a cosa ricorda infatti la situazione degli anni '30, tipo l'IRI da noi che prese il controllo delle maggiori banche italiane
da
http://cobraf.wallstreetitalia.com/forum/coolpost.php?topic_id=2012&reply_id=123670
Il fascismo italiano come nuovo modello economico
Ieri Darling, il ministro delle finanze inglese, ha convocato tutti i banchieri e gli ha ordinato di fare prestiti, visto che lo stato ha iniettato miliardi nelle loro banche. In Germania lo stato ha offerto miliardi ponendo condizioni molto pesanti e quando Deutsche Bank ha detto che "si vergognerebbe" di accettare è stata messa sotto accusa. In USA Paulson ha convocato due settimane fa tutte le maggiori banche e ha dato ai loro capi un ora di tempo (letteralmente) per firmare una ricapitalizzazione da parte del tesoro con varie condizioni, hanno discusso un ora e poi tutti hanno dovuto firmare.
Questa non è però una svolta, ma un accellerazione di un processo in corso da anni verso una forma di fascismo economico.
Come mostra Niall Ferguson in "Planet Finance" qui questa settimana (Ferguson è il top storico inglese del momento ad Harvard) in America ad esempio lo stato era già coinvolto a tutti i livelli nei mutui con una dozzina di agenzie grandi e piccole, molte create appunto negli anni '30 e potenziate negli anni '90 e in questo momento come noto quasi tutti i mutui in America li fanno società che sono state nazionalizzate. Le proposte sia di McCain che di Obama sono di sospendere i pignoramenti per mesi e/o sospendere i pagamenti e di sovvenzionare a suon di miliardi i mutuatari che non pagano le rate, deprimendo ovviamente il valore dei mutui in essere...
La fila delle notizie di interventi statali sarebbe molto lunga: ad es. Sarkozi ha approfittato per spingere per un "fondo sovrano" coi soldi pubblici che entri nel capitale di grandi aziende sul modello della Cina e Arabia saudita, in Argentina hanno nazionalizzato le pensioni, in USA oggi propongono di nazionalizzare i piani pensionistici 401k e se guardi il programma di Obama lo stato si espande ovunque ecc...
Dato che qui hai lo stato che nazionalizza diverse banche ed entra nel capitale di tante altre in tutti i paesi del mondo la cosa ricorda infatti la situazione degli anni '30, tipo l'IRI da noi che prese il controllo delle maggiori banche italiane
Questo non è socialismo perchè le elites che allargano a macchia d'olio lo stato sono legate strettamente non ai sindacati e a partiti comunisti vari come una volta, ma ai banchieri, managers, hedge funds e industriali. Ieri Obama ha tenuto la prima conferenza stampa sull'economia dopo essersi consultato con Bob Rubin ex-capo di Goldman Sachs e poi chairman di Citigroup (quindi uno dei colpevoli della crisi se vogliamo) e Warren Buffett che è sostanzialmente un investitore e speculatore, nemmeno un un industriale. Come ho sottolineato i maggiori hedge funds e le maggiori banche di Wall Street hanno contribuito non il solito 50 e 50% come facevano sempre per tenere i piedi in due scarpe, ma per il 70% ad Obama e tutti i distretti più ricchi da Manhattan a Beverly Hills a S. Francisco ai quartieri ricchi di washington e chicago se guardi hanno votati compatti democratico. In Inghilterra Blair e Brown hanno puntato sulla finanza della City per dieci anni come volano dell'economia inglese
Marc Chandler l'esperto di cambi e macroeconomia su
http://www.thestreet.com oggi fa un discorso di prospettiva per inquadrare quello che succede con tutti questi salvataggi e interventi degli stati e dice che in sostanza stiamo andando verso una forma economica simile al fascismo italiano
Si socializzano ora le banche e si aumenta il controllo dello stato sul sistema finanziario, in generale lo stato entra sempre più pesantemente in ogni aspetto economico già da decenni, lo stato occupa già il 50% del PIL in paesi come l'italia o la francia o l'inghilterra) e le elites specie quelle di sinistra lo fanno in comunione ed accordo con la finanza di wall street e della city.
Bene, se uno ricorda che il fascismo era composto da gente che veniva da sinistra, si alleava alla grande finanza e imponeva il controllo dello stato sull'economia senza eliminare la proprietà privata.... beh... questi sono esattamente gli ingredienti del Fascismo in materia di economia ed è esattamente quello che succede in modo "soft" (senza manganellare) ora
-------------------------
..About That Word 'Socialism'
By Marc Chandler
RealMoney.com
11/7/2008
Governments in numerous countries, especially in the high-income countries, have responded to the current acute financial crisis by extending their role in the economy in ways that have not been seen in at least a couple of generations and in magnitude that appears unprecedented. Many observers, and not just unrepentant ideologues, are worried that capitalist practices and institutions are being abandoned in favor of socialism.
Two types of socialism appeared early in the 20th century. There was the socialist revolution in Russia in 1914. Russia was primarily an agricultural, quasi-feudal society of mostly peasants. Lenin and Stalin's violent, oppressive, totalitarian, statist regime is what many associate with socialism. But there was another type of socialism that was being articulated and implemented in the early 1920s. It was called fascism in Italy and was later called National Socialism in Germany.
