“Purge your mind for a moment about everything you’ve heard and read in the last decade about investing on Wall Street and think about the following business model:

You take your hard earned retirement savings to a Wall Street firm and they tell you that as long as you “stay invested for the long haul” you can expect double digit annual returns. You never really know what your money is invested in because it?s pooled with other investors and comes with incomprehensible but legal looking prospectuses. The heads of these Wall Street firms have been taking massive payouts for themselves, ranging from $160 million to $1 billion per CEO over a number of years. As long as new money keeps flooding in from newfangled accounts called 401(k)s, Roth IRAs, 529 plans for education savings, and hedge funds (each carrying ever greater restrictions for withdrawing your money and ever greater opacity) everything appears fine on the surface. And then, suddenly, you learn that many of these Wall Street firms don’t have any assets that anybody wants to buy. Because these firms are both managing your money as well as having their own shares constitute a large percentage of your pooled investments, your funds begin to plummet as confidence drains from the scheme.

Now consider how Wikipedia describes a Ponzi scheme:

?A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves promising or paying abnormally high returns (?profits?) to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. It is named after Charles Ponzi…One reason that the scheme initially works so well is that early investors ? those who actually got paid the large returns ? quite commonly reinvest (keep) their money in the scheme (it does, after all, pay out much better than any alternative investment). Thus those running the scheme do not actually have to pay out very much (net) ? they simply have to send statements to investors that show how much the investors have earned by keeping the money in what looks like a great place to get a high return. They also try to minimize withdrawals by offering new plans to investors, often where money is frozen for a longer period of time…The catch is that at some point one of three things will happen:

(1) the promoters will vanish, taking all the investment money (less payouts) with them;

(2) the scheme will collapse of its own weight, as investment slows and the promoters start having problems paying out the promised returns (and when they start having problems, the word spreads and more people start asking for their money, similar to a bank run);

(3) the scheme is exposed, because when legal authorities begin examining accounting records of the so-called enterprise they find that many of the ‘assets’ that should exist do not.”

Looking at outcomes 1, 2, and 3 above, here?s where we are today.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/

Danke für den Link, ich werde den Text am Wochenende lesen

@Jens

weissgarnix ist in seinem aktuellen Beitrag wieder auf den ‘new deal’ zu sprechen gekommen, es schreibt allgemein von einzelnen Maßnahmen, die teilweise einander aufgehoben hätten, der New Deal an sich sei kein zusammenhängendes durchdachtes Konzept gewesen. Leider wird er in dem kurzen Text nicht konkret. Würde mich interessieren, welche Maßnahmen er meint und welche Wirkung sie hatten oder nicht hatten

http://www.weissgarnix.de/?p=689

Zu Keynes’ ‘postkapitalistischem Impetus’ siehe auch:

http://www.memo.uni-bremen.de/docs/m6504.pdf