We are experiencing the devastating consequences of a chain of major economic policy errors, which, to use a current cliché, created the perfect storm. These government blunders temporarily paralyzed the global credit system and are now sending the U.S. and Europe into recession, while sharply cutting back Asia's growth rates.

Left to its own devices, the credit crisis, which began in August 2007, would have crushed economies as severely as did the Great Depression.

Belatedly, but thankfully, governments recognized that the only way to get credit flowing again was for them to make quick and direct massive infusions of new equity into beleaguered banks, as well as commit to other emergency measures hitherto unimaginable.

If sensible rescue efforts continue--and they will--the immediate crisis will quickly pass. Shell-shocked businesses and consumers won't recover rapidly from the trauma of recent months, especially as we now cope with recession. But the downturn shouldn't be prolonged: The economy here and those overseas should start to pick up no later than next spring.

That soon? Despite the crisis, the global economy still retains enormous strengths. Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy. Obviously China's growth rates were higher, but China was coming off a much smaller base.

The world is flush with cash. It's frozen because of fear, but the cash is there. Productivity gains are burgeoning.

So, will this global boom resume next year, slowly at first and then with increasing momentum? It should. Whether that happens, however, depends on the next, highly dangerous phase: the political aftermath.

Will we and other countries pursue policies that hinder growth and retard or abort a full-blown recovery, e.g., regulations that stifle innovation and taxes that harm the creation and deployment of capital? Washington politicians are asking: If the federal government can bail out banks, why not other battered businesses? Congress recently voted for $25 billion in loan guarantees aimed at helping Detroit automakers. (This money is to be used not only to aid Detroit but also to prevent another flare-up of the credit crisis. If the Big Three defaulted on their debts, holders of credit default swaps--which in recent years have grown like toxic weeds--would demand payment from those who wrote the insurance on the automakers' bonds. This would create another wave of losses for financial institutions.)

Some liberal political activists are advocating using Washington's new powers to pursue other agendas, such as forcing tighter emissions curbs or mandating costly health insurance coverage. New attempts to restrict corporate pay, at least in some sectors, is a given--overlooking the unintended side effects of Bill Clinton's attempt to limit CEO pay packages back in 1993. (The deductibility of CEOs' salaries was capped, which led companies to use stock options as never before.) Protectionists are renewing calls for trade restrictions in the name of consumer safety and promoting "better" labor and environmental standards. Politically resurgent labor unions and other activists will push for rules on who sits on corporate boards to "better represent consumers and investors." They want an implicit veto power over the policies of publicly held companies. They're also ready to remove barriers, such as the secret ballot, in order to coerce workers into joining unions.

The financial sector will certainly face new rules and regulations. Will these be sensible, such as rationalizing our myriad, overlapping financial regulatory structures and pushing for the creation of exchanges and clearinghouses for exotic instruments, such as credit default swaps, so we have transparency and standardization? Or will they be punitive and costly like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Washington's new powers over banks may make our capital markets more hostile to entrepreneurs--savings bonds won't give you high returns, but they will protect you from political fallout. Or, as happened with Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ), will they make banks do things for political not economic reasons?

Almost everyone in the country is now buying and selling in foreign currency, rendering the Zimbabwe dollar almost worthless on the domestic market.

Even bank queues that characterized the daily lives of people last year are disappearing, as more people turn to using either the South African rand or U.S. dollars.

The MDC MP for Mbare Piniel Denga told us villagers in Murehwa were selling maize cobs, tomatoes and their livestock in U.S. dollars. The MP was in the area on Sunday were he bought a small dish of five mangoes for US$1. He said three tomatoes cost US$1, and five fresh maize cobs also cost US$1.

'During the festive season I was in Chivhu where people were buying beer and other drinks in foreign currency. I must admit that the use of our local currency is fast dwindling and you hardly see anyone using it anymore. For instance if you use a kombi from Glen View to the city it now costs US$1 as well, so everything has been dollarised,' Denga said.

The Mbare legislator said Zimbabweans had been forced to abandon the local currency for the simple reason that the maximum money you are allowed to withdraw can only buy one small onion.

'Go to any bank now and you hardly see anyone inside. You see few people here and there but otherwise the days of the Zimbabwe dollar are nearing their end. This is not a secret, even the government knows that people have empowered themselves and abandoned their useless dollar. We are headed for interesting times,' the MP quipped.

