Display:
I think in fact they believe that finance IS the economy. Everything else is a kind of semi-visible froth which occasionally appears on balance sheets - with positive numbers when the froth is behaving itself, and negative numbers when it isn't.

What exactly does Wall St banking contribute to the real economy, except bubbles and debt?

You can hide, nuke, bury, transform or lie about toxic assets all you want, but Wall St doesn't create any real wealth itself. All it does is impose a kind of top-down seignorage, demanding that all national and international business strategy should be run for its own immediate financial benefit.

Wall St could do some good by offering high quality social investment to implement government strategy. But to an ideologue like Geithner that seems to be literally unthinkable.

So the irony is that while Geithner doesn't believe that governments should tell private business what to do, banks and finance don't share the same reticence when it comes to influence.

And so far it seems that Geithner's is more about protecting that model of influence at almost any price than challenging it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 08:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... its just that their role is a transmission role, and hacking away at productive capacity and diverting depository institutions from their primary responsibilities of money creation toward becoming an extra layer of middlemen for the capital markets ... its like swapping to a smaller engine to make room for a "more powerful transmission". Its an internally contradictory process.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Feb 13th, 2009 at 12:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series