Skip to main content

The world pumped in $9 trillion to prevent a financial meltdown of the banks. The list of countries failing to be able to support the losses of these global leviathans generated continues to grow. Iceland, Greece, Ireland and now probably Portugal and possibly Spain. A major world currency the Euro may be also in the firing line, and hence throw into economic turmoil the 450 million people that  live in the European Union.

All attempts at regulating these global leeches has failed Basel I , Basel II were treated as both joke and challenge to circumvent any sensible control, hence such wonders as derivatives.

"Capitalism can't work unless these financial firms at the center of the heart of capitalism can be subject to orderly failure. The rules of capitalism need to apply to them just as they do to non-financial companies."
~Paul Tucker  deputy governor of the Bank of England

The major global banks have become even larger than before the near meltdown.

Basel III will merely be another wet blanket.

When you look at the financial tools used by the banks to lend some $600 trillion worldwide you enter a parallel universe.

Professor Lord Robert May has turned his attention to this:

The recent banking crises have made it clear that increasingly complex strategies for managing risk in individual banks and investment funds (pension funds, etc) has not been matched by corresponding attention to overall systemic risks.  Simple mathematical caricatures of "banking ecosystems", which capture some of the essential dynamics and which have some parallels (along with significant differences) with earlier work on stability and complexity in ecological food webs, have interesting implications.  In particular, strategies that tend to minimise risk for individual banks can – under certain circumstances – maximise the probability of systemic failure.

We hear terms every day that nobody except but a few elite bankers really understands:

Derivatives:

A security whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets. The derivative itself is merely a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset.

Vanilla derivatives (simple)
Exotic derivatives ( complicated)

Many of these Financial products open the way to fraud as the distance between the underlying asset and the parties involved in trading them grows.

We then head off into the even murkier world of:

Collateralized Debt Obligations or CDO and Collateralized loan obligations or CLO.

Simple?......No?

Collateralized loan obligations are the same as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) except for the assets securing the obligation. CLOs allow banks to reduce regulatory capital requirements by selling large portions of their commercial loan portfolios to international markets, reducing the risks associated with lending.

These not being complicated enough or perhaps too transparent to the common regulator we now have

CDO squared

Types of CDO^2
A cash CDO-squared is a CDO backed by a collateral portfolio consisting of tranches of existing cash CDOs.1 On the other hand, a synthetic CDO-squared involves a portfolio of credit default swaps (CDS) and has a two-layer structure of credit risk. In most synthetic CDOs-squared, the underlying CDOs are created for the sole purpose of being included in the CDO-squared. Because of its synthetic nature, these underlying CDOs are simply conceptual and used to calculate cash flows and values of the CDO-squared. Therefore, a synthetic CDO-squared may be viewed as a complex derivative instrument, while its cash counterpart is simply a repackaging of existing CDOs.

CDO cubed.

These CDOs are identical to regular CDOs except for the assets securing the obligation. Unlike a CDO, which is backed by a pool of bonds, loans, and other credit instruments, CDO-cubeds are backed by CDO-squared tranches. CDO-cubeds allow the banks to resell the credit risk that they have taken once again by repackaging their CDO-squareds.

The trading is once again moving very far away from the assets and the paper trail becomes all but lost, hence opening the whole system to massive fraud.

Banks maybe only backing up their total loans with less than 1% in their reserves, even though Basel I in all its convoluted thinking pulled the 8% minimum out of a hat. This 8% had no mathematical basis whatsoever.

These tools were designed to maximize short term profit, and as we have all experienced medium term is they all but brought us too our knees.

Nothing has been done to reduce their size in fact the opposite has occured, their influence is global and they feel they cannot be challenged by mere governments and indeed many elected officials in power today will profit from them in their campaigns in the future. Just look at Goldman Sachs list of recipients if you don't believe me.

When banks harvest the profits and the public carry the losses then we have a system designed to fail.

Next time and yes there will be a next time: [the boom bust cycle is a fundamental design flaw]

They will be too big to save.

There needs to be a complete overhaul and break-up of the banks; the likelihood of this happening is close to zero as whole countries' political systems are beholden to the global financial leviathan.

Whenever threatened by regulation hence reduced profits they threaten to move to more understanding climes.

Ask yourself who owns these monstrosities and whose capital forms the foundation [cash reserves] for lending.

You will find most in the top 0.1%.

Here is the central battlefield in the class war.

We missed the opportunity to do something about this before we saved their necks, next time around the only thing left of value will be our souls.

