Thanks Stevie – what a breath of fresh air that guy is. We could do with someone just like him.

“….I wonder if the programme will focus at all on the role played by corporations in aiding & abetting the 3rd reich…”

…or the the economic reprecussions of the Versailles Treaty, which are currently being re-played throughout Europe.

The only complaint I really have about history documentaries (this includes BBC4 as well which really is a very good channel) is that they rarely provide enough of an in-depth economic context through which to investigate events. Sounds a great documentary though.

I wonder where the current trend of neoliberal corporatism is taking us….

“….I wonder if the programme will focus at all on the role played by corporations in aiding & abetting the 3rd reich…”

They already have – shown that it was special pleading by business leaders to Hindenburg (President) that installed Hitler as Chancellor, late 32, Jan 33. Even tho’ the Nazis had the highest vote (37%) of any party, Hindenburg considered him dangerous. (He had already stated in a public speech how they would get rid of the ‘other 30 Parties’.)

Apparently, the business leaders were afraid of the communists who had polled nearly as much as Hitler.

Funny thing is, it was Hitler who had actually used the phrase ‘German soviet union’ as a goal of Nazism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-italy-a-comedian-getting-the-last-laugh/2012/09/30/45500cbc-071b-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html

The Beeb are brilliant at producing documentaries, David of course being responsible for some of them, but it’s a pity that they don’t look at comparisons from the post WW1 period & where we are now. I wonder if the programme will focus at all on the role played by corporations in aiding & abetting the 3rd reich, particularly IBM.

The seeds of fascism are growing everywhere especially in the US where they once were seen as a bulwark against it. If the quote below is valid, we are close to it’s fruition & wasn’t Hitler keen on a European superstate with inferior races ( Celts included ) used as slave labour, a kind of extreme version of outsourcing ?

“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power”.
Benito Mussolini

Tnx for posting stevie, I’ve only been dimly aware of this. Since I’ve donated to Manning’s legal defence, best not travel to the new fascist US.

Beeb4 have a new 6 part series that started tonight on Hitler’s rise to power. Interesting stuff, lot’s of 1st hand interviews.

So many parts of the world moving in an awful direction just now…

http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/ndaa_hedges_et/ndaa_letter_to_my_friends_and_family.html

Pat

“…Thus the overhang is not private debt…”

Chart from Steve Keen: (US, UK, AUS household debt)

http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/123111_0028_DebtBritann5.png

See also charts in BIS paper (ignore all the Reinhardt & Rogoff cr@p – just look at the debt charts)

http://www.bis.org/publ/othp16.pdf

Sure, there’s lots of unrealised (except in a minority of countries, like Ireland) losses from the (high level) property casino 9& derivatives) on banks’ books, but what’s playing out in the real economy is citizens struggling to service & pay down accumulated debt (incrementally increased in lieu of wage growth, per Hudson & others) in contracting or stagnating high unemployment economies.

I’m not sure why you say “no economic theory can fix it” ? Keen, MMT & other Post Keynesians, as a result of their correct understanding of money, banking & macro, have perfectly viable solutions. (The financialised economy also needs to be stopped from creating more bubble casinos, but they are all clear on that too.)

As regards pensions, MMT have plenty to say about that too. The issue is production of real goods & services & the agreed distribution of them by democratic process. A sovereign fiat currency issuer can always ensure there is sufficient money in circulation to maximise use of resources, up to the point of maximum productive capacity. For most people, such policy will always produce a higher standard of living (including for pensioners) than having 10 to 20% of able workers producing nothing & languishing in dole queues (or worse).

I’m sorry I haven’t had the time to read both Pat and Mike’s thoughts, but the bit I read briefly in Pat’s first comment about productive USE chimes with what Prof Michael Hudson says on today’s Keiser Report:

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-349-keiser-max/

I forwarded Penny’s comments to a very astute friend of mine. He responded:

“I agree. The neoliberal line always seems to be the pragmatic thing to do – whether it means privatising (profits) or socialising (losses). The hold of this thinking over public and private power allows it to be Hayekian or Keynesian as and when necessary, as long as it is in the interest of the rich. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of this doesn’t seem to land for some reason. My only conclusion is that their ideological dominance allows them one final monopoly that is more important than all the others: a monopoly on common sense.”

Most of that private debt overhang you mention is held by the bondholders who funded the mortgages originated by the banks at retail level. These bonds are called mortgage-backed securities. They are now only worth what their secured properties are worth.

Thus the overhang is not private debt it is the false valuation of mortgage-backed bonds.

If the holders of these bonds were forced by our governments to accept what their bonds are really worth, the crippling overhang would be cleared very rapidly through sale and refinancing of the affected properties. In other words our governments and economists are distorting the facts with made-up theories to explain away the above reality.

One of the main reasons our governments, particularly the American Government, are reluctant to admit the truth is that the financial services sector sold these now worthless bonds to our pension fund managers, both public and private, both DB and DC. This truth will inevitably bring down the whole pension system as we now know it because the private debt overhang is unsustainable and no economic theory can fix it.

How about them for apples?