It costs US$20,000 to buy a foreign currency licence, which legally allows businesses to trade in forex. But with the virtually total collapse of the economy most small business can barely generate enough income to pay their staff at the end of each month. The Reserve Bank's policies, courtesy of Gideon Gono, have created a nightmare for most of these small companies and for the majority of the population who have little access to forex.

With everything now being imported companies have to pay for their inputs in forex, but if they can't afford a forex licence they legally can't sell in foreign currency. So Gono's forex police do the rounds of the shops, impounding 'illegal' foreign currency from these shops. In other words state sponsored theft.

The dollarisation has extended to school tuition with private schools setting fees in US dollars, putting education out of reach of most.

Chisipite High School in Harare is charging US$1,200 per term, and was asking pupils to bring fuel coupons worth US$300 with them on their first day of the term as a deposit.

Roxer Academy primary in Harare is charging US$800 a term, while in Bulawayo the Masiyephambili Primary School is requiring a fee of US$650.

This almost guarantees that when schools open next week they will be virtually empty. Families will be unable to send their kids to school and teachers will have no money for transport. . . read more

After reviewing the contents of this Citibank-friendly new law called the Financial Modernization Act, I asked him: "Do you think the big banks have too much power"?

He paused for a few seconds and replied: "Not Yet." Intrigued by his two word answer, I noted the rejection of modest pro-consumer provisions, adding that now that the banks had had their round, wasn't it time for the consumers to have their own round soon?

He allowed that such an expectation was not unreasonable and that he was willing to meet with some seasoned consumer advocates and go over such an agenda. We sent him an agenda, and met with Mr. Summers and his staff. Unfortunately, neither his boss, Bill Clinton, nor the Congress were in any mood to revisit this heavily lobbied federal deregulation law and reconsider the blocked consumer rights.

The rest is unfolding, tragic history. The law abolished the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial banking from investment banking. This opened the floodgates for unwise mergers, acquisitions and other unregulated risky financial instruments. Laced with limitless greed, casino capitalism ran wild, tanking economies here and abroad.

One champion of this market fundamentalism was Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve. Last October before a House Committee, Greenspan admitted he was mistaken and expressed astonishment at how corporations could not even safeguard their own self-interest from going over steep speculative cliffs.

Greenspan and Summers were deemed "brilliant" by the press and most of Congress. Summers' predecessor at Treasury, Robert Rubin, was also a charter member of the Oracles--those larger-than-life men who just knew that the unfettered market and giant financial conglomerates would be the one-stop shopping mart consumers were assumed to be craving.

Now the world knows that these men belong to the "oops oligarchy" that bails itself out while it lets the companies collapse into the handcuffed arms of Uncle Sam and bridled taxpayers who have to pay for unconditional megabailouts. Instead of the Wall Street crooks being convicted and imprisoned, they have fled the jurisdiction with their self-determined compensation. Corporate crime pays, while pensions and mutual fund savings evaporate.

Now comes the next stage of the Washington rescue effort in a variety of stimulus packages which every vendor group imaginable wants a piece of these days. When trillions are offered, many come running.

As the public focus is on how much, when and where all this money should be spent, there are very serious consequences to be foreseen and forestalled. First, consider how much more concentrated corporate power is occurring. Forced or willing mergers, acquisitions and panic takeovers of big banks by bigger banks along with bankruptcies of companies further reduce what is left of quality competition for consumer benefit.

Remember the anti-trust laws. Obama needs to be their champion. The fallout from the Wall Street binge is likely to lead to a country run by an even smaller handful of monopolistic global goliaths.

In the stampede for stimulus legislation, there is a foreboding feeling on Capitol Hill that there is no proposal on the table to pay for it other than by the children and grandchildren. Just the opposite is raining down on them. Everybody including the private equity gamblers, Las Vegas casinos and Hollywood studios along with the banks and auto companies are looking for tax breaks.

So with the economy deteriorating and taxes being cut, where is the enormous money coming from? From borrowing and from printing money. So look out for big time inflation and decline in the dollar?s value vis-à-vis other currencies.

In all the hundreds of pages of stimulus bills, there is nothing that would facilitate the banding together of consumers and investors into strong advocacy groups. We have long proposed Financial Consumer Associations, privately and voluntarily funded through inserts in the monthly statements of financial firms.

If this bailout-stimulus-Wall Street funny money waste, fraud and abuse sounds confusing, that is because it is. A brand new paperback "Why Wall Street Can't Be Fixed and How to Replace It: Agenda For a New Economy" by long-time corporate critic, David C. Korten will explain some of the wheeling and dealing.

