The hopelessness of hope with regard to change in the US.

[Jim Nickerson]

From time to time I've considered the part "hope" plays in regard to the political processes of the US with reference to the non-oligarchs. The non-oligarchs would be me and from what I can tell most of the readers here and all the others in the country who are not in the top 1% of wealthiness.

Something jtabeb put up today got me to thinking about "hope" again.


Quote of our time:
"you gotta give people hope"
Harvey Milk


I'd rather much forgotten about Milk, so I read a bit and found his "hope speech." Harvey was a gay man who got assassinated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk#cite_note-jacobs6.2F27.2F78-107

What he said in 1978 in a gay-rights context was:
http://www.danaroc.com/guests_harveymilk_122208.html
And the young gay people in the Altoona, Pennsylvanias and the Richmond, Minnesotas who are coming out and hear Anita Bryant on television and her story. The only thing they have to look forward to is hope. And you have to give them hope. Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right. Without hope, not only gays, but the blacks, the seniors, the handicapped, the us'es, the us'es will give up. And if you help elect to the central committee and other offices, more gay people, that gives a green light to all who feel disenfranchised, a green light to move forward. It means hope to a nation that has given up, because if a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone.
JN emphasis.

However, I believe one can take Milk's words and apply them to the general expectations of voters 30 years later, that is today. People who have any appreciation of the depth of this country's problems elect officials on the "hope" that the new electees will bring about a change. Do I recall "yes, we can" was aimed at changing things in this country, and it inspired a lot of people or at least enough to get Barach Obama elected. I didn't vote, but had I, it would have been to not elect McCain and Palin (for god's sake can anyone believe Palin was on any ticket?).

Here are a couple of articles I ran across today that suggest perhaps change is on the way in the US: Kaiser notes what may be change for the worse, and Johnson suggests that any "change" in the financial sector will be "no change."



Will Deep Pockets Always Win? It's In Roberts's Court., by Robert G. Kaiser, Commentary, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402276.html): ...This year or next the court could ... remake the American system by permitting a flood of corporate money into our electoral campaigns..., such a decision would create vast new opportunities for a particular class of Americans..., corporate elites. ...

"Until this summer, the barriers preventing the use of corporate and union funds in political campaigns -- the oldest dating to 1907 -- were "firmly embedded in our law"... Could the court really allow corporations and their agents -- the Chamber of Commerce, say, or coalitions of companies created for the purpose -- to campaign openly for or against individual candidates for federal office? Yes, it could. Campaign finance reformers are afraid that the two newest conservative members of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, may be eager to overturn a long line of precedents. ...

"How would the political world be changed by legalized corporate campaigning? There would be a vast increase in the influence of corporations. ... Not surprisingly, corporate interests have always done well in Congress. More than a quarter-century ago, then-Sen. Bob Dole ... told the Wall Street Journal: "When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government."

""We may reach a point," Dole predicted, "where if everybody is buying something with PAC money, we can't get anything done." Dole was prophetic. Congress has failed to legislate on urgent issues for years -- think of health care, climate change, immigration, Social Security and Medicare. The organized interest groups that surround those issues rely on money to defend their positions and frustrate new initiatives. This is the wall our new president ran into this summer.

"What is now called "corporate" money in our politics is raised from the shareholders and executives of the companies that maintain PACs. Unions similarly collect PAC contributions from their members. Executives and their families can make personal donations. These are the only legal ways for corporate executives and companies to contribute to campaigns. The law sets limits on how much both PACs and individuals can raise and give...

"A decision to allow direct, unlimited corporate participation in campaigns would nullify the impact of those rules. American corporations ... would obviously have enough money to blow the roof off campaign spending standards.

"But the most dramatic effect of eliminating legal restrictions on corporations' spending could come not in campaigns but in the realm of lobbying. Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 ... explained: "Just imagine the impact on a member of Congress in the midst of deciding what to do on health care or climate control or banking legislation if the member knew that dozens of companies in affected industries each could spend millions of dollars . . . on full-scale campaigns to defeat or elect the member." ... [JN emphasis]


And Good Finance Gone Bad (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/05/good-finance-gone-bad/) http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/05/good-finance-gone-bad/

As the Lehman anniversary approaches, defenders of the financial sector struggle into position – partly in response to your (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/03/what-is-finance-really/) comments (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/01/the-nature-of-modern-finance/) (also here (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/finance-gone-wild/#comments)). They offer three main points:
We need finance to make the economy work.
Financial innovation delivers value, although it’s not perfect (but what is?)
Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Point #1 is correct, but this does not necessarily mean we need finance as currently organized. The financial sector worked fine in the past, with regard to supporting innovation and sustaining growth. Show me the evidence that changes in our financial structure over the past 30 years have helped anyone outside the financial sector.






On #2: Financial innovation has obviously benefited the people who run and operate large financial companies. Has it helped anyone else (http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6701), including their own sharedholders? And if you can show broader social benefits (e.g., lower cost of capital, better ability to take nonfinancial risks that make sense, or anything else), do these outweigh the massive social/fiscal costs that are now apparent?



Which leads to point #3: what kind of egg did the finance goose lay? Obviously we now need to go back and recalculate economic growth – if much of what was done by finance was issue loans that were not likely to be repaid (while not recognizing the probable losses).



But the unfortunate side effects of finance lie much more in the future than in the past. It’s not lowering recent growth by some fraction of a percentage point that should bother us, it’s the likely behavior of large-scale finance, now more powerful and with greater concentration of power.


Private sector capture of the state is bad enough, wherever it happens in the world. But when the capturers have an unparalleled ability and willingness to “tax” the rest of us, we should really be afraid.


The business model of big finance is not to consolidate their position and live on comfortable annuities. It’s to take as much as they can (”otherwise the competition will hire our best people”) while stuffing the risk (”which ordinary people don’t understand”) onto the taxpayer. The technical details of this arrangement are loosely refered to as “financial innovation”.


Modern finance is more than quack medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery). This is state capture, an old tradition for bankers – and in the modern American version their hands are in the deepest set of pockets ever. Why would they ever let go? [JN emphasis]


By Simon Johnson
I would like it ever so much if a requirement for signing up here was to post one's age; it would allow me some better assessment of the stupidity of various posters at least relative to their age and thus allow me to reflect back on whether I was equally, or probably more stupid than whoever at such and such an age makes posts here.



As I can recall from many of the threads here there are endless notations of what is wrong with this country and its leaders and perhaps even with us citizens, but seldom if ever does anyone come up with substantive suggestions as what can be done to actually bring about change in this country for its (this includes everyone who legally lives here) betterment as a nation and as a member of the world.

I'm certainly not picking on metalman, but here, as just an example, is a bit of a post he made today referencing Peterson and things I took to be suggestions that he believes would solve some of the problems facing this country.

here's the solution that pete will never suggest
- end gov't subsidies of the housing market
- let res real estate fall 50%
- write off 50% of the mortgage debt & interest payments
- shrink all financial debt by 50% & interest


I use that an an example of what must be hundreds, thousands of things here people think should be done, and maybe I'm misinterpreting what I have read here and there.

I want to ask the question: what is actually going to bring about serious changes in how this country has operated and is operating until today, and what is to bring it back, if it is possible to do so, from its current downward course toward being something on the order of a great nation again?

I believe the younger one is, the less the seriousness of the individual about the politics (and the commensurate power of elected office). Younger people are interested in hopefully getting some sort of education, getting a job, keeping a job, advancing, getting married, staying married, raising kids, educating them, etc. oh, and maintaining health care coverage and avoiding bankruptcy, buying a house, keeping it up, and all the lesser things young people do that are of little to no long term importance, e.g. getting drunk, getting layed, gaming, texting, iPods and such bullshit. So when these 'enlightened" youngsters vote, their primary focus is on the candidate who offers the most HOPE, trusting that such candidates will deliver in their elected jobs, just as the youngsters should be trying to deliver in the works and aspirations of their own lives.

You get a little older and hopefully a little wiser and I think most voters still are mostly hoping, despite perhaps realization of failed past hope for whomever they voted, that this time around the latest new guy running will deliver what they are hoping for. And so it goes until in my case I reached all the freaking way to 64 before I said fuck the system, it isn't ever going to change during my lifetime, and I rather doubt that if you are half my age now, you will ever see it change, because nobody am I reading or hearing is actually coming up with anything that will produce a serious change in how this country operates politically.

My suggestion, which is the only one that probably would work, is for all the political bastards to be killed, but most here would argue my appoach is a bit radical; perhaps they are correct, but perhaps not.

Seriously, a suggestion would be a national grass-roots program to RENO--Re-Elect No One--at any level of government. Even if a newly elected guy/girl seemingly does a better job than its predecessor, give another new guy a chance and perhaps even a third one a new chance before possibly re-electing anyone. Doing that would take 12 years to happen in the senate.

I think it would be great if everytime anyone here bitches about what needs to be changed with this or that part of the operation of the US government that he follow on with exactly how such a change could realistically be effected, or otherwise shut TF up and don't take up server space with useless complaints with no suggestion for remedy.

