EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Goldman Sachs Prove Greed is God?
The investment bank's cult of self-interest is on trial against the whole idea of civilization – the collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even if we can
So Goldman Sachs, the world's greatest and smuggest investment bank, has been sued for fraud by the American Securities and Exchange Commission. Legally, the case hangs on a technicality.
Morally, however, the Goldman Sachs case may turn into a final referendum on the greed-is-good ethos that conquered America sometime in the 80s - and in the years since has aped other horrifying American trends such as boybands and reality shows in spreading across the western world like a venereal disease.
When Britain and other countries were engulfed in the flood of defaults and derivative losses that emerged from the collapse of the American housing bubble two years ago, few people understood that the crash had its roots in the lunatic greed-centered objectivist religion, fostered back in the 50s and 60s by ponderous emigre novelist Ayn Rand.
While, outside of America, Russian-born Rand is probably best known for being the unfunniest person western civilization has seen since maybe Goebbels or Jack the Ripper (63 out of 100 colobus monkeys recently forced to read Atlas Shrugged in a laboratory setting died of boredom-induced aneurysms), in America Rand is upheld as an intellectual giant of limitless wisdom. Here in the States, her ideas are roundly worshiped even by people who've never read her books or even heard of her. The rightwing "Tea Party" movement is just one example of an entire demographic that has been inspired to mass protest by Rand without even knowing it.
Last summer I wrote a brutally negative article about Goldman Sachs for Rolling Stone magazine (I called the bank a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity") that unexpectedly sparked a heated national debate. On one side of the debate were people like me, who believed that Goldman is little better than a criminal enterprise that earns its billions by bilking the market, the government, and even its own clients in a bewildering variety of complex financial scams.
On the other side of the debate were the people who argued Goldman wasn't guilty of anything except being "too smart" and really, really good at making money. This side of the argument was based almost entirely on the Randian belief system, under which the leaders of Goldman Sachs appear not as the cheap swindlers they look like to me, but idealized heroes, the saviors of society.
In the Randian ethos, called objectivism, the only real morality is self-interest, and society is divided into groups who are efficiently self-interested (ie, the rich) and the "parasites" and "moochers" who wish to take their earnings through taxes, which are an unjust use of force in Randian politics. Rand believed government had virtually no natural role in society. She conceded that police were necessary, but was such a fervent believer in laissez-faire capitalism she refused to accept any need for economic regulation - which is a fancy way of saying we only need law enforcement for unsophisticated criminals.
Rand's fingerprints are all over the recent Goldman story. The case in question involves a hedge fund financier, John Paulson, who went to Goldman with the idea of a synthetic derivative package pegged to risky American mortgages, for use in betting against the mortgage market. Paulson would short the package, called Abacus, and Goldman would then sell the deal to suckers who would be told it was a good bet for a long investment. The SEC's contention is that Goldman committed a crime - a "failure to disclose" - when they failed to tell the suckers about the role played by the vulture betting against them on the other side of the deal.
Now, the instruments in question in this deal - collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps - fall into the category of derivatives, which are virtually unregulated in the US thanks in large part to the effort of gremlinish former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who as a young man was close to Rand and remained a staunch Randian his whole life. In the late 90s, Greenspan lobbied hard for the passage of a law that came to be called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a monster of a bill that among other things deregulated the sort of interest-rate swaps Goldman used in its now-infamous dealings with Greece.
Both the Paulson deal and the Greece deal were examples of Goldman making millions by bending over their own business partners. In the Paulson deal the suckers were European banks such as ABN-Amro and IKB, which were never told that the stuff Goldman was cheerfully selling to them was, in effect, designed to implode; in the Greece deal, Goldman hilariously used exotic swaps to help the country mask its financial problems, then turned right around and bet against the country by shorting Greece's debt.
Now here's the really weird thing. Confronted with the evidence of public outrage over these deals, the leaders of Goldman will often appear to be genuinely confused, scratching their heads and staring quizzically into the camera like they don't know what you're upset about. It's not an act. There have been a lot of greedy financiers and banks in history, but what makes Goldman stand out is its truly bizarre cultist/religious belief in the rightness of what it does.
The point was driven home in England last year, when Goldman's international adviser, sounding exactly like a character in Atlas Shrugged, told an audience at St Paul's Cathedral that "The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest". A few weeks later, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein told the Times that he was doing "God's work".
Even if he stands to make a buck at it, even your average used-car salesman won't sell some working father a car with wobbly brakes, then buy life insurance policies on that customer and his kids. But this is done almost as a matter of routine in the financial services industry, where the attitude after the inevitable pileup would be that that family was dumb for getting into the car in the first place. Caveat emptor, dude!