Originally posted to LaFeminista on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar designed to fail (215+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, cdreid, Angie in WA State, Sylv, Detlef, mattman, emal, TJ, hyperstation, eeff, Mnemosyne, RFK Lives, Creosote, ssgbryan, Heart of the Rockies, rasbobbo, opinionated, JSCram3254, Agathena, ask, chimpy, JuliaAnn, greenomanic, ctsteve, tidalwave1, psnyder, lcrp, alizard, bwintx, zerelda, isabel, fran1, Mosquito Pilot, Josiah Bartlett, BlueEagle, dvx, Julie Gulden, joanneleon, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, radarlady, ManOnTheBench, salmo, UncleCharlie, m16eib, caul, JanetT in MD, unclejohn, PBen, frandor55, Simplify, drewfromct, reflectionsv37, Mr X, Burned, blue jersey mom, neroden, sodalis, coolbreeze, Pluto, Snud, Jim P, Showman, BachFan, cybersaur, dharmafarmer, cardboardurinal, tonyahky, buckstop, Naniboujou, arlene, Son of a Cat, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, global citizen, JVolvo, Preston S, sceptical observer, Pilgrim X, Hey BB, Turbonerd, onionjim, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassiodorus, Dreaming of Better Days, shaharazade, Hedwig, gerald 1969, DBunn, One Pissed Off Liberal, phonegery, dov12348, marykk, Ken in MN, dotsright, blue armadillo, camlbacker, Margfh, Wino, Mary Mike, yowsta, Jimdotz, BehereBenow, LamontCranston, frisbee, newpioneer, Swill to Power, puzzled, artisan, HCKAD, bluehen96, snowshoeblue, mcc777c2, Uberbah, jnhobbs, millwood, LWelsch, cloudbustingkid, zorp, Bikemom, TomP, ashwken, rmonroe, MKinTN, kafkananda, scooter in brooklyn, bythesea, lineatus, jamess, Deep Harm, Calamity Jean, happymisanthropy, geomoo, bluesheep, rubine, mofembot, luckylizard, venger, Virginia mom, DixieDishrag, BYw, allie123, priceman, Robobagpiper, palantir, David Futurama, papicek, statsone, Design the Future, aufklaerer, ewmorr, An Affirming Flame, banjolele, dark daze, maryabein, WiseFerret, mkor7, EquationDoc, Daily Activist, John Shade, kevinpdx, A Voice, Nonconformist, jfromga, mahakali overdrive, fidellio, renzo capetti, gulfgal98, ItsSimpleSimon, Kristina40, 2020adam, Egalitare, elengul, Floande, Colorado is the Shiznit, redlum jak, ozsea1, Plox, BlueJessamine, palm springs progressive, Situational Lefty, trumpeter, marleycat, Wolf10, RadicalRoadRat, tardis10, LSmith, whoknu, enhydra lutris, Imhotepsings, blue aardvark, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, jadt65, DRo, Lucy2009, No one gets out alive, Azazello, Patric Juillet, Whimsical Rapscallion, pawtucketpat, greenbastard, Siri, molecularlevel, dance you monster, turn blue, toilpress, J Brunner Fan, belinda ridgewood, Free Jazz at High Noon, Leo Flinnwood, MartyM, ricklewsive

    and to extract maximum short term gain.

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15:24 PM PST

    •  Designed to fail? (11+ / 0-)

      World War II didn't fail because Germany lost. The World Series didn't fail because the Rangers lost.

      Capitalism is doing just fine. Most of humanity is just losing.

      •  Eventually all systems fail (19+ / 0-)

        its how they fail that may matter

        ;-0

        "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

        by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This system isn't failing at the moment. (2+ / 0-)

          It's chugging right along, in fact.

          •  For the moment (26+ / 0-)

            the next crash is in the queue

            "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

            by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:21:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yea. that crash is just another feature of... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              phonegery, BYw, An Affirming Flame

              the system.

              •  It didn't used to be... (22+ / 0-)

                From the 1930's to the 1990's banks were regulated so that they couldn't engage in this foolishness.  But now, the latest craze is to deregulate everything.  We had radical boom and bust cycles in this country before the New Deal.  Now that the last vestiges of that are being swept away (with SS being next), we will see radical boom and bust cycles again.  Only this time because the wealth is so concentrated and the markets are so global, the recovery time will be much, much longer.

                In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

                by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:08:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Couple deregulation with CEO's (18+ / 0-)

                  acting to maximize profit without managing risk and you get exactly what happened in 2008. It's likely to happen again.

                  Martin Sullivan, former CEO of AIG was finally sacked after a cumulative two-quarter loss of $13.1 billion. He walked away with a check for $68-million. It bears to note that when he became CEO, one of his first actions was to cancel the weekly risk management meeting. Basically the ethos at a lot of these companies became; go forth and make money, we don't care how.

                  "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." -- Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

                  by Siri on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:52:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  These institutions are so big... (10+ / 0-)

                    That basically, no individual or even a small group of individuals owns them.  Certainly not the Executive management.  Which means that nobody running the institution has any incentive for the long term viability of the company.  It used to be that banks were owned by a small set of people who were personally vested in the long term prospects of a bank.  Now, these institutions are so huge that nobody 'owns' the bank, therefore the incentive is to take as much risk as possible for the quickest possible gain.

                    In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

                    by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:58:39 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And it is not really just the top 1% that owns (10+ / 0-)

                      big banks.  401Ks are the vehicle by which the risk of financial companies are spread to the middle class.  After the last meltdown, most are not currently paying dividends, so we get the risk without any benefits.

                      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

                      by MadScientist on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:03:42 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  True, but... (6+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cdreid, drewfromct, neroden, gatorcog, rubine, Siri

                        Something like 80% of all stocks are owned by the upper 1%.

                        In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

                        by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:11:44 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  There'e the hook (7+ / 0-)

                        The companies that are deemed TBTF are bailed out by the taxpayers because so many middle class people have invested in these institutions for their retirement. While overall, the top 10% own most of the securities in this country, the part owned by every day people is their only investment for their future and its loss would hurt.