Oh, one last jab. The numbers are too large for me to grasp and certainly so frequently changing as for me to keep up with them, but consider the probable cost per citizen to all that has been directed to bailing out the too-big-to-fail financial institutions vs. the cost of providing healthcare to all citizens of the US, even it it includes a lot of f#cking waste. How much ruckus was recorded during the townhall discussions about whether or not to bail out Wall Street vs. how much ruckus on the issue of health care? My memory is no doubt failing, was there any ruckus with regard to the financial bailouts?

The monied interests in the US have the tax payer by the balls both with regard to keeping the taxpayers minds on the things of minor importance (to the FIRE interests) i.e. health care, and continuing to pull off the things that are most important to the FIRE interests, i.e. on going bailouts by the taxpayer of dastardly acts on Wall Street. Keep tuned for the next bailout and pay particular interest to the coverage of the townhall meetings.

For you holiday reading enjoyment: Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

[cobben]

Nice rant.

09.12.09 March on Washington (http://912dc.org)

The Tea Party Movement Goes to Capitol Hill


http://912dc.org/

[raja]

An email I received yesterday from a friend:


Remember This Man

http://blog.syracuse.com/shelflife/iacocca.jpg
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.

Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course..'

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore..

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.

We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered .

. Our schools are in trouble.

Our borders are like sieves.

The middle class is being squeezed every which way.

These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.

Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC news or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.

If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'

Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!

[swgprop]

Seriously, a suggestion would be a national grass-roots program to RENO--Re-Elect No One--at any level of government.

I too enjoyed your rant Jim. And just to let you know, I've been an ardent practician of your "RENO" movement for some 20 years now. Sadly it hasn't gained enough traction to be effective, but perhaps now with your endorsement ...:)

[Jim Nickerson]

I too enjoyed your rant Jim. And just to let you know, I've been an ardent practician of your "RENO" movement for some 20 years now. Sadly it hasn't gained enough traction to be effective, but perhaps now with your endorsement ...:)

I should have recognized a poster here who came and has gone somewhere named GrandpaNate who promoted VATI--vote against the incumbent. Perhaps VATI was actually some sort of a movement. RENO is definitely not a movement.

If something in this country is going to change through revision of existing legislation, enforcement of existing legislation, or new legislation in manners not dictated by the oligarchs, then it is really a very serious question as to what voters can do to come close to forcing a change?

Perhaps as Iacocca suggested some actual new leader will emerge and actually lead the country to some higher level, but to my mind that is a small possibility and could be decades in happening or maybe never.

Will Rogers supposedly said or wrote "Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do."

Actually it might be better that pure numbers of voters do not determine laws in this country. The notion of an elected deliberative body I believe is a good one, but where I believe it fails in that the order of importance of the deliberations is based on considerations of the benefit of the deliberator, the consideration of benefit of his/her financial backers, and lastly what might actually be good for the populace.

There is definitely no shortage of people pointing out what is wrong with the US, but more importantly I don't believe any solutions are on the horizon.

[ggirod]

Actually, I think there are more effective rules.
VABP - Vote Against Both Parties or
VAAP - Vote Against All PACs (roughly equivalent to the above)
VADP - Vote Against Debate Participants (we would have "had" to choose between Kucinich and Paul - what a shame...) or, my absolute favorite
VFLF - Vote for the Least Funded. ** If everybody did that, we would have an interesting race to a very desirable bottom.

[jtabeb]

From time to time I've considered the part "hope" plays in regard to the political processes of the US with reference to the non-oligarchs. The non-oligarchs would be me and from what I can tell most of the readers here and all the others in the country who are not in the top 1% of wealthiness.

Something jtabeb put up today got me to thinking about "hope" again.



I'd rather much forgotten about Milk, so I read a bit and found his "hope speech." Harvey was a gay man who got assassinated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk#cite_note-jacobs6.2F27.2F78-107

What he said in 1978 in a gay-rights context was:
JN emphasis.

However, I believe one can take Milk's words and apply them to the general expectations of voters 30 years later, that is today. People who have any appreciation of the depth of this country's problems elect officials on the "hope" that the new electees will bring about a change. Do I recall "yes, we can" was aimed at changing things in this country, and it inspired a lot of people or at least enough to get Barach Obama elected. I didn't vote, but had I, it would have been to not elect McCain and Palin (for god's sake can anyone believe Palin was on any ticket?).

Here are a couple of articles I ran across today that suggest perhaps change is on the way in the US: Kaiser notes what may be change for the worse, and Johson suggests that any "change" in the financial sector will be "no change."


Will Deep Pockets Always Win? It's In Roberts's Court., by Robert G. Kaiser, Commentary, Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402276.html): ...This year or next the court could ... remake the American system by permitting a flood of corporate money into our electoral campaigns..., such a decision would create vast new opportunities for a particular class of Americans..., corporate elites. ...


"Until this summer, the barriers preventing the use of corporate and union funds in political campaigns -- the oldest dating to 1907 -- were "firmly embedded in our law"... Could the court really allow corporations and their agents -- the Chamber of Commerce, say, or coalitions of companies created for the purpose -- to campaign openly for or against individual candidates for federal office? Yes, it could. Campaign finance reformers are afraid that the two newest conservative members of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, may be eager to overturn a long line of precedents. ...

"How would the political world be changed by legalized corporate campaigning? There would be a vast increase in the influence of corporations. ... Not surprisingly, corporate interests have always done well in Congress. More than a quarter-century ago, then-Sen. Bob Dole ... told the Wall Street Journal: "When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government."

""We may reach a point," Dole predicted, "where if everybody is buying something with PAC money, we can't get anything done." Dole was prophetic. Congress has failed to legislate on urgent issues for years -- think of health care, climate change, immigration, Social Security and Medicare. The organized interest groups that surround those issues rely on money to defend their positions and frustrate new initiatives. This is the wall our new president ran into this summer.

"What is now called "corporate" money in our politics is raised from the shareholders and executives of the companies that maintain PACs. Unions similarly collect PAC contributions from their members. Executives and their families can make personal donations. These are the only legal ways for corporate executives and companies to contribute to campaigns. The law sets limits on how much both PACs and individuals can raise and give...

"A decision to allow direct, unlimited corporate participation in campaigns would nullify the impact of those rules. American corporations ... would obviously have enough money to blow the roof off campaign spending standards.

"But the most dramatic effect of eliminating legal restrictions on corporations' spending could come not in campaigns but in the realm of lobbying. Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 ... explained: "Just imagine the impact on a member of Congress in the midst of deciding what to do on health care or climate control or banking legislation if the member knew that dozens of companies in affected industries each could spend millions of dollars . . . on full-scale campaigns to defeat or elect the member." ... [JN emphasis]

And Good Finance Gone Bad (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/05/good-finance-gone-bad/) http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/05/good-finance-gone-bad/


As the Lehman anniversary approaches, defenders of the financial sector struggle into position – partly in response to your (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/03/what-is-finance-really/) comments (http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/01/the-nature-of-modern-finance/) (also here (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/finance-gone-wild/#comments)). They offer three main points:

We need finance to make the economy work.
Financial innovation delivers value, although it’s not perfect (but what is?)
Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Point #1 is correct, but this does not necessarily mean we need finance as currently organized. The financial sector worked fine in the past, with regard to supporting innovation and sustaining growth. Show me the evidence that changes in our financial structure over the past 30 years have helped anyone outside the financial sector.

On #2: Financial innovation has obviously benefited the people who run and operate large financial companies. Has it helped anyone else (http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6701), including their own sharedholders? And if you can show broader social benefits (e.g., lower cost of capital, better ability to take nonfinancial risks that make sense, or anything else), do these outweigh the massive social/fiscal costs that are now apparent?




Which leads to point #3: what kind of egg did the finance goose lay? Obviously we now need to go back and recalculate economic growth – if much of what was done by finance was issue loans that were not likely to be repaid (while not recognizing the probable losses).



But the unfortunate side effects of finance lie much more in the future than in the past. It’s not lowering recent growth by some fraction of a percentage point that should bother us, it’s the likely behavior of large-scale finance, now more powerful and with greater concentration of power.



Private sector capture of the state is bad enough, wherever it happens in the world. But when the capturers have an unparalleled ability and willingness to “tax” the rest of us, we should really be afraid.



The business model of big finance is not to consolidate their position and live on comfortable annuities. It’s to take as much as they can (”otherwise the competition will hire our best people”) while stuffing the risk (”which ordinary people don’t understand”) onto the taxpayer. The technical details of this arrangement are loosely refered to as “financial innovation”.



Modern finance is more than quack medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery). This is state capture, an old tradition for bankers – and in the modern American version their hands are in the deepest set of pockets ever. Why would they ever let go? [JN emphasis]

By Simon Johnson

I would like it ever so much if a requirement for signing up here was to post one's age; it would allow me some better assessment of the stupidity of various posters at least relative to their age and thus allow me to reflect back on whether I was equally, or probably more stupid than whoever at such and such an age makes posts here.


