or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The economy - oops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The economy - oops - Page 51

post #2501 of 2963

Oh man, that's gonna be so good. Though, I'm only gonna be able to watch that in intermittent pieces. I put my fist through a number of TVs just trying to get through Inside Job and The Smartest Guys In The Room.

post #2502 of 2963

Have you seen Capitalism: A Love Story?  Criminally underseen but puts human faces on a lot of aspects of the horror that haven't been covered elsewhere. 

post #2503 of 2963

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

Oh man, that's gonna be so good. Though, I'm only gonna be able to watch that in intermittent pieces. I put my fist through a number of TVs just trying to get through Inside Job and The Smartest Guys In The Room.

 

jeebus, just the first hour alone is so dense with interviews and info about the Wall Street crisis....and the actual crisis itself hasn't really hit yet.

 

It's like this is the mondo, super-extendo, version of "Inside Job". If this was the LotR trilogy, they would have only just left the shire.

 

My 'favorite' part so far was when one of the women being interviewed was asked why the banks kept doing risky transactions when they really knew there was something wrong...she kept 'hemming and hawing' over the answer to only finely admit that it was pretty much greed that motivated them. ( I think I yelled "greed" at the TV at least 3 times before she finally came out and said it )  

post #2504 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Have you seen Capitalism: A Love Story?  Criminally underseen but puts human faces on a lot of aspects of the horror that haven't been covered elsewhere. 

 

Seen it. Own it. I'm still trying to figure out why people hate Michael Moore so much. The guy humorously points out the tentacles of Corporate Fascism that's got this country in it's grip.

post #2505 of 2963

this is from the transcript of the 2nd episode..... biggrin.gif

 

gods, how I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for this meeting.

Quote:

 

NARRATOR: On September 25th, a hastily called meeting at the White House. Paulson arrived first. Within 20 minutes, Barack Obama, John McCain and prominent members of the House and Senate.

 

Rep. BARNEY FRANK: We go there to the White House. There is a division, with everybody on one side, House and Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and Treasury.

 

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: We’re in a serious economic crisis in the country if we don’t pass a piece of legislation.

 

PETER BAKER, _The New York Times_: They sit around the Cabinet Room table, and President Bush says, “If we don’t get the money flowing, if we don’t get the credit flowing, this sucker could go down,” meaning the economy as a whole. And then he opens it up.

 

RON SUSKIND, Author, Confidence Men: McCain walks into the meeting with, like, a cue card with a couple things scribbled on it. Obama doesn’t even wait for McCain to start. He just moves right in.

 

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, Obama Economic Adviser, 2008: Senator Obama has been talking to Paulson, has been talking to Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and Larry Summers, and you know, a host of other economic advisers.

 

DAVID WESSEL, The Wall Street Journal: Obama is prepared and he talks about what needs to happen, and “We’ll pull together,” and he’s been— he doesn’t want to take over in a country which is in depression, so he’s extremely supportive of this whole emergency bailout thing.

 

Rep. NANCY PELOSI: Senator Obama said, “Well, I’d really like to hear from Senator McCain because he’s the person who called for this meeting.”

 

RON SUSKIND: McCain is fumbling with his cue cards. He doesn’t even barely get started. Obama kind of patronizes him, saying, “I think Senator McCain has something to say.” McCain just melts on the spot.

 

MATT LATIMER: Obama took charge, had authority. John McCain had no plan, no strategy. I don’t think he understood what was happening, or didn’t have a plan for what he wanted to accomplish.

 

JONATHAN ALTER: President Bush whispered to Nancy Pelosi, who was sitting next to him, when McCain was talking, he said, “You guys are going to miss me.” And she kind of laughed.

 

PETER BAKER: The meeting ends up breaking into— into a cacophony of shouting and— and screaming back and forth. And Bush stands up and says, “Well, I’ve clearly lost control of this meeting,” and he walks out.