People have to understand this Randian mindset is now ingrained in the American character. You have to live here to see it. There's a hatred toward "moochers" and "parasites" - the Tea Party movement, which is mainly a bunch of pissed off suburban white people whining about minorities consuming social services, describes the battle as being between "water-carriers" and "water-drinkers". And regulation of any kind is deeply resisted, even after a disaster as sweeping as the 2008 crash.
This debate is going to be crystallized in the Goldman case. Much of America is going to reflexively insist that Goldman's only crime was being smarter and better at making money than IKB and ABN-Amro, and that the intrusive, meddling government (in the American narrative, always the bad guy!) should get off Goldman's Armani-clad back. Another side is going to argue that Goldman winning this case would be a rebuke to the whole idea of civilization - which, after all, is really just a collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even when we can. It's an important moment in the history of modern global capitalism: whether or not to move forward into a world of greed without limits.
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...
249 Comments so far
Show All"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Yeah, some kind of great upheavel over the character of the national soul should follow this latest Wall Street boondoggle. And the whole 'greed is good'' ethos should be thoroughly repudiated. But this form of laissez faire goes way, way back, deep into the roots of our history.
Even the obvious evidence of this most recent and extremely serious collapse is being obfuscated, as if the poor and big government were to blame. Not the innocent financial wheeler dealers. (Though, of course, Clinton and the Dems helped repeal Glass Steagall) Well, if you happen to be poor, and a banker in a dark blue suit with a bright smile tells you not to bother, that even though you can't pay your car payments you can still buy the house of your dreams, that everything will work out.... who is the "expert" you would trust here?
Yes, both the Dems and Repugs have refined the art of blaming the victims and using the victims' money to not only bail out the perpetrators, but enhance their ability to control government at ever greater cost to the victims.
Yes, we now have a government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations!!!!!
When I see pictures of Blankfein, he looks like a greedy little shit to me.
The question is not "why do THEY hate us," but "why do WE hate the U.S," hate it enough to screw the country and its citizens.
"But this form of laissez faire goes way, way back, deep into the roots of our history."
Yes, a variety of THIEVES have been around for long, long time. Some thieves are outlaws and gunned down in the streets by the police. Others are protected and called great men.
Often the laws are changed to protect the criminals. Some random examples from our among nation's vast sore of unprosecuted plutocratic transgressions include:
1. Financial De-regulation: Bill Clinton now admits he was wrong to repeal Glass Steagall and loosen other regulations on banks and capital. So, Bill how are you planning to make ammends. Are you planning to give away all those millions you've made, since leaving office, from the beneficiaries of your errors?. Will you advise Obama to fire Summers, Geithner and the rest who were re-appointed by Obama after working for you as the architects of this catastrophic de-regulation??
2. The exemption from lawsuits given to Vaccine makers under the Homeland Security Act. The higher levels of mercury based chemicals (Thimerosal) in recent immunization schedules for infants may have caused a spike in Autism. We'll probably never know as it will never get to the courts
3. Legal Immunity given to airport security companies by the Homeland Security Act, key companies were Bush connected and/or Israeli owned. My background assumption is that there appears to have been an alliance of three powerful interests that conspired destroy the World Trade Centers:
a. US Bush-Cheney connected right wing (including neo-conservative)
Intelligence leaders
b. Saudis. The hijackers were nearly all Saudis. Also see P-Tech, a Saudi
owned software firm whose applications were on most of the important
government and military security systems. The Saudis benefited from the
subsequent american invasion of Iraq, while getting American troops out of
their country, to boot.
c. Israeli and Isreali/American Likudniks. The same folks who brought you the
assassination of Rabin and the end of the peace process for the past 10
years.
Background: Many of my friends, lovers and life changing mentors
are Jewish. This is not about religion, but about a criminal conspiracy
of murderers, torturers and war criminals from all 3 major monotheistic
religions and probabaly some atheists too.
Sorry for the long post but in all of the above cases, the criminals are still in positions of power and wealth. Some are even lecturing and deciding what is "legal" and who is a "criminal." (F**K Yoo and Bybee Too). Even if you can't accept the
9-11 inside job theory, the level of unprosecuted and often murderous plutocratic conspiracy in our nation is mind boggling.
The current state of decay in the USA is commonly accompanied by a descent into a completely militarized, imperialist, corporate-owned police state. The current situation in the USA is no joke. Obama is not stemming the rush to fascism. In many ways he is enabling it.
Wrap your mind around this one obamabots: Obama and the money/politicians/generals behind the T-bag are just custodians of different wings of the armed madhouse (nod to Palast).
It is essential that the people of the USA create mass based organizations that are independent of either criminal cadre, better known as Rethuglicrats and Demuglicans. Or go join your union or a local antiwar group and help e-build those tattered mass movements. It's a lot of work and can be frustrating but still the best hope that I can see.
