October 31, 2008 § Leave a comment
I hope everyone is fairly well up to speed on the deeper understanding of the financial industry and its problems for us. If not, this is a good summary, but with a very strong editorial bias hidden a bit by a professorial tone that is slightly preacher like, and hypnotizing..
I notice in this video he keeps using "we", "our", and "your", but the we keeps shifting reference. Like he says "here is what happened to your personal savings rate." But the we here is also vague. It certainly is not the savins rate of the top .001 percent of the population that vastly incresed wealth last year ( this year is still a bit of a mystey, but certainly a wealthy person with cash (lets talk several million in dollars) is in a much better position now than six months ago.)
So this last few decades has done very well for some, as it was designed to do. Not the same we. He want sto incanae us all into the same boat.
His soc security analysis avoids the fact that simply increasing the cut off at the top would save the system, even now. The gneral procedure of the owning class will be to pass debt off onto ohers. Cutting soial security is one of many ways to do it.
So he is for cutting without looking at those who got the vast amount of wealth out of the system.
In short it is a plea to not upset the capital innovation system, assuming that it is dependent on current cash flow,but current cash flow is mostly to the financial industry, which he leaves in tact. Tech innovation would flourish with incentives short of the 100 million dollar payouts to execs and the, what was it 3 billion (yes) bonuses at Lehman last year?
So while the numbers are right, their framing, diagnosis and treatment are very partisan.
What I feel we need to consider is that Obama will succomb to this kind of mainstream analysis and not deal with the economy below that of the tech-financial sectorand its needs, keeping our miliary and financial institutions more or less where they are..
To follow in this serious vein, my concern is that the promise of biotech and nanotech cannot be realized if they are mere instruments of wealth transfer. Look at the food industry as a model of how these openings to a better future can be subveted to a financial system that will turn increasingly authoritarian as resistance mounts. Resisane based on incresing poverty.
Juan is a beleagured biotech venture capitalist so – beware. understand his plight but realize that he is playing inside a limited and i think self defeating social vision.