 

JONATHAN ALTER: And another Republican at the table joked to the person sitting next to him, “After this, even we’re going to vote for Obama.” That was the level of Obama’s dominance in this meeting.

 

MATT LATIMER: It becomes a turning point because McCain started this. He suspended his campaign. Obama did not suspend his campaign. McCain promised some sort of dramatic action. He sent mixed signals and did not seem to have the authority that a commander-in-chief should have. And I don’t think he ever really quite recovered from that.

 


 

post #2506 of 2963

This one is required viewing too: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

 

Saw it when it premiered, and it still scares me.

post #2507 of 2963

Oh and:

Quote:
JONATHAN ALTER: President Bush whispered to Nancy Pelosi, who was sitting next to him, when McCain was talking, he said, “You guys are going to miss me.” And she kind of laughed.

PETER BAKER: The meeting ends up breaking into— into a cacophony of shouting and— and screaming back and forth. And Bush stands up and says, “Well, I’ve clearly lost control of this meeting,” and he walks out.

 

Dubya was such a jackass.

post #2508 of 2963

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Oh and:

 

Dubya was such a jackass.

 

that's an insult to Jackasses.

:)

 

that being said, even if Bush were brought to trial for war crimes/political malfeasance, he would never get convicted due to a plea of 'diminished capacity'. Now Cheney on the other hand....

post #2509 of 2963

Go Stephen King!

 

 

Quote:

Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

 

Apr 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

 

The iconic writer scolds the superrich (including himself—and Mitt Romney) for not giving back, and warns of a Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America.

 

<excerpts>

Quote:

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

 

Quote:

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

 

 

post #2510 of 2963

King has a way with invective. I like it.

post #2511 of 2963

Thought I would throw this out here for those interested.

 

 

Quote:

Paul vs. Paul

 

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and economics professor Paul Krugman debated political economy Monday on Bloomberg TV. Paul made his case for Austrian economics, arguing for a limited government that keeps its hands off the economy. In contrast, Krugman made the case for Keynesian economics, arguing that a completely unmanaged economy would inevitably lead to a volatile boom and bust cycle.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/30/ron-paul-and-paul-krugman-debate-economic-theory/

 

 

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

 

 

post #2512 of 2963

Thanks, VTran.  It seems that Krugman is the only Keynesian economist they will let speak on TV. 

 

And that Stephen King rant is perfect. 

 

ps. I will have to research it and find out their names, but I heard two guys on NPR today -- one from the Brookings Institute and one from the American Enterprise Institute -- talking about how intractable, radical Republicans in Congress are the problem.  All I could think was that they're probably going to lose their jobs for speaking sense even if it dents corporate profits but these guys were pretty incredible. 

post #2513 of 2963

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

ps. I will have to research it and find out their names, but I heard two guys on NPR today -- one from the Brookings Institute and one from the American Enterprise Institute -- talking about how intractable, radical Republicans in Congress are the problem.  All I could think was that they're probably going to lose their jobs for speaking sense even if it dents corporate profits but these guys were pretty incredible. 

 

this peaked my curiosity...found it.

 

Extremism In Congress: 'Even Worse Than It Looks'?

 

 

9780465031337_custom.jpg

post #2514 of 2963

Washington Post published Sunday an essay adapted from that book: "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem"

 

 

Quote:

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

 

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

 

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

 

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

 

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

 

post #2515 of 2963

good piece Trav, thanks.

 

I liked this quote.

 

Quote:

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

 

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

 

post #2516 of 2963

Thanks for the sleuthing, guys.  Brilliant editorial.  It seems like it's been an elephant in the room moment for years but it's great to see two legitimate voices speak so clearly on the subject in the Washington Post.  I think they hit the nail on the head, though they ignore Thom Hartmann's point that the Powell Memo pretty much laid the groundwork for what's manifest now way back in the '60s.  But it's a great piece.

 

I love their admonition to the press at the end...

 

Quote:

We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.

 

Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

 

Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

 

If only real life were like that. 

post #2517 of 2963

interesting addendum to the "Paul vs. Paul" vid

 

from Krugman-

 

Quote:

On the Uselessness of Debates

A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

 

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down;

I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

 

Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

 

This just goes to the ridiculous idea that to many, many  people 'opinion' = 'fact'.

 

I guess 'facts' did die..... Facts, 360 B.C.-A.D. 2012

 

Will rationality win or are humans doomed as a species?

post #2518 of 2963

I am the balanced federal budget and so can you.

 

Click here to see how handy I am with a red pen, and give it a try.

post #2519 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

interesting addendum to the "Paul vs. Paul" vid

 

from Krugman-

 

 

This just goes to the ridiculous idea that to many, many  people 'opinion' = 'fact'.

 

I guess 'facts' did die..... Facts, 360 B.C.-A.D. 2012

 

Will rationality win or are humans doomed as a species?


No, I'm pretty convinced this era is an aberration.  Some day people will look back at Fox and the right wing propaganda machine, as well as the idiotic "mainstream" media, and facepalm themselves into a coma.  What we're seeing is the ability to buy reality, to buy facts, to buy religious fervor over lies, and it can't last.  

post #2520 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

I am the balanced federal budget and so can you.

 

Click here to see how handy I am with a red pen, and give it a try.

 

wow, just eliminating the Bush tax cuts.....

post #2521 of 2963

Queasy market today.  Like 2007-2008 queasy.  That's not good at all.

post #2522 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Queasy market today.  Like 2007-2008 queasy.  That's not good at all.

 

?

post #2523 of 2963
post #2524 of 2963

 

Interesting.  I've come across Zerohedge before and each time I got the sense that it's populated by a bunch of shitty traders pissed that the markets don't conform to their models/view of the world.

post #2525 of 2963

Indeed.  Though for some reason I like to read the paranoid ramblings, Market-ticker gets really hard to stomach, though for a long time his math was sound.

post #2526 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

 

Interesting.  I've come across Zerohedge before and each time I got the sense that it's populated by a bunch of shitty traders pissed that the markets don't conform to their models/view of the world.


or.....I can easily see some of these individuals trying to 'game' the market by using fear, rumor and innuendo...which, admittedly, may not be enough to influence radical change.  

As most of you probably know, most of the transactions on Wall St. these days are handled solely by computers. All it would take is for one greedy individual to flick that binary pebble and get it rolling downhill....it really happened not too long ago.

 

Briefing: Computer traders blamed for Wall Street crash

 

Not that it stands a chance in hell of happening but I almost think that any and all trading should be handled the old fashioned way....a bunch of guys yelling at each other on the floor of the exchange....no more computer trading. To make it interesting, allow the traders to carry knives. :) 

post #2527 of 2963

this is more of a rhetorical vent than anything but....WHY THE FUCK ARE NONE OF THESE WALL STREET ASSHOLES IN JAIL ?

 

It's like the financial debacle they created never existed....

 

Quote:

What Jamie Dimon Doesn’t Know Is Plain Scary

 

Could Jamie Dimon really be as clueless as he sounded on the phone yesterday?

 

Last month, after Bloomberg News broke the story that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s chief investment office had, in essence, become a ticking time bomb, Dimon, the bank’s chief executive officer, called the press coverage “a complete tempest in a teapot.” That explanation no longer works.

 

Yesterday, Dimon changed tacks. Losses on the investment office’s “synthetic credit portfolio” had reached $2 billion so far this quarter, though he refused to give any meaningful details on how that had happened. Presumably, these are derivatives of some sort, but even that basic fact was too much for the bank to specify.

<cont.>

 

 

And then you have a fucker who's company is tanking...he gets denied his pay raise by shareholders so he walks (forced out or by choice?) with a sizable severance package (I read elsewhere that it might be as much as $1.75 million pounds)

Quote:

London’s Shareholder Revolt Is a Win for the 1 Percent

 

Depending on who signs your paycheck and what blogs you read, London has become embroiled in either “Bonusgate” or a “Shareholder Spring.”

 

Denizens of the City of London are masticating or ruminating (contingent on whether they’re bears or bulls) on the news that Andrew Moss, chief executive officer of the insurer Aviva Plc (AV/), has stepped down after more than 50 percent of shareholders voted against his proposed pay raise. He did agree to forgo it, but that wasn’t enough. Since Moss had been in the big chair, Aviva’s share price halved and its dividends evaporated. So he picked up his severance package with both hands and took the elevator. As one incandescent shareholder said, only two things were going up: executive pay and nonexecutive pay.

<cont.>

post #2528 of 2963

Not like I needed another  reason to dislike Facebook....

 

talk about a dick move....this shady kind of shit should be illegal.  If you don't like the country where you made your fortune, fine....hand over your passport and your PIN # and don't let the door hit you in your ass.

 

 

Quote:

 

Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO

 

Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill.

Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion through the IPO, the biggest in history for an Internet company. Saverin’s stake is about 4 percent, according to the website Who Owns Facebook. At the high end of the IPO valuation, that would be worth about $3.84 billion. His holdings aren’t listed in Facebook’s regulatory filings.

Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in that country. The Brazilian-born resident of Singapore is one of several people who helped Mark Zuckerberg start Facebook in a Harvard University dorm and stand to reap billions of dollars after the world’s largest social network holds its IPO.

“Eduardo recently found it more practical to become a resident of Singapore since he plans to live there for an indefinite period of time,” said Tom Goodman, a spokesman for Saverin, in an e-mailed statement.

Saverin’s name is on a list of people who chose to renounce citizenship as of April 30, published by the Internal Revenue Service. Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship “around September” of last year, according to his spokesman.

Singapore doesn’t have a capital gains tax. It does tax income earned in that nation, as well as “certain foreign- sourced income,” according to a government website on tax policies there.

 

<cont.>

 

 

Income tax in Singapore

Quote:
Any income arising from sources outside Singapore and received in Singapore on or after 1 Jan 2004 by an individual (other than partners of a partnership) is exempt from tax.
 
This system, however, has the potential in allowing for tax avoidance practices by individuals who derive income from abroad, gain tax exemptions via their non-resident status there, and utilizing this income outside Singapore.
post #2529 of 2963

Yeah, I read that yesterday.  Fuck him.

 

If its any consolation: folks who renounce for tax avoidance purposes are not allowed to return to America.

 

At the same time, if you have a hundred gazillion dollars I dont think you really give a shit about what countries you can and cannot visit.

post #2530 of 2963

nice little blog post about Saverin...

 

 

Quote:

What Eduardo Saverin owes America. (Hint: Nearly everything.)

 

<excerpt>

Now comes news that Saverin has decided to renounce his U.S. citizenship, most likely to avoid a large long-term tax bill on his winnings in the Facebook IPO. Saverin owns about 4 percent of Facebook stock. By renouncing his citizenship last fall, well in advance of the IPO, Saverin will pay an “exit tax” on his assets as they were valued then. But he’ll pay no tax on income derived from stock sales in the future—that’s because he now lives in Singapore, which has no capital gains tax. It’s unclear how much this move will save him, since it depends on how Facebook’s stock performs. But let’s say the value of his stock doubles over the long run, from an estimated $3.8 billion now to around $8 billion. If that happens, he won’t pay any tax on the $4 billion increase in value—which, at a 15 percent capital gains rate, will save him $600 million in taxes.

 

Is this fair? No. It’s worse than that, though. It’s ungrateful and it’s indecent. Saverin’s decision to decamp the U.S. suggests he’s got no idea how much America has helped him out.

So, to enlighten him, let’s list all the ways Eduardo Saverin has benefitted from America. First and most obviously, he lived a life of relative safety in Miami, something that wasn’t guaranteed for him in Brazil. Second, also obvious: If Saverin hadn’t come to America, he wouldn’t have met Mark Zuckerberg, and—not to put too fine a point on it—if Saverin hadn’t met Zuckerberg, Saverin wouldn’t be Saverin.

 

Third: Harvard. Zuckerberg and his cofounders met in the dorms, and while Harvard is a nominally private institution, it enjoys significant funding and protections from the government. In 2011, Harvard received $686 million, about 18 percent of its operating revenue, from federal grants; that’s almost as much as it received from student tuition.

 

Would Facebook have been founded without Harvard? Perhaps—maybe Facebook would have come about wherever Zuck went to school. Still, there were social networks at lots of other schools. There was clearly something about Harvard’s student body that was receptive to Facebook.

 

More generally, elite, government-sponsored American universities like Harvard have been instrumental in the founding of many tech giants. Microsoft’s founders met at Harvard. Yahoo and Google’s founders met at Stanford. But even if you believe that these universities shouldn’t claim credit for the companies they brought about, it’s still hard to argue that Facebook would be where it is today without the American taxpayers’ large investment in public education. Facebook depends on really smart people to make its products. You don’t get smart people without tax dollars.

post #2531 of 2963

All of a sudden I really dislike Andrew Garfield!

post #2532 of 2963

Which brings me to my default reaction at all these things, including the similar reactions in France. 

 

"Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

post #2533 of 2963

The House of Reps needs to form the House Committee on Unfriending America Activities.

post #2534 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

The House of Reps needs to form the House Committee on Unfriending America Activities.

I'm out of reps, but I want to rep this. For some reason I don't want to write like.

post #2535 of 2963

I have a friend who went to Harvard with this clown.  He couldn't stop rolling his eyes and smirking over Saverin's characterization in the Facebook movie as some kind of man of integrity. 

post #2536 of 2963

Taibbi with yet another excellent piece of depression-inducement: How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform

 

1. Weaken Dodd-Frank before it even gets signed.

2. Sue the government -- starring Judge Scalia's son Eugene!

3. Delay the law's actual implementation

4. Bully the regulators

5. Push those loopholes through

 

Quote:

That's the underlying problem with cracking down on Wall Street: Our political-economic system has grown too knotted and unmanageable for democratic rule. While it's incredibly difficult to get a regulatory reform passed, it's far easier – and more profitable to politicians – to kill it. Creating legislation is a tough process. But watering down legislation? Strangling it with lawsuits and comment letters and blue-ribbon committees? Not so tough, it turns out.

 

You can't buy votes in a democracy, at least not directly, but our democracy is run through a bureaucracy. Human beings can cast a vote, or rally together during protests and elections, but real people – even committed professionals – get tired of running through mazes of motions and countermotions, or reading thousands of pages about swaps-execution facilities and NRSROs. They will fight through it for five days, or maybe even six, but on the seventh they will watch a baseball game, or Tanked, instead of diving into that morass of hellish acronyms one more time.

 

But money never gets tired. It never gets frustrated. And it thinks that drilling holes in Dodd-Frank is every bit as interesting as The Book of Mormon or Kate Upton naked. The system has become too complex for flesh-and-blood people, who make the mistake of thinking that passing a new law means the end of the discussion, when it's really just the beginning of a war.

post #2537 of 2963

re: Dodd-Frank

 

Yesterday on at least one of the sunday morning talking head shows (the political ones, not the jeebus ones) the conserva/GOP 'heads' were saying we need less financial regulations...."but, but....we have Dodd-Frank and it isn't working" ....I wanted to reach through the TV and punch the idiots.

 

Dodd-Frank isn't working because YOU conservative fucking assholes are preventing it from working !

Sure the liberal/Dems share some blame, but really, the blame needs to be square on the shoulders of the modern day republican.

 

to add- here's some vid of that Prebus fuck.

 

RNC Chairman Responds To JPMorgan’s Massive Loss By Saying ‘We Need Less’ Financial Regulation

post #2538 of 2963

I love Matt Taibbi because he's smart, funny and he gets this stuff.  But I don't like how he oversimplifies FDR's struggle after his inauguration, which actually mirrors Obama's response in that FDR tried it the conservative way first, when he didn't have both houses of Congress.  He only started to get things done when the House and Senate were solidly in the Democrats' hands.  

 

What he also does is color his writing with libertarian anti-government ire by presenting what happens without following through with why it happens and why this cycle of watering down bills will continue until the people rise up against money in politics.  It won't get out on its own.  And bystanders clucking their tongues who don't take part in the democratic process to change it are full of &^%$,

post #2539 of 2963

in a nutshell....from this weekends NYT

 

is it possible to reason with psychopaths?

 

Quote:

Capitalists and Other Psychopaths

 

 

THERE is an ongoing debate in this country about the rich: who they are, what their social role may be, whether they are good or bad. Well, consider the following. A recent study found that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are “clinical psychopaths,” exhibiting a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an “unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation.” (The proportion at large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law.

 

The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form, and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior. This should hardly be news. The English writer Bernard Mandeville asserted as much nearly three centuries ago in a satirical-poem-cum-philosophical-treatise called “The Fable of the Bees.”

 

“Private Vices, Publick Benefits” read the book’s subtitle. A Machiavelli of the economic realm — a man who showed us as we are, not as we like to think we are — Mandeville argued that commercial society creates prosperity by harnessing our natural impulses: fraud, luxury and pride. By “pride” Mandeville meant vanity; by “luxury” he meant the desire for sensuous indulgence. These create demand, as every ad man knows. On the supply side, as we’d say, was fraud: “All Trades and Places knew some Cheat, / No Calling was without Deceit.”

 

In other words, Enron, BP, Goldman, Philip Morris, G.E., Merck, etc., etc. Accounting fraud, tax evasion, toxic dumping, product safety violations, bid rigging, overbilling, perjury. The Walmart bribery scandal, the News Corp. hacking scandal — just open up the business section on an average day. Shafting your workers, hurting your customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab. These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.

 

I always found the notion of a business school amusing. What kinds of courses do they offer? Robbing Widows and Orphans? Grinding the Faces of the Poor? Having It Both Ways? Feeding at the Public Trough? There was a documentary several years ago called “The Corporation” that accepted the premise that corporations are persons and then asked what kind of people they are. The answer was, precisely, psychopaths: indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to their own interests.

 

There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself.

 

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “job creators,” a phrase begotten by Frank Luntz, the right-wing propaganda guru, on the ghost of Ayn Rand. The rich deserve our gratitude as well as everything they have, in other words, and all the rest is envy.

 

First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless.

 

Also, entrepreneurs and the rich are different and only partly overlapping categories. Most of the rich are not entrepreneurs; they are executives of established corporations, institutional managers of other kinds, the wealthiest doctors and lawyers, the most successful entertainers and athletes, people who simply inherited their money or, yes, people who work on Wall Street.

 

MOST important, neither entrepreneurs nor the rich have a monopoly on brains, sweat or risk. There are scientists — and artists and scholars — who are just as smart as any entrepreneur, only they are interested in different rewards. A single mother holding down a job and putting herself through community college works just as hard as any hedge fund manager. A person who takes out a mortgage — or a student loan, or who conceives a child — on the strength of a job she knows she could lose at any moment (thanks, perhaps, to one of those job creators) assumes as much risk as someone who starts a business.

 

Enormous matters of policy depend on these perceptions: what we’re going to tax, and how much; what we’re going to spend, and on whom. But while “job creators” may be a new term, the adulation it expresses — and the contempt that it so clearly signals — are not. “Poor Americans are urged to hate themselves,” Kurt Vonnegut wrote in “Slaughterhouse-Five.” And so, “they mock themselves and glorify their betters.” Our most destructive lie, he added, “is that it is very easy for any American to make money.” The lie goes on. The poor are lazy, stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They shower their beneficence upon the rest of us.

