To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In Washington, the Obama economic
team has sprung a leak. First, Budget Director Peter Orszag, the calculating
numbers savant, bailed. And now, "distinguished" economist Christina
Romer, the only woman in that inner circle boys club has quit too. (Would
you want to be around Larry Summers all day long?)
In Washington, the Obama economic
team has sprung a leak. First, Budget Director Peter Orszag, the calculating
numbers savant, bailed. And now, "distinguished" economist Christina
Romer, the only woman in that inner circle boys club has quit too. (Would
you want to be around Larry Summers all day long?)
Why this crew of losers wasn't
fired eludes me despite their claims of having prevented a worse collapse.
No doubt, they know more than they are saying, and, perhaps, now that
they are no longer selling, they may be willing to do some telling on
just how bad it is and what went wrong.
Who's next? Could Ben
Bernanke be leaving the Fed for Fed-Ex?
Economist Max Wolfe has none
of the political restraints of power. At the news of another 131, 000
jobs gone, at all the talk of permanent unemployment as the "new normal,"
he sighed with a tinge of optimism:
"We have been in the present
labor market swoon since December 2007. We are 30 months into the process.
Nearly everything is not getting worse fast. Most economic indicators
have seen slow, uneven progress. We are a weary nation and hope,
is running low. All lethality is dosage and we have received a massive
dosage- an overdose- of bad economic news since the winter of 2007.
Things are getting ever so slightly less bad in the aggregate."The sheriffs of this rough
economic neighborhood are running low and out of ammunition. The populace
is fed up. Our Sheriffs are The Treasury and The Fed and they have spent,
cut taxes, slashed rates, bought securities and ballooned their balance
sheets. They have made the bad less worse, but not appreciable better
enough for many. All that economic toxin still pumps the blood of this
economy. Now, the state is having a contractionary
direct impact on employment."
"Contractionary"? I am
a first-time contractionary word user so I will leave it to Stephen
Colbert to take that term apart, but it can't be a good thing.
The bigger surprise is being
buried. The more serious problem is more systemic and rooted in the
structure of our economy. These structural problems used to be referenced
to show how deep the rot goes and why more fundamental reforms are needed,
but now, as Paul Krugman has argued, this very idea is now being used
to encourage acceptance of the problems because they are beyond repair,
as in, "we can't change that because it is, so, um, 'structural'!")
Thus, the existing power relations can't be questioned because they
are the existing power relations
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Part of the problem is that
while the livelihoods of workers and homeowners are sinking, the economic
and political elite is doing just fine, as the Automatic Earth Website
explains:
"Perhaps
what we witness is an ongoing and deepening chasm that divides the world
of finance and politics on the one hand and the world of everyday people
on the other, as Rasmussen Reports indicates: 67% of Political
Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees. This chasm was greatly
facilitated by governments relying on policies based on the notion that
too-big-to-fail -financial- institutions needed to be bailed out at
any cost. Later in the year, as a direct consequence of these policies,
we will see another round of insane banker and trader bonuses, just
as citizens' sentiments and incomes fall, and unemployment and poverty
keep rising."
When you
create and enable a casino economy, the public becomes a player too,
taking risks they shouldn't at the behest of bankers and finance companies
who assure them all is fine.
Last week,
Countrywide, the country's mortgage fraud factory, reached a settlement
with the SEC for more than Goldman Sachs settled its last complaint
for a whopping $600 million. Their shark-in-chief, Anthony Mozillo,
still facing a criminal investigation, later said he was pleased when
the federal regulators admitted that the investors were not defrauded,
because they knew what kind of projects they were funding. How reassuring!
So the circle
of complicity widens. We now learn that the companies and individuals
that invested in the subprime/subcrime mortgages KNEW people were being
ripped off but did it anyway because there was so much money to be made.
And because
security laws only protect investors, who were defrauded, many have
no case. What about the borrowers, the homeowners now facing foreclosure?
They are apparently not worthy of protection. This is comparable to
the Madoff investors who profited in his illegal scheme and knew his
returns were too good to be true but shoveled money to him anyway.
They became partners in the ponzi, not just "victims" trying to
be made whole.
Is anything
changing? The banks say they will not change the way they finance
mortgages so it is still buyer beware. The Wall Street Journal reports
another instant crash of the markets is possible. And General Motors
that was down and on the way out is back thanks to the government's
largesse but sniping at its rescuers, insisting an end to government
ownership would be good for their image and "employee morale." Huh?
"We want
the government out period," blusters GM's ungrateful CEO Edward
E. Whitacre Jr. This same company recently spent $3.5 billion buying
a new subprime lending company to replace GMAC, the GM lender whose
bad loans sunk GM. On top of that, these geniuses just produced The
Volt electric car that sells for $40,000, hardly a brilliant move in
this economy. Of course they blame all their problems on the government,
never themselves.
Like so many
others, they seem to be banging on Obama, everyone's target of choice.
If that's your inclination, let's blame him also for what he has
not done.
He hasn't
led a consistent push back against Wall Street, perhaps because he hopes
in vain that big business will create private sector jobs and wants
to show naysayers how pro-business he really is. This has turned him
into an inversion of FDR.
As Ezra Klein
of the Washington Post observed: "The reality is that America's
supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business
recovery.
Businesses
are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash reserves. Business spending
jumped 20 percent last quarter, and is up by 13 percent against 2009.
The Obama administration has dropped taxes for small businesses and
big ones alike."
So much
for that canard.
Is there anything
to be done? There is no shortage of proposals for jobs programs
and taxes on transactions, for tougher rules on derivatives, and imposed
compensation limits. In most cases the US, with pressure from
Wall Street and its political allies, has opted for easily maneuvered
around and malleable regulations.
One small reform
has been proposed by the much-maligned Ralph Nader for those of us who
live in the appropriately named "Empire State," one that currently
shelters a Wall Street where hedge fund managers make billions.
Nader notes, "Low-moderate and middle-income New
Yorkers already pay a higher percentage of family income in state and
local taxes than do the richest one percent of New Yorkers!
"Surprisingly, there is a simple
way to eliminate the state deficit and prevent tens of thousands of
layoffs and large service cutbacks.
What most New Yorkers do not
know is that for about a century there has been a state stock transfer
tax on purchases of securities. This year, this tax, similar to ones
imposed in 30 other countries, will amount to about $16 billion. Amazingly,
since 1979, this tax has been instantly rebated by New York State back
to the brokers or clearinghouses who paid it. A 100% rebate every year
for the bailed out industry that caused the recession and its immense
human damage."
Putting a stop this sleazy
practice could be as important in phasing out the Bush tax cuts but
so far it's not on anyone's agenda, Dems, Repugs or Media.
Maybe because they think of
it as "structural."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
In Washington, the Obama economic
team has sprung a leak. First, Budget Director Peter Orszag, the calculating
numbers savant, bailed. And now, "distinguished" economist Christina
Romer, the only woman in that inner circle boys club has quit too. (Would
you want to be around Larry Summers all day long?)
Why this crew of losers wasn't
fired eludes me despite their claims of having prevented a worse collapse.
No doubt, they know more than they are saying, and, perhaps, now that
they are no longer selling, they may be willing to do some telling on
just how bad it is and what went wrong.
Who's next? Could Ben
Bernanke be leaving the Fed for Fed-Ex?
Economist Max Wolfe has none
of the political restraints of power. At the news of another 131, 000
jobs gone, at all the talk of permanent unemployment as the "new normal,"
he sighed with a tinge of optimism:
"We have been in the present
labor market swoon since December 2007. We are 30 months into the process.
Nearly everything is not getting worse fast. Most economic indicators
have seen slow, uneven progress. We are a weary nation and hope,
is running low. All lethality is dosage and we have received a massive
dosage- an overdose- of bad economic news since the winter of 2007.
Things are getting ever so slightly less bad in the aggregate."The sheriffs of this rough
economic neighborhood are running low and out of ammunition. The populace
is fed up. Our Sheriffs are The Treasury and The Fed and they have spent,
cut taxes, slashed rates, bought securities and ballooned their balance
sheets. They have made the bad less worse, but not appreciable better
enough for many. All that economic toxin still pumps the blood of this
economy. Now, the state is having a contractionary
direct impact on employment."
"Contractionary"? I am
a first-time contractionary word user so I will leave it to Stephen
Colbert to take that term apart, but it can't be a good thing.
The bigger surprise is being
buried. The more serious problem is more systemic and rooted in the
structure of our economy. These structural problems used to be referenced
to show how deep the rot goes and why more fundamental reforms are needed,
but now, as Paul Krugman has argued, this very idea is now being used
to encourage acceptance of the problems because they are beyond repair,
as in, "we can't change that because it is, so, um, 'structural'!")
Thus, the existing power relations can't be questioned because they
are the existing power relations
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Part of the problem is that
while the livelihoods of workers and homeowners are sinking, the economic
and political elite is doing just fine, as the Automatic Earth Website
explains:
"Perhaps
what we witness is an ongoing and deepening chasm that divides the world
of finance and politics on the one hand and the world of everyday people
on the other, as Rasmussen Reports indicates: 67% of Political
Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees. This chasm was greatly
facilitated by governments relying on policies based on the notion that
too-big-to-fail -financial- institutions needed to be bailed out at
any cost. Later in the year, as a direct consequence of these policies,
we will see another round of insane banker and trader bonuses, just
as citizens' sentiments and incomes fall, and unemployment and poverty
keep rising."
When you
create and enable a casino economy, the public becomes a player too,
taking risks they shouldn't at the behest of bankers and finance companies
who assure them all is fine.
Last week,
Countrywide, the country's mortgage fraud factory, reached a settlement
with the SEC for more than Goldman Sachs settled its last complaint
for a whopping $600 million. Their shark-in-chief, Anthony Mozillo,
still facing a criminal investigation, later said he was pleased when
the federal regulators admitted that the investors were not defrauded,
because they knew what kind of projects they were funding. How reassuring!
So the circle
of complicity widens. We now learn that the companies and individuals
that invested in the subprime/subcrime mortgages KNEW people were being
ripped off but did it anyway because there was so much money to be made.
And because
security laws only protect investors, who were defrauded, many have
no case. What about the borrowers, the homeowners now facing foreclosure?
They are apparently not worthy of protection. This is comparable to
the Madoff investors who profited in his illegal scheme and knew his
returns were too good to be true but shoveled money to him anyway.
They became partners in the ponzi, not just "victims" trying to
be made whole.
Is anything
changing? The banks say they will not change the way they finance
mortgages so it is still buyer beware. The Wall Street Journal reports
another instant crash of the markets is possible. And General Motors
that was down and on the way out is back thanks to the government's
largesse but sniping at its rescuers, insisting an end to government
ownership would be good for their image and "employee morale." Huh?
"We want
the government out period," blusters GM's ungrateful CEO Edward
E. Whitacre Jr. This same company recently spent $3.5 billion buying
a new subprime lending company to replace GMAC, the GM lender whose
bad loans sunk GM. On top of that, these geniuses just produced The
Volt electric car that sells for $40,000, hardly a brilliant move in
this economy. Of course they blame all their problems on the government,
never themselves.
Like so many
others, they seem to be banging on Obama, everyone's target of choice.
If that's your inclination, let's blame him also for what he has
not done.
He hasn't
led a consistent push back against Wall Street, perhaps because he hopes
in vain that big business will create private sector jobs and wants
to show naysayers how pro-business he really is. This has turned him
into an inversion of FDR.
As Ezra Klein
of the Washington Post observed: "The reality is that America's
supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business
recovery.
Businesses
are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash reserves. Business spending
jumped 20 percent last quarter, and is up by 13 percent against 2009.
The Obama administration has dropped taxes for small businesses and
big ones alike."
So much
for that canard.
Is there anything
to be done? There is no shortage of proposals for jobs programs
and taxes on transactions, for tougher rules on derivatives, and imposed
compensation limits. In most cases the US, with pressure from
Wall Street and its political allies, has opted for easily maneuvered
around and malleable regulations.
One small reform
has been proposed by the much-maligned Ralph Nader for those of us who
live in the appropriately named "Empire State," one that currently
shelters a Wall Street where hedge fund managers make billions.
Nader notes, "Low-moderate and middle-income New
Yorkers already pay a higher percentage of family income in state and
local taxes than do the richest one percent of New Yorkers!
"Surprisingly, there is a simple
way to eliminate the state deficit and prevent tens of thousands of
layoffs and large service cutbacks.
What most New Yorkers do not
know is that for about a century there has been a state stock transfer
tax on purchases of securities. This year, this tax, similar to ones
imposed in 30 other countries, will amount to about $16 billion. Amazingly,
since 1979, this tax has been instantly rebated by New York State back
to the brokers or clearinghouses who paid it. A 100% rebate every year
for the bailed out industry that caused the recession and its immense
human damage."
Putting a stop this sleazy
practice could be as important in phasing out the Bush tax cuts but
so far it's not on anyone's agenda, Dems, Repugs or Media.
Maybe because they think of
it as "structural."
In Washington, the Obama economic
team has sprung a leak. First, Budget Director Peter Orszag, the calculating
numbers savant, bailed. And now, "distinguished" economist Christina
Romer, the only woman in that inner circle boys club has quit too. (Would
you want to be around Larry Summers all day long?)
Why this crew of losers wasn't
fired eludes me despite their claims of having prevented a worse collapse.
No doubt, they know more than they are saying, and, perhaps, now that
they are no longer selling, they may be willing to do some telling on
just how bad it is and what went wrong.
Who's next? Could Ben
Bernanke be leaving the Fed for Fed-Ex?
Economist Max Wolfe has none
of the political restraints of power. At the news of another 131, 000
jobs gone, at all the talk of permanent unemployment as the "new normal,"
he sighed with a tinge of optimism:
"We have been in the present
labor market swoon since December 2007. We are 30 months into the process.
Nearly everything is not getting worse fast. Most economic indicators
have seen slow, uneven progress. We are a weary nation and hope,
is running low. All lethality is dosage and we have received a massive
dosage- an overdose- of bad economic news since the winter of 2007.
Things are getting ever so slightly less bad in the aggregate."The sheriffs of this rough
economic neighborhood are running low and out of ammunition. The populace
is fed up. Our Sheriffs are The Treasury and The Fed and they have spent,
cut taxes, slashed rates, bought securities and ballooned their balance
sheets. They have made the bad less worse, but not appreciable better
enough for many. All that economic toxin still pumps the blood of this
economy. Now, the state is having a contractionary
direct impact on employment."
"Contractionary"? I am
a first-time contractionary word user so I will leave it to Stephen
Colbert to take that term apart, but it can't be a good thing.
The bigger surprise is being
buried. The more serious problem is more systemic and rooted in the
structure of our economy. These structural problems used to be referenced
to show how deep the rot goes and why more fundamental reforms are needed,
but now, as Paul Krugman has argued, this very idea is now being used
to encourage acceptance of the problems because they are beyond repair,
as in, "we can't change that because it is, so, um, 'structural'!")
Thus, the existing power relations can't be questioned because they
are the existing power relations
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Part of the problem is that
while the livelihoods of workers and homeowners are sinking, the economic
and political elite is doing just fine, as the Automatic Earth Website
explains:
"Perhaps
what we witness is an ongoing and deepening chasm that divides the world
of finance and politics on the one hand and the world of everyday people
on the other, as Rasmussen Reports indicates: 67% of Political
Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees. This chasm was greatly
facilitated by governments relying on policies based on the notion that
too-big-to-fail -financial- institutions needed to be bailed out at
any cost. Later in the year, as a direct consequence of these policies,
we will see another round of insane banker and trader bonuses, just
as citizens' sentiments and incomes fall, and unemployment and poverty
keep rising."
When you
create and enable a casino economy, the public becomes a player too,
taking risks they shouldn't at the behest of bankers and finance companies
who assure them all is fine.
Last week,
Countrywide, the country's mortgage fraud factory, reached a settlement
with the SEC for more than Goldman Sachs settled its last complaint
for a whopping $600 million. Their shark-in-chief, Anthony Mozillo,
still facing a criminal investigation, later said he was pleased when
the federal regulators admitted that the investors were not defrauded,
because they knew what kind of projects they were funding. How reassuring!
So the circle
of complicity widens. We now learn that the companies and individuals
that invested in the subprime/subcrime mortgages KNEW people were being
ripped off but did it anyway because there was so much money to be made.
And because
security laws only protect investors, who were defrauded, many have
no case. What about the borrowers, the homeowners now facing foreclosure?
They are apparently not worthy of protection. This is comparable to
the Madoff investors who profited in his illegal scheme and knew his
returns were too good to be true but shoveled money to him anyway.
They became partners in the ponzi, not just "victims" trying to
be made whole.
Is anything
changing? The banks say they will not change the way they finance
mortgages so it is still buyer beware. The Wall Street Journal reports
another instant crash of the markets is possible. And General Motors
that was down and on the way out is back thanks to the government's
largesse but sniping at its rescuers, insisting an end to government
ownership would be good for their image and "employee morale." Huh?
"We want
the government out period," blusters GM's ungrateful CEO Edward
E. Whitacre Jr. This same company recently spent $3.5 billion buying
a new subprime lending company to replace GMAC, the GM lender whose
bad loans sunk GM. On top of that, these geniuses just produced The
Volt electric car that sells for $40,000, hardly a brilliant move in
this economy. Of course they blame all their problems on the government,
never themselves.
Like so many
others, they seem to be banging on Obama, everyone's target of choice.
If that's your inclination, let's blame him also for what he has
not done.
He hasn't
led a consistent push back against Wall Street, perhaps because he hopes
in vain that big business will create private sector jobs and wants
to show naysayers how pro-business he really is. This has turned him
into an inversion of FDR.
As Ezra Klein
of the Washington Post observed: "The reality is that America's
supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business
recovery.
Businesses
are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash reserves. Business spending
jumped 20 percent last quarter, and is up by 13 percent against 2009.
The Obama administration has dropped taxes for small businesses and
big ones alike."
So much
for that canard.
Is there anything
to be done? There is no shortage of proposals for jobs programs
and taxes on transactions, for tougher rules on derivatives, and imposed
compensation limits. In most cases the US, with pressure from
Wall Street and its political allies, has opted for easily maneuvered
around and malleable regulations.
One small reform
has been proposed by the much-maligned Ralph Nader for those of us who
live in the appropriately named "Empire State," one that currently
shelters a Wall Street where hedge fund managers make billions.
Nader notes, "Low-moderate and middle-income New
Yorkers already pay a higher percentage of family income in state and
local taxes than do the richest one percent of New Yorkers!
"Surprisingly, there is a simple
way to eliminate the state deficit and prevent tens of thousands of
layoffs and large service cutbacks.
What most New Yorkers do not
know is that for about a century there has been a state stock transfer
tax on purchases of securities. This year, this tax, similar to ones
imposed in 30 other countries, will amount to about $16 billion. Amazingly,
since 1979, this tax has been instantly rebated by New York State back
to the brokers or clearinghouses who paid it. A 100% rebate every year
for the bailed out industry that caused the recession and its immense
human damage."
Putting a stop this sleazy
practice could be as important in phasing out the Bush tax cuts but
so far it's not on anyone's agenda, Dems, Repugs or Media.
Maybe because they think of
it as "structural."