                        The management operates to maximize short term profits and then walk away with multi-million dollar golden parachutes. The company is bailed out because, we are told, its failure would be too traumatic to the financial system. Any attempt to regulate these behemoth TBTF's is deemed socialism. The FED props up the markets so that spooked institutional investors stay in the game. So we are held hostage to this system.

                        "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." -- Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

                        by Siri on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:25:18 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  As far as I can tell the reason these... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          enhydra lutris

                          entities are TBTF is that they make so many rich people richer.  I haven't noticed the slightest concern by any of the greedmeisters at the top for middle class investors.  In fact they are treating the middle class as though they are obligated to save the wealthy.

                          While overall, the top 10% own most of the securities in this country, the part owned by every day people is their only investment for their future and its loss would hurt.

                          So what.  Lack of health care hurts too, as does being a soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. etc.  Having your home foreclosed is also quite painful.  Obama really stepped in and saved those folks (not).

                          I don't believe the uber-wealthy have the slightest concern regarding the well being of the "small people".  I wonder how often the ruling elite uses the phrase; "surplus population"?  Some teaparty freak will probably be mentioning it any time now.

                          "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

                          by rubine on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:50:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  There is a difference between... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cdreid, enhydra lutris

                        investment in, and ownership of.  The uber-wealthy can sit at the board of directors table.  Because of that their profitability is prioritized, whereas the small investor is treated like a chump.

                        Imagine playing monopoly, or any game, where you, or your team, can make the rules as the game moves along.  There is no question that you will win, and win, and win.

                        Of course at that point the game has become meaningless, or, as in the case of our country, it has become a plutocracy.

                        Competition is out, feudal monarchy is in.  Bow to the Barons of Industry.

                        "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

                        by rubine on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:35:26 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  The executive management *controls* them. (5+ / 0-)

                      Forget who owns them, the executive management controls them.  But you're right, they have no interest in long-term success, only in looting what they can before they get sacked.  That is exactly the problem with American corporate governance.

                      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                      by neroden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:18:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not just deregulation. Who the regulators (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cdreid, drewfromct, Kristina40, Siri

                    are matters as well.

                    Regulators of various stripes all failed during last decades. Some, like Alan Greenspan, failed because their personal ideologies were anti-regulation.  

                    All Devils Are Here shows many instances of local attorney generals stepping in to address the predatory lending spree that seemed to pop up where ever a lot of subprime lending was occurring.  Some local legislatures even passed stricter laws, but they were over-ridden by Federal agencies who acted like the banks were their clients.

                    As for Risk-Management, all these companies did risk management they just mis-managed it for the most part.  Remember, Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, AIG, Merill Lynch, Fannie and Freddie all got killed because they HELD ONTO risky, toxic assets. Assets that were AAA-rated. Goldman Sachs held this stuff too, they just wised up to risk of it earlier, because they did risk management better.

                    The other problem was transparency.  Since these mortgage securities were AAA-rated, banks didn't have to show them on the balance sheet because the risk wasn't considered.  The credit markets froze up because no company could trust another company because who knew if they were about crash like Bear or Lehman  

                •  The busts got bigger and bigger starting in 1890s (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RichM, cdreid, drewfromct, Calamity Jean, Siri

                  until they got too big for the capitalists to fix in 1929.

                  (Prior to the 1890s, the agricultural economy, which worked to different cycles, cushioned the industrial boom-bust cycle.  The industrialization of agriculture has largely eliminated that ability.)

                  With the removal of the New Deal regulatory system, the pattern of ever-worse busts is going to happen again.  (The reasons why the busts got worse every time are fairly well understood and relate to greater trade, less self-sufficiency in households and firms, and more financialization).

                  The 2008 crash will not be the last one, because the regulation is still absent, according to every expert.

                  Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                  by neroden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:16:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And then we'll be just like the majority... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid

                  of countries that have been artificially forced into crisis for the purpose of stripping the State of all it's worth.

          •  Not really. Are you familiar with engines? (44+ / 0-)

            What we've done is like using a NOS injection system.

            You get a huge increase in HP & torque, but every second you are burning up the intake, combustion chambers, piston heads, and exhaust. That's fine if your only goal is to cross the finish line, but in the case of a national economy there is no finish line and when this engine lets go, as it eventually has to, we're left with a wrecked car and no replacement engine.

            "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

            by Greyhound on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 01:32:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I forget who to attribute, (16+ / 0-)

            but I believe it was on this site that I read a quotation that summed it up perfectly.  I'm paraphrasing, but:

            Exponential growth in a finite world cannot be sustained indefinitely.

            That is the end problem for capitalism.  It must maintain growth indefinitely; stagflation, recession, depression are the social and economic consequences of capital not growing.  There is a natural end for this economic system that was never eloquently designed, but which grew from our most primitive instincts; the first and most base of which was greed.

            The question at hand to me, is this:  Do the capitalists know they are approaching the natural limit of capitalism?  If they are aware, what would they do?  

            I theorize that they would grab as much real estate as is possible, take the cash that will become useless in a failed system BEFORE it fails to build gated, securitized, grid independent estates that are hard to reach and harder to penetrate.

            Is that going on?  I don't know, but I do know the race to foreclose has been frenetic.

            Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

            by Gustogirl on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:35:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Like I commented below... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, gatorcog, Kristina40, BlueDragon

            There used to be bloggers on here that had this cogent analysis back during the Bush years.  They predicted the collapse.  Since then, they have looked at corporate profits and the stock market, along with LEI and declared that happy days are here again.  But have failed to recognize that the behavior has not changed, just moved to a different asset base (this time, corporate loans).  What happens when consumers stop spending and somebody like a WalMart can't squeeze out any more income?  What if they default on their loans?  Big Pharma isn't producing as many anti-biotics because there is no money in it.  What happens when people can't afford their prescriptions?  The banks where successful in making trillions of dollars in capitalizing all aspects of the real-estate market.  When it collapsed, the got a bail-out, some very minor regulations and no prosecution.  Now they are using that model on all financial instruments produced by a bank.  When it collapses, and it will, it will bring down all areas of the economy.

            In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

            by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:06:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those of us who predicted collapse (0+ / 0-)

              have never declared happy days are here again. IF i can be a little presumptuous here and speak for "us"..

              None of the people i know who predicted this happening (though not the date/year) were using microeconomic data or arcane equations. It was done by analysing the structure of the economy, the american form of capitalism and the effects of reaganomics (which both parties follow now).

              This isnt a temporary thing from which we will recover, bandaids will be issued, regulations introduced and all will be well. This is your future. We will recover to some extent. But it will be temporary.

              You can view it thus: For 300 years (this economy precedes this country) we grew based on nearly unlimited resources. We cut/mined/drilled our way into relative affluence. Then we founded our financial system. The banks on one hand. The stock market on the other. Very different entities with very different goals. The banks were literally formed to stabilise and homogenise the economy. It was a good thing. The stock market was from day one corrupt and designed as a corrupt casino.

              Since the market became  widespread throughout the economy our system has been collapsing on a regular basis. While we "climbed up" the resource/production incline... the stock market was "staircasing" us down on the other end. It evened out with our industries and resources countering the effects of this "casino capitalism". But then the game changed. The banks merged with wall street.
              As we speak there are almost no lines between non-bank corporations, banks, and wall street. That is a part of what happened in 1929 but by no means the whole. But now three is no wall. No line. Now the Bank, backed by the  US Gov (thats you), are owners of and owned by these wall street firms. Not only that they own their product, sell their product, buy their product, sell them product, finance all of it.

              We're falling down that stairwell now and there arent many handholds left before we hit the bottom. In previous crash's precedent was set in the gov (thats you.. the working class) bailing out the S&L's, the major corporations and it was painful. In this one we nearly tapped ourself out bailing out WallStreet/the banks. We have borrowed stunning amounts of money from our grandchildren to do so.
              And the promised return isnt there. The real promised return wasnt "pay back tarp". It was "repair the economic engine that is the Base of all of the above". But theres no repair going on folks. Its like your feet got blown off and the "doctor" who shot you gave you headache pills to protect the "important portion" from feeling the pain.

              Economies grow from the bottom up. If you listen even the most deluded economist will admit that high unemployment and low wages is probably a near permanent condition. That there will be no effort to repair the engine ie the working class. That while we're willing to spend a fortune keeping the paint job perfect, we just cant spare the funds for a new fan belt.

              This is the future. Eventual total collapse of the american capitalist system. And the plutocrats not only are aware of it. They approve. Pool boys are far too expensive.. and the serfs are far too uppity.

              Welcome to the 21st century.

              ..but if youre a writer you say all i wanna do is leave behind one story - Harlan Ellison

              by cdreid on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 02:39:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  That must explain why (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drewfromct, Mr X, JG in MD

            US workers haven't had a raise since the 1970s. Of course, maybe actual human beings are expendable under capitalism. Nah. That couldn't be right.

            We cannot win a war crime - Dancewater, July 27, 2008

            by unclejohn on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:11:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The system is failing catastrophically. (5+ / 0-)

            2020adam, the 2008 crash was simply an early warning sign of the crash of the economic system -- much the way there were several early warning signs of the collapse of the global political system between the Franco-Prussian War and prior to World War I.

            I won't say "capitalism" is failing, as there are many forms of capitalism.  The particular form of crony capitalism based on fraud and theft which we currently have -- it is collapsing under the weight of its own social unproductivity.  How it crashes, what replaces it, is what matters.

            To bring this discussion back down to earth, all the best financial bloggers and economics experts state that nothing has been done to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crash, that the banksters seem intent on "reinflating the bubble" which created it, and that something along those lines is guaranteed to happen again, sooner rather than later.  All the best political analysts believe that it will be impossible to repeat the bailouts unless sufficient time as passed, and it seems unlikely that sufficient time will have passed.  Therefore we will get an uncontrolled crash next time.

            Make no mistake, that will destroy the fortunes of many of the plutocrats who caused the entire problem in the first place, just as it did in 1929.

            Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

            by neroden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:13:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Destroy the fortunes of the plutocrats? (0+ / 0-)

              I thought most of the plutocrats were the ones who rode out the 1930's just fine.  Some of them had to let go one of the staff of gardeners.