"The case in question involves a hedge fund financier, John Paulson, who went to Goldman with the idea of a synthetic derivative package pegged to risky American mortgages, for use in betting against the mortgage market. Paulson would short the package, called Abacus, and Goldman would then sell the deal to suckers who would be told it was a good bet for a long investment."
Given John Paulson's creativity to legally defraud investors, one would have to question what plans he had up his sleeve when in mid-2009 he "announced he would buy $100 million of CB Richard Ellis, the country's largest commercial real estate firm. The company is selling $400 million of 10-year notes and $150 million of stock to raise capital to pay down existing debt."
And what about Paulson's (private equity) "Real Estate Recovery Fund"? Will Paulson defraud more 'suckers' while he rakes in $$Billions; and then will our government demand that "we the taxpayers" cover more losses for the super-wealthy gamblers?
How do these recent Paulson investments tie in with analysts projecting $$Billions in "commercial real estate" defaults starting in 2010 thru 2014?
Matt.....are you out there? We need more of your reality-based investigative reporting!
For anyone who missed Bill Moyers Journal last night, he interviewed William Black, who testified before congress this past week, and submitted a 24-page report, about the countless acts of fraud by Goldman Sachs:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
And, Mike Whitney's most recent article on www.counterpunch.org talks about William Black's testimony, and he also posts the link to the 24-page report at the end of the article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04232010.html
If anyone is interested, and if you haven't already watched the William Black lecture about the extensive fraud on Wall Street, here is the link:
https://webdisk.lclark.edu/econ/steinhardt2010/steinhardt2010.html
The Randian connections, though, are unique. When I was in college, one of my friends gave me a copy of Atlas Shrugged -- she was a believer. I didn't realize, though, at the time, that the book was rooted in Rand's theory of Objectivism, and that the principles of her philosophy were grounded in a dogma -- selfishness, and that altruism, the word itself, is evil incarnate. Anyone who fails, fails on their own. Actually, I read the book with a page-turning interest until I ran into John Galt's speech that went on for I don't know how many pages. I threw the book aside. I could NOT subscribe to the pretentious ego of this character. It wasn't until several years later that I actually reread the book with greater insight -- when I began to realize that this book had manifested itself, through the theory of Objectivism, and selfishness onto the national stage in the name of Alan Greenspan (who lectured at their school -- on The Economics of a Free Society) -- a loyal and devoted follower of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Although the movement itself fragmented following the Nathaniel Brandon and Ayn Rand split in May, 1968, when Ayn Rand discovered that Nathaniel Brandon was seeing another woman, the movement did NOT dissolve or go away. BTW -- Ayn Rand was married, but carried on an affair with Nathaniel Brandon for years with her husband's approval, or so they say. Nathaniel, too, was married, but he had his wife Barbara's approval, or so they say.
I have other problems with Ayn Rand's theories -- i.e., her equating sex with violence in her books, and her idea of the perfect man, self-made, represented by Howard Roark, who raped the lead female character in The Fountainhead. How could anyone exalt a character who rapes a woman? In Atlas Shrugged, she also links sex with violence.
BTW -- Isn't there a photograph of Greenspan, Rand and Reagan, all together? An ominous sign of things to come! These so-called intellectuals, who advocate Rand's theories of Objectism, don't allow just anyone into their group. In fact, there are two new biographies out on the market about Ayn Rand -- however, one of the authors, Anne Heller, didn't have the credentials to be allowed into the Institute to research the Ayn Rand archives. If I recall, she, herself, is NOT an Objectivist. This group of intellectuals is NOT inclusive, but is exclusive.
Unfortunately, Alan Greenspan rose to national prominence, and implemented Rand's economic theories at the national level. This is where the "government is the problem" originated, or evolved out of -- with deregulation at the center of the action, getting government out of the way. Privatization, too, is part of her philosophy. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, is sometimes referred to as having been "the most powerful man" in the U.S. I agree with Matt Taibbi that Rand's fingerprints are all over this financial crisis. In October of 2008, Greenspan even admitted to a "flaw" in his market, or financial ideology -- a flaw in his lifetime of economic thinking, and we the people continue to suffer the consequences.
Let's hope our Congress sufficiently understands this "flaw."
I'm hopeful but not optimistic. It would be so easy for the Democrats to shame at least a few Republicans into voting for strict regulations, consumer safety laws, dismantling "too big to fail" financial institutions, etc. But with only a few exceptions they don't appear prepared to do anything like it.
So what happens then? Another giant bubble comes along, the boys in Wall Street join the merry ride, and when the bubble bursts (after they've made their fortunes) the taxpayer wipes up the slimy street. But of course we don't have the money for important social needs.
That must be quite a photograph.