Could it be that the second form of socialism is a greater threat than the first? In World War II, the Allies joined forces the first type of socialism to defeat the second type. Although we often think of fascism with racism and genocide, it need not be. In fact, Mussolini's fascism was totalitarian and fiercely nationalistic, but it did not generally share Germany's racism. Fascism opposed liberalism, individualism and socialism. The objectives and interests of the state were supreme, and everything was subservient to it.
The U.S. and Western Europe's response to the current crisis has been to tighten their embrace of two economists of that period: Irving Fisher, who tended to emphasize a monetary response, and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated complementing the monetary moves with fiscal policy, to bolster aggregate demand.
Many pundits and bloggers confuse the Fisher/Keynes program with left-wing socialism. But as John Barnes, who studied fascism in the 1920s, wrote:
Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite his prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes' excellent little book, The End of Laissez Faire might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to Fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to and there is much to applaud.
Ironically, it was the fascists who proposed a "third way" 75 years before former U.S. President Bill Clinton and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair. For the fascists, the way was between capitalism and socialism. Even Hitler apparently recognized the similarities between socialism and fascism. In 1942, he said, "There is not much difference between the basic economic techniques of socialism and fascism."
If observers are correct and the U.S. and other high-income countries are becoming socialist, is it the socialist or fascist variety? A key difference between the two is the type of institutional alliance that is the driving force. Under socialism, the state is ostensibly is allied with workers, though in practice as in Soviet Union, China and Cuba, workers were miserably poor. Under fascism, the state is often more aligned with businesses, though the rights of property were conditional on its use and closely regulated.
Since World War II, the high-income countries, including of course the U.S., have seen a permanent and significant increase of the role of the state in various aspects of the economy. In fact, to the extent that Keynes is associated with the use of fiscal policy to bolster aggregate demand, Nixon was right: We all have become Keynesians. However, in fairness, Keynes anticipated that after an economy entered a self-sustaining upswing, the state-sponsored boost to demand would cease.
The permanent and ubiquitous state in the U.S. and Europe seems like such a natural state of affairs that the editor of the Financial Times said that the forced marriage of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase in March and the large role that U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve played in protecting Bear Stearns' counterparties marked an end to the laissez-faire capitalism that Keynes himself had declared was over 85 years earlier.
The size and role of the U.S. government have increased regardless of the party affiliation of the governing party. It is true that in some areas, the government has tried outsourcing some of its functions, such as operating prisons, schools and some military activities. But generally speaking, the government's growth has kept pace with the growth of the economy, and expenditures as a percentage of GDP have been fairly stable at a little above 35%. In continental Europe, the governments' expenditures are closer to 50% of GDP.
Out of the current financial crisis, it does seem likely that the permanent role of the state is increased, even if, as should be expected, the governments re-privatize parts of the banking system at some juncture.
Two main forces encourage a larger role for the state. The first is related to citizenship. Over time, people want to increase the basket of goods and services they receive from the state. Perhaps in days of yore, the farmer or peasant would part with a substantial fraction of his produce to the sovereign or feudal lord, muttering under his breath that he was getting nothing for his hard work. But in the age of democracy, people expect the government to provide a range of goods and services that has generally increased over time.
The force has been fed by another since the Great Depression, and it helps explain the Keynesian revolution. The modern economy can produce far more goods and services than it can consume. This is a function of excess investment and under-consumption. During this crisis, we often hear that central banks are the lender of last resort. The permanent substantial role of the government mirrors its role as the consumer of last resort. Of course, officials may rarely think in such terms, let alone talk about this, but in effect, this is what is going on.
There are some notable exceptions, but generally after deep economic downturns, the government's role incrementally increases. It is the go-to-strategy to end the business cycle downturns. Modern governments, even non-representative governments such as China, want to deliver rising living standards to their people. Contrary to their ideological leanings, neither Reagan nor Thatcher managed to break that pattern. Critics of the larger role of government have not proposed a viable alternative to maintaining adequate aggregate demand. The government ensures sufficiently high utilization rates for capital and labor that allows for social stability.
A fascist from the 1920s would find much of modern society that would be agreeable. The role of government would not be objectionable. The corporatist structures, in which functional groups such as business, workers (or consumers) and the state are represented, would be recognizable and perfectly consistent with their vision.
Even some of the most cherished American sayings, such as John F. Kennedy's admonishment to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" could have easily been uttered in a fascist country. Or Bill Clinton's admission that "I don't understand how someone can say they love their country but hate their government" also expresses a sentiment that fascists could identify with.
Perhaps the key difference between the two types of socialism is in whose interest are things being decided. The growing disparity of wealth in the U.S. is a fundamental problem. The American dream of a car, a house and college education for one's children is increasingly out of reach for many American families on the basis of current income. This problem is being addressed by the debt and the government. Debt is out. The government is in. This might not be socialism as the right decries, but fascism, and none dare speak its name.
