“Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter which proposal is being batted around, whether it’s diddled this way and called “nationalization” or twiddled that and called “helping the market” or “preprivatization” or “private-public” or anything else –  none of it is likely to make a substantial difference, as long as the government stays trapped in the sticky web of Goldman Sachs, AIG, & Friends.

“Nationalization”  is likely to have been no more than “internationalization” – linguistic cover for a power-grab across national lines by the globalists, masquerading as economic therapy for your friendly neighborhood business.
And a power grab can be hustled through even without “nationalization.”

In fact, with nationalization shelved, Geithner has just turned around and asked for extraordinary powers for the Treasury.

Maybe Krugman is simply playing good cop to Geithner’s bad cop. And the real goal – more power for Treasury –  is a done deal regardless of which program gets by the public?”

Comment

That’s the conclusion of a long (very long) piece I’ve been working on this whole month about what looks like a propaganda thrust involving most of the administration. I don’t buy the Bernanke/Geithner versus Paul K spectacle. I  have a feeling that anyone whose voice gets heard at that level in the debate is already an insider and debates well within the parameters of the acceptable.

I have not way of proving what I’m saying, but when I put the timeline together (which is why it’s taking forever) it does give a better explanation of everything that’s happened so far. And it explains why gold hasn’t really done much in a crisis that ought to have set it on fire…