As I can recall from many of the threads here there are endless notations of what is wrong with this country and its leaders and perhaps even with us citizens, but seldom if ever does anyone come up with substantive suggestions as what can be done to actually bring about change in this country for its (this includes everyone who legally lives here) betterment as a nation and as a member of the world.

I'm certainly not picking on metalman, but here, as just an example, is a bit of a post he made today referencing Peterson and things I took to be suggestions that he believes would solve some of the problems facing this country.



I use that an an example of what must be hundreds, thousands of things here people think should be done, and maybe I'm misinterpreting what I have read here and there.

I want to ask the question: what is actually going to bring about serious changes in how this country has operated and is operating until today, and what is to bring it back, if it is possible to do so, from its current downward course toward being something on the order of a great nation again?

I believe the younger one is, the less the seriousness of the individual about the politics (and the commensurate power of elected office). Younger people are interested in hopefully getting some sort of education, getting a job, keeping a job, advancing, getting married, staying married, raising kids, educating them, etc. oh, and maintaining health care coverage and avoiding bankruptcy, buying a house, keeping it up, and all the lesser things young people do that are of little to no long term importance, e.g. getting drunk, getting layed, gaming, texting, iPods and such bullshit. So when these 'enlightened" youngsters vote, their primary focus is on the candidate who offers the most HOPE, trusting that such candidates will deliver in their elected jobs, just as the youngsters should be trying to deliver in the works and aspirations of their own lives.

You get a little older and hopefully a little wiser and I think most voters still are mostly hoping, despite perhaps realization of failed past hope for whomever they voted, that this time around the latest new guy running will deliver what they are hoping for. And so it goes until in my case I reached all the freaking way to 64 before I said fuck the system, it isn't ever going to change during my lifetime, and I rather doubt that if you are half my age now, you will ever see it change, because nobody am I reading or hearing is actually coming up with anything that will produce a serious change in how this country operates politically.

My suggestion, which is the only one that probably would work, is for all the political bastards to be killed, but most here would argue my appoach is a bit radical; perhaps they are correct, but perhaps not.

Seriously, a suggestion would be a national grass-roots program to RENO--Re-Elect No One--at any level of government. Even if a newly elected guy/girl seemingly does a better job than its predecessor, give another new guy a chance and perhaps even a third one a new chance before possibly re-electing anyone. Doing that would take 12 years to happen in the senate.

I think it would be great if everytime anyone here bitches about what needs to be changed with this or that part of the operation of the US government that he follow on with exactly how such a change could realistically be effected, or otherwise shut TF up and don't take up server space with useless complaints with no suggestion for remedy.

Oh, one last jab. The numbers are too large for me to grasp and certainly so frequently changing as for me to keep up with them, but consider the probable cost per citizen to all that has been directed to bailing out the too-big-to-fail financial institutions vs. the cost of providing healthcare to all citizens of the US, even it it includes a lot of f#cking waste. How much ruckus was recorded during the townhall discussions about whether or not to bail out Wall Street vs. how much ruckus on the issue of health care? My memory is no doubt failing, was there any ruckus with regard to the financial bailouts?

The monied interests in the US have the tax payer by the balls both with regard to keeping the taxpayers minds on the things of minor importance (to the FIRE interests) i.e. health care, and continuing to pull off the things that are most important to the FIRE interests, i.e. on going bailouts by the taxpayer of dastardly acts on Wall Street. Keep tuned for the next bailout and pay particular interest to the coverage of the townhall meetings.

For you holiday reading enjoyment: Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm


I'll give you the ONLY answer that makes sense, to me (Age 35). If this decision goes the way most think it will, then, sadly, revolution will be the only choice, as the political system we be beyond any repair at that point. What is a corrupt unresponsive crony capitalist system will degenerate into a full-blow effort to loot everything from everyone who has something remaining to loot, but no political power.

It will be the most audacious and disgusting power and wealth grab in the history of the world. Nothing less. We will have achieved what Dr. Hudson calls "socialism for the rich, debt surfdom for the rest". And it should scare the living shit out of everyone who follows this site.

(Anyone else see the irony of a communist government like China adopting lassie-fare capitalism and advocating hard-money ownership of the general populace whilst our own government insists on preserving a failed debt-fueled bubble that has exceeded all previous examples in history and increasingly moves toward "command economy" policies that worked so well in the former soviet union". And at the same time, it works to increasingly limit the ability of the general populace, the bottom 90%, to seek redress through the political process.)

China is doing EXACTLY what I recommend many times on this site. Move away from crony-capitalism, towards true lasie-fare, let natural consequences play as they may in the market (capitalism means the freedom to succeed OR fail), encourage private ownership of physical PM's. Enforce regulations by having real regulators that are not the same as the folks that they are supposed to regulate. Re-institute Glass Stegal, follow the Germany model of campaign finance reform (public funding ONLY for all elections), which came about in the wake of the collapse of Hitler's Germany after WWII. Retain a fiat system to allow for the necessary inflationary unwind of the debt leverage and then transition to a full hard-money monetary system. Use the intervening time to secure precious strategic assets, like energy, minerals and metals.

I am horrified that the Chinese have been following this plan almost to a "T", at least in regard to the Economic points outlined above. I suspect that the political reforms may follow, because reforms are better then revolution and the Chinese know this. Apparently, our "betters" don't understand that simple concept.

Here it is:

http://dharmajoint.blogspot.com/2009/09/revolution-is-in-air-again.html

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Revolution is in the Air, Again (http://dharmajoint.blogspot.com/2009/09/revolution-is-in-air-again.html)

Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy. Michael Moore

The current international monetary system, with flexible exchange rates between the major currencies, the dollar as the main international reserve currency, and free international capital flows, has failed to achieve the smooth adjustment of payments imbalances. This is the conclusion reached by the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System (also known as the Stiglitz Commission) (UNPGA, 2009) UNCTaD
(http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdr2009ch4_en.pdf)
It’s hard to believe now, but not long ago economists were congratulating themselves over the success of their field. Paul Krugman

In July of 1789, King Louis XVI, during a discussion of the state of affairs in Paris, exclaimed, "This is a revolt." The duc de Liancourt, an ardent supporter of reforms replied, "No, majesty, it is a revolution."

And so it was.

And so it is.

Now, as then, the pressing need for significant reform is widely acknowledged in policy circles, but political inertia has exposed the rhetoric of change as just that- talk.

It isn't, this time, the Bastille which invokes the anger of the people, but Wall St.- a prison which holds, and destroys, not people, but futures. In place of the French lettres de cachet we have quarterly statements dashing retirement hopes, notices of foreclosure, or worse.

Sadly, just as King Louis XVI truly desired change, but was not capable of delivering it fast enough, President Obama seems equally desirous of change, and, apparently, equally incapable of delivering. To be fair to both men, I'm quite sure I couldn't deliver it either- fortunately I haven't been dealt that hand to play.

The most troubling parallel, to me, is the anger. If not closed already the window of opportunity for a graceful, reasonable solution is closing fast. Unemployment is already high and rising. Imagine how angry the people will be if (I suspect "when" is more apt) the US$ sinks and inflation jumps as winter begins to bite.

Of course, revolutions, revolts, coups and being conquered are regular, albeit often unpleasant, features of human history. Human societies can (and often do) get bogged down in a rut of comfortable habit where change, if it occurs, happens slowly. Revolutions are often the only means by which societies effect substantial change- nothing like burning the house down to inspire the need to build a better one. This cyclical view of history has been expressed in Ancient Times by Hindu Theologians and much more recently by American Historians William Strauss and Neil Howe, inter alios. In a sense, this view of decay followed by renewal lies at the heart of business cycle theory.

I too can sometimes get bogged down in a comfortable rut, waiting, it seems, for an inspiration to get the juices flowing.

The inspiration which roused me from my summer vacation rut- just in the nick of time as I need to don my "home schooling Dad" hat again- was Paul Krugman's How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine)

While pondering his view I was distracted (I often surf while pondering) by reading of Michael Moore's new mantra, "Capitalism is Evil" from his film, Capitalism: A Love Story (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=250). "Semantics," the snide philosopher in me snickered, "will get you every time."

What, I wonder, does Mr. Moore mean by "Capitalism" and "Democracy", or Mr. Krugman by "Economics" and "Economists"?

Is Mr. Moore aware that "Democracy" was also the goal of the Bush-era NeoCons? I doubt the term refers to the same notion in these two disparate world-views.

If, as I suspect, Mr. Moore refers to the way things are now as "Capitalism", then "Democracy" likely refers to some idealized nirvana. Reality, of course, is rarely preferable to idealized dreams- a lesson painfully learned by all successful Revolutionary dreamers once their dream is put to the test. (This is not to argue that all revolutions lead to negative outcomes.)

If Mr. Moore means to argue that replacing money, markets, and private property with plebiscites or, more simplistically, "rule by the people", will make America a better place to live, I pray his argument falls on deaf ears. That is a movie whose ending has been well documented, but apparently, not shared with a wide enough audience.

