Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Naomi Klein on Bush's Bailout Criminality

Naomi Klein comes closest to anyone I've so far seen in pointing to the criminal nature of the Paulsen, Bush-Cheney handling of the economic collapse. Writing for The Nation, she calls it borderline criminal. See "In Praise of a Rocky Transition."

One question for discussion: Is there anything in the details of Bush administration economic crisis management thus far that's inconsistent with their determination to bring the economy to its knees?

The only thing puzzling about what they are doing is their motivation: Why would they want to destroy the US economy and the international economy?

Perhaps a similar question will provide the context or even answer the first question:
Is there any policy they have undertaken in the last eight years that's inconsistent with the intention to cause as much pain, havoc, suffering and tragedy as they have thus far been able to manage?
The environment?
Encircling Russia with NATO? (A big thanks here to the Clinton people as well.)

Sticking just to the economy: What are the implications of their evident intentions for the next two months?

How will the markets react in the next 60 days to their refusal to do anything positive and to their wasting -- how much is it now? -- $4 trillion?! What is the economy going to look like on January 20, 2009?

(It's even too painful to wonder to what extent the political, military, economic situation will continue to deteriorate in many more countries, with perhaps the greatest amount of suffering from their ongoing attacks in the Middle East and South Asia.)


For Alternet's/Amy Goodman's version of the Naomi Klein/Democracy Now interview in connection with her Nation article, see:


steven andresen said...

How to explain the work Bush has done to snuff the American economy, was it on purpose, and why?

There might be several explanations.

1) the Bush people just wanted to steal as much as they could while they still had their hands on the handles. This explains many things. The wars are efforts to funnel money to Haliburton and blackwater and other war material corporations. The housing bubble, the internet bubble and so forth were engineered in order to make killings in stock market trades. And so forth. So, simple thievery.

2) they wanted to beggar the country so that the expected Democratic governments that came afterwards could not do anything to help their party's base, the workers. It's about ideological class war. They want to kill us.

3) They figure the world is moving into the next deep depression, something to rival the middle ages. They take seriously the arguments about peak oil and global warming. They figure the only way they and their few family members will survive is if they suck out of the system all the wealth they can. It's a retreat to feudalism.

4) All of these seem to make more sense than the possibility that they just don't know what they are doing. It was all done by accident.

Ronald said...

Thanks Steven. I like #2 up to the word so. They don't foresee things like the Democrats taking over after them. They want total destruction. It's still hard to imagine that they'll allow Obama to take office. It wasn't supposed to happen that way.

Yes, it was no accident. Whenever there was a choice, it was to destroy.