What follows is courtesy of "Angela", a commenter at Elaine Supkis' blog which presents the current economic crisis in a refreshing new way:
Thank goodness there’s the occasional humor in all of this- making the rounds on the net…
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS EXPLAINED IN SIMPLE TERMS:
· Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin.
· In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later.
· She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
· Word gets around, and as a result increasing numbers of customers flood Into Heidi’s bar.
· Taking advantage of her customers’ freedom from immediate payment constraints, Heidi increases her prices for wine and beer, the most-consumed beverages.
Her sales volume increases massively.
· A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi’s borrowing limit.
· He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.
· At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert bankers transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS.
· These securities are then traded on markets worldwide.
· No one really understands what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are guaranteed.
· Nevertheless, as their prices continuously climb, the securities become top-selling items.
· One day, although the prices are still climbing, a risk manager (subsequently, of course, fired due to his negativity) of the bank decides that slowly the time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi’s bar.
· However they cannot pay back the debts.
· Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy. DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 95%.
· PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80%.
· The suppliers of Heidi’s bar, having granted her generous payment due dates and having invested in the securities are faced with a new situation.
· Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor.
· The bank is saved by the government following dramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the governing political parties.
· The funds required for this purpose are obtained by a tax levied on the non-drinkers.
· Finally, an explanation we understand.
-"Angela"
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
A voice of sanity
... and one you will never hear on CNBC
">
For more like this check out The Renegade Economist whom I've added to my blog roll.
PS: Speaking of my blog roll feel free to use the 'Lair as a way station to these other sites during my frequent absences.
">
For more like this check out The Renegade Economist whom I've added to my blog roll.
PS: Speaking of my blog roll feel free to use the 'Lair as a way station to these other sites during my frequent absences.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
We The People...
It's been fascinating of late to watch Team Obama struggle to put the proper spin on the latest attempt to unburden Wall Street of its troubles at taxpayer expense. Ever wonder why all the efforts of "our" elected representatives are so focused on the travails of insolvent banks and the reckless speculators who ran them into the ground? Well this little ditty by Bernard Chazelle should answer any remaining questions you may have:
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said banks were acting stupid and making it harder for lawmakers to defend them.
You may wonder if it's a congressman's job to be defending banks. Shouldn't the Congress be defending "We the people," instead?
If you're wondering, it's because you don't understand the modern incarnation of representative democracy. Yes, you know your Electoral College; sure, you've mastered your chads, pregnant, dimpled, hanging or otherwise, but still, perhaps just perhaps, you're missing the point. Indirect representation works like this:
A empowers B to elect C to serve A.
With a little diagram to highlight the subtleties:
A---------> B --------> C
|------<----------<-------|
Now one common mistake is to think that you're A. Nope, you're B. Who's A then? Corporate America is A. Goldman Sachs, GE, WalMart, etc; they're A. You're B. They empower you (B) to elect a government (C) whose sole purpose is to serve them (A). This leads us to the fundamental equation of indirect representation:
Corporate America empowers you to elect a government to serve Corporate America.
How does Corporate America empower you? They outsource the job to an entity called "the media." The media's mission is to brainwash you so you believe you are A. But you are B. You are the empowered delegate ("empowered" in the sense of "authorized," not "made powerful.") Why are you even needed in that equation? What's wrong with
A empowers C to serve A ?
Somewhere in that loop, someone's pocket needs to be picked and that someone is you. That's why A needs you. There's a second reason for your presence, which distinguishes representative democracy from oligarchy. It's called "legitimacy," which is just a fancy way of saying "anything that keeps the people away from their pitchforks." But let's not get too technical and, mostly it's just that: a technicality.
A few days later, the liberal Barney Frank uttered stern, harsh words. I paraphrase:
The bankers won't get extra resources unless there's a radical change in their behavior.
Notice the conditionality. Let's follow Frank's logic. Suppose the bankers don't change their behavior (which behavior is left unspecified but you can be sure that does not include "being A.") Then what? If Frank denies them the money, then who is he punishing? If he is punishing the American people, then my point is proven. The guy works for the bankers. If he is punishing the bankers but not the American people, then the money was obviously not needed in the first place, except to please the bankers. In other words, if Americans don't notice the difference whether the money is given out to the banks or not, then why give it? And if they suffer from the money being withheld, then why is Frank making their happiness conditional on the bankers' behavior? He could have the bankers fired. He could have reversed the conditionality and said: "The bankers won't get a penny until a million demonstrators march down Pennsylvania Avenue demanding "More Bonuses to Bankers!"