Which brings me to Mr. Krugman's Economists Who Got It Wrong (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine). In my view, (Mr. Krugman grinds a very different axe, and I'll get back to that in a second) if arguments like Mr. Moore's or the right wing's anti-government variants displayed at the "tea parties" gain traction in the enough minds- i.e. if the international revolution in the global financial architecture, noted by the UN, ignites the proverbial "fire in the minds of men (http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-James-Billington/dp/0765804719)" here at home- the economics profession deserves some of the blame. Surely inoculating a critical mass of the population against demagoguery and romantic notions of "prosperity for all" with some honest history should be high up on the duties of this profession.

Sadly, reminding people of the lessons of the past is a difficult thing to do...until after disaster strikes. Thus, the cycles repeat, which, at the least, allows some historian/economists a chance to forecast the repitition. Yet, the majority rarely listens to the prescient view.

As Mr. Krugman argues about this iteration: the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession’s failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess.

I'm sympathetic to aspects of his view: particularly the seduction of elegant mathematical proofs (about which, see the italicized paragraph below) but I think he paints with too wide a brush, and significantly discounts the effects of shifting political winds and financial incentives. Many economists saw this coming, but were unwilling to risk their careers.

Digression on Seduction by Mathematics by two eminent Mathematicians:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.- Albert Einstein

Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that, if such and such a proposition is true of anything, then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true ... If our hypothesis is about anything, and not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. - Bertrand Russell

My 2 cents: Math is only as useful as the qualitative definitions upon which it is based, are accurate.

There is, of course, nothing new in this, nor does economics have a monopoly on such behavior. King Louis XVI threw Beaumarchais in jail for his insightful, and prescient critique of the then status quo in The Marriage of Figaro and George Bush fired Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey over their dissenting views over, inter alia, the cost of the Iraq War. Speaking truth to power is never an easy task. It is, as they say, in the nature of the beast- the beast, in this case, being human institutions of power.

There are other beasts one can study, for instance, the advantages and defects of organizational forms used by man to produce the goods he desires, a.k.a. economics.

Curiously, until one realizes how specific is the axe Mr. Krugman wishes to grind in his polemic, one gets the sense that the only debate in economics is between Chicago School Monetarism and Keynesian Demand Management. Mr. Krugman disparages the former and promotes the latter as if Keynes was the Messiah of Economics. To wit, in Krugman's view, Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions.

My response to Mr. Krugman begins with a quote from Augustine of Hippo; beware the man of one book.

As a student of philosophy, I read (and would urge the reading thereof) many philosophers. The sense of Kant's Idealism comes into clearer focus when one has read Hume's skeptical perspective, and so on, and so on, until you arrive back at Plato and Aristotle (alternatively, one can start with the Greeks, which isn't a bad idea for an economist either- starting with Aristotle, for example). Alas, philosophy too has become a fragmented battlefield of sorts, with each clique praying to their own God- as, apparently, Mr. Krugman prays to Keynes.

I suspect it is just as easy to assume, after reading Keynes, that demand management can attenuate and perhaps even eliminate the business cycle as, according to Mr. Krugman, it was to believe that Chicago-School Monetarism could do the same. Indeed, Friedman's views emerged during just such a period when Keynesianism was hoped to bring about nirvana..

As noted above, however, I suspect the faith in eliminating the business cycle doesn't come from reading Friedman, Keynes or any other noted economist, but from the powers that be- and this too is in the nature of the beast. Mr. Krugman wishes people to be aware that recessions are an inevitable feature of human economic life. Another apparently inevitable feature of human life is that such awareness only manifests on a grand scale through experience. As George Bernard Shaw wrote, we learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

People, and the societies comprised thereof, have a life span. Knowledge of human bodily function can improve, for a time, output and sometimes, delay, but not avoid, the inevitable decay. Regeneration occurs in those who follow. Economists too operate under similar rules. I agree with Mr. Krugman's argument that there is virtue in accepting the reality of business cycles, just as there is virtue in accepting our own mortality and that of the society in which we live. I also agree with Mr. Shaw that this virtue is realized by few, when it matters- that the cycle of more general awareness followed by ignorance, regardless of the literature available, plays a role in the larger cycles.

I take solace that I, and a few I know, (and, no doubt many others unknown to me) are reaping the benefits of that awareness.
Posted by Dude at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://dharmajoint.blogspot.com/2009/09/revolution-is-in-air-again.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2009-09-09T21:34:00-04:00">9:34 PM</abbr> http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_email.gif (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=14834651&postID=6212753777007104083)

[Diarmuid]

I'll give you the ONLY answer that makes sense, to me (Age 35)



People, and the societies comprised thereof, have a life span. Knowledge of human bodily function can improve, for a time, output and sometimes, delay, but not avoid, the inevitable decay. Regeneration occurs in those who follow. Economists too operate under similar rules. I agree with Mr. Krugman's argument that there is virtue in accepting the reality of business cycles, just as there is virtue in accepting our own mortality and that of the society in which we live. I also agree with Mr. Shaw that this virtue is realized by few, when it matters- that the cycle of more general awareness followed by ignorance, regardless of the literature available, plays a role in the larger cycles.



Great post - thanks

[jtabeb]

Since Itulip only like theories that have predictive value. I will make a prediction.

It this decision comes down in favor of corporate speech as protected speech, Sarah Palin WILL be the next president of the United States. At that point we will have completed our descent from a democratic republic to a fascist kleptocracy.

We will have our version of Hitler. (as only a true Ideologue can kill in the name of God, or the State, or in the name of "Protecting the public").

Obama is a pragmatist, who's failure to tackle economic reform HONETSLY, has cost him his entire credibility with the electorate. I really fear what the public will choose to replace him.

As a historical note, a failure of reform, coupled with unlimited corporate finance of campaigns were the key enabling factors that led to the election of Adolph Hitler in Germany. And that is why I fear that history is about to repeat itself right here in the good old US of A.

[World Traveler]

Per Jim's request, I'll post my age. 61 in October. And I think his point about age is very important. You have to be an early baby boomer to have lived in and have personal, even adult memories of a much more eqalitarian America, and of a government that was more responsive to the needs of the average citizen. When Republicans and Democrats believed in civility and collaboration on important national issues, not open warfare. Both parties have gotten more conservative and much less responsive to the needs of the average citizen, but the changes in the Republican Party are particularly stark.

Leading Republicans in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's were part of the tenor of the time, generally moderate and reasonable folks. Some of today's Republican leaders make Richard Nixon look very good indeed. Even Barry Goldwater was appalled in his autogiography by the changes he saw in the party he had devoted so much time and energy to support. The radicals had taken over.

I actually voted Republican in my early adult life, because I thought they offered the best mix of pro-business and pro-people available at the time. But I cannot do so now. I fear we might get an American version of Iran, where a corrupt leadership exploits the country's resources for politically-favored insiders, and curries favor with/ allies to the religious conservatives by forcing the entire populace to live acc to their conservative moral belief systems. And harrasses them if they don't. And I do not want to participate in making that possible.

I think the reason that today's young people do not realize how badly America has gone off the rails is that they have never lived in any other environment than the one we have now. Whereas if you are in your 50's or 60's, you have.

I'm a history buff, and my theory is we are going back to the Guilded Age of the 2nd half of the 19th century. That we may get incremental reforms over time (as occurred with the Muckrakers and Teddy Roosevelt, for example in early 1900's), but that we will not get a 1930's type transformative change that addresses core issues for at least a decade or two or three.

[ThePythonicCow]

Since Itulip only like theories that have predictive value. I will make a prediction.

It this decision comes down in favor of corporate speech as protected speech, Sarah Palin WILL be the next president of the United States. At that point we will have completed our descent from a democratic republic to a fascist kleptocracy.
Hey - don't rip my heroine. She's a fox!

Unfortunately, I will have to admit I am belatedly coming to the conclusion that she is a sufficient lightweight that she could not get elected anymore to a job bigger than Mayor of Wasilla unless some more powerful people are confident that they control her.

In other words, if she is elected as you predict would happen in this circumstance, the mere fact of her election will be prima facia evidence that she is much controlled as another tarnished hero of mine, George W. Bush.

[jtabeb]

Hey - don't rip my heroine. She's a fox!

Unfortunately, I will have to admit I am belatedly coming to the conclusion that she is a sufficient lightweight that she could not get elected anymore to a job bigger than Mayor of Wasilla unless some more powerful people are confident that they control her.

In other words, if she is elected as you predict would happen in this circumstance, the mere fact of her election will be prima facia evidence that she is much controlled as another tarnished hero of mine, George W. Bush.

It gives me no pleasure to make such dire predictions about the fate of our country. But I could not in good conscience, refrain from doing so.

[Jim Nickerson]

Hey - don't rip my heroine. She's a fox!

Unfortunately, I will have to admit I am belatedly coming to the conclusion that she is a sufficient lightweight that she could not get elected anymore to a job bigger than Mayor of Wasilla unless some more powerful people are confident that they control her.