              •  No, lots of them took serious haircuts. But they (0+ / 0-)

                had enough money and physical possessions to stay out of out right poverty that the majority suffered.  One of the reasons why Biltmore Estate is 'public' is because of the expense needed to upkeep it was more than the Vanderbilts could withstand.  That and the tax amendment.

                However, comparitively speaking, they still came out like bandits.

            •  The cycles (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nchristine

              are getting closer and closer together. And o ur merging wall street with the banks with the government is accellerating even that. It is currently every decade but this crash was far worse than any since 1929. Im guessing major catastrophes every 5-10 years until the system totally implodes and we have some form of revolution.. either far right or far left or something totally new.

              ..but if youre a writer you say all i wanna do is leave behind one story - Harlan Ellison

              by cdreid on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 02:42:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  depends hou you define system and fail (7+ / 0-)

          Does nature fail? Does gravity fail? Do black holes fail?

          Good diary, just be careful of that word all.

          Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

          by LWelsch on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:53:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Premise is wrong (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JuliaAnn, Jim P, marleycat, BlueDragon

          It's bankster looting.  It is not free market capitalism.  

          Under Obama the looting has continued and WILL continue.

          I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

          by deepsouthdoug on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:21:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nchristine

            It's american capitalism. This is just a symptom. If you really look at the last century and a half of economic history you'll see that what has really been happening is the looting of the real economy (Production and innovattion) by the scam artists and criminals (wall street and the upper class). We've had regular failures with accellerating frequency since the reaganomic voodoo religion became our default. We will recover to some extent, then it will happen again.. and it will cycle til the system crashes in perpetuity. And it is going to be bloody when that happens. I just hope some of the plutocrats and their gop and "moderates" bleed as much as the rest of us do when that happens.

            ..but if youre a writer you say all i wanna do is leave behind one story - Harlan Ellison

            by cdreid on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 02:45:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Re (5+ / 0-)

        Capitalism is doing just fine. Most of humanity is just losing.

        Median household net worth, income, life expectancy, etc continue to rise in most countries, particularly countries with a large population and previously low standard of living.

        Just because wealth is being transferred from the US to China and India does not mean that "most of humanity is [] losing".

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:16:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are such a nice globalist! (9+ / 0-)

          Very sweet of you that grandma in Mich. has to eat cat food, while four guys in China can afford to buy a new car!

          •  Previously... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tRueffert, A Voice, Caerus, Imhotepsings

            ...all four guys in China would have had to eat catfood [i.e. have an insecure food supply].

            I'm not arguing that US people should celebrate these changes: no one likes losing their job of having resources they previously consumed taken away. But to a degree there's not a lot we can do about it.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:38:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can't see why you don't admit it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cdreid, neroden, dark daze

              the four guys in China eat rice. China is fine. The problem is here, not there.

              •  Are you joking (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tRueffert, Caerus

                Do you have any idea how much life in China/India sucked prior to the 2000-ish decade?

                "eat rice". lolz.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:48:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Michael Hudson (12+ / 0-)

                  had something to say about that...

                  Well, if you study biology, you know that there are more species of parasites than there are of hosts–of course it’s not sustainable. But to a parasite, you don’t have to be sustainable, because you’re a parasite. That’s your mindset. And you want to take what you can, and at a certain point you devour the host and skip to new hosts. That’s what they’re doing: they’re going to shrink the American economy, and they’re going to move to Asia or to other countries.

                  The parasite is basically the financial sector. That’s the deficit commission. That’s the largest financier of the Obama administration. Obama appointed Wall Street lobbyists for the deficit commission, and basically their mind is a one-track mind: reduce labor’s wages. So what we have here is a dumb parasite, not a parasite. That’s the problem that’s facing the American economy today. The problem is that the parasite’s not only taken over the brain of the economy, which was supposed to be the government, but it’s taken over its own brain in the process. And it actually imagines that corporations can make larger profits and the industrial–the financial system can survive if they just bring on a depression. In fact, it’ll be the exact opposite.

                  Deficit Hawks One -Two punch

                  Go read the article and then go read this one
                  Schemes of the rich and greedy

                  The key to the success of the wealthy is their ability to hold the economy hostage (dependent of course on the government’s willingness to be unnecessarily held hostage). This dictates the fiscal and financial strategy of the super-rich: to create a crisis and then present their demands. Inasmuch as I expect the U.S. Congress to be plunged into this situation next spring...

                  Everyone would like to be free of taxes. But only the rich have sufficient wealth to “buy up Congress” to give themselves enough tax breaks to shift the cost of running government off their shoulders onto the rest of society – and while they’re at it, to make sure that the government uses its resources to make the rich even wealthier, again at the cost of stifling the economy below them.

                  Sure they have a whole world to play in but the end game is the same.  

                  Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

                  by whoknu on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:06:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Good reference. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cdreid, drewfromct, whoknu

                    So what we have here is a dumb parasite, not a parasite

                    This is what I've been banging on about for years.  These people (the banksters, the CEO class) are stupid and are going to kill their host, then die

                    Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                    by neroden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:25:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Life in China was fine prior to the 2000s. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid, iceweasel

                  I've been there prior to the 2000s.  Rural Chinese life was stable and healthy, urban/suburban Chinese life was stable and well-to-do apart from the choking smog.

                  Life in India is another matter.  India has made real impressive improvements.

