Economic Relativism, Pete Peterson and the Savings Gambit

Pete Peterson of the Blackstone Group, one of the wealthiest private equities in the cosmos, an imperialist machine par excellence had news to peddle and the smug nerve to, as the saying goes "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" declare it withe the bombast and self-importance pf the newly minted.

Drum roll...! The equity shark declared that the Sub Prime Rate morass and it's purported consequence on the economy is primarily a side effect of America's liberal attitude towards thrift and savings.

You know it's funny savings and it's critique is always the last wheezing gasp of profiteers. America as the critique usually goes should squirrel away liquidity so speculators can in turn appropriate it. Yes that tired ass tune of give me your savings, I know what to do with it, and become wealthy off it's manipulation and when I blunder a'la Bear Stearn's my conspiring and at times duped Uncle Sam will be there to aid me, be my parachute while the squirreling masses will in delirium yodel about Jack and his wit.

The agenda of Pete Peterson and the interest he represents is simple, feint, thrust and parry any intent to call into account the political-economical environment that creates billionaires in an hour (on June 21, 2007; Blackstone Group went public and Peterson became a billionaire in an hour). The formulations that the serving of working class in America who serve and support economic relativism should put it's needs and wants on hold and save so the Pete Peterson's can access the savings and indulge in subjecting the aggregate economy to the up and down swings of their manipulations only benefits a specific group. What is always conveniently ignored in the savings argument is savings as a particular type of specific economic activity doesn't benefit society at large. If the question is liquidity and it's availability then there are more dynamic means of doing so, for example stock investments and the dynamism of such activity impacts the aggregate society in a more realized way, than the manipulation of savings in the hands of a few.

What I find crass, is this colonial paradigm of political-economy which exploits the complexity of the savings question, flips it into a gambit ploy with the simplistic sounding of thrift as policy. So in a period where value derivatives bankrupt century old banks, the savings argument is worn out and backwards.

By Apropos