In other words, if she is elected as you predict would happen in this circumstance, the mere fact of her election will be prima facia evidence that she is much controlled as another tarnished hero of mine, George W. Bush.

PC, I take it your first sentence was sarcasm, but since I really do not know you, perhaps it isn't.

Thanks to you two guys who put up your ages, it doesn't violate your privacy I don't think, and it does add something to understanding what might approach your "wisdom IQ."

It was jtabeb who also put up the Moyer's videos with the two lawyers discussing the issue of increasing the so-called free speech of corporations. The middle guy physically in the video was against allowing more money into politics from corporations, and after a while I think I figured out his was the more left-winged stance, and the lawyer to the right physically in the video was the more right-winged. (anybody correct me if I'm wrong on that).

I didn't appreciate so much where either of these guys might have stood ideologically until I read some of the comments on the website related to the presentation. From just reading few of the comments at the top of the list and from the beginning of the list--the bottom, it highlighted for my feeble brain that the tenor of the commentaries rather much defined Democrats or Republicans, and for the greater part I generally thought those comments striking me as from Republicans were absent any notion of serious thinking; I guess it would best be to descibe their commentary as purely following some line of ideology vs. reasoning about what would be good or bad for the US political system.

As I have gone through life I focused more on my work that I did on the work of the politicians. Almost without exception, Democrats always came across to me as being obnoxious, whereas Republicans didn't, and for the most part I voted Republican because of that. Clinton was an exception with regard to obnoxiousness, and I voted for Perot who could be rather obnoxious. I voted also for George Wallace who was the pinnacle of being obnoxious. Given Bush and Gore, Bush was not a lawyer and was not so obnoxious--and I voted for Bush, and given Bush and Carey, Bush still was not a lawyer and Carey was--and I voted again for Bush. I also figured, though Bush never struck me as being very smart, he should be smart he enough (he went to Harvard business school--as if that was truly a serious qualification) to come up with smart enough people to run the country. Jeezus, was I incredibly off in my thinking about that, good thing it was not a life or death decision affecting just me.

PC, if what you wrote in your second and third paragraphs isn't sarcasm, then I have to say you strike me as seeming to be a real nut-job. Just nearing the end of the exposure to eight years of George W. Bush, and then having the Rupublicans nominate a relatively old guy with a history of melanoma (despite whatever the fuck anyone averred about him being cured, and I hope he is cured and lives to a 100) then with Palin as the potential goto gal struck me immediately and still does as the ultimate instance of political idiocy. I suppose, PC, that you admit to "belatedly" changing your mind is sufficient evidence to suggest you should be given some credit for still having productive thought capacity.

Were Palin in four or eight years, and perhaps during her lifetime to end up being any party's nomination for POTUS, then it would clearly isolate a group of people representing grave danger regarding any viable future for the US. As ignorant as I think most of us are, damned if I believe the US is so low-lifed as to ever elect Palin to a national office; not withstanding the possibility that humans can get smarter as they get older, but having gotten older it is my experience it truly difficult to get a lot smarter.

jt, I don't think you will be even close in your prediction even were the Supreme Court case turn out to make it legal for corporations to control this country, but perhaps I have too much confidence in 51% of Americans.

[Jim Nickerson]

One other comment that is not so intimately related to this particular thread.

jt, as an example, in stating he is 35 years old, points out he may not have know much of life without a computer. I was 35 in 1976, and computers were not any part of my personal day-to-day existence. So much has changed, and probably taken for granted the younger one is. I would give a lot to have any serious idea what I thought about anything when I was 35. The only way to document that probably would have been to have kept a diary, which I didn't do.

Since 1988 I have tracked all my expenses first using Quicken and then and now MS Money. I lost 1988 to 1995 in a hard disk crash--pisser. The expense records I have not infrequently prove to be of usefulness to me. Today it could be possible, again as an example, for someone like jt to document for his future reference what he was thinking at age 35. How much has he written here (and who knows elsewhere) that would be a picture of his thinking, IF he could capture and store and maintain all of his iTulip commentary? I sure as shit would not relish (you could not pay me) to go back and copy my comments on iTulip into a file for my own future reference, though it would be interesting even after three years to go back and see what I might have opined here and there on various things--one can do that now but after several hundred comments it is very labor intensive and that is not about what computers are supposed to be.

A lot of people have spent a lot of time here putting down their thoughts which if archived and available to them would, I will almost guarantee you, provide an interesting look-back on their lives in hopefully the many years to follow. Maybe if iTulip could provide a method for posters to easily download their own comments, it could provide a new revenue stream for it, and if you, iTulip, can do it, don't get greedy.

[WDCRob]

Jim, that's a very thoughtful post. Thanks for taking to time to put it down for us to read.

I'm pessimistic as well. Especially in light of the fact that John Roberts has yet to vote in favor of the weaker party in any major/disputed case that's come in front of his court.

The state over prisoners, the majority over the minority, employers over employees, corporate interests over those of the citizen - in every single substantive case he has ruled for the interests of the strong.

It's no coincidence that his court identified the most effective limitation put on the powerful in many years and, against the traditions of the court, decided to revisit it so they could overturn established precedent.

JT is right. Citizens will eventually have to solve this problem for themselves. Which is unfortunate since mob rule is no better than what we have today.

[Jim Nickerson]

Jim, that's a very thoughtful post. Thanks for taking to time to put it down for us to read.

I'm pessimistic as well. Especially in light of the fact that John Roberts has yet to vote in favor of the weaker party in any major/disputed case that's come in front of his court.

The state over prisoners, the majority over the minority, employers over employees, corporate interests over those of the citizen - in every single substantive case he has ruled for the interests of the strong.

It's no coincidence that his court identified the most effective limitation put on the powerful in many years and, against the traditions of the court, decided to revisit it so they could overturn established precedent.

JT is right. Citizens will eventually have to solve this problem for themselves. Which is unfortunate since mob rule is no better than what we have today.

Rob, you once wrote, IIRC, you didn't like posts with highlights, underlining etc., so sorry.

One thing about a state of mob rule could be that from it something else will emerge, and for the moment I cannot see the same being said about the current morass of our government, except perhaps one could draw the same conclusion: "from it something else will emerge."

Personally, I am not convinced that "mob rule" would not be better, but then I am armed and should be considered dangerous.

Question for some of you who know a bit or a lot about everything. It sticks in my mind that there is something in US law that holds the death penalty for advocacy of "overthrow of the government," or is it just for "violent overthrow of the government?" Please don't answer unless you really know WTF about what you may write.

[WDCRob]

Yes... once the ancien regime is wiped out, something new can come. But IMO that "new" is as likely to be Stalin as it is Napoleon.

I'll pass. I'm not into coin flips, and, based on the nuttery I've observed in my own 43 years (since you asked), I don't have much faith in the masses to make good decisions.

And on reflection I'm not sure we're at a completely different place in the US than we've been before either. Our democracy has managed to adjust on the fly several times in the last 235 years. I suspect it's weaker than it used to be, but maybe it has more resilience than we're giving it credit for too.

[Jim Nickerson]

Yes... once the ancien regime is wiped out, something new can come. But IMO that "new" is as likely to be Stalin as it is Napoleon.

I'll pass. I'm not into coin flips, and, based on the nuttery I've observed in my own 43 years (since you asked), I don't have much faith in the masses to make good decisions.

And on reflection I'm not sure we're at a completely different place in the US than we've been before either. Our democracy has managed to adjust on the fly several times in the last 235 years. I suspect it's weaker than it used to be, but maybe it has more resilience than we're giving it credit for too.

Rob, I don't disagree with your greater level-headness about the issue of how change best come about.

Point of fact, I didn't ask that people post their ages, I just opinied that personally I see some usefulness to it. I have written letters my entire life and never have I sent one anonymously. For the way greater part as I recall, most letters to editors of newspapers and scientific journals I used to read always identify the writer--though never by age, nor in the public press by profession. Knowing something vs. nothing about posters is useful, even when recognizing a lot of people lie or so it seems.

Perhaps many posters here have never checked the possibilities that pop up if one clicks one's own name on a post. It gives a window with a menu bar, the first of which is "User CP." Clicking "User CP" gives a vertical menu selection on the left, and the very first one in that column "edit your details" allows input of a whole lot of stuff that shows up in the "about me" tab that comes up to anyone who clicks on anyone's name as shown on a post.

Actually the only times I look at members' profiles is when one makes a comment that sounds so knowledgeable or when a post sounds so insane that it makes me seriously wonder who they might be.

It has continued to amaze me how much some posters will tell about themselves in their posts, but then their "about me" tab doesn't show jack-shit.

Rob, jt, and World Traveler, who all put up your ages, by the end of next week I probably won't remember what they were, if you haven't, why not put your ages into your profiles? I'll still like most of you and read your posts with equanimity even if you don't.

[ThePythonicCow]

PC, I take it your first sentence ["Hey - don't rip my heroine. She's a fox!"] was sarcasm, but since I really do not know you, perhaps it isn't.