But he did not. Why? Because Frank (hardly the worst of the bunch) was elected by you to work for them! (Go back to earlier diagram if this point hasn't sunken in yet.) Why isn't Frank working for you the people? Because you the people are the delegates, and who in the world works for delegates?
Why do we need the media? Because my observations are trivial. That's why. You need communications experts, backed by deep scientists called "economists," to convince you that 2+2=5. That's hard work. That's why those people are paid lots of money and only the brightest succeed. Take "trickle down economics" for example. That's not even 2+2=5. It's more like 2+2=36376472828363828. But they pulled it off! And this very minute they're convincing you that the only way to deal with a thief who steals your money is to reward him with more of your money.
Barney Frank had more to say:
“People really hate you,” he said, imploring banks to do everything possible to avoid offending people.
When is the last time you "implored" someone to stop being offensive by stealing money from the very people they're offending and giving it to the offenders?
— Bernard Chazelle
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said banks were acting stupid and making it harder for lawmakers to defend them.
You may wonder if it's a congressman's job to be defending banks. Shouldn't the Congress be defending "We the people," instead?
If you're wondering, it's because you don't understand the modern incarnation of representative democracy. Yes, you know your Electoral College; sure, you've mastered your chads, pregnant, dimpled, hanging or otherwise, but still, perhaps just perhaps, you're missing the point. Indirect representation works like this:
A empowers B to elect C to serve A.
With a little diagram to highlight the subtleties:
A---------> B --------> C
|------<----------<-------|
Now one common mistake is to think that you're A. Nope, you're B. Who's A then? Corporate America is A. Goldman Sachs, GE, WalMart, etc; they're A. You're B. They empower you (B) to elect a government (C) whose sole purpose is to serve them (A). This leads us to the fundamental equation of indirect representation:
Corporate America empowers you to elect a government to serve Corporate America.
How does Corporate America empower you? They outsource the job to an entity called "the media." The media's mission is to brainwash you so you believe you are A. But you are B. You are the empowered delegate ("empowered" in the sense of "authorized," not "made powerful.") Why are you even needed in that equation? What's wrong with
A empowers C to serve A ?
Somewhere in that loop, someone's pocket needs to be picked and that someone is you. That's why A needs you. There's a second reason for your presence, which distinguishes representative democracy from oligarchy. It's called "legitimacy," which is just a fancy way of saying "anything that keeps the people away from their pitchforks." But let's not get too technical and, mostly it's just that: a technicality.
A few days later, the liberal Barney Frank uttered stern, harsh words. I paraphrase:
The bankers won't get extra resources unless there's a radical change in their behavior.
Notice the conditionality. Let's follow Frank's logic. Suppose the bankers don't change their behavior (which behavior is left unspecified but you can be sure that does not include "being A.") Then what? If Frank denies them the money, then who is he punishing? If he is punishing the American people, then my point is proven. The guy works for the bankers. If he is punishing the bankers but not the American people, then the money was obviously not needed in the first place, except to please the bankers. In other words, if Americans don't notice the difference whether the money is given out to the banks or not, then why give it? And if they suffer from the money being withheld, then why is Frank making their happiness conditional on the bankers' behavior? He could have the bankers fired. He could have reversed the conditionality and said: "The bankers won't get a penny until a million demonstrators march down Pennsylvania Avenue demanding "More Bonuses to Bankers!"
But he did not. Why? Because Frank (hardly the worst of the bunch) was elected by you to work for them! (Go back to earlier diagram if this point hasn't sunken in yet.) Why isn't Frank working for you the people? Because you the people are the delegates, and who in the world works for delegates?
Why do we need the media? Because my observations are trivial. That's why. You need communications experts, backed by deep scientists called "economists," to convince you that 2+2=5. That's hard work. That's why those people are paid lots of money and only the brightest succeed. Take "trickle down economics" for example. That's not even 2+2=5. It's more like 2+2=36376472828363828. But they pulled it off! And this very minute they're convincing you that the only way to deal with a thief who steals your money is to reward him with more of your money.
Barney Frank had more to say:
“People really hate you,” he said, imploring banks to do everything possible to avoid offending people.
