Ich nehme mal “meine” liebe ftd.de Site als Hintergund für eine Frage zum Thema “Was meint der VWLer”?

Wie kann der Steuerzahler, der ja ohnehin schon mit Bürgschaften weltweit die Folgen des Deasasters in der Finanzwirtschaft “belastet” ist mit Steuer finanzierten Konjunkturprogrammen die Stütze der Realwirtschaft bilden und zeitgleich die Staaten die Steuern senken? Zeitgleich fallen die Notenbanken und letztlich auch die Privatbanken über billiges Geld wegen (fast) Null Zinsen aus als Sponsor der Realwirtschaft für an sich schon nicht mehr Kredit finanziertes (Zinsen fallen ja fast weg) Wachstum.

Wo ist da (noch) ein funktionierender Kreislauf zu entdecken?

fuck the rules, fuck the economy, if you make a change so make it complete or leave it.

“And like the New Deal, Obama?s stimulus plan will almost certainly fail to pull the economy out of a historic free-fall. For one, the plan is inadequate. Two, it will be drafted and overseen by Obama?s economic ?dream team,? who are committed to the failed ideology that got us into this mess. Three, there?s the matter of the still-festering financial crisis. And four, there has been no national debate over economic priorities such as who controls the economy, how production should be structured and what should be produced.”

http://www.indypendent.org/2008/12/12/obamanomics/

siehe auch diese Kritik an Obamas Entscheidung die Steuersenkungen der Bush Regierung für die Reichen doch nicht wie im Wahlkampf versprochen sofort zurückzunehmen sondern 2011 auslaufen zu lassen

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/12/11466_scrooged_by_the.html

“Alan Greenspan, writing in the current issue of the Economist, argues that in the future banks will need more of a capital cushion than they needed before the crisis because holders of bank liabilities will require them to hold more capital. “Today, fearful investors clearly require a far larger capital cushion to lend” to financial intermediaries. In other words, there’s no need for additional regulations requiring banks to have more capital. The financial market will take care of itself. Greenspan has learned nothing at all.”

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

es geht weniger um ein kognitives Problem, da es handfeste Interessen sind, die Greenspan und seinesgleichen so denken lassen, die selben Interessen, welche zB die Altersvorsorge der Entwicklung an den Kapitalmärkten überlassen haben mit dem Ergebnis, dass sie immer mehr Menschen genommen wird

“Unless things change fast, human history will show that the phenomenon of “retirement” was limited to one generation. After World War II, when European and Japanese economies stood in tatters, American capitalism could fulfill “the American dream,” since there was little foreign competition to speak of. For the first time ever, workers were promised that — after working thirty or so years — they would be able to securely retire. That was largely the case … for one generation.

The second generation is having a devastating reality check. 2008 was supposed to be a watershed year for retirement: it was the first year that the baby-boomers turned 62, and the retirement frenzy was to begin (since people could begin to draw on their social security benefits). Early in the year, however, a study was conducted that found one-fourth of these boomers were delaying retirement (only the baby-boomers who were actually able to plan for retirement were studied). The economy has since nosedived, and many more retirements are being delayed. The unfortunate reality is that many who planned on retiring will work until the grave, joining the millions of other baby-boomers who never had such dreams.

The experts are calling this the “perfect storm” for retirement. Everything that could go wrong is in fact going wrong. This storm, however, was not created by supernatural forces, but the coordinated effort of big-business and their puppet politicians.”

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/113981/pension_funds_collapse%3A_the_end_of_retirement/