Great work Warren, your delivery for the medium is perfect. You sound even-handed, restrained and never exasperated which is exactly the way to sell an idea that at first listen can sound a little crazy. Well done!
This interview was much better than when I heard you on CNBC with liesman, you sound more confident. But in playing devil’s advocate, you say unemployment is terrible, but from John Kerry talking about “the global test” in his presidential run, it seems the modern globalist masters of the universe have helped unemployment in places like china and india, and if the USA must suffer unemployment lines to help those countries, is that not acceptable? The needs of the many (2 billion Chindia) outweigh the needs of the few (300 million USA). People in spain where the youth have 50% unemployment (ages 16-24) Say it is a great thing, they can surf the internet and post on econ blogs all day instead of doing farm work like the asians do for them now.
Anyways you say you are not a conspiracy theorist in this interview, but Reed of Citigroup on that moyers interview says that wall street culture is definitely working against the people with an Evil Agenda, Sandy Weil worked against the people with an EVIL greedy agenda, so let me ask you this Warren, Honest Question, how many more people like REED do you need to come out and say there is an Agenda before you will say I can no longer give these people the benefit of the doubt that they are just ignorant, but instead these people are evil self serving sociopaths? I just want to know where is the turning point for warren mosler, how much more proof does he need? From Reed, to professor Black, to so many others, you are starting to look like the minority when you say they are just ignorant. Do most people here think they are just Ignorant or do they agree with former citigroup Chairman REED who says there are dark forces at play?
Regarding Bill Moyers’ interview with former Citibank CEO, Reed, Reed assured Moyers that the bailouts were absolutely necessary, since the banks were–and are–too big to fail; that failure to bail them out would have had a catastrophic domino-like effect on the entire world economy, since all banks lend and invest with each other; that it would have toppled our economic system.
Do you agree? If not, could kindly point us to a good explanation that would counter Reed’s assertion–an explanation of yours or anyone else you could recommend? And would you kindly send Moyers that explanation? I think it would do a great deal of good.
Further on warren’s no conspiracy theory, I just got back from a talk in Oakland about Banking for dispenseries and cannabis collectives. According to the speakers, The treasury department has pressured banks in the area to not do business with anyone associated with the medical marijuana industry, doctors, dispeneraries, delivery services, collectives, etc etc They have been ordered to freeze accounts, etc.
Now Warren I know a renaissance man like you who has his own bank and has advocated for legalized marijuana will not stand for this goverenment oppression, so when are you going to offer banking services for these groups that are being turned away by other banks because of treasury department pressure? You won’t let the treasury department pressure your bank in this way will you? There are almost 600 dispenseries in this region alone, not to mention all the peripheral connected businesses and individuals, and 16 states are now marijuana legal. Who at enterprise bank wants to expand and become the nation and perhaps the worlds marijuana banker and provide a needed service to lots of sick and old people and war veterans who need the product? Or are you gonna just let this opportunity pass you by and be quiet about treasury manipulation?
I must say that sometimes your replies can be quite exasperating. It’s not so much what Sergio considers a bailout, but what the public has been told are the “bank bailouts” that go into trillions of dollars, beginning with the original one under Paulsen. John Carney recently published an article, “The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion.” Are these not problematical? Bill Moyers pointedly asked Reed if the astronomical sum given the banks for “bailing them out” were necessary. He said they were. Everyone seems to be clear on the term bailout. If these need to be defined and important distinctions need to be made, kindly do so, we are ready and eager to learn. At any rate, the question was whether you agree that these were indeed necessary and if so why or if not why not. You don’t have to answer this, of course, but I imagine Sergio was just hoping for more than a one-liner for what appeared to be a serious and very important–in fact, crucial–question. I don’t understand the coyness, unless you are pressed for time.
Warren a few years back you brought up the judge in the private prison scandal who was throwin innocent teenagers in jail so the private prisons could make PROFIT and give kickback to the judge and asked for thier to be congressional investigations.
Well state senator Mike Fasano fought the privatization of prisons in florida (with ample evidence of thier failures to serve the people) and look what happened to him yesterday:
It’s rare but not unprecedented for Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos to bring down the hammer, and he did so on Wednesday, stripping Pasco County state Senator Mike Fasano from his chairmanship of the Criminal and Civil Justice budget committee.
The move happened after Fasano, a critic of the Senate leadership’s plan to privatize state prisons, delayed for the second straight day a measure that would outsource all Department of Corrections operations in 18 counties in the southern portion of the state.
Sorry Warren, but even if good politicians try to do the right thing, they get the boot, but you want us to believe our system is working and the regulators and good people are in control? ;)
Warren, I must say that I find your attitude regarding this question incredible, and it is no wonder that the entire subject is mired in continual obfuscation or else in an endless dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s. When the public is told that Wall St. has extorted trillions or billions (take your pick, apparently) they should be told: “it’s not really a bailout, “mainly ‘liquidity provision’ and not a bailout in any sense. It’s really a matter of ;regulatory forbearance; and not government spending, and only some of that money was really a bailout in the sense that it limited the losses of stockholders.”
Well, that clears it up. Looks like it was all legit and hunky-dory after all, just like Wall St. assures us. Besides, it was all necessary to “save the global economy.” I guess Carney is wrong to use the term ‘bailout’ so loosely, and Wray must also be at fault here when he says–sloppily, I guess– “That is a far better measure of the extent of the Fed’s efforts to bail out troubled banks—who should be expected to fund themselves in markets, not at the lender-of-last-resort!” Or who know what Moyers really meant–if anything intelligible–when he asked Reed if the ‘bailouts’ had been necessary, and Reed, doubtless making effort to keep a straight face, also uttered an unintelligible remark when he affirmed they were necessary. All this tempest over a cup of tea! I tell you, these “bailout terrorists” are as bad as the “deficit terrorists.” Nobody understands us!
Thanks, Warren, points well taken and much appreciated. I think you might consider an article summarizing and synthesizing this question of bank bailouts in layman’s terms, to the extent that is possible, and whether these were good or bad, necessary or otherwise, and why, sort of on the lines of your 7 book, which is very accessible–I don’t know a single person who is clear on this. It is a ripe topic for demagogues.