD bill should be paid by those who benefited the most out of the financial practices who brought US, and the world, in this crisis; specifically, he proposes an amendment tot the “bailout” bill: a rise of 10% on the income tax of those who earn more than 500.000 USD per year individually or more than 1 million per year as a family. That virtually exempts the other 97% of the North-Americans who were not responsible for this mess in the first place.
Clean and short and stands to logic. In a normal world this would be called just common-sense, but in this world, he’s my hero.
If this amendment is not voted, it should be clear to anybody, anywhere, what unmoderated/uncapped capitalism means: roaring thievery.
It doesn’t matter if these
toxic assets will payback sometime; the matter of fact is they’re no good now. If they were any promise, surely a smart capitalist would buy them; but none did, or none is smart, either way it’s time for the populace to swallow. They (
the toxic assets) should be passed forcefully as the
profit opportunities they are in the hands of those
hardcore 3% capitalists above. If they manage to earn more from them, cheers to them. If not, at least they lived by their own language.
I don’t believe these senators that all of them are angry about this bill: probably none of them have an income less 100kUSD/year so they won’t really feel the pinch; and most of them are responsible for this crisis too.
The Sanders amendment wasn’t even seriously put on the table: the generic choir answer was noooooo; I learned this way that the senators who were against Sander’s amendment represent the interests of those 3% richest guys here, in US. Each senator said his/her heart is broken for those who voted him/her, but they have to vote the bill. OK, but they could vote the amendment too, which would have nullified the effects of the bill over the 97% of the population. They didn’t, so they don’t deserve to be elected anymore, because they seem to represent amounts of money rather than people; and then their place should be in some bank, not in the senate of a country.
Here’s a quote from Sanders:
I believe, and it seems to me pretty commonsensical, that if an institution is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist.
On the same subject, here’s a pointer to World Capitalism in Crisis – Part Two : Bankruptcy of bourgeois economics by Alan Woods. He advocates the planned economy as the only real way to avoid crises and, between them, the life stress the people feel under the pressure of their exploiters’ greed.
I am not sure about the planned economy, maybe mathematics, physics, algorithms and the Net can make it work, but I’m pretty sure that this bubble and burst mechanism, which is the core of the capitalist system, can be stopped in its tracks by constitutionally limiting the financial leverage to maximum 2, if not barely equal to 1:
how can you lend money/wealth/anything you don't have without producing a bubble-burst pair event? This is outrageous even to my cat.
We can decrease the leverage slowly until we reach the value of 2 or 1; of course this would be a pressure on all financial institutions to clean themselves up, to strip them of their lies, but in the end the society will look much more natural than it is right now: when you don’t really know if in front of you speaks an adult or just a mortgage payer under pressure.
Here’s another quote, to lighten your mood, from 101 ways to get rich without doing anything socially useful by William Blum,
Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good.