Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Dobbs Channels Naomi Klein??

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
4,205
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Sep 24, 2008

Lou Dobbs asking why the panic over the bailout and talking about the politics of fear which has been horribly overplayed by the Bush administration.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 88 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Bush is going to try and scare the crap out of people tonight.

    That's his job.

    He needs to make you feel like there's no choice, so you give up your rational thought.

    Just like saying that Iraq was going to try an "iminant" perhaps "nuclear" attack with "WMD's" if we don't "strike" "now".

    People should be pissed and revolting.

    The bailout is worthless at stopping a recession/depression and only gives the rich money. Liquidity comes from "good banks" and giving money to the people.

  • It's predictable that all we'll get from Bush is the usual fear-mongering and useless babbling. But I'm not worried now that I know McCain will be there tomorrow with his economic expertise to solve everything. BTW, isn't it time for the Terror Alert Status to go Orange again?

see all

All Comments (28)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I thought her shock doctrine was that the evil free market types create crises so that we can privatize everything. The problem with banks was created by democrats pushing for home ownership, but it wasn't an intentional crises. And bailing out banks is not a capitalist move. I can assure you that Milton Friedman (the devil, according to Naomi Klein) would be against all the bailouts.

  • Hmm. A crisis--and being told that the taxpayers have to bail out the rich to the tune of 700 billion dollars or the world as they know it will end. Anyone still doubt the validity of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?

  • and look at poland, russia, bulgaria, rumania, great examples of blooming free markets where the riches keep trickling down, right? ;)

    you like to paint it black and white, either free market with no regulations or North Korea with all the works. that is ideological thinking.

    are you saying it's not worth to work on figuring out a third way? or a fourth? a fifth even? what we have is not working as well as it should, you must agree with that.

  • you equate FDR with marxism with stalinism?!? give the man some credit. for all we know there could have been a marxist revolution without him.

    and that argument that the fall of the Berlin Wall proved some kind of historic justification for cutthroat capitalism? i have friends who demonstrated in east berlin for the wall to come down but had something entirely different in mind than having investors suck their already sparse infrastructure dry for a quick buck, which eventually happened.

  • Well gnoge2,

    You might mean 70 years 'worth' of intervention. The gov created the schemes, mandated the loans, and incessantly tweaked them for that long. As for dreamers and laziness, parroting obsolete disproven 1960s Marxist slogans is lazy. The dream world where market capitalism didn't work ended with economies that failed, in case you missed the memo on the Berlin Wall. If trickle down didn't work, North Korea would have illegal aliens; its Workers' Paradise may just be in a slump.

  • come on, stop blaming intervention. read up on the history of fannie, freddie, there were 70 years between 1938 and now.

    and that dream of the wise and almighty market fixing everything eventually, if left alone, who would still honestly believe that other than lazy business school freshmen.

    there's nothing going to trickle down ever, and you know it.

  • Government intervention caused this, not the free market. FDR's big government dream created Fannie in 1938 to provide loans the market wouldn't and shouldn't have. Freddie was created by the government for the same purpose.  The gov guaranteed these bad loans that the market never would have allowed. This is not a market failure. Saying that it is dishonesty or ignorance. Errocrasso, Let's hope you're not right. If it's structured for repayment, it won't be.

  • The american TV doesnt say the word, but what happened was SOCIALIZATION to keep alive the economy.

    Bye bye, neoliberal fantasies!

  • Really interesting. Good point you made.

Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more