When is the last time you "implored" someone to stop being offensive by stealing money from the very people they're offending and giving it to the offenders?
— Bernard Chazelle
Sunday, February 08, 2009
The Imponderable
In truth the time to kill the Federal Reserve banking system was over half a century ago but I'm willing to take what I can get. So now is as good a time as any to kill this bitch, a fact made clear in this fine essay by Doug Page over at Dissident Voice a few days ago.
Update:
Here's a crucial essay by economist Michael Hudson on Team Obama's Bailout 2.0 that answers all the important questions one may have about how the banksters intend to fuck us. This is a must-read so pass it on.
Update:
Here's a crucial essay by economist Michael Hudson on Team Obama's Bailout 2.0 that answers all the important questions one may have about how the banksters intend to fuck us. This is a must-read so pass it on.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Something for your book list
Do yourself a solid and run out and pick up The Liberal Defense of Murder by Richard Seymour whose blog Lenin's Tomb is required reading for any serious progressive. This remarkable book will serve as a critical point of reference as Team Obama cranks up the killing machine liberal style (with better graphics and production values). Here Richard sits with George Galloway for a chat about some of the justifications liberals have utilized throughout the centuries when going about the unfortunate but necessary business of killing savages... for the greater good of course.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Oh no, fooled again!
What was that neat little trick Nancy always pulled on Charlie Brown with the football? Well here's the political equivalent... right on schedule.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Chomsky on Israeli war crimes in Gaza
Naturally one shouldn't expect to see this issue explored anywhere in the American mainstream media hologram so, once again, Znet to the rescue.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Boondocks checking in
Hat tip to Dennis Perrin for this one:
"I did say I was cautiously pessimistic about Obama's Presidency - but this is simply acknowledging the reality of an American Empire that is out of control and on the verge of collapse. Let us not forget that on the eve of the election, we witnessed a near-trillion dollar robbery of the US treasury. That robbery is still taking place. I do not blame President Obama, but I do not believe the financial and corporate interests that own and control this country will fold so easily. I do not question the integrity of the man as much as the power of his office - which I believe has greatly diminished over the years. I believe the Federal Reserve Bank, the Military Industrial Complex, and the massive corporate interests that run this country have more power than our new President. I hope I am wrong.
"After 9/11, I witnessed most of this country become obsessed with squashing dissent and silencing critics. I hope this election does not turn Black America towards this same, fascist mind state; but already I am starting to see it, and it saddens me greatly. I absolutely wish our new President and his family success and safety. But after all I have witnessed in my lifetime, and especially in the last eight years, I am not ready to lay down my skepticism or my outrage for this government. To do so would be unwise and, ironically enough, anti-American."
-Aaron McGruder ("Boondocks" comic creator)
"I did say I was cautiously pessimistic about Obama's Presidency - but this is simply acknowledging the reality of an American Empire that is out of control and on the verge of collapse. Let us not forget that on the eve of the election, we witnessed a near-trillion dollar robbery of the US treasury. That robbery is still taking place. I do not blame President Obama, but I do not believe the financial and corporate interests that own and control this country will fold so easily. I do not question the integrity of the man as much as the power of his office - which I believe has greatly diminished over the years. I believe the Federal Reserve Bank, the Military Industrial Complex, and the massive corporate interests that run this country have more power than our new President. I hope I am wrong.
"After 9/11, I witnessed most of this country become obsessed with squashing dissent and silencing critics. I hope this election does not turn Black America towards this same, fascist mind state; but already I am starting to see it, and it saddens me greatly. I absolutely wish our new President and his family success and safety. But after all I have witnessed in my lifetime, and especially in the last eight years, I am not ready to lay down my skepticism or my outrage for this government. To do so would be unwise and, ironically enough, anti-American."
-Aaron McGruder ("Boondocks" comic creator)
Friday, January 16, 2009
Boom, boom, bada-boom...
... so begins Team Obama's march to war on Iran. The following time-line is courtesy of Don Bacon over at ATR:
Mar 2, 2007. . .Obama: The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
National Intelligence Estimate, Dec 4, 2007 . . .. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program
IAEA Report, May 26, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
July 25, 2008 . .Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, nearing the end of a fast-paced international campaign trip, warned Iran today, "don't wait for the next president" to take office before yielding to Western demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. . .Iran poses "an extraordinarily grave situation." He said the world must send "a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."