                  Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                  by neroden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:24:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Sure (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cdreid, 2020adam

              And those four guys in China (or somewhere else where labor is now cheaper, say Vietnam) will likely eventually get cancer from exposure to harmful chemicals, or be injured in a workplace accident due to unsafe machinery, or be crippled as a result of repetitive use injuries, or suffer some other similar health problems, just because environmental and safety rules are more lax there in the name of giving the capitalists what they want in order to be there.  Much as the U.S. didn't have those kinds of rules until after the 1920s, those developing countries are the new unscrupulous capitalist frontier.  You don't really think those companies are passing those "savings" along to their employees do you?  The companies may be paying much more than anyone was before for labor there, but it comes at a much higher price than advertised.

              Capital always looks for the cheapest labor without regard to its real cost.  The real cost gets paid later, after capital has moved on to the next cheap labor market.  

              I am a capitalist myself.  But I think we are seeing now more clearly than ever that unbridaled capitalism leads to tyranny, just as surely as authoritarianism.  As much as pointy-headed anarcho-libertarians would like to theorize to the contrary, the system that really works is well-regulated capitalism, with an emphasis on regulation.

              Maybe you want to throw your hands up and say there is nothing to be done and we in the West are doomed to a return to the 1890's, I am not so easily persuaded.  I think we have a lot of experience that offers useful lessons and a lot of influence.  We should use it while we still can.

        •  Actually it appears most of the wealth (9+ / 0-)

          is being funneled to the uber wealthy not any of the little people.  I guess the little people are the only ones that "pay taxes" or get austerity while the rich go shopping for ever more shit.  

          ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

          by Kristina40 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:01:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, drewfromct, dark daze

          Median household net worth, income, life expectancy, etc continue to rise in most countries, particularly countries with a large population and previously low standard of living.

          Not in the US.  All these statistics are DECREASING for this country.  It's the central argument.  Yes, we could get more jobs to come back into the US if we had the same living standards, wage standards, regulations as found in India or China or Viet Nam.  If that is the case, what is the loyalty tot his country?

          In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

          by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:16:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  so net worth will be on the rise... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid

          just as the rising oceans destroy one country (and its currency) after another.

          and i'm sure none of those figures are skewed by the presence of a local plutocracy, right?

        •  Why be such a fool in public? (0+ / 0-)

          This is a global system. Free trade isnt the root cause of this collapse. It is the reason we cannot buy ourselves out of it. We've sold off the economic engine that allowed us to recover in the past to those countries.

          A: China is a totalitarian state. B: The other nations benefitting are extreme classist states. Im losing count of how many times the system has crashed totally in the last 100 years. 4 or 5. And required a bailout from the working class. The working class doesnt have any assets to bail  capitalism out anymore and we're running out of the resources we used to build ourselves.

          So once the american economy crashs completely some jobs will certainly move here. But not many. You can hire someone with a Masters in africa for what you can hire someone with a high school degree here. The thing about the race to the bottom is it is a race to the bottom

          And please dont confuse economic causes and effects. Its easy to jump on a bandwagon man but you cant generalise. Cause and Effect are still the base principle of all science and logical thinking.

          ..but if youre a writer you say all i wanna do is leave behind one story - Harlan Ellison

          by cdreid on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 02:51:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  When a financial instrument... (8+ / 0-)

        Is based upon thin air, it is destined to fail.  Hence the reason for regulation and a government.  If I told you that you could make 10% by moving a piece of paper from point A to point B, would you do it?  What if I told you that you only have to pay 15% taxes on it?

        Will the world end if the financial system collapses?  Of course not.  But don't pretend like we are all going to pick up the pieces and move on right afterwords.

        In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

        by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:01:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's gonna be a total fucking mess when... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, nchristine

          this thing goes under. But people are dying every day from artificially induced spikes in food prices and from incredibly restrictive drug patent laws. So for billions of folks, a true collapse of this system probably wouldn't be much worse than this.

      •  Systems fail when components can't (5+ / 0-)

        Any system organized around components that can't fail, will experience systemwide failure.  It is axiomatic.  LaFeminista is right, both as to this example, and in the application of this piece of systems theory generally.  The question is one of timing.  I do not know whether the next financial crash will be the one that reduces our economic system to rubble, but with absolute certainty the course we are on will end in that rubble if our society does not find a way to allow the apex financial institutions to fail individually in an orderly fashion.

      •  Yes, designed to fail. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, Kristina40

        Capitalism as it is currently practiced is based on growth. Perpetual, infinite growth. Growth of profits depends on growth of sales. Growth of sales depends on growth of consumption. Growth of consumption is based on growth of production. Growth of production is based on growth of resource extraction.

        With me so far?

        Now take a look at the Earth as seen from space. What we see is a single planet with seemingly vast, but ultimately finite amounts of air, water, minerals, and other consumable natural resources.

        Any system that depends on infinite growth of population and consumption within a finite space is ultimately doomed to failure.

        Now, some might say that if humanity can expand into space and other planets, we can survive. But recall that Capitalism is based on profits. How soon will it be until space exploration, and resource extraction on asteroids and/or other planets becomes profitable?