Well, she is my heroine, and she is a fox (from which you can deduce I'm older than she is.) I still have her bumper sticker proudly on my car. I realize I'm in a minority on those points. That's fine. As a person, someone I'd trust as a neighbor, I would trust Reagan, Palin, and W. I wouldn't trust Clinton, Bush x41 or Obama. As President, it matters to me who is President about as much as it mattered to the passengers on the Titanic who was Captain after they hit the iceberg. Too late to matter much.

I also agree with jtabeb that it will be more bad news if she's elected in 2012 (even though I'll vote for her if she's on the ticket.) Bad news not because of who got elected, but because of who controls them.

[kartius919]

That does not sound logical. Maybe voting itself is illogical and thats why I never vote.

[jtabeb]

Bad news not because of who got elected, but because of who controls them.

Doesn't have to be her. As long as we keep electing folks that are unresponsive to the needs of 90% of the electorate, we will continue to line the pockets of the top 10% with the blood sweat and toil of the bottom 90%, and, as I have pointed out, worse will eventually follow.

[Diarmuid]

I also agree with jtabeb that it will be more bad news if she's elected in 2012 (even though I'll vote for her if she's on the ticket.) Bad news not because of who got elected, but because of who controls them.

TPC I really do respect your opinion and find much of what you write extremely coherent and insightful, but for all the world I can not fathom this, why would you vote for a canditate you believe to be controlled or participate in a system you believe / know to be gamed /rigged and thus add legitamcy to? Have I missed something?

[metalman]

Well, she is my heroine, and she is a fox (from which you can deduce I'm older than she is.) I still have her bumper sticker proudly on my car. I realize I'm in a minority on those points. That's fine. As a person, someone I'd trust as a neighbor, I would trust Reagan, Palin, and W. I wouldn't trust Clinton, Bush x41 or Obama. As President, it matters to me who is President about as much as it mattered to the passengers on the Titanic who was Captain after they hit the iceberg. Too late to matter much.

I also agree with jtabeb that it will be more bad news if she's elected in 2012 (even though I'll vote for her if she's on the ticket.) Bad news not because of who got elected, but because of who controls them.

you can vote for her...


http://davidlias.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/palin-russia-idiot1.jpg

...as long as we're voting for the most expeditions end of the world, i'll vote for...

http://www.transbuddha.com/images/uploads/2009/05/batshit-crazy.jpg

...or...

http://www.eritreadaily.net/News2009/images/crazy-cat.gif

now i'll go back to my newspapers and web sites...

http://www.skelliewag.org/post_images/crazy_blogger.jpg

[jtabeb]

Question for some of you who know a bit or a lot about everything. It sticks in my mind that there is something in US law that holds the death penalty for advocacy of "overthrow of the government," or is it just for "violent overthrow of the government?" Please don't answer unless you really know WTF about what you may write.

Yes there is a law, yes I know what it is, and it is the the "violent overthrow", it's perfectly legal to do it within the bounds of the democratic process. (It's called an "election".):D

As the bard hath said "the Pen, is mightier than the Sword".

And even in my religion, Islam, here is what the Prophet Mohammad said about the subject: "The best Jihad is speaking the truth to a tyrannical government".

Funny, Huh? Not your stereotypical idea of Islam, but social justice (what I call Liberty and Justice for ALL), is at the cornerstone of this religion and it fits perfectly within the context of the Libertarian/ Classic Liberal (see Wikipedia, so that you actually understand the term), that I happen to espouse (with a good measure of hard-money laissez-fair capitalism backed up by sound prudential regulation and a democratic republic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

My Dad died fighting his Jihad against the soviets in Afghanistan. I would hope (and continue to believe) that pages and pages of electrons are more legal, moral, and as it happens, EFFECTIVE in this quest. As has been said earlier "take up arms as a last resort to ensure your dying breath is heard, but not before".

That last part, IMHO are words to LIVE by, not words to DIE by.

[ThePythonicCow]

TPC I really do respect your opinion and find much of what you write extremely coherent and insightful, but for all the world I can not fathom this, why would you vote for a canditate you believe to be controlled or participate in a system you believe / know to be gamed /rigged and thus add legitamcy to? Have I missed something?
I suppose because I have this vague hope that on peripheral issues there might still be a difference between the candidates, and the one I trust more (whatever that feeling means, not sure) would be more likely to align with my preferences on the secondary issues.

The Supreme Court is one of these issues that is not so peripheral, actually. I vastly prefer W's picks over Obama's first pick. This is not to say that the Supreme Court always remains free of the power of the same elites controlling the rest of Washington (indeed, this is rather what Jim and jtabeb are worried about on the case we're discussing on this thread.)

I also have a preference (beats me why, but I do) for the candidate who would, if they could see through the elitist controlled Matrix surrounding them, do something half right, versus the candidate who is, in my view, so corrupt to the core that they could lead a Girl Scount troop to a life of crime and drugs (or worse, in the case of one Mr. Clinton.)

[ThePythonicCow]

you can vote for her...

...as long as we're voting for the most expeditions end of the world, i'll vote for...

...or...

now i'll go back to my newspapers and web sites...

Dang, metalman, you put up a tough choice there :D.

But, yes, of those four, I'd vote for her.

Others who have run in the past that I'd vote for ahead of Palin include Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and perhaps (though he is way left of me) Dennis Kucinich.

[Jim Nickerson]

I suppose because I have this vague hope that on peripheral issues there might still be a difference between the candidates, and the one I trust more (whatever that feeling means, not sure) would be more likely to align with my preferences on the secondary issues.

The Supreme Court is one of these issues that is not so peripheral, actually. I vastly prefer W's picks over Obama's first pick. This is not to say that the Supreme Court always remains free of the power of the same elites controlling the rest of Washington (indeed, this is rather what Jim and jtabeb are worried about on the case we're discussing on this thread.)

I also have a preference (beats me why, but I do) for the candidate who would, if they could see through the elitist controlled Matrix surrounding them, do something half right, versus the candidate who is, in my view, so corrupt to the core that they could lead a Girl Scount troop to a life of crime and drugs (or worse, in the case of one Mr. Clinton.)

There it is TPC, the word "hope" from the fingers of one of the electorate, and I'll suggest to you and anyone who else votes on leaders based on hope that it is a waste of mentation and the time spent it takes to go to the polls.

I admitted here somewhere to being naive, and you I think agreed that I was, which didn't piss me off or anything. But above you wrote you would trust Reagan, Palin, W. Bush, but not Clinton, GWH Bush, or Obama. We are eqully naive.

Have you ever been an "insider" in anything? I suppose in some manner in your work you were at some point and to some degree an "insider." Insiders know stuff to which the rest of us likely will never be privvy.

It is my opinion that no President probably since Harry Truman has not been in the pocket(s) of some monied interests--but that is purely an opinion of someone light years away from the inside of politics. I suspect if anyone (that would have to be a true insider) were truly capable of knowing what is the difference between any of these guys you mentioned (pro or con) with regard to placing the interests of America above the egotistical achievement of occupying the most powerful position on the planet and the financial interests of those who monies propelled the various candidacies, there would not be a jot's difference between them. Charismatically there is a lot of difference between them, and it is charisma and the ability to convince the ignorant multitudes to vote them into the position of all powerful POTUS that matters, or maybe with Bush jr. it was purely his getting the Party nod and thus the benefit of the most voting-prone ideologic group in the second election.

I don't know where Jimmy Carter would fit in. His mother, Miss Lilly, was the house mother of my fraternity in college and she was rather much a down to earth type woman, and I never suspected that J. Carter was any sort of a Democratic elitest, but who knows, I don't.

TPC, I too could/would vote for Kucinich in that to my reckoning he appeared to represent real change, and we all know how far that got him. As long as Paul's ideology puts him into wanting to control what women do with their uteri, he's a no go in my book.

[Jim Nickerson]

TPC I really do respect your opinion and find much of what you write extremely coherent and insightful, but for all the world I can not fathom this, why would you vote for a canditate you believe to be controlled or participate in a system you believe / know to be gamed /rigged and thus add legitamcy to? Have I missed something?

Diarmuid, when one's premises do not support the conclusive facts, it is probably wise to re-evaluate the premises. TPC = Wise, Wise = Palin, Palin = nobody, TPC not equal to wise.

[metalman]

Diarmuid, when one's premises do not support the conclusive facts, it is probably wise to re-evaluate the premises. TPC = Wise, Wise = Palin, Palin = nobody, TPC not equal to wise.

jim, maybe this will cheer you up. this kid is 4 yrs old. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMnwOZA0DQk)

you can find examples like this all over the internets... kids with talents in math, science, etc.

don't forget this one...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gn5L5U92_54&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gn5L5U92_54&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

can the talents & hard work of individuals overcome gov't / social stupidity?

maybe so.

[ThePythonicCow]

There it is TPC, the word "hope" from the fingers of one of the electorate, and I'll suggest to you and anyone who else votes on leaders based on hope that it is a waste of mentation and the time spent it takes to go to the polls.

