Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Seven Avoidance Indicators
Indicators of avoidance are what come to mind while absorbing the various rescue, recovery, stimulus and guarantee programs coming out of the Obama Administration to slow and reverse a splintering and shattering economy. If the Obamites do not act now when the political time is ripest, to put into motion forces of deterrence and prevention, the casino capitalists of tomorrow will again be able to de-stabilize our economy.
The other day I saw Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, just about predicting another round of recklessness in about fifteen years. But he called it "human nature" not casino capitalism.
Here are seven avoidance indicators which outline what Washington is not doing to prevent another round of greed and misdeeds by the Wall Street few against the innocent many throughout the country.
1. Where are the resources for comprehensive law enforcement against the Wall Street crooks, swindlers and purveyors of costly deceptive practices? Isn't there a need to add two to three hundred million dollars for more FBI agents, prosecutors and corporate crime attorneys under the Justice Department to obtain the fines and disgorgements which will far exceed in dollars what is spent by the forces of law and order?
Americans want justice. They want jailtime not bailtime for these crooks. Look how many of the swindled just turned out in a New York City winter to let Bernard Madoff have a piece of their mind as he entered the courtroom and immediate imprisonment.
There has been very little movement so far in Congress or the White House toward this necessary action.
2. Where are the anti-trusters to revive the moribund divisions in the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commision? Failed banks, brokerage firms, and now insurance companies are being taken over by shaky acquirers, often with the encouragement of the federal government. Other industries are experiencing similar mergers and acquisitions in an already over-concentrated economy.
Our government needs to be on top of this accelerating creation of more companies deemed to be "too big to fail." A variety of antitrust policies are needed to prevent, restructure or, at least, require spinoffs to minimize the anti-competitive effects of the "urge to merge."
3. What about Congress and Obama shifting some power to the investors and shareholders who are paying for all these losses? The corporate bosses have made sure for many years that shareholders, who own their companies, have little or no right to control them. Had there been less of a gap between ownership and control, the bosses could never have engaged in such reckless speculation, looting and draining of the trillions of dollars with which they were entrusted. These include mutual funds, pension funds and various trusts. Power to the owners seems to be off the table.
4. The federal officials are talking up stronger regulation and re-regulation proposals but we have not yet been informed of their specific plans. There is not much talk of regulatory prohibition. That is, flat-out prohibition of banks, insurance companies, and other fiduciary institutions from speculating in derivatives or, to be more specific, bets on debts and the even more hyped creations of bets on bets on debts on debts.
5. By now, Washington should be devising ways to pay for these gigantic deficits and bailouts. A fraction of one percent sales tax on the hundreds of trillions of dollars in derivative transactions annually would produce hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and tamp down some of this Wall Street gambling with other peoples' money.
Such a tax on speculative trades in these abstract instruments can make the Wall Streeters pay for their own bailouts and reduce some of the taxes on human labor.
6. Our government doesn't highlight not-for-profit institutions like the 8000 credit unions that are increasing their loans and continue to serve over 80 million Americans without a single insolvency. One would think that with the financial goliaths in a free fall, despite ever-larger bailouts from the federal government, that the cooperative model of credit unions would become a useful teaching instrument.
In his new paperback book, Agenda for a New Economy, David Korten makes an important distinction between the "phantom wealth" of Wall Street and the "real wealth" of Main Street.
His twelve-point agenda raises the fundamental question of why Wall Street is needed and how the functions of a just and progressive economy can be fulfilled with a sensible transition to a "real wealth" economy engaged by and accountable to real people striving for the necessities and wants of life through environmentally friendly, more efficient institutions.
Lest any remaining doubters out there are thinking about our country returning to business as usual Wall Street style, please read the confidential powerpoint presentation "AIG: Is the Risk Systemic?" by the AIG financial giant grasping $180 billion, so far, in federal aid and guarantees
In 21 pages of very large type, you will see why the AIG bosses believe that failure of their gigantic corporation would only "trigger a cascading set of further failures which cannot be stopped except by extraordinary means." In other words, AIG says to Uncle Sam and you the taxpayer save it or be prepared for a global collapse through a dominoes effect of unknown catastrophic sequences. For the full astonishing AIG text, see: http://www.aig.com/Related-Resources_385_136430.html. Right from the horse's mouth!