You don't have to agree with all or many of Korten?s nostrums. Just read Part II: the Case For Eliminating Wall Street. He considers three central questions:

First, do Wall Street Institutions do anything so vital for the national interest that they justify trillions of dollars to save them from the consequences of their own excess?

Second, is it possible that the whole Wall Street edifice is built on an illusion of phantom wealth that carries deadly economic, social, and environmental consequences for the larger society?

Third, are there other ways to provide needed financial services with greater results and at lesser cost?

Ralph Nader is an American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, and perennial candidate for presidency as an independent candidate. . . read more

As if there were not enough reasons to go mad, the proliferation of acronyms related to the crisis is such that one can hardly understand them.

The first was the G20, a selected group meeting in Washington that pretended to represent all. The second was the also selective APEC group which met in Lima. There was the richest country, the United States; with a per capita GDP of 45 thousand dollars a year. But there was also the 100th ranked country, the People's Republic of China, with a per capita GDP of 2,483 dollars; China is also the number one investor in US Treasury bonds.

Now, G192 is the way that Leonel Fernandez, President of the Dominican Republic, which is not a member of either of the two, calls the member countries of the United Nations attending an economic conference with Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate of Economics.

George Soros, an immensely rich magnate of Hungarian descent and an American citizen, was one of the attending personalities.

One would have to be a chess player to disentangle the arguments of such diverse national and business interests as are represented in the G20 and the G21.

The truth of the matter is that if a Third World country signed free trade agreements with eight or ten developed or emerging countries, --some of them traditional producers of abundant and attractive low cost goods or sophisticated industrial products, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, etc.-- the nascent industry of a developing country would have to compete with the sophisticated products of the most developed countries' industries or the hard working hands of their powerful partners, one of which handles world finances wantonly. The only thing left to them would be to produce inexpensive raw materials requiring large investments ultimately owned by foreign companies fully protected from nationalizing whims. They would only have their extended hands waiting for a pious development support and an eternal debt to be repaid with their children's sweat. Isn't this what has been happening until today?

That's why I don't hesitate to show my solidarity with Chavez's position as he said that he disagreed with Lima's recipe. There are plenty of reasons. Let's see how the situation unfolds, and keep demanding out rights without ever bending our knees.

What we see is the result of a catastrophic loss of trust in the West. It goes well beyond economics and finance. It is the sincerity of political leaders of the West that is at stake. If those in power in Washington, London and elsewhere cannot be trusted on the critical matters of war and peace, law and justice and treatment of different sections of their own populations, their ability in other areas is bound to be questioned. The leaders of America and its allies have simply become captivated by a doctrine that leaves their economies at home, to be run by the large private institutions that they befriend, while they themselves go and fight wars abroad.

Today, America's wars are financed by money borrowed from China and the oil-rich Gulf states which are awash with petrodollars... And countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, which have accumulated huge reserves in U.S. dollars, don't trust the West. The resentment in the Arab world against the treatment of Muslims by the West is strong. And the government of Iceland criticizes its 'friends' for not doing enough to help it and looks towards Russia to bail it out.

The West is simply broke – morally, politically and economically. [More] . . read more

First there's the unadulturated glee as you jump about the house, content in the knowledge that you are now, officially living off the fat of land.

Then comes that delightful sense of schadenfreude as you remember how crap hospitality and bar work is, and you think maliciously to all the poor suckers stuck in the grind.

And finally (usually after a few weeks) comes annoyance, as you realise you might have to go back to that job because that $445 a fortnight goes like the clappers when you live in Sydney.

Still though, living with ingenuity, battling to survive on a pittance and scoring freebies is so uplifiting that I can recommend living la dolecheque vita to as many people as is possible (who don't reduce my payments).  . . read more

So Mr.Toady – how do you square this avowed responsibility with the $6m paid in bonuses to your lack-lustre predecessor – Sol Trujillo?

As usual, the evocation of shareholders’ interests is illusory and not real. Big fat corporate elites spend most of their time ripping off their shareholders; paying themselves ridiculous amounts of money in the pretence that they are actually making a difference. . . read more

The banks are hoarding cash to meet their capital requirements. They are trying to compensate for the loss of value to their (mortgage-backed) assets by increasing their reserves. At the same time, the system is clogged with trillions of dollars of bad paper which has brought lending to a halt. The huge injections of liquidity from the Fed have done nothing to improve lending or lower interbank rates. It's been a flop. The market is driving interest rates now. If the situation persists, the stock market will crash. [More] . . read more