NPT: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
Sep 6, 2008 ...Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said
IAEA Report, September 15, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."
Oct 2, 2008 . . .Obama: "The American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. . .I will always tell the American people the truth."
Nov 7, 2008 ... U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in Chicago on Friday that Iran's development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
IAEA Report on Iran, Nov 19, 2008 -- "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."
Dec 7, 2008 . . .Obama: "We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable"
Jan 11, 2009 . . .Obama: "[Iran is] pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race."
I don't know about any of you but I'm so loving the Prince of Hope and Change.
Mar 2, 2007. . .Obama: The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
National Intelligence Estimate, Dec 4, 2007 . . .. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program
IAEA Report, May 26, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
July 25, 2008 . .Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, nearing the end of a fast-paced international campaign trip, warned Iran today, "don't wait for the next president" to take office before yielding to Western demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. . .Iran poses "an extraordinarily grave situation." He said the world must send "a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."
NPT: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
Sep 6, 2008 ...Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said
IAEA Report, September 15, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."
Oct 2, 2008 . . .Obama: "The American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. . .I will always tell the American people the truth."
Nov 7, 2008 ... U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in Chicago on Friday that Iran's development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
IAEA Report on Iran, Nov 19, 2008 -- "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."
Dec 7, 2008 . . .Obama: "We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable"
Jan 11, 2009 . . .Obama: "[Iran is] pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race."
I don't know about any of you but I'm so loving the Prince of Hope and Change.
Monday, January 05, 2009
An Ernest Attempt
Israel tried to bump-off Cynthia Mckinney the other day in the event you hadn't heard about it... but then again how could you have heard about this incident and its proper context if the MSM is you source for "news"? Silly me.
Monday, December 29, 2008
The MSM, where the truth comes to die
Have you tired yet of the bullshit spin in the US MSM regarding Israel's ongoing war crimes in Gaza? I thought so. So without further ado let's get a peek at the straight dope from (as usual) Chris Floyd. Bare in mind that much of what you read in Floyd's piece is available from mainstream sources within Israel itself such as the leading daily Ha'aretz but not in the US. Another critical source of analysis on the wholly US-sponsored atrocity is from the Angry Arab.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Mere weeks to bliss
The inauguration is but a few short weeks away and all will be well again in the land of milk and honey. President Barack Obama will make it so, just you wait and see. American Leftist offers a brief refresher course for those who weren't following along closely as Team Obama worked their magic this past spring in this repost from July 10th of this year:
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Election Ennui
Nothing is more enervating for people that actually care about the substance of political and social issues than a presidential campaign year. During the primaries, the candidates, like circus magicians, purvey the illusion that the campaign is really about issues of importance, that we face electoral decisions of grave importance, even as they creatively repackage predictable positions.
Once the nominees become apparent, however, the dialogue, such as it was, is even more circumscribed. Recognizing the power of the corporate media in regard to framing the issues and defining the candidates for a credulous public, any pretense of engaging the public about fundamental questions that affect our lives is abandoned. After all, a presidential campaign is primarily a media driven exercise in mythology. It is more important to present oneself to the media as innocuous, as yet another in a line of safe, conformist political figures, so that the media can, paradoxically, present the candidate as larger than life, capable of forging a profound emotional bound with the public so that he can comfortably assumes powers of near omnipotence.
This is what we observe transpiring on a daily basis with Barack Obama. He's getting tougher on Iran, he's signalling a willingness to be flexible about how he will withdraw US troops from Iraq, he's now for the death penalty even in instances without the loss of life and he wasn't willing to fight to prevent Congress from granting immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally wiretapped US citizens at the direction of the White House. It's all about showing how reasonable he is, you see. It's a long way from working as a community organizer in Chicago, but Obama probably draws upon similar skills to effectively disarm his media critics.
Obama closed the deal as they say when he willingly played the game of stigmatizing black men for social dysfunctionality found across the racial spectrum. Whites are allowed to have children out of wedlock without comment, but blacks are not, and Obama displayed his knowledge of this double standard, and the essential role that it plays in justifying racial bias towards African Americans. Tim Russert and his mentor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, would have been proud.