Sorry -- I searched and searched, and it wasn't Reagan, it was with Gerald Ford, when he appointed Greenspan to his administration. Unfortunately, the link is lengthy, and does not transfer in my response. The photo is posted at the following link:
http://themoderatevoice.com/63721/guest-book-review-ayn-rand-and-the-world-she-made/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themoderatevoice+%28The+Moderate+Voice%29
Great comment, and a good synopsis of Rand's Objectivist legacy. Her short book, The Virtue of Selfishness," reveals all in its title. There's a direct line from Rand to Reagan to Greenspan to Bush to Obama to Blankfein to Geithner and Summers, with Gordon Gekko leading the pack.
Thanks, Ephraim!
One of my close friends from high school is an Objectivist, and she and her husband, sometimes, are invited to attend events and gatherings of the Rand acolytes out in California. I had no idea, though, of her politics and philosophy, until we both attended a high school reunion in about 2003. For years, we had been out of touch. My other close friends from high school are all progressives -- which is interesting because we all grew up in a very religious, very conservative small community in southwest Iowa during the 1960s.
I actually read The Virtue of Selfishness, and a few of her other books as well. For a while, my Objectivist high school friend and I corresponded by e-mail, with some debates on Rand's virtues, but we hit too many bumps in the road along the way -- with me being a progressive.
An insightful comment that nicely complements an insightful article.
Taibbi is so good on this subject that I wish he'd drop his lesser pursuits and pursue this stuff full-time. (Although I appreciate that one might NEED to have other distractions when delving into the kleptocrats' slime-pit.)
Thanks, Kay.
Thanks, Obedient Servant!
I agree that Taibbi is excellent on this subject, but as you commented, "one might NEED to have other distractions when delving into the kleptocrats' slime-pit."
Well said!
"This group of intellectuals is NOT inclusive, but is exclusive." Yes, it seems to be exlusive of intellectuals or non-intellectuals who posess common sense.
Kay,
Thanks for the information. Timothy Leary called these types, "Educated Savages". What could be more appropriate?
"If you want to know when a society is set to vanish, watch the money. Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owner a counterfeit pile of papers." - Ayn Rand
To this quote we owe her some credit. Gold is without a doubt the "ultimate" store of value. Throughout history, it has outlasted all paper currency and fiat money.
For the past several years, Central Banks have buying gold along with China and India; and at its current price of over $1,000. per once. I also read last year that John Paulson had over $4 BILLION in gold holdings.
"Gold and silver are barometers of monetary turmoil and economic distress; and the higher they rise, the more severe and closer the collapse will be." – Darryl Schoon
As another writer pointed out, Alan Greenspan went to work for/with John Paulson when he left the Fed.
Thanks for the Darryl Schoon quote!
Didn't Schoon use Matt Taibbi's phrase about the "vampire squid" in one, or more, of his lectures? Or, am I thinking of the wrong person?
"BTW -- Ayn Rand was married, but carried on an affair with Nathaniel Brandon for years with her husband's approval, or so they say. Nathaniel, too, was married, but he had his wife Barbara's approval, or so they say."
That would be entirely consistent with her philosphy of selfishness.
I made a similar point in conversation recently. I've noticed that many liberal New Age types believe in the doctrine of original sin, as modified to fit the New Age mindset. In their view, whatever problems a person is suffering through are due to his or her being "uncentered", out of balance with the universe, or just plain unenlightened. I find it to be a very self-centered, vain, and uncompassionate point of view masquerading as enlightenment. But then liberalism in general has morphed into a purely self-centered philosophy in the past few decades.
Not being a "New Age" guy, I can actually understand the "uncentered" concept. Nothing really happens by mistake. It is always the product of our perspectives. One thing I notice is the discrepancy between humans in regards to perspectives. There are really smart people out there with big picture window perspectives. Other people like myself have keyhole perspectives. In order to alleviate my own ignorance, I must continually seek out other perspectives so that my keyhole can broaden. I wouldn't dismiss this "uncentered" concept so easily. If all this suffering is the by-product of our "mistakes" and ignorance is the root cause of those "mistakes", we would be wise to consider our own uncenteredness or ignorance in the scheme of things.
Sioux Rose
JOHN: I think it's ultimately about growth, that each soul is responsible for its choices; however, the total quality of society naturally plays into the choices at any soul's disposal, and that is why it behooves us to invest in the best education for our young, and laws that support the BEST in human nature. I have done my best to point out that many laws in America serve the brute interests of the savage inner beast, or what the astrologer would associate with the archetype of Mars. That our society worships its guns, but makes the peace plant the great taboo? That displays of casual sex are everywhere, but mystical truths are cast as the great taboos? And when I point this out, a few have called ME medieval, when what IS medieval is the continuation of these primitive prejudices, and the call to silence/impugn their witness. The understanding of the relationship between cosmic forces and human life on earth is LIBERATING... it is EXACTLY the recipe that transcends one size fits all, and the rationales behind ALL the ism divisions that allow elites to rule because they've used narrow-minded dualistic theologies to get the masses to fight each other for crumbs for endless centuries.