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
75 Comments so far
Show AllI know I'll get flak for this, but if this fucker Nader would have checked his ego at the door years ago, and joined the Democratic party, just for the support he would get from voters, he would have been President long ago. Unfortunately, he is a profit crying in the wilderness, rather than a messiah bringing forth meaningful change. Hell, Dennis Kucinich is just as honorable, or more so, than Nader, and he has party affiliation; he is in a position to get things done while speaking out. And, Nader seems to be more "mainstream" friendly than Kucinich, although I feel Kucinich is simply too good for what this country deserves.
Let's real, my friend..NO ONE like DK or RN will ever become president of this corporatocracy...at least until after the revolution....and who knows what that will take if the last eight years has not brought it on, eh?
Is it his ego that prevents him from joining the Democratic party or his principles?
Is acquiescing to the 2-party structure the only way to get one's voice heard or are there other ways i.e. expanding the number of voices that get attention in our system?
Did you mean 'prophet?'
Johnstwodog, I'll have to disagree w/you here. Joining the democratic wing of the Business Party is utterley ridculous. It would be like asking Stalin to join the capitalist class. Yes, Kucinich, Conyers and a handfull of others from that faction of the party are a bit more liberal, but they are still dedicated to maintaining capitalism as a viable system. They wish to fix it rather than dismantle it. I recognize that this cannot be done overnight -- short of a revolution -- but Kucinich, Conyers et al maintain their allegience to capitalism. I can't put words in Nader's mouth but I think it is clear from what he writes that he recognizes capitalism to be defunct.
Well....Here we go again.
I've met Dennis. Several times. Up close and personal. (I was deeply involved in his campaign in 2004). I like him personally very much. He is a genuinely good man (or what they call in Yiddish, a mensch).
For all his rhetoric (which is spot on, by the way), Kucinich was never going to go anywhere on a national stage. He couldn't. He doesn't have the balls, quite frankly, or the backing, which is why the mainstream politicos, who have been known to be just a wee bit nasty when it suits their ends (Here I reference the late Paul Wellstone- remember how he became "late"- and John Perkins works- "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and "The Secret History of the American Empire", just for starters), let him do his evangelizing. They knew he couldn't (and more importantly- wouldn't) touch them, or affect their dirty, nasty game and the eventual coronation of Herr Obama. (Remember, for all his talk, he ultimately threw his support behind Kerry and Obama, a.k.a. The Status Quo a.k.a the nominal head and would-be heads of The Only Allowed Political Party.)
The other role Kucinich plays, by the way (wittingly or not), is to keep the vast majority of progressives still believing in the system enough to not rebel ("Hey! Somebody in there speaks for me."). Without him, we might have no moral alternative but to end our denial and actually DO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL, but it's safer for us with him there. We can't get hurt. (At least we can't forsee it.) We can still talk ourselves into believing that we're doing something meaningful merely by advocating peace, and then go to our jobs which, because they are merely cogs in the vast capitalist system, are (paradoxically) making us LESS peaceful, safe, and sustainable. Without a Kucinich, we'd more than likely have to really see what we actually responsible for creating, and then, having realized our complicity, we would have no choice (if we have any conscience at all), but to actually start a revolution.
But that would be too scary, I know, so we'll just let Congressman Kucinich speak for us a little while longer.
SpiritWarrior is 100 percent on the mark here.
Kucinich's political positions basically put him in the Green Party camp. He's an odd-man-out in the Democratic Party. Still, he has a useful function - making it seem like the Democratic Party still cares about the public interest.
Sometimes, you'll see the Democrats playing tag team to avoid an issue when public pressure rises. So, even though John Conyers has plenty of materials to proceed against Bush for waging illegal wars, we saw Dennis Kucinich being stifled by Conyers in bringing those same charges before Congress.
-TIA
You missed something, John.
What happened to Kucinich when he tried to run for the Democrats' Presidential nomination? Or even the moderate Howard Dean?
They were thwarted and sabotaged by the party machinery. Indeed, Dennis can get a certain amount done in Congress because the people of Cleveland stand by him; but his clout is severely limited, because he is only one of hundreds. And Dean just got shoved to the side again.
You're partly right, of course: Nader never intended to become President. He intended to get some ideas "on the table," where the Democrats don't want them.
If you're going to play in a rigged game, you might as well play as an outsider.