        Capitalism as we know it is a virus on the planet, a Cancer on humanity. If we don't replace it with a sustainable economic system that is not dependent on perpetual growth, it is only a matter of time until it kills us.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:07:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Our potential savior (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct

          was space. Starting with asteroid mining. Literally unlimited resources. An expansion of the economy that makes the industrial revolution look like a sneeze compared to a hurricane.

          But our system not only doesnt think that longterm, our economists not only misunderstand our economy entirely, we have elected to turn inward and fight like rats over scraps.

          Humanities future will be a brilliant light in the heavens when that day comes. However as usual our sheer avarice and evil keeps putting that day off by possibly centuries. The year 2100 could have been the year no human starved, no human was without healthcare, no human lacked opportunity or education, no human lacked the ability to fulfill his dreams. Instead the few who do make that move a hundred years from now will look down on earthbounds with revulsion and turn away to the stars.

          ..but if youre a writer you say all i wanna do is leave behind one story - Harlan Ellison

          by cdreid on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:00:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  In this case, all textbooks aside... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, Kristina40

        capitalism = plutocracy.

        "There is no JUSTICE, there's JUST US." Terry Pratchett

        by rubine on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:27:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excessive greed is Capitalism's fatal flaw (14+ / 0-)

      Demand Filibuster Reform call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 -AND KEEP CALLING

      by Lefty Coaster on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:09:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll leave it to one Frank Borman. (33+ / 0-)

      "Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell."

      We have decided that these global financial monstrosities must never face the realities of bankruptcy.  Failing is as much a fact of capitalism as succeeding.  In fact, I would think more things fail in a capitalist system than succeed.  If we have removed failure from the realities of these banks, then they are no longer engaged in capitalism.  They are engaged in a feudal, religious paradigm in which their souls are always pure no matter the massacres they oversee.  It's not capitalism, so we should stop talking about it as if it is.

      Democracy is often an indictment of the voting populace.

      by electricgrendel on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:21:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  capitalism fails in theory and (9+ / 0-)

      Fails worse in practice.

    •  Well stated. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Hey Boehner and the Republicans: WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS YOU PROMISED????

      by LamontCranston on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 04:38:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should bundle your tips and sell them! (5+ / 0-)

      Or, you could offer "Tip Default Swaps"!

      This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

      by Snud on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 04:47:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  lol - I'm getting my "tips" from 50 cent (0+ / 0-)

        from now on.  I'm sick of paying financial experts for information and investment advice when, according to what I read yesterday, I can simply follow the rapper/businessman on twitter and make 30% on my money by buying his latest hot stock.  

        "Armageddon was yesterday. Today we have a serious problem."

        by Lying eyes on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:32:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What brought you to the Basel protocols, L? (5+ / 0-)
  •  These instruments are designed (38+ / 0-)

    for investment bankers to get in, get out, take the money and run.

    I have had people ask me where the bailout money went.  I can't really answer that.  J and I still ask ourselves, why didn't they just buy out the underlying mortgages?  It would have been a lot cheaper.

  •  I've become agnostic towards the bailouts.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, A Voice

    ya know why?   We have federal government budget that borrows nearly $1 for every dollar collected in tax revenues...  The citizens are being bailed out in a massively larger proportion than the banks.

    There seems to be no horizon on this insane deficit spending.

    So, what difference does it make if we bail out the banks?   Give them what they want because the government is giving us what we want.

    "To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen

    by soros on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 10:40:55 PM PST

  •  Capitalism will never fail (7+ / 0-)

    because socialism will briefly be employed to bail it out. At least that's what I heard.

  •  Well done. A friendly edit. (16+ / 0-)

    I've done the work for you.  Replace this sentence:

    There needs to be a complete overall and break of the banks, the likelihood of this happening is close to zero as whole countries political systems are beholding to the the global financial leviathan.

    with this sentence:

    There needs to be a complete overhaul and break-up of the banks; the likelihood of this happening is close to zero as whole countries' political systems are beholden to the global financial leviathan.

    Some people may not realize that Assange's finding a haven in Iceland is a result of one:

    1. Iceland being screwed by bankers extracting more profit than the country could bear, and
    1. Iceland being small enough that, when they saw the IMF descending on them to empoverish them for a generation--the first first-world country about to be treated the way third-world countries have been treated for decades--they had the political flexibility to go to ballot box and replace their corrupt politicians wholesale.

    We cannot selectively numb our emotions. Along with the yucky stuff go compassion, gratitude, and a sense of belonging. -Brene Brown

    by geomoo on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:08:17 AM PST

  •  OK, but all these collapses bring variety! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, LaFeminista, maryabein

    Sure, we can all moan and groan about how our political system is incapable (unwilling, actually) to restrain our wealthiest interests from turning the foundations of the economy into hallucinatory gambling intended to be backstopped with your and my dollars...

    ...But without all that, look how boring everything would be with these staid 'banks' and 'stocks' and 'securities' and such.

    Who would want to live in such a boring time?

    Who wants to drive a daily commute to a job not too far away instead of driving rapidly along a winding road on the side of a cliff with brakes held together with bubble gum and clothes hangers?

    I'm sure we'd all pick the latter.