To understand that we all come back (i.e. see Earth as the quintessential time-share vacation plan!) is to want to make the world a better place. In my view, that should serve as the cornerstone of compassion.
Western culture is inordinately influenced by The Bible. It is a schizophrenic text in that its Old Testament is all about punishment, the results of not following rules, the wrath of a punitive deity. This equates quite naturally with the function of Saturn in astrology. He is the lord of time and the cycles allotted to us to fulfill our anointed purposes. He is also the guardian of karma, i.e. consequences.
On the other hand, the New Testament is all about the power of faith, and this idea that: creatively visualizing what you want, praying, thanking God before you see results, writing mantras, stating affirmations will make IT (your desire, the thing one has faith in) happen.
I intend to write a book that will explain how the astrological archetype tie in with political affiliations and the cycles of history.
Tension between liberals (Jupiter) and conservatives (Saturn) keeps the collective mindset stuck on a 2-dimensional court of activity. The dance between polarities goes back and forth endlessly. However...
Beyond these 2 principles we find Uranus, the rebel. This planet is associated with radicals, revolution, and the events that challenge elites and upset the applecart... the proverbial "times, they are a changin." A force to be reckoned with... and it is THIS archetype that relates to the Age that is now in labor, being PAINFULLY born both on etheric planes as well as IN our selves.
Neptune, the principle of compassion, represents Pisces where the circle meets itself to thereby establish cognition of oneness, the inevitable inter-connectedness of all living beings. This is what Christ, the Avatar of Pisces embodied on the earth plane to teach. However, the custodians of his creed, which is to say the dominant patriarchal churches did something else: They made sure the people would never become empowered through love or tolerance, and instead taught division, the hatred of other... that membership into a specific orthodoxy was the ONLY way to be "saved." It began by placing a wedge between the genders, interrupting the natural erotic love song intended to "play" between them... and I am talking about the link between sexuality and sin. POWERFUL stuff... it's still tainting the stew insofar as the conduct of repressed Catholic priests attests.
Pisces, where fish opposes fish, can represent the great dissolution, us against them, irreconcilable opposition, the SPLITTING of matter...
The time has come for humanity to understand these principles and how they operate in the evolution of our collective experience. I sprinkle these ideas into this forum to open the door to this long-hidden, rendered taboo set of expansive teachings. The same elites that slander them today, slandered them for centuries. Why? Because the Truth is empowering... and it would lead to the revolution in consciousness that is part and parcel to the Transition of Ages NOW in progress.
I see your point but I really have to scratch my head over the Calvin connection. First, Calvin didn't believe in "karma," since that's a metaphysical notion associated with Eastern religions, and Calvin was as thoroughly Western as it gets. New Age Democrats who dismiss today's economic "losers" have likely been more influenced by self-help therapy of the Dale Carnegie variety than by Calvin, who most of them have probably never heard of or couldn't tell you anything about.
The attitude you describe, that they believe the poor, hungry, unemployed and homeless "choose" to be so, is synonymous with that of the Tea Pary far right and the Republican Party. If they associate all this with some convenient notion of bad karma, they're just importing that from vulgar New Age thinking so they can sound hip. In any case, they're intellectually lazy and terminally superficial. Calvin was terrible in his own right, but he'd probably gasp at what passes for social analysis among most liberal Democrats today.
I have only the barest familiarity with Calvin, the principle of karma, and New Age doctrines, but that isn't stopping me from rushing in where angels fear to tread.
That is, to those of us who don't REALLY know what we're talking about in the first place, Calvin's concept of "predestination" resembles karma in a dim light.
I apologize if I horrify any Calvin aficionados with this garbled understanding, but didn't Calvin assert that The Creator of the Universe grouped souls into the Elect and the Damned at the point of their birth or creation? And isn't wealth and material prosperity seen as a proof, or sign, that the individual is indeed one of the Elect?
Conversely, isn't the misfortune of "Job" types taken as a sign that The Creator of the Universe has not elected, or favored, the individual?
The very broad common denominator is that both karma and predestination hold that a person's relative success or failure, i.e. prosperity or misfortune, is determined by cosmic or supernatural factors beyond the person's control, and is not merely the effect of self-made or man-made contingencies.
My doubtless distorted view of Calvinism always struck me as hopelessly paradoxical and circular-- a theological Catch-22.
Yes, OS, that's the general idea of Calvinism's predestination concept. Also, include "the work ethic" and enjoying the profits of your work in that Calvinistic view.
Even though Calvinism isn't consciously practiced, its ideas still exist and get adopted. Perhaps, someone could trace the Calvinistic thought that persists in specific U.S. Christian sects today - that would be a nice research project. Jill's original point that Calvinism has an influence among the Goldman-Sachs folks who think they do "God's work" is a good one.