For a brief period, there was an opening that suggested that this stale politics could be shattered, but Obama's defeat in Texas and Ohio, primarily at the hand of working class whites, closed it. It did not deny him the nomination, as I thought it would, but it did force him to abandon any radical notions that he may have had about transforming the US political system. Since then, Obama has scrupulously followed the rules, as he will do when he enters the White House. Obama recognizes that he cannot pursue even a palled progressive agenda of demilitarization, an agenda that is an unavoidable precondition to confronting the declining standard of living for middle income, lower middle income and poor Americans, if it is opposed by the proletarian base of the Democratic Party.
As for the rest of us, it means millions of more American foreclosed out of their houses, driven to the unemployment lines and pushed to the margins of this credit dependent economy, with an increasing likelihood that Obama will be just as willing to attack Iran as McCain to divert attention from this catastrophe. Because, having left the forces within this country dictating these interrelated outcomes unexposed and untouched, Obama will soon discover that he is just as much a prisoner of them as you and I. Like Bush, he will govern symbolically instead of realistically, because the alternative is politically suicidal in the absence of a social movement to support it.
-Richard Estes (American Leftist)
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Election Ennui
Nothing is more enervating for people that actually care about the substance of political and social issues than a presidential campaign year. During the primaries, the candidates, like circus magicians, purvey the illusion that the campaign is really about issues of importance, that we face electoral decisions of grave importance, even as they creatively repackage predictable positions.
Once the nominees become apparent, however, the dialogue, such as it was, is even more circumscribed. Recognizing the power of the corporate media in regard to framing the issues and defining the candidates for a credulous public, any pretense of engaging the public about fundamental questions that affect our lives is abandoned. After all, a presidential campaign is primarily a media driven exercise in mythology. It is more important to present oneself to the media as innocuous, as yet another in a line of safe, conformist political figures, so that the media can, paradoxically, present the candidate as larger than life, capable of forging a profound emotional bound with the public so that he can comfortably assumes powers of near omnipotence.
This is what we observe transpiring on a daily basis with Barack Obama. He's getting tougher on Iran, he's signalling a willingness to be flexible about how he will withdraw US troops from Iraq, he's now for the death penalty even in instances without the loss of life and he wasn't willing to fight to prevent Congress from granting immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally wiretapped US citizens at the direction of the White House. It's all about showing how reasonable he is, you see. It's a long way from working as a community organizer in Chicago, but Obama probably draws upon similar skills to effectively disarm his media critics.
Obama closed the deal as they say when he willingly played the game of stigmatizing black men for social dysfunctionality found across the racial spectrum. Whites are allowed to have children out of wedlock without comment, but blacks are not, and Obama displayed his knowledge of this double standard, and the essential role that it plays in justifying racial bias towards African Americans. Tim Russert and his mentor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, would have been proud.
For a brief period, there was an opening that suggested that this stale politics could be shattered, but Obama's defeat in Texas and Ohio, primarily at the hand of working class whites, closed it. It did not deny him the nomination, as I thought it would, but it did force him to abandon any radical notions that he may have had about transforming the US political system. Since then, Obama has scrupulously followed the rules, as he will do when he enters the White House. Obama recognizes that he cannot pursue even a palled progressive agenda of demilitarization, an agenda that is an unavoidable precondition to confronting the declining standard of living for middle income, lower middle income and poor Americans, if it is opposed by the proletarian base of the Democratic Party.
As for the rest of us, it means millions of more American foreclosed out of their houses, driven to the unemployment lines and pushed to the margins of this credit dependent economy, with an increasing likelihood that Obama will be just as willing to attack Iran as McCain to divert attention from this catastrophe. Because, having left the forces within this country dictating these interrelated outcomes unexposed and untouched, Obama will soon discover that he is just as much a prisoner of them as you and I. Like Bush, he will govern symbolically instead of realistically, because the alternative is politically suicidal in the absence of a social movement to support it.
-Richard Estes (American Leftist)
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Feeling Like It
Just got through a rather busy stretch of my life that's taken me away from the blog as you may have noticed. On top of that the kids have both been under the weather a bit lately but I'm finally noticing shades of light at the other end of the tunnel so there'll be some interesting posts around here soon. Happy Holidays.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Obama Watch
Right on schedule Team Obama, right on schedule. Jeremy Scahill has compiled a superb reference list of The One's new team of Clintonistas and other assorted DLC hacks and it's all in accord with an agenda the President-Elect has been signaling since he wrapped up the nomination: to the center-right we go. Change? Silly chumps.
Friday, November 21, 2008
But, but those damn auto CEOs and their private jets...
Gotta love the spectacle of our congress critters and the MSM getting their shorts in a bunch over the auto chieftains having the nerve to use company jets for the purpose in which they were intended, namely to carry executives swiftly and safely to their destinations (presumably having to do with company business). Don't get me wrong, the Big Three need to address some structural issues with their business model but few can deny that they are integral to the real economy. Unlike Wall Street the US auto industry creates something of tangible value and utility as well as providing millions of American workers with living-wage jobs which then enables them to pay their mortgages, send their children to college, or otherwise participate in the economy. Losing the nation's most important domestic manufacturing component in the face of a quarter century of off-shoring that has all but de-industrialized what was once an industrial powerhouse is a systemic threat to our well-being as a nation.
One would be hard pressed to get this impression from MSM coverage of the proposed 25 billion dollar bridge loan to the US auto industry. Instead we get theater about private jets. Did it occur to anyone in Congress or the MSM to ask the same question of the Wall Street banksters who lined up one month ago for 700 billion in taxpayer obligations with no strings attached? I wonder what the odds are that the heads of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, or Bank of New York Mellon fly commercial?
For those of us who are still curious about what Hank Paulson and his merry band of Wall Street thieves have been up to while the MSM performs its primary function of distracting the public from issues of importance, Glen Ford has this gem to help us keep things in perspective:
The rule of law has been cast aside in the mad frenzy to loot the wealth of a nation before George Bush leaves office. "Wall Street has succeeded in establishing a kind of privatized martial law economic regime," in which trillions of dollars are secretly transferred to unnamed corporations.
Lawless Capital, Rushing to Armageddon
The fundamental law of capital - the system's need to extract by any means possible ever increasing returns on investment, or die - brought the world to the current catastrophe. Inevitably, despite all the noise about the need for transparency and tightening of regulations on the behavior of capital, the system's response to its crisis is to descend into even greater depths of lawlessness.
The frenzy of unchecked illegality pulsates outward from the chaotic center of crisis and criminality: Wall Street, which has succeeded in establishing a kind of privatized martial law economic regime in the waning months of the Bush kleptocracy. The $700 billion "bailout" is revealed as a brazen bait-and-switch bamboozlement, in which Goldman Sachs Family Don Hank Paulson, under color-of-law as Treasury Secretary, ignores the terms of congressional legislation to dispense mountains of public wealth to his bankster friends as he sees fit. In return for their cut of the loot, the banking mafia give the public - nothing! No recycling of the billions into loans to small business or college-bound students or any of the intended beneficiaries. Instead, the Lords of Capital hijack the people's money to expand their territory, buying up the turf of smaller banksters in order to make themselves more indispensable, more untouchable, more removed from the elementary rule of law. Paulson attaches no strings of public obligations to his gifts, demands no voting stakeholder position in the banks.
Then, the master criminal, in secrecy and with total contempt for a spineless and utterly compromised Congress, rewrites the laws of the land, to forgive $140 billion in taxes due from the banks' merger deals, accomplished with the public's money. But Congress fails to protest this theft of its core legislative duty: to make the laws that govern society. Paulson and his banksters are above the law - mega-thieves operating with total impunity.
Meanwhile, Paulson's partner in crime at the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has distributed two trillion dollars in "loans" to a list of corporations whose identities are secret, for purposes that are also secret. Even the billionaire Michael Bloomberg's news agency is in the dark, and has sued to find out where the two thousand billion dollars has gone. Few lawmakers on Capitol Hill seem to even want to know, fearing they would be blamed for the panic that might break out if the public were aware of who had pocketed their trillions.
If there is one person who possesses the moral capital to demand an accounting from the conspirators, it is Barack Obama. But the president-elect behaves as if it is none of his business if the Bush gang loots the national wealth on its way out. But then, Obama fought for the bailout, has had the kindest words for Paulson, and gets his economic advice from Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs Godfather and Treasury Secretary, and Larry Summers, another former Treasury chief who teamed with Rubin during the Clinton administration to cast a cloak of silence over questions surrounding derivatives, the exotic financial instruments that finally wrecked the global system. Obama says he wants a "smooth transition." But his silence on the lawlessness at the heart of the transition calls his own motives, competence and integrity into question.
-Glen Ford
One would be hard pressed to get this impression from MSM coverage of the proposed 25 billion dollar bridge loan to the US auto industry. Instead we get theater about private jets. Did it occur to anyone in Congress or the MSM to ask the same question of the Wall Street banksters who lined up one month ago for 700 billion in taxpayer obligations with no strings attached? I wonder what the odds are that the heads of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, or Bank of New York Mellon fly commercial?
For those of us who are still curious about what Hank Paulson and his merry band of Wall Street thieves have been up to while the MSM performs its primary function of distracting the public from issues of importance, Glen Ford has this gem to help us keep things in perspective:
The rule of law has been cast aside in the mad frenzy to loot the wealth of a nation before George Bush leaves office. "Wall Street has succeeded in establishing a kind of privatized martial law economic regime," in which trillions of dollars are secretly transferred to unnamed corporations.
Lawless Capital, Rushing to Armageddon
The fundamental law of capital - the system's need to extract by any means possible ever increasing returns on investment, or die - brought the world to the current catastrophe. Inevitably, despite all the noise about the need for transparency and tightening of regulations on the behavior of capital, the system's response to its crisis is to descend into even greater depths of lawlessness.
The frenzy of unchecked illegality pulsates outward from the chaotic center of crisis and criminality: Wall Street, which has succeeded in establishing a kind of privatized martial law economic regime in the waning months of the Bush kleptocracy. The $700 billion "bailout" is revealed as a brazen bait-and-switch bamboozlement, in which Goldman Sachs Family Don Hank Paulson, under color-of-law as Treasury Secretary, ignores the terms of congressional legislation to dispense mountains of public wealth to his bankster friends as he sees fit. In return for their cut of the loot, the banking mafia give the public - nothing! No recycling of the billions into loans to small business or college-bound students or any of the intended beneficiaries. Instead, the Lords of Capital hijack the people's money to expand their territory, buying up the turf of smaller banksters in order to make themselves more indispensable, more untouchable, more removed from the elementary rule of law. Paulson attaches no strings of public obligations to his gifts, demands no voting stakeholder position in the banks.
Then, the master criminal, in secrecy and with total contempt for a spineless and utterly compromised Congress, rewrites the laws of the land, to forgive $140 billion in taxes due from the banks' merger deals, accomplished with the public's money. But Congress fails to protest this theft of its core legislative duty: to make the laws that govern society. Paulson and his banksters are above the law - mega-thieves operating with total impunity.
Meanwhile, Paulson's partner in crime at the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has distributed two trillion dollars in "loans" to a list of corporations whose identities are secret, for purposes that are also secret. Even the billionaire Michael Bloomberg's news agency is in the dark, and has sued to find out where the two thousand billion dollars has gone. Few lawmakers on Capitol Hill seem to even want to know, fearing they would be blamed for the panic that might break out if the public were aware of who had pocketed their trillions.
If there is one person who possesses the moral capital to demand an accounting from the conspirators, it is Barack Obama. But the president-elect behaves as if it is none of his business if the Bush gang loots the national wealth on its way out. But then, Obama fought for the bailout, has had the kindest words for Paulson, and gets his economic advice from Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs Godfather and Treasury Secretary, and Larry Summers, another former Treasury chief who teamed with Rubin during the Clinton administration to cast a cloak of silence over questions surrounding derivatives, the exotic financial instruments that finally wrecked the global system. Obama says he wants a "smooth transition." But his silence on the lawlessness at the heart of the transition calls his own motives, competence and integrity into question.
-Glen Ford
Thursday, November 06, 2008
A time for selflessness & sacrifice
Now that President-Elect Barack Obama has done away with Maverick and the Snow Queen, he and his rapidly forming team can go about the important business of tamping down the expectations of his base. Yes, the poor suckers who've been drinking the O'laid for the past 21 months are in for a very rude awakening quite soon. The One hinted as much during his victory speech in Grant Park on Tuesday night, but for those not paying close attention the selection of brass-knuckle Zionist partisan and corporate-centrist Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff should have put them on notice. Sorry folks but given these difficult economic times it's critical that we accept that every promise made during the campaign, no matter how seemingly sincere, cannot possibly be met. It really does come down to addressing the right priorities.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