Oregoncharles
C'mon Ralph, why you are telling us that the government needs to be on top of the epedemic of more financial firms keep becoming too big to fail? The government keeps HELPING more firms become too big to fail.
Rather than suggesting re-enactment of Glass-Steagall to break up the firms that are too big to fail, the Obama Admininistration is suggesting that such firms be "more closely supervised by the government".
The pharmaceutical industry is taking the cue. Every week another firm announces a merger so they can become too big to fail and become eligible for more corporate welfare.
What the hell is wrong with you, RN, asking intelligent, logical questions in support of We the People? No wonder you'll never be president.
Maybe he'll never be president but perhaps it wouldn't hurt if we took his points and generated pols who thought and fought hard for the people's interests on those thinking points. I have reservations about Nader too but as my wife told me "You could learn a lot from that man." Sigh, I'm afraid she's right. Just look at where single payer's going. I can see where Nader would have pushed harder for it while Obama here isn't even trying. Sigh ... :(
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Just to be clear, my remark was facetious....I voted for Nader... and will continue to do so....what choice does anyone with a conscience and integrity have?
I recognized your statement to be tongue in cheek when I first read it!
Johntwodogs, Please. This is tired. The fact is the Demo party is as controlled by corporate interests as much as the Repo party. They have no interest in allowing a voice like Nader's to be heard. Look at MSM control. Who owns the press? Even in 2000 the net wasn't as prevalent as it is today.
If you and other lemmings controlled by the DLC had checked your egos at the door Nader would have been president.
For way too long we have been fooled into thinking bipartisan means nonpartisan, it doesn't.
Straight party voting should not be allowed in any state. Think before you pull the lever.
Diogenes, I agree w/you re/who controls both factions of the Business Party. I do however, agree w/johntwodogs that blaming Nader for Gore's loss is ridculous and that Gore was no progressive. Gore likes to parade himself as a spokesperson of "the people" but that's bullshit and we all know it to be bullshit.
I want to know what happened to the seventh indicator.
Johntwodogs
Party loyalty is a sickly disease. I ebb and flow to leaders that speak the truth, regardless of affiliation.
Also, that warm teddy bear some of you go to sleep at night with (that Gore would have won if not for that punk Nader) is stuffed full of lies. I am in no way convinced that if Gore had won any of this illegal mess would be any better.
Look up the donation numbers, and you will see that Wall Street gives huge chunks of money to the dems. So does the military. You don't smack your boss, so don't expect the dems to do anything to drastic to these institutions.
Grow up, all of you.
I agree Johntwodogs, Gore was certainly no progressive -- look who he picked for his running mate. That jackass from connecticut Joe what'shisface?
Yes, Ralph Nader's call to jail 'em is leagues away from the sorry, rotten Democratic party's bail 'em tax money policies. We're not getting 'change' with the Democrats back in the White House, we're getting continuity of corruption.
They (AIG) got us. "AIG: Is the Risk Systemic?" If AIG goes down, so does the world financial system.
But, the regulators, Congress have not done their jobs. Now the Obama administration is not doing its job-prosecute the malefactors.
You people voted for this group of shills, now what?
I don't think the "shareholders" are the true owners, the workers are. And the issue isn't just a "real economy" vs. a "fake one." Hypothetically, in a "real economy" gross disparities of wealth can exist, as the capitalist is still making most of the money from what the worker creates. I say hypothetically because finance always exists, although the broader trend of financialization is about redistributing wealth upward.
Also, I'm not into this "jail them" bit. Jail is by definition and individualistic solution when the issue is economic class. People should be angry at the capitalist class as a whole. They should be angry about the system, not about "a few bad apples," which is the only way jail makes sense. Jailing people might make it possible to continue the status quo by alleviating the people's anger.
TSI, are you advocating group punishment without trial by jury?
These "few bad apples" are indeed the entire capitalist class, those who control both wings of the U.S. Business Party. But advocating an outright revolution might bring more harm than good as those of the former Soviet Union and China learned.
davethered,
I agree with your analysis but not with your wanting a (small "c") conservative approach. Frankly, those of us who are sitting nice and comfy in our living rooms typing these words on our expensive laptops might feel there is time, but ask the Inuits or the natives of the island nations who have had to abandoned their ancestral homes. The reason is, of course, Global Warming, which needed to have been addressed decades ago. Thanks to the game of Who's-gonna-be-president or The Economic Stimulus Game or the What-has-Brittney-Spears-done-lately! Game, no one is talking about the most critical issue of them all; the one issue that will affect each of the others.
We need action now (at the very latest) to mitigate the real disasters looming on the horizon. We need real leadership on a spiritual level as well as on the political (and I am NOT talking religion here, by the way). We need people who will guide us to envision the future we wish to have come to pass, and implore us to do whatever is neccessary to bring it about. Even if some of us are hurt in the process. Or killed.
Enough time to ponder and hope and try this and try that, is a luxury we don't have anymore. We need vision, and we need the courage to stand up for what is right, no matter how afraid we might feel at the prospect of doing so.
Just to get in the middle for a moment. Did you ever think of the possibility that the internet is allowed to exist as a pressure cooker outlet? Without this means of expression and release, do you not believe we would have been marching to DC long ago...looong ago?
"I don't think the "shareholders" are the true owners, the workers are."
The workers can be the owners if they want to be. They will have to use some of their money to buy stock though--their choice.
"People should be angry at the capitalist class as a whole."
Maybe people should be mad at themselves for not organizing and creating worker-owned businesses in a free market. Your statement strikes me similar to an obese person getting mad at McDonalds for making such delicious burgers without taking into consideration the health of those who bought them.
Thanks Ralph. I hope you or yours will do what Vincent Bugliosi said any prosecutor could do and prosecute Bush for murder.
Obama is already under Republican and MSM pressure for telling the truth--that he inherited this mess from Bush, essentially calling him a hypocrite for going back on his "bipartisanship" promises.
Conservatives would have a field day with Obama if he was "partisan" enough to prosecute. They would love it, and keep him so busy defending himself and his administration that he couldn't get anything else done.
So I'm depending on you Ralph, to prosecute the Bushites and to sue these Wall Street bastards. If you do it, you can count on my economic support.
I'll second that Ralph. I very rarely vote as I see no reason to as long as we have a one-party system w/two factions, The U.S. Business Party. I have 'though, voted for you a couple of times. It takes couragoeus people like yourself and the many angry citizens of our own country and the world to hold these fuckin' crooks accountable!
"Obama is already under Republican and MSM pressure for telling the truth--that he inherited this mess from Bush,"
Thank you for putting the blame where it belongs. The economy and the wars are not the fault of Obama and the Democrats, they are quite clearly the fault of Bush and the Republicans. How can so many people miss this?
Geeze … perhaps I missed it because … it makes no sense.
Deregulation and neoCONing really was launched with Nixon, through Reagan, Clinton and BOTH Bushs.
With so many years, and so many people ( of both parties ) involved -- it's really a tough job to target the blame so narrowly -- you have a skill there that few could duplicate.
"Deregulation and neoCONing really was launched with Nixon, through Reagan, Clinton and BOTH Bushs."
That's four Republicans and one Democrat. You're right that Clinton should not have repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.
O'Bama spent much of his senate career dutifully installing fresh fuel rods in the godzilla monster, and so did Hillary, and the rest of the Demoks (with an handful of exceptions). And they did it to win the oval orifice. One million dead Iraqis paid the price.
Unfortunately, President-Elect Obama joined with Bush in the initial bailout of the Wall Street banksters under then Treasury Secretary Paulson's plan to just hand over the dough, no accountability.
That was a terrible blunder by Obama, and he deserves full blame and criticism for it. We still really don't know what Obama is doing with bailout funds, but he's not asking for equity stakes, dissolving corporations or calling for regulatory reforms and prosecutions. Those would be basic steps.
I don't see what point you are making about stemming Ralph's general criticisms when Obama isn't making good decisions, nor his cabinet, filled with the kind of folks who helped along past deregulatory efforts.
It's time to put aside the support-our-team approach and insist on fundamental changes, as Ralph does in this essay. Supporting Obama for its own sake is a meaningless exercise.
-TIA
Privatize and incentivize the prosecution and recovery of taxpayer funds.
Turn the ambulance chasers on them. Protect and reward whistle-blowers.
Privatize Nuremberg. 5 million people at $10 a month would get some legal action going in a justice co-op. A one-issue move-on type outfit.
Of course, we could assign these tasks to our own FBI, CIA and DoJ...
Nader has one problem-integrity.
Integrity and politics dont usually go well together.
Ego doesnt enter the equation because every public figure has it in some degree.
Nader's is definitely smaller than most.
The Democratic party doesnt like integrity unless its in allegiance to Wall Street or corrupt interests.
While might not ever get to be president in his life time or that we'll see any that share his vision in the White House any time soon, we still could take his points and with those in mind, fight for better pols that share more of his vision on local, state, and national levels. It will take a while to build up on this but let's not give up.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/12loweringtheante/loweringtheante.html
RN is crazy, dude. Eight heads of the financial families told the Senate they totally learned their lesson and promised to, like, not steal and lie and stuff anymore. Poor Bernie's down to his last billion - and he said he was really sorry, and ashamed, too. No doubt a wave of enlightenment is sweeping down Wall Street as we speak. The Dow went up for 3 days, so that problem's all fixed up. Consumers are spending again apparently, so there's also that problem solved. Citigroup is bragging about raking in the profits again - more proof that we're way over the hump! That Summers guy says the recovery program is beginning to jolt the economy from recession already, and that Bernake guy said this little recession deal will be all gone by Christmas anyways so don't sweat it.
All other news contrary to the above paragraph of facts should be avoided...
Please tell me you are joking!
He's joking.
What the hell are you saying anyway?
I see what you did there.
Unfortunately, most people fall hook, line, and sinker with that attitude.
Whew! Thank you, Frank. It all makes sense to me now. Crisis averted. So, it's NOT the end of the world as we know it, then, and man, do I feel fine.
I'm gonna watch some telly now, and maybe take a little nap. This CommonDreams thing was becoming, like, a real drag anyways. It's YouTube for me now....
As I have have stated, I'd be a bit hesitant about advocating an outright revolution. The people of the former Soviet Union and China learned this the hard way. You could argue, I suppose that these revolutions were not genuine anyway since they were carried out over and obove the people's heads. You would be quite right. I'd still be cautious. There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is and was NEVER a viable system and needs to be dismantled and not repaired. How we achieve this is up to all of us collectivley and not to be put in the hands of a few "leaders."
"The corporate bosses have made sure for many years that shareholders, who own their companies, have little or no right to control them. Had there been less of a gap between ownership and control, the bosses could never have engaged in such reckless speculation, looting and draining of the trillions of dollars with which they were entrusted."
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought that the executives were hired by the stockholders to run the company. How have the corporate bosses found ways to not be answerable to the stockholders?
"How have the corporate bosses found ways to not be answerable to the stockholders?"
By creating the biggest possible LIE,
and shifting blame from their causative manipulation to
AS IF being hapless victims of economic collapse ( of course due to too much govt regulation ),
while ALSO bemoaning how the whole bankstering system MUST be bailed out or we risk even greater catastrophic devastation.
Their profiteering PONZI gambling schemes are illegal, immoral and far from accidental in that they are the CAUSE of the collapse and the VERMIN that need to be excised to aid the recovery
The majority stockholder rules and in many cases, the execs own a controlling interest.
I see. I wasn't sure if Nadar was implying something else that was new and different in recent years. If they are majority stockholders, then there is not a separation between ownership and control. They as stockholders take the losses that they inflicted on themselves as shareholders?
I suspect de-regulation introduced all variety of "insider trading" , so the execs rarely, if ever, lose money...the poor snook with a few shares is the one taking the loss.. It ain't your old WS....more crooked than a corkscrew, with it's major function being a laundry for drug money. If you have not read, "Crossing the Rubicon...Mike Ruppert...I would recommend it highly to get some idea of the CIA's connection to WS.
You have a lot to learn about corporations. They are like a communist dictatorship. The shareholders are analogous to the people, the board to the politburo and the CEO to dictator. The idea has always been to get someone to finance the business while the people in control call the shots and risk mostly your money. They are part of an elite revolving door to government. Laws like the SEC reg that says you need SEC permission to buy more than 15% of a public corporation aren't there to defend democracy or shareholders. The boards, like a politburo claims falsly that they represent the shareholders while only allowing certain cherrypicked items to be voted on by the ALL shareholders. The board takes care of "compensation" of executives. It's all a big merry-go-round scam. If you are IN you can screw up royally and you are still protected. If you are OUT like a joe blow shareholder with a few shares, you are told to sell your stock if you don't like the way things are run. Don't be a fool. Study up on the corporate con. It's ugly.