  •  Great diary, LaFeminsta. FACT=TBTF is a threat (12+ / 0-)

    Anyone who denies this is denying reality. When Brown Kaufman was defeated, that was a major blow, like watered down derivative non regulations and no strong Volcker rule despite the heroic efforts of Jeff Merkley. Also accounting fraud(fake stress tests by Geithner) makes Basel III requirements although a small positive step ultimately meaningless unless we get an independent examiner of each of the loan tapes. They won't let anyone see them because then we would know what's behind the lack of Market to Market accounting which is needed and anyone who blames it form adding to this crisis is full of shit. Joseph Stiglitz outlines it well in what he won his Nobel prize in, the study of Information asymmetry and what happens in markets with it.

    Our financial system is too big and interconnected by the derivative CDO tentacles you laid out and the lie that bailouts ended with Dodd Frank is an egregious one I am happy to debunk referencing MIT economist Simon Johnson's(13 Bankers/Baseline Scenario) working paper on the subject thus adding to the main point of your excellent diary.

    Governments may now promise not to provide further bailouts, but in the view of Alessandri and Haldane (2009, p.7) – from the Bank of England – such promises are unlikely to be believed: "Ex-ante, they [the authorities] may well say "never again". But the ex-post costs of crisis mean that such a statement lacks credibility. Knowing this, the rational response by market
    participants is to double their bets. This adds to the costs of future crises. And the larger these
    costs, the lower the credibility of ‘never again’ announcements."

    In contrast, the current consensus in US official circles is that the government can commit not to bail out large firms. For example, in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill (signed into law on July 21, 2010) there is a "resolution authority" that allows a regulatory agency (the Federal Deposit 1 "Too big to fail" is far from a new issue, as discussed in detail by Stern and Feldman (2004) – in the modern American context, it dates from at least the conservatorship of Continental Illinois in the 1980s.

    snip

    Can such a "no bailout" government policy constitute a credible commitment that solves the problem of "too big to fail"? Ex ante promises to let companies fail – and run through some form of bankruptcy – may not be optimal when the moment for a decision actually arrives. In particular, given the "systemic" nature of financial crises – with widespread perceived contagion both within and across countries – will financial markets really believe any government when it promises not to save
    its biggest firms?

    Recent experience in South Korea suggests an answer: No. When financial crisis broke out at the end of 1997, the banking system was threatened with collapse and the exchange rate depreciated rapidly. At this time of crisis, government policy was explicitly and emphatically not to bailout the largest Korean conglomerates (known as chaebol), which were heavily leveraged and exposed to the ensuing financial crisis. This approach was rooted in the incoming president’s long-standing dislike for and opposition to the political power of large chaebol, and the authorities attempted to make the firmest and most credible commitments in this regard, including through its agreements with the International Monetary Fund.

    Despite this, the largest conglomerates ("chaebol") were able to borrow heavily from households through issuing bonds at low interest rates in 1998 – allowing many of them to avoid immediate failure and become even bigger relative to the economy. The largest conglomerates issued disproportionately more bonds than other firms and were able to do so at rates implying much lower default risk. There is no evidence that this advantageous access to finance was due to better historic performance, stronger prospects, or better governance within the biggest firms – if anything, all objective measures suggest that the largest conglomerates were actually in worse shape (apart from their presumed implicit government backing) relative to other Korean firms.6 Instead, the most plausible interpretation is that investors perceived these large firms as "too big to fail". Investors’ perceptions proved largely correct. Daewoo, Korea’s third largest conglomerate, declared bankruptcy in 1999, and Hyundai, Korea’s largest conglomerate, also had a de facto default in 2000. And in both cases, the Korea government, fearing another economic crisis, intervened so as to effectively and largely bail out the bond investors.7

    So when others deny the squid which is TBTF or when the president says this about financial reform:

    "Finally, because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer funded bailouts. Period. If a large financial institution should ever fail, this reform gives us the ability to wind it down without endangering the broader economy. And there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is "too big to fail," so that we don't have another AIG."

    http://www.marketwatch.com/...

    We don't have to believe it, because it's BS.

    Thanks, LaFeminista.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

    by priceman on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:58:00 AM PST

  •   the thing that guarantees future failures even (20+ / 0-)

    under the Volker Rule is that there is no criminal penalty for the criminal act of Fraud.

    Not a single Banker went to Jail in this whole affair.

    And none are expected to.

    It is like the early days of organized crime.

    There is no punishment because the proceeds of the crime are shared with the makers and the enforcers of the Law.

    So it is simply another way of transferring money from the serfs to their masters.

    •  There are a whole lot of "regular people" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JG in MD, littlezen, enhydra lutris, Siri

      that shared in the "proceeds" of all that fraud. A bunch of appraisers and mortgage brokers made BIG money during the mortgage heyday. There was a whole lotta 401(k) and IRA money that looked GOOOOOOOD on that statement.

      When we, the collective chumps, stop sending the casino money every. single. week., the banksters will stop playing the games.  They don't take the same risks with their own wads that they do with the chumps' money.

      So, to everyone who thinks they are going to "make it big" in the stock market - you are part of the massive problem.

      Take OUR money out of their system.  That is the ONLY power we have and the ONLY thing that will work.  We no longer have the luxury of relying on "lawmakers" to make and enforce laws.  So, it's up to us to physically bankrupt the big banks and investment firms.  

      Without the millions and millions of people that funnel the neverending stream of money every week, these assholes wouldn't gamble the way they do.

      But, