The Beginning Is Near
Posted: November 3, 2011 Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, American Jobs Act, Baby Boomers, Bailout Blues, Banksters, Black Agenda Report, commercial banking, Economy, income inequality, investment banking, jobs, unemployment 27 CommentsMaybe it’s my age [and no, I’m not telling] but I find great promise is those four words scrawled on a makeshift sign.
I’m sure–in fact, I know–there are others of my generation [Boomers] who look at the Occupy Wall St. [OWS] Movement, read the signs and scratch their heads. Or more likely they criticize the primarily young protesters as naïve, idealistic, disorganized, wanting something for nothing. Why don’t they just get a job? many say.
These reactions miss the point, as far as I’m concerned. These youngsters want something all right. They want their futures. They want to control their own destinies with a measure of integrity, a sense of possibility rather than bending to the yoke of a failing system, one that only works for those on the top of the heap. The statistics are there for everyone to read. No mystery! Wages of ordinary Americans have been stagnant, while the rich have become richer than Midas. Jobs have been sent willy-nilly beyond our shores but the trade-off [we’ve been told numerous times] are cheap consumer goods, the more the better.
He who has the most stuff wins. Many people bought into that. For a while.
Throw in 9/11, multiple wars, massive unemployment, rising health care costs, climate-related weather events, the negligence in the Gulf of Mexico, etc. and the shine has definitely come off the latest gadgets and toys. As an electorate, we’ve had a slap upside the head.
What I find astounding is people blaming this particular group—the OWS protesters, primarily the Millennials–for what is clearly our responsibility, a product of our refusal to hold our politicians accountable and demand justice–a return to the Rule of Law–instead of foisting the unpleasant, annoying task on our children [or grandchildren, as the case may be]. We’re the ones who bought into the Big Lie. Or worse, pretended it didn’t exist. These young students and 20-somethings had no hand in what we watched and allowed to develop.
The kids are making us look bad. They’ve endured dismissal, ridicule, concrete beds and lousy weather. And they’re called the slackers?
Nor should we forget that Boomers are running things right now. Our generation sits in the halls of Congress and refuses to pass legislation to put the country back to work. Boomers sit in the offices of the White House and pretend to hold a populist agenda, while doing the bidding of their monied benefactors. They sit on the Supreme Court and try to convince us that corporations = personhood. And they certainly populate Corporate America and Wall St., where repeated decisions and deals have been made to maximize profits at the expense of ordinary citizens. Not all Boomers, of course. But our generation is well represented in the lever pushing–the Make Love Not War crowd. Time to own it.
But even if we’re far, far removed from the corridors of power, just living our lives, I would suggest quiet acquiescence of the status quo isn’t working either. Hello, Boomers. The confidence fairy that has been running [ruining] our financial system will not be coming to spread pixie dust over the wreckage and make things right.
Not going to happen. And the young? They see right through it.
For over thirty years, corporate greed has grown, metastasized to the point that nothing is sacred—not the health or education of our people, not the environment [on which we depend to exist], not our principles of equal opportunity, not even our insistence that The Rule of Law is imperative for our Democratic Republic to survive.
And what was the trade? Constant debates that American health care is the best in the world without adding the qualification: only if you can afford it. The refusal to admit that the decreasing quality of our primary and secondary educational systems condemns many of our citizens to poverty and the staggering increase in university tuition costs and subsequent debt saddles our college graduates to years of unmanageable debt. The reckless and short-sighted risk-to-wreckage of our environment be it through fracking or drilling or proposed tar sand pipelines, while we turn up our noses to promoting and supporting green technology. The cruel pretense that all our citizens start off on a ‘level-playing’ field, while the evidence of privilege and influence-driven access to favors are as acute now as during the Gilded Age. The unwillingness to investigate and prosecute those involved in the biggest heist in history, the very same financiers and corporate bigwigs, who continue to exert control over our political system.
Two years ago, Dick Durbin stood before Congress and said: The banks own the joint.
We should have listened or turned up our hearing aides. Because sadly, the man spoke
the truth. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is not a strategy for the future. It’s unsustainable.
So, when I look at the live streams of the cross-country demonstrations, read the twitter feeds, I don’t think slackers. I think of a generation who has said what we, the grownups, should have said quite some time ago: Enough is enough. Or as Bill Moyers said recently: “People are occupying Wall St. because Wall St has occupied the country.”
Yesterday, between 7 to 10,000 people took part in a general strike in Oakland. They shut down the port of Oakland, a major access for Chinese goods, the 5th busiest port in the country. Local businesses shut down in support of the effort. To its credit, the protest has remained remarkably peaceful although early morning reports indicate that violence did break out before sunrise. Unfortunately, the authorities in Oakland nearly cost the life last week of a young Marine vet, Scott Olsen. Discontent can have consequences.
But attitudes are shifting and changing. Voices are being heard.
Last April with little fanfare, Joseph Stiglitz stated in a Vanity Fair article:
“The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”
Since the Occupy Movement started, this sentiment has been echoed, magnified:
On October 22, Noam Chomsky gave a speech on Dewey Square in Boston and said:
“I’ve never seen anything quite like the Occupy movement in scale and character, here and worldwide. The Occupy outposts are trying to create cooperative communities that just might be the basis for the kinds of lasting organizations necessary to overcome the barriers ahead and the backlash that’s already coming.”
At Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford recently wrote:
“There comes a time of awakening. We are now in that time – although some Black folks are not yet awake. Our job is to wake our people up, so that we don’t sleep through this moment.
The young people that began this Occupation Movement less than two months ago are not “us,” but they have done all of us a great service. They have shouted out the name and address of the enemy – the enemy of all humanity. The enemy’s name is Finance Capital, and the address is Wall Street, and that is the truth.”
Chris Hedges recently stated on Truthdig radio:
“But this is a widespread movement; it’s decentralized; it takes on its own coloring and characteristics, depending on the city that it’s in; and so there will be, you know—as you point out, I mean, movements are by their very nature messy and make steps forward and steps back. But I think that there is a resiliency to this movement because it articulates a fundamental truth of inequality that hits the majority of American citizens.”
Even House Speaker John Boehner remarked in a recent speech at the University of Louisville:
“I understand people’s frustrations,” he said. “The economy is not producing jobs like they want and there’s lot of erosion of confidence in our government and frankly, under the First Amendment, people have the right to speak out … but that doesn’t mean they have the permission to violate the law.”
Hey, it’s a start. Certainly better than designating OWS as ‘The Mob.’
People are rousing from their long, restless slumber. The conversations have begun and are different from what we’ve heard or read before. The protesters persist. They march, they endure.
The Beginning is Near.
The Little Engine That Could
Posted: November 1, 2011 Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Banksters, commercial banking, Corporate Crime, Global Financial Crisis, income inequality, U.S. Economy 10 CommentsThere’s a fascinating story that’s been brewing right under the radar that is beginning
to sprout legs. And I hope continues and receives a larger audience. It’s the battle between Goldman Sachs [and by association the other TBTF’s] and the Lower East Side People’s Credit Union in NYC. Why? Because it’s the perfect metaphor for what’s been going on in the US since deregulation turned our financial system into an iron-fisted bully.
Occupy Wall St. [OWS] as everyone recalls was ignored at first, ridiculed and dismissed, and now has become a fixture and swirl point of political discussion. Conversations are changing. People are beginning to pay attention in both positive and negative ways. OWS started to receive donations from across the country because many Americans are simply fed up with what they see as the gross corruption of money and power on our political system.
And so the Movement that was doomed at the start, who railed against the Big Banks suddenly found itself [by some accounts] with over $300,000. What to do? They needed a bank. And where did they go? To the Lower East Side People’s Credit Union, servicing the City’s low income citizens, primarily Latinos. The People’s Credit Union decided to hold an honorary benefit for their generous depositor, the Occupy group.
And then . . . Boom!
Goldman Sachs had a near hissy fit. Why? Because Goldman had given People’s Credit $5000. This was not a gift, not a donation of goodwill but a drop of cash they are required under the TARP agreement to give through the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA]. They are legally required to give this money out to the community under the original deal. But Goldman in their infinite wisdom and with hackles up over any mention of OWS has decided to use this required reinvestment as a hammer to exert their will. Goldman Sachs has demanded their $5000 back. And also, I would suggest, they wish to set an example: You play it our way or you don’t play at all. It’s been reported the heat has been turned up with a nasty message to People’s:
“You will never get a dime from another bank again.”
Democracy Now has been following this story. A reporter by the name of Greg Palast has done the investigative work from the start and has tried to get Goldman Sachs to give their side of the story. Quelle surprise! No response. I encourage you to watch the clip from Democracy Now. If it doesn’t get your blood boiling then I want to know what mega-tranquilizers you’re on.
This is what Occupy is all about. This is what must change.
The Marvel Of Coincidence
Posted: October 31, 2011 Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Banksters, House of Representatives, legislation, net-neutrality, the blogosphere, the internet 5 CommentsDays after the shocking crackdown of Occupy Oakland members, a police action that
resulted in serious head trauma to Marine Vet Scott Olsen, Google revealed US law enforcement requests, January through June 2011, to ban videos showing police brutality and/or allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. These requests were subsequently rejected by Google. From the Google’s released Transparency Report:
Observations on Content Removal Requests
- We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.
Had we not had access to the recent You Tube videos from Oakland, we would have been left in a ‘he said/she said’ predicament with no way of knowing how extreme the Oakland police were on the night of October 25 [unless, of course, you were an eye witness] or left to the mercy of the sadly slanted reports in the mainstream media. Traditional press outlets first ignored, and then quickly wrote off the OWS protests as lame complaints, coming from of a bunch of spoiled brats. There is little acknowledgement of the Movement’s growing support or the very real anger and disgust of the American public. The discontent is not difficult to categorize–corruption, malfeasance, and collusion of Government and Wall St. at the expense of ordinary people.
Add another ‘strange’ coincidence, this one noted at Cannonfire, header reading: “Ain’t That A Coinky-Dink.”
Joe Cannon tapped a brief blog piece indicating the weird, spectacular confluence of events: that ABC and CBS, both stations providing live feed to the October 25th night’s proceedings, just happened to require helicopter refueling at the precise moment the police prepared their attack on the protesters. And so, the major stations had no film footage of the actual melee.
Astounding, yes? Btw, this story was picked up and circulated around the Web, but I fail to recall the astonishing coincidence being reported by the MSM. I mean we get stories about the face of Jesus revealed on tacos, pistachios and ancient shrouds. But this? Nada. Inquiring minds might ask—Why?
Fortunately, we did have those videos taken by on-the-ground witnesses. We even have first hand accounts, the vast majority of which are like this one. Unflattering, to say the least.
But the magic of coincidence seems to come in bundles and bunches. In this case it’s the magic number 3 [although there certainly may be more lurking out there].
On Wednesday, October 26th the Protect IP [intellectual property] Bill S. 968 was released
from the House without any appreciable changes that had been noted in the initial Senate version—vague language, broad application, all in the name of protecting copyright infringement. In addition, a companion piece of legislation Stop On-Line Privacy Act [SOPA] also coming out of the House would require internet providers to ‘disappear’ certain websites, effectively blacklisting domains, all under the aegis of IP protection. Even better, service providers would be required to ‘monitor’ and police their users’ activity.
From Open Congress the following Summary appears:
Open Congress Summary
“This bill would establish a system for taking down websites that the Justice Department determines to be “dedicated to infringing activities.” The DOJ or the copyright owner would be able to commence a legal action against any site they deem to have “only limited purpose or use other than infringement,” and the DOJ would be allowed to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It would also make unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty up to five years in prison. This bill combines two separate Senate bills – S. 958 and S.978, the Commercial Felony Streaming Act — into one big House bill.”
What could go wrong?
And what an amazing coincidence that Congress, a body that has been paralyzed, unable to pass any legislation for the benefit of the American public, has suddenly, so expeditiously gotten its act together to push through Blacklisting legislation that curtails and restricts Internet use. Not only that, but this legislation coincides with the precise moment that Americans around the country have gathered in our streets, courtyards, and before a variety of City Halls to give voice to public grievances, and ‘coincidentally’ effects the source from which we [the general public] primarily learn about these protests and view subsequent video.
Coincidence upon tumbling coincidence. I am gobsmacked, I tell you. Color me worried. And just a tad suspicious, too. What about you?
What part of “Stop Stealing!” is hard to understand?
Posted: October 30, 2011 Filed under: Banksters, financial institutions 13 CommentsBank of America has now jumped the shark, gone right over the top, past the frozen limit, and exposed themselves.
This ought to be unbelievable. It only makes sense if the bank robbers are running the bank. Bank of America has transferred assets it acquired during its takeover of the Merrill Lynch brokerage to its deposit-taking arm.
Let me unpack that a bit. 
Banks, officially, put people’s savings into safe investments. The FDIC insures those savings in case the banks fail, but to prevent that outcome there are strict regulations about how banks can only put that money in safe investments.
Brokerages, officially, exist to broker any transactions on any market. Those can be the staidest of riskfree investments, like Treasury bonds, or interesting things like ultrashort inverse contracts derived from the SP 500 basket of stocks. “Derivatives” may be two, three, four, or even more meta levels above the real underlying things they represent, such as a stock or tanker load of oil. With some derivatives, you can make many times the amount of your own money that’s tied up in the trade, or, likewise, you can lose more than everything you own. That means (duh, right?) they’re risky. They have legitimate functions, such as hedging other risks or providing a way to bet on being right, but nobody ever pretends they’re safe.
Nor is there any universe in which it is up to the FDIC (=taxpayers) to make them safe by writing blank checks to cover them.
So what does BofA do? It takes bets made by Merrill Lynch — bets which were fine for a brokerage — and makes them part of the regular bank assets that are covered by the FDIC. By the magic of modern accounting, the taxpayer gets to cover wild stock market gambles that didn’t pan out.
There’s another wrinkle here. In the old high-flying days, financial institutions would sell derivatives to customers, e.g. one expecting price to go up, and then the institutions would, for their own account, buy the opposite derivative! There are two betrayals. It’s their fiduciary responsibility to tell their customers that the firm is itself investing in a fall in price. And it’s wrong to rake in money from customer commissions as well as customer losses on those same trades. It’s called a conflict of interest. It’s a big no-no.
After the crash, when it became clear that betting against the customer was fairly common in the financial industry, regulations were put in place against what’s called “proprietary trades.”
So what is BofA’s excuse for what it’s done?
Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said the bank’s derivatives trades are subject to risk-management controls and are client-driven, not proprietary trades – meaning the bank is not betting with its own money.
In other words, it’s okay to stick taxpayers with the bill for somebody else’s failed stock market gamble because the gamble itself was not a criminal breach of ethics.
Hello? It’s the gambling that is not insured. We don’t really care who did it. And the fact that it wasn’t criminal gambling only makes it one of the few things for which BofA won’t need a lawyer.
The scariest part is that for all I know, the gross rip-off may be legal. Most of the laws for banks were written before they could turn themselves into FDIC-insured gamblers.
Bank of America posted a third quarter profit — i.e. just for the months of July, August, and September — of $5.9 billion.
The Clash of the Titans: Ideology vs. History
Posted: October 29, 2011 Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, academia, Banksters, Corporate Crime, Economy, financial institutions, Global Financial Crisis 19 CommentsThursday night I caught an amazing piece of political dialogue on the Anderson Cooper show between Peter Schiff and Cornell West. What an odd pairing!
Peter Schiff, as many will recall, ran an unsuccessful Connecticut senatorial primary bid in 2010. He’s described as an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, from the same branch Ron Paul falls: libertarian, believer in free market fundamentalism–unchain capitalism and all things will fall from Heaven. Schiff is currently the CEO of Euro-Pacific Capital, Inc. and Euro-Pacific Precious Metals.
In contrast, Cornell West is an academic, sometimes referred to as a ‘public intellectual,’ a professor at Princeton where he teaches from the Center for African American Studies and the Department of Religion. He has been a consistent voice for the underclass, the working poor and speaks to the effects of race, gender and class in American society.
Though both men have engaged the Occupy Wall St. [OWS] movement, their approaches could not be more different. Peter Schiff went to Zuccotti Park with a sign–I am the 1%–presumably to start a conversation with the protesters. Hummmm. Mr. Schiff’s definition of ‘conversing’ must be different than mine. From the clip below? I’d use the word confrontation.
Cornell West on the other hand has been arrested twice during the Occupy encampment—once in DC before the Supreme Court protesting the Citizens United decision, where corporate political funding was equated with free speech, using the precedent that corporations = personhood. A decision, I might add that I and many others view as horrifically destructive, only adding to the problem of money swamping our electoral process. Dr. West was arrested for the terrifying crime of holding a sign [a no-no on the steps of Supreme Court] which read: Poverty is the Greatest Violence of All. On a second occasion, Dr. West was arrested in Harlem for marching with other Occupy members in front of the 28th Precinct, protesting the NYPD’s practice of ‘stop and frisk,’ which allows police to search citizens at will, a procedure that involves primarily people of color. Reportedly 600,000 stops were made in 2010, with 7% of those stops resulting in arrests.
So, we have two men, both educated, articulate and successful, both engaging OWS from 180 degree positions. Peter Schiff takes the view that unfettered capitalism will save the world as opposed to West’s humanistic viewpoint that unregulated capitalism has brought the world to its knees and threatens to scrap the very safety nets and programs that allow people to better themselves [education, for instance] and escape the violent confines that poverty and hopelessness exact.
We can argue these principles till the cows come home but a debater makes a serious mistake when they rewrite history to support their ideology, willfully fabricating, tweaking the facts to make their points more relevant and sound.
Peter Schiff, to his shame, pulled out all the old tricks like a fumbling magician who has no talent for sleight of hand. He like so many others who deify free market fundamentalism come off sounding remarkably reasonable, even simpatico with many of the concerns of average Americans. But they always slip up, only to expose the trickster; those disappearing cards are simply stuck up their sleeves.
In Zuccotti Park, Schiff claims he pays ‘almost 50% of his income in taxes’ under the current tax system. 50%. No one in the top 1% pays anything close to 50% in personal income tax and if they did then their accountant deserves to be marched to the wall and executed, toute suite. The rich have all sorts of tax breaks, exemptions, loopholes and shelters that average working people can only dream of. The claim is sheer nonsense by those who, in their heart of hearts, don’t wish to pay any tax at all. The same is true of claiming they want to return to the ‘golden’ 1950s when things were on an upswing and America was the most productive nation in the world [as Schiff remarks, as if it were a 1000 years ago]. And the top marginal tax rate was? 91%.
Yes, records were actually kept in the 1950s and we can look up false statements! Maybe Schiff really meant the roaring mid-20s to 1931 were the rate was 25%, and then BOOM! Depression time.
I must say I enjoyed the explanation of Wall St. greed as a by-product of Government manipulation. This is a turn on that old Flip Wilson skit line, But . . . But . . .The Devil Made Me Do it.
In addition, there is the sweet comment—“The regulation we want is the market. Markets regulate themselves.” This makes a great sound byte but is nothing more than the same garbage philosophy that brought us to this moment of economic woe, something that even Alan Greenspan, former Fed chairman finally admitted in hound-dog fashion: Did. Not. Work.
But Schiff’s greatest leap into fantasy is saved for the CNN segment I initially mentioned, where he claims that capitalism, free-market capitalism alone led to changes in the workplace: Child Labor Laws, Worker’s Safety laws, the 40-hour work week [see at the 8 minute mark].
I give Cornell West props for not coming through the screen with that claim. I guess Schiff never heard of the Radium Girls, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the Battle of Blair Mountain or the entire Labor Movement for that matter. The unregulated capitalists of that long ago era were not willing to give an inch, let alone provide workers with anything amounting to change. Justice was wrenched out through struggle, protest, suffering and deprivation. Justice was long in coming but come it did.
West’s suggestion that he and Schiff need to sit down over coffee and cognac is way too easy and polite. West would be advised to bring a straight jacket in Peter Schiff’s size for safety purposes. Or march him to church to beg forgiveness for fibbing [also known as spreading disinformation] to the public.
There’s a quote attributed to the late Daniel Moynihan:
“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”
In the Clash of the Titans, history always wins.







Recent Comments