 

Mandeville believed the individual pursuit of self-interest could redound to public benefit, but unlike Adam Smith, he didn’t think it did so on its own. Smith’s “hand” was “invisible” — the automatic operation of the market. Mandeville’s involved “the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician” — in modern terms, legislation, regulation and taxation. Or as he versified it,

“Vice is beneficial found, / When it’s by Justice lopt, and bound.”

 

An essayist, critic and the author of “A Jane Austen Education.”

 

post #2540 of 2963

thought this was interesting....

 

there's been something of (non)controversy over this TED video

 

The ‘Tax the Rich’ Talk TED Deemed ‘Too Political’ to Post (UPDATE: Now with Video)

 

the gist of it-

 

"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class.  And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich."

 

 

post #2541 of 2963

Fareed Zakaria dutifully pulled out all the right wing talking points at Paul Krugman, who easily blew them down without much effort.  I think I listened to the whole interview (it's hard the way CNN cuts them up.  Link

post #2542 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

thought this was interesting....

 

there's been something of (non)controversy over this TED video

 

The ‘Tax the Rich’ Talk TED Deemed ‘Too Political’ to Post (UPDATE: Now with Video)

 

the gist of it-

 

"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class.  And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich."

 

 

 

This guy is so brilliant and speaks the truth so plainly.  Shame on TED for calling this political. 

post #2543 of 2963

Nick Hanauer gets 'interviewed' by Fox News' Neil Cavuto

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=madU172f6zI#!
 

I'm don't consider myself a violent guy but, god damn it, there is something about those talking heads on Fox that make me want to repeatedly punch them in the face. :)

post #2544 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Nick Hanauer gets 'interviewed' by Fox News' Neil Cavuto

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=madU172f6zI#!
 

I'm don't consider myself a violent guy but, god damn it, there is something about those talking heads on Fox that make me want to repeatedly punch them in the face. :)

 

Cavuto is such a troll.  He doesn't let Hanauer get a word in edgewise.  He's such a bully and sounds like such a self-interested moron.  Luckily Hanauer keeps his cool.  It's just really bizarre how Cavuto speaks out of both sides of his mouth, on the one hand drooling over Hanauer's success and on the other hand condescendingly shutting down whatever wisdom he's gleaned from it. 

 

Meanwhile, yesterday I was delighted to see Professor Krugman first on Thom Hartmann's The Big Picture and then on Real Time.  He's great on Bill Maher because he doesn't let the right wingers dominate the conversation like most lefties tend to on that show.  I wish that Bill would have him on every time he has a right wing economist on as a guest to shoot down their lies. 

post #2545 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

god damn it, there is something about those talking heads on Fox that make me want to repeatedly punch them in the face. :)

 

True but his fat smug chipmunk face is in a league of its own I think

post #2546 of 2963

nice bit of Krugman banter with some UK pro-austerity talking heads.

 


Edited by VTRan - 6/1/12 at 1:14pm
post #2547 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

 

this peaked my curiosity...found it.

 

Extremism In Congress: 'Even Worse Than It Looks'?

 

 

 

 

These guys were on The Daily Show last night.  They kept talking about Republicans and Jon Stewart kept saying "both parties" and "Democrats too."  Didn't he read the book?

post #2548 of 2963

So when the next financial crisis comes (pick a Eurozone nation, pick a month), the big banks are screwed again, but giving them any sort of accountability, or regulations to avoid that eventuality are 'un-american'

 

http://wonkette.com/474792/who-will-rescue-the-banks-from-these-anti-american-assaults-on-their-freedom

post #2549 of 2963

So here's an interesting/frightening visualization of the income disparities in America

post #2550 of 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

So here's an interesting/frightening visualization of the income disparities in America


Nicely done.  The orange line in the middle graph soars post FDR, then flattens in '80s, showing the effects of Keynesian versus Chicago-style economic policies on the middle class. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The economy - oops