The ideas persist, even though the authors of the ideas have long since faded. Even bad ideas recur through time. It's a measure of our general ignorance and decline as a civilization when the bad ideas hold sway, and indeed they do so now with a vengeance.
-TIA
I am not Buddhist but I think your idea that Karma is fate is somewhat distorted. At the core of my understanding of Karma is the concept of good cause, good effect, bad cause, bad effect. Perhaps this is some bastardized westernized view of Buddhism?
"All that we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts." - Dhammapada Buddhist scripture
Sioux Rose
O.S. Karma takes into account the idea that the SOUL or MIND is a continuum, and therefore your status in this lifetime may appear to be the work of chance, but it ultimately reflects WHERE you left off in terms of past acts, beliefs, and strong emotions... which are considered ENERGY on spiritual planes.
When the typically mundane philosopher speaks of the "accident of birth," professionals in my field laugh. The skilled astrologer sees evidence of the intended lessons the soul returns to learn. These are imprinted throughout the chart. There is nothing accidental or capricious about it.
A few goons on CD have tried to equate astrology with the sun-sign horoscope read in generic periodicals. Far from. The reading of the chart is like solving a complex set of mathematical equations, and/or writing the scores for a number of musical instruments whose notes most coalesce to form the entity of the music.
I remember when the Dali Lama was interviewed on "Larry King" the night that a for-profit genetic corp finally managed to map DNA. Materialism characterized the group of scientists in their presumption that they'd find the DNA molecule coded, like a street map, with specific destinations for each behavior or disease. Instead, it was discovered that the molecule works as a living entity with portions of itself communicating with other portions to facilitate specific functions. The astrological chart works that way. One can analyze each factor in terms of itself, yet no language equivalent EXISTS to speak of all the interactions that simultaneously occur to make the entity who/what s/he is.
EVERY great truth has been distorted in the land of the "free" via its publishing/media venues to serve Mammon and Mars over the past 30 years. Truth has been woven with falsehoods the way nature's genuine articles have been melded with bio-genetic faux equivalents. Alas, only those who recognize the Truth are positioned to separate the wheat from the chaff in these and related contexts.
To judge by the limited context of a short human lifespan assisted by a set of senses that have been TRAINED to conform (perceptually) to specific metrics, is to miss a great deal.
That's a very good point, about the self-blame being spread out across the American spectrum from fundamentalist Calvinists to Leftist New-Agers. I've noticed that you have some remarkably perceptive, crucial insights. Wish you would post more.
Self-blame is buried very, very deep in the collective American psyche. There's such a thing as personal responsibility for one's actions. It's another thing to stretch that concept so far that it involves intensive mental gymnastics to prove to ourselves that all of our misfortunes are the results of our own actions, even if they're perpetrated on us by criminal organizations disguised as Corporations & mainstream political parties. It's a form of personal surrender. Lets us off the hook from fighting back, which is difficult & dangerous, & requires some actual courage.
There's a good reason that the Corporations have latched onto the American Right, with its purported espousal of the value of individual responsibility. A nobel concept certainly, but it's been twisted, to the point that laying any blame at the foot of someone else becomes 'victim mentality.' Individual responsibility is a good American value that's been used against us _ something Ayn Rand herself warned of.
I don't like her, either, but please _ let's just keep ~all~ books away from fire.
Sioux Rose
JILL: I agree with the scathing analogy you presented. Here's my take on it. The books that were published PRIOR to l980 were TRULY spiritual, and I'm glad to say that I got my spiritual education before "The Great Adulteration" began. I noticed, as a budding writer, that when I'd bring finished works or concepts to agents, and occasionally to publishers, they'd tell me that my ideas were not commercial enough. They wanted things like "The 7 Steps to Success," or "How to find love (= get laid) through Astrology," or things of that nature. EVERY spiritual ideal was placed at the altar of mammon so that the inviolate truths were only seen as viable if they served some immediate tangible goal or related gain. Much of this species of content was geared to the burgeoning "self help" literature/movement.
My massage therapist is a few years older than me and very well-read. We discussed our shared sense that the very nature of what got published took on, as you put it, a Calvinistic tone. Because we "came of age" prior to this phase, we could see where instead of "seek ye first the kingdom of God/dess and all else will be added unto you," the axiom was essentially reversed. I believe something similar has been at work insofar as "God made man in his image and likeness." Actually, human male beings made God in his.
In my view, the absolute acme of these trends took place when Oprah had the authors of "The Secret" on her show. Daily I see evidence of nature experiencing paroxysms of overkill, and here came a bastardization of the Ancient Teachings, made palatable for an audience of millions who lust to HAVE IT ALL. In other words, when the Great Mother Earth is unquestionably exhausted, cognitive tools are passed out that would put yet more strain on her capacity to manifest all those greed-driven desires.
I could go on at length on this topic, but I think you get my point.
Calvinism seems to be very similar to the caste system in India, or Hinduism.
"... the govt. is the Washington branch of GS"
U.S. domestic and foreign policies make perfect sense if you think of the White House as Wall Street's servants' quarters, and the Pentagon as Wall Street's military branch.
Goldman Sachs Has Already Proved That Their God Is Greed
It is a pity that in a country such as ours, where there is more than enough for everyone to live a decent life, we have groups that insist the only way is to let everything and everybody find their own level. The idea that government is always the problem is nothing more than selfish greed and is certainly not consistent with a "Christian Nation under God" theory. Neither pure socialism or pure capitalism will work which is why our nation did quite well for many years with a mixture which keeps most people working to get ahead but limits excessive greed by some degree of regulation and taxation. If the small section of our society that are attempting to grab far more than they need would only realize they are wrecking their own country it might change their attitude. To compare our situation now with the early settlers of America (as the tea party crowd does)is not relevant as that was an agricultural society that needed far less oversight than our present system.
And that's all Wall Street is all about. Greed. They have created this labyrinthian maze of "securitized investment vehicles," "collateralized debt obligations," and "credit default swaps" which have absolutely no connection with any tangible productive reality other than gaming money into personal fortunes. That is all they care about. Playing the game and getting rich as quickly as possible, before the latest bubble bursts. Just glance at the lexicon of Wall Street jargon to enter into their shadow world. It's all gibberish.
how about the fed's role in the scam called the usa economy....
the fed "loans" money to banks that need to increase reserves at 0.25% and then the fed "pays" the banks 5% interest for holding their "reserves" in the fed's coffers....
and jamie dimon recently said we have to accept "bubbles and bursts" every 5-7 years or so....
how about goldmans use of "front-trading"? how is that not insider trading?
these people will not be happy until they OWN EVERYTHING!
and no use insulting squids - the term VAMPIRE all by itself is plenty descriptive.....
Or how about exxon-mobile and GE not paying any corporate taxes for last year.....with RECORD INCOME.....
it's the end of the nation-state - with tech and easy private travel these people no longer see themselves as Americans or whatever....
They are above the nation-state - but still insist on controlling those that do run the state to protect their manipulations and codify their criminal activities....
so these vampires also in a sense "short-sell" the government into complete corruption....
And where's ONE WORD on the comcast-nbc merger? How is that NOT beaking the sherman anti-trust laws?
insanity and a country run by sociopaths....
Why do we keep calling them 'Conservatives'? The connotations are far too kindly and don't reflect who they are.
Do these crooks venture out in public? Wanted posters of their ugly mugs should be placed on the internet and on lamp posts. I'm not advocating violence against these creeps, just public shaming everywhere they go. On second thought.....
"Rand believed government had virtually no natural role in society. She conceded that police were necessary, but was such a fervent believer in laissez-faire capitalism she refused to accept any need for economic regulation - which is a fancy way of saying we only need law enforcement for unsophisticated criminals."
'zactly! And the tea baggers believe this to be true. And the MSM "crams it down our throat".
RichM: I've enjoyed your posts for a long time. Your insights might be broadened by reading Charles Eisenstein's Ascent of Humanity, which is available for free online. Eisenstein explains our situation in terms of a VERY large context: the separation of the human self from nature and community through agriculture, technology, competition, and money. All necessary steps humanity has had to pass through, but all leading us to a nasty set of converging crises ("Ascent" is used ironically) It clearly time for reevaluations and reconnections of all kinds. Goldman-Sachs is only the most visible boil on the rotting body of capitalism. The answer lies in each of us.
That's a fair criticism of this essay, RichM, when talking about the systemic causes. However, I'd say that Taibbi is focusing more on the general sociology and the pathology here, rather than tracing the ills back to the economic system. And that's a topic of merit, too.
At some point, people have to believe it is OK to screw their fellow man, even kill them, to keep a system running that drives wealth into the hands of the few. Rand is maybe not such a big influence, I think, because she's just a hack writer with a stunted vision. (Taibbi's observation that people advocate her views without reading them is probably correct.) The tea partiers are just ignorant people organized by the Republican Party for a purpose, and will soon disappear.
I tend to think that U.S. Christianity may be the big problem. It offers cheap psychological advice, telling you to roll with the punches, without pointing to the origins of the blows. How can people organize against the system with such a philosophy?
-TIA
I agree. And if Taibbi were skewering capitalism instead of Goldman Sachs, he wouldn't have a job at Rolling Stone.
I have a couple of problems with your critique. When I criticize articles, I usually do so from a standpoint of what is actually in the article. Engaging in criticism based on what isn't in an article is usually a bad sign. There are finite space considerations and all angles can not be presented. I didn't see the framing that you claim is there. Furthermore, I read an article a few weeks ago by the same author that took a more broad brush stroke that you find lacking in this article. Perhaps you should search the archive and realize your allegations of weakness are unfounded. The article's major thrust were specifically about Goldman Sachs and Randian philosophy. I find the scope sufficiently broad.
Secondly, you reel off a series of events over the last 30 years that cause any number of Americans serious concern. Via 1,2,3 induction, you arrive at some pretty nasty conclusions. We didn't rise up in anger over any one single issue, ergo we are doomed for failure. These are learning moments for many Americans and the culmination of these lessons might find your approval. While it is certainly possible that we might continue to wallow in our turd pile and spiral into the abyss, I would like to point out that other alternatives do exist. Hopefully there is a brick, bottle or barricade in your future.
But Rich, don't you think all these mundane, petty considerations (war, peace. torture, spying,etc.) pale in the face of having a "historic" Pres? That's what his followers seem to "think".
Our Randian mess was embodied in Reagan. It's been an ethical downhill slide ever since. I have hope that the emerging debate will change the course of America. Of course we will always have greed, but the celebration of wealth, the celebration of self-interest in many Christian churches, the increasingly (or so it seems) dissociative personality disorders must change if we are to have any hope of a decent future for humanity. It seems simply amazing to me that the word 'liberal' has been saddled with negative connotations for many years. The democrats seem somewhat more interested in making a start at something better. It's the best hope we have and we can make them do a little better and a little better if we so choose. Otherwise we can wait for some pie in the sky independants to lead.
Again Taibbi shows why he's one of the greats - a cross between Howard Zinn and Hunter S. Thompson.
About the only thing unsaid in this piece is we're returning to the mid-1800's, en route to the Middle Ages, in the name of the future. The biggest scam in objectivism and the last 30 years of American politics is convincing average people they can run the same scams as the super-rich, getting something for nothing (pardon my Peart pun). This isn't going to end well.
Who is John Galt's mommy? http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/
RE:"Who is John Galt's mommy?" - Mason C
ALSO SEE:"Ayn Rand, Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer", By Mark Ames, alternet.org, 02/26/10
Today her works treated as gospel by right-wing powerhouses like Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas, but Ayn Rand found early inspiration in 1920's murderer William Hickman.
LINK TO ARTICLE -
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspir
ation_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer_
I agree that Taibbi has great ability, Mason C.
I think your "blurb" should be substituted for the current one appended to the article:
"As Rolling Stone’s chief political reporter, Matt Taibbi's predecessors include the likes of journalistic giants Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O'Rourke."
P.J. O'Rourke is a "journalistic giant" exactly as Dennis Miller is a "comedic giant". If some O'Rourke fan really wants to leave his name up, they could just drop the plural from "giants" and have done with it.
There seems to be general agreement among Posters on this issue. Greed is a corrupting force in the fabric of individual relationships, communities and Nations. Corruption diminishes human potential.
The issue of greed in our government is fundamental to our liberty and worthy of Massive Civil Protest. I propose a 2 million person march on Washington. Such a protest would create the venue for debate and focus on the issue.
Matt failed to mention that after leaving the Fed, Greenspan went to work for none other than... John Paulson.
Yes, he did -- here's the photograph:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/01/john_paulson_aquires_an_alan_g.html
OFF TOPIC (nothing environmental today)
LTE Pascal's Wager like environmental crisis.
“Pascal’s wager” goes, simply, like this: If you believe in God and God doesn’t exist, you’re fine. If you believe in God and God does exist, you’re fine. If you don’t believe in God and God doesn’t exist, you’re fine.
There’s only one potentially bad choice, if you don’t believe in God and God does exist.
Regardless of one’s opinion about climate change, there’s only one, destructive, wrong choice: If climate change is real, man-made, we don’t believe it and do nothing about it.
Concerning our only habitable planet, can’t we agree it’s worth saving?
SCOTT TYNER
Hattiesburg
http://www.sunherald.com/2010/04/22/2122932_p2/april-23-letters-to-the-editor.html
This is an interesting post. There was an excerpt earlier in the week by some Green person basically stating that we can't do anything about global warming and we all need to consider life without electricity. A somewhat dogmatic concept founded in belief. There is no small amount of irony that you pull the pants down on this dogma. Why do I have to believe in anything? I should suspend my rational observations and take up your mantle. No thanks. I can see the environmental destruction first hand and I don't need to play projection games on global warming to understand that we need to take better care of our environment. In your wager, I need to believe in order to win the bet? You can look at human history and realize that much damage and destruction was done by people who took up the "God exists" end of the wager. I'll take my chances with not believing in either your God or your global warming. Proposing that belief is the safe choice is actually the most dangerous. You should carefully reconsider your ideas.