I admitted here somewhere to being naive, and you I think agreed that I was, which didn't piss me off or anything. But above you wrote you would trust Reagan, Palin, W. Bush, but not Clinton, GWH Bush, or Obama. We are eqully naive.

Have you ever been an "insider" in anything? I suppose in some manner in your work you were at some point and to some degree an "insider." Insiders know stuff to which the rest of us likely will never be privvy.

It is my opinion that no President probably since Harry Truman has not been in the pocket(s) of some monied interests- ...

Perhaps I missed a detail, but so far as I can tell, I agree with everything you said. Really :).

TPC, I too could/would vote for Kucinich in that to my reckoning he appeared to represent real change, and we all know how far that got him. As long as Paul's ideology puts him into wanting to control what women do with their uteri, he's a no go in my book.
Well, I suppose I could counter with saying that women are welcome to do whatever they want with their uteri in my book as well; it's just the other living beings that up temporary residence in uteri that society has an appropriate interest in protecting, if it chooses to do so.

But to be more honest, the abortion/life/choice issue to be less important to me as a moral issue than it is as an issue of the structure and health of society.

I am inclined to believe that


the more aggressive forms of feminism,
of abortion rights,
of government support for single moms, and
encouragement of daycare and women returning to work sooner after childbirth

are all parts of an intentional effort funded to weaken the family structure and further the progression to a socialist/fascist/tyranny that so alarms us at present.

The traditional family has been weakened, especially in the black community.

Even if some social service is worthwhile, it should seldom be the federal government supporting it, encouraging it or funding it. That way leads to tyranny.

The abortion/life/choice issue has also service the elite as one of the most divisive issues known.

In any event, my strongest view on that issue is that the federal government (legislature or court) should not be ramming either choice down the throat of this entire nation. It is entirely fine by me if the abortion laws in Utah differ from those in Nevada.

[Jim Nickerson]

Perhaps I missed a detail, but so far as I can tell, I agree with everything you said. Really :).


Well, I suppose I could counter with saying that women are welcome to do whatever they want with their uteri in my book as well; it's just the other living beings that up temporary residence in uteri that society has an appropriate interest in protecting, if it chooses to do so.

But to be more honest, the abortion/life/choice issue to be less important to me as a moral issue than it is as an issue of the structure and health of society.

I am inclined to believe that


the more aggressive forms of feminism,
of abortion rights,
of government support for single moms, and
encouragement of daycare and women returning to work sooner after childbirth
are all parts of an intentional effort funded to weaken the family structure and further the progression to a socialist/fascist/tyranny that so alarms us at present.

The traditional family has been weakened, especially in the black community.

Even if some social service is worthwhile, it should seldom be the federal government supporting it, encouraging it or funding it. That way leads to tyranny.

The abortion/life/choice issue has also service the elite as one of the most divisive issues known.

In any event, my strongest view on that issue is that the federal government (legislature or court) should not be ramming either choice down the throat of this entire nation. It is entirely fine by me if the abortion laws in Utah differ from those in Nevada.

And little of what you write am I inclined to disagree with.

That two people get married, have kids, and stay married til death, in some unknown to me number of instances, can be a facade of family life. My father was an alcoholic who was always employed in one job and who never failed to provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, educational encouragement and when the time came the money for three kids to attend a state university. He had to have been a lousy husband, except for the physical provisions he produced. Why my mother stayed married to him was probably familial pressures from her siblings, and her unpreparedness at least mentally and maybe educationally to separate and go it alone. She was born in 1913, so she was a product of a different world than we have lived in the last 30-40 years for sure.

I don't know whether what my sisters and I turned out to be as citizens was due to anything other than the educational opportunities we were given and fortunately took. I don't think any of us consider our family life much of a boost to getting along in our futures--except perhaps to try for something better in our own lives. To me my family life was a big psychological burden, and only after my father died and after I reached 40-ish did I come to appreciate him for at least his honesty in all things except his alcoholism. For longer I appreciated his mandate that we kids would at least go to school until we finished college.

I think your attribution of the things that might enable divorce and feminine independence are coming from that "nut-job" gyrus that is known to exist in some human's brains. :rolleyes: But maybe you are correct.

The issue of states determining what women do with their uteri or embryos is equally bad as the Feds intervening in the same area. What seems to be to be fairest is for all individuals to have the freedom to make the choices that fits them. If you don't believe in abortions, simply do not have one and devote your energies to nuturing whatever pops out at nine months or so.

Politics will make a giant leap for US mankind if it ever gets off its focus on legislating individual morality and focuses rather on crimes against the multitudes. If you are fortunate to get to live a long life, I'd say try to remember to check back for visible progress shortly before you die.

[ThePythonicCow]

that "nut-job" gyrus that is known to exist in some human's brains.... even in the brain of a Cow or two :rolleyes:

[Diarmuid]

Diarmuid, when one's premises do not support the conclusive facts, it is probably wise to re-evaluate the premises. TPC = Wise, Wise = Palin, Palin = nobody, TPC not equal to wise.

Touche Jim :)

[swannmex]

Any of you guys ever consider voting with your feet?? It is a big world out there. Not for everyone for various reasons but IMO, the war is over and we lost. The idea of hanging around the States and watching the drama play out ( if you have another option ) is not necessarily the best choice.

Good luck to all of us.

[ThePythonicCow]

Diarmuid, when one's premises do not support the conclusive facts, it is probably wise to re-evaluate the premises. TPC = Wise, Wise = Palin, Palin = nobody, TPC not equal to wise.
I usually try to avoid making fun of others, because that generates angst quickly, shutting down useful communication.

So I take out my prankish side on myself, revealing details that while true in some way, I know will be roundly ridiculed.

I will gladly stand in the corner, along side Palin, as you throw custard pies in our general direction. Heave away, chaps!

[goadam1]

Since Itulip only like theories that have predictive value. I will make a prediction.

It this decision comes down in favor of corporate speech as protected speech, Sarah Palin WILL be the next president of the United States. At that point we will have completed our descent from a democratic republic to a fascist kleptocracy.

We will have our version of Hitler. (as only a true Ideologue can kill in the name of God, or the State, or in the name of "Protecting the public").

Obama is a pragmatist, who's failure to tackle economic reform HONETSLY, has cost him his entire credibility with the electorate. I really fear what the public will choose to replace him.

As a historical note, a failure of reform, coupled with unlimited corporate finance of campaigns were the key enabling factors that led to the election of Adolph Hitler in Germany. And that is why I fear that history is about to repeat itself right here in the good old US of A.

Why would the powers that be support Palin? If Obama fails, then we will have Mitt Romney. No revolution. Idol has a new judge, etc..

[babbittd]

Why would the powers that be support Palin? If Obama fails, then we will have Mitt Romney. No revolution. Idol has a new judge, etc..

Romney's religion is all wrong. I mean, how did they not nominate him in 2008?

[steveaustin2006]

...got me to thinking about "hope" again.

A glimmer of hope today?

A federal judge on Monday rejected a $33 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bank of America Corp., saying the SEC's accusations of inadequate disclosure by the bank over bonuses paid at Merrill Lynch must now go to trial.

The SEC announced last month that it had settled its civil charges against BofA, which agreed to buy the New York investment bank last year, without the bank admitting or denying guilt in the case. BofA has said it didn't violate disclosure rules.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff held up his approval of the settlement, however, and ordered the SEC last month to explain why it didn't pursue charges against specific executives at Bank of America over the accusations.

After receiving additional statements from the SEC and BofA last week, Rakoff ruled Monday that the proposed $33 million settlement "cannot remotely be called fair," and ordered that the case go to trial beginning Feb. 1.

Rakoff, in his ruling, found that the proposed settlement "suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the SEC gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger, the bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth."

[BiscayneSunrise]

Romney's religion is all wrong. I mean, how did they not nominate him in 2008?

If you want some clues into why Romney failed to capture the nomination, take a look at his Dad's presidential campaign in the 60's.

Short answer: Both he and his dad were out of their league when playing at the national level, even at the state level they were both a little iffy.

[doom&gloom]

you will enjoy James Quinn's current TBP.

http://theburningplatform.com/economy/wish-you-were-here-1

[Spartacus]

with a Brit (with no vote in the US) living in Toronto.

He kept regaling me with his utopian views on what Obama was going to get done.

I've lost contact with him, but some of the times he was blabbing away I was indulging in the very bad habit of thinking of something like <img src="http://itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2139&stc=1&d=1253034753">

Maybe my cynicism is completely out of control.

[Jim Nickerson]

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/09/expect-little-and-you-may-yet-be-disappointed/#more-5156

Willem Buiter
Expect little and you may yet be disappointed

September 15, 2009 10:


Clearly, the qualities one needs to get elected to high office in western democracies are not qualities that are likely to be helpful once you have achieved high office and are expected to govern and lead. To survive the selection process to become president you have to be able to stitch together a coalition of special interests that can provide sufficient financial and sweat equity resources to win this grueling race to the top. Once you get there, you should shed the unfortunate baggage you accumulated on your way up and govern in the interest of all the people. Few can do that. Apparently Obama is not one of them.


I don't post this because of any ill will for Obama, I wish him well if he were to actually do something for the citizens in the vast majority. I think until we see some real change, Buiter has hit the nail on its head.

[Jim Nickerson]

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
Sunday, September 13, 2009

<!-- Begin .post -->The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later

So will the President succeed on financial reform? I wish I could be optimistic. His milktoast list of proposed reforms is inadequate to the task, even if adopted. The Street's behavior since its bailout should be proof enough that halfway measures won't do. The basic function of commercial banking in our economic system -- linking savers to borrowers -- should never have been confused with the casino-like function of investment banking. Securitization, whereby loans are turned into securities traded around the world, has made lenders unaccountable for the risks they take on. The Glass-Steagall Act should be resurrected. Pension and 401 (k) plans, meanwhile, should never have been allowed to subject their beneficiaries to the risks that Wall Street gamblers routinely run. Put simply, the Street has been given too many opportunities to play too many games with other peoples' money.

But, like the health care industry, Wall Street has platoons of lobbyists and an almost unlimited war chest to protect its interests and prevent change. And with the Dow Jones Industrial Average trending upward again -- and the public's and the media's attention focused elsewhere, especially on health care -- it will be difficult to summon the same sense of urgency financial reform commanded six months ago.

Yet without substantial reform, the nation and the world will almost certainly be plunged into the same crisis or worse at some point in the not-too-distant future. Wall Street's major banks are already en route to their old, dangerous ways -- now made more dangerous by their sure knowledge that they are too big to fail.

[Jim Nickerson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091500943.html
By Simon Johnson and James Kwak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/simon+johnson+and+james+kwak/)
Tuesday, September 15, 2009; 8:33 AM

Lehman Brothers and the Persistence of Moral Hazard

If the Obama administration is serious about preventing a future financial crisis, it will have to address these three forms of moral hazard. However, its proposals may not be adequate to the task.

The proposed solutions to skewed compensation structures are "say on pay" (allowing shareholders to vote on compensation packages) and increased independence of board compensation committees. However, at best this ensures that managers have the same incentives as shareholders -- which they already do, for the most part. These reforms do not address the problem that shareholders like the fact that banks are highly leveraged institutions.

Another approach to limiting moral hazard is giving the government "resolution authority" for large financial institutions, similar to the FDIC's power to shut down commercial banks. This would theoretically give the government the ability to wind down a bank in an orderly fashion while imposing "haircuts" on creditors; this would, in turn, give creditors the incentive to watch more closely over their borrowers.

While we support giving the government this authority, it is questionable what impact it would have on market behavior. Resolution authority carries a meaningful threat only if market participants believe the government would actually use it in a way that harms shareholders and creditors . . . and the government has just spent months insisting that harming either shareholders or creditors is a mistake.

The Treasury Department has also proposed tightening capital requirements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090801117.html) on large banks, which could make it harder for them to borrow large amounts of money. But this would do little to change the incentives at work; it would at best reduce the amount of damage that a bank could cause on the way down.

If moral hazard cannot be effectively minimized, then the alternative solution is stricter regulation. That is, instead of trying to create the right incentives for private-sector actors to do the right thing, the government would have the power to simply demand that they do the right thing -- or, at least, that they not do the wrong thing. This is a path that this administration seems reluctant to go down. As a result, we may find ourselves attempting to contain moral hazard, on a trial-and-error basis, for years to come.

[kartius919]

General David Petraeus! Future Mr. President. He is so studly with the toupee. I would definitely have a beer with that man and then go nigger or beaner hunting afterwards in our american made chevy. General Patraeus, take my first born. he is yours! Yee har.

[Jim Nickerson]

US Rep Frank bars Goldman Sachs lobbyist-aide

Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:08pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSN1615357320090916


WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - A top lobbyist for Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs (GS.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=GS.N)) has been barred from communicating with members and staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, an aide to the panel's chairman said on Wednesday.

Democratic Representative Barney Frank has banished Goldman's Michael Paese, a former committee staffer, from dealing with the panel while it considers a long list of financial reform proposals, some directly impacting Goldman.

"Mr. Paese left our offices in September 2008, and was not allowed to communicate with any committee members or staff for a period of one year due to normal ethics restrictions that apply to all House and Senate employees," said Frank aide Steven Adamske in a statement.

"Out of an abundance of caution due to the nature of financial regulation reform, the chairman has extended Mr. Paese's recusal for another year," Adamske said.

Frank's committee is dealing with a heavy load of proposed legislation put forward by the Obama administration to tighten regulation of banks and capital markets following the worst financial crisis in generations.
In an example of the Washington-Wall Street revolving door culture, Paese was the committee's deputy staff director before he quit to work for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association as a lobbyist. Goldman hired him in April.

Paese could not immediately be reached for comment at Goldman's Washington, D.C., office. A spokesman for the firm in New York also could not immediately be reached.

Finance, insurance and real estate firms spend more money lobbying officials in Washington than any other sector of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance and lobbying watchdog group.

Within that sector, Goldman is a powerhouse. Since 1989 its employees, their family members and political action committees have donated $31.2 million to U.S. political candidates -- topping all other banks and financial firms, the center said. (Additional reporting by Steve Eder in New York; Editing by Dan Grebler)



Stopping one of the lobbyists is like spittin' in the ocean.

[ThePythonicCow]

US Rep Frank bars Goldman Sachs lobbyist-aide

Stopping one of the lobbyists is like spittin' in the ocean.

True, however it seems that Barnie Frank has been getting more independent of the Banksters recently than I'd have expected.

In other news, we now have a veto proof 2/3's of the House signed up as co-sponsers for Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed, and the Senate has announced it will hold hearings on this (see Grayson Announces A Hearing On Bill To Audit The Market Maker Formerly Known As The Federal Reserve (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/grayson-announces-hearing-bill-audit-market-maker-formerly-known-federal-reserve)).

I'm not saying that Congress is ready to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and shutdown Goldman or JPMorgan. That is still the stuff for dreams only. However Congress does seem to have an increasing awareness that they need to get up off their knees before the altar of the Bankster gods and exercise some independent judgement in these matters.

[Jim Nickerson]

True, however it seems that Barnie Frank has been getting more independent of the Banksters recently than I'd have expected.

In other news, we now have a veto proof 2/3's of the House signed up as co-sponsers for Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed, and the Senate has announced it will hold hearings on this (see Grayson Announces A Hearing On Bill To Audit The Market Maker Formerly Known As The Federal Reserve (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/grayson-announces-hearing-bill-audit-market-maker-formerly-known-federal-reserve)).

I'm not saying that Congress is ready to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and shutdown Goldman or JPMorgan. That is still the stuff for dreams only. However Congress does seem to have an increasing awareness that they need to get up off their knees before the altar of the Bankster gods and exercise some independent judgement in these matters.

I just expect Frank is pissed off that he isn't getting paid enough by FIRE

http://www.itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2152&stc=1&d=1253164983

Whereas Grayson unless interests have been kicking into his pot since the data below may have enough independence to remain active--but likely we don't really know who's greasin' his gears.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2153&stc=1&d=1253165405

And even Paul might be beholding to some FIRE interests, note red-lines => 1M$.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2154&stc=1&d=1253165768

[Jim Nickerson]

And if you are really into political bullshit, read this about John Isakson, supposedly a real-estate magnate from Ga, where so many banks have been taken over. And this guy's not worried about his grand or great-grand kids because I expect he has funded their trusts already in off-shore accounts--FYI purely my cynical surmise.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOcMZU6BreOM

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/more-on-housing-tax-credit.html

http://www.itulip.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2155&stc=1&d=1253166398

[ThePythonicCow]

I take it Jim that you don't hold some of our esteemed Congressmen in quite the high regard to which they aspire?

[raja]

Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy. Michael Moore

We already have a democracy . . . the problem is we're not using it.

I call my representatives regularly and remind them that if they do not do such-and-such, they won't get my vote next election. Furthermore, I let them know that I'm going to encourage all my relatives, contacts and friends to vote likewise.

Well, friends . . . have you called your representatives lately? :D

Give them a piece of your mind . . . it's fun.
There is usually someone fairly intelligent in the office, who has the reps ear, who will talk to you. Just say when the secretary answers the phone, "Is there someone I can talk to who knows a lot about the economy."

[Jim Nickerson]

Here's a decent comment by Bruce Krasting about senator Isakson and his continuing to try to infuse the RE market with taxpayer monies.

http://brucekrasting.blogspot.com/2009/09/senator-john-isakson-r.html

Somewhat aside, the best comment I read today was Barry Ritholz commenting on a speech Volcker made and his approaching testimony before Congress.

"Next week, Volcker will appear before Congress, where one hopes he will testify on their inexcusable acquiescence to bank lobbyists, and their inability to reform finance. “Grow a spine, you corrupt, chicken-shit cowards, before the country goes to Hell,” we wish he was overheard to remark."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/volcker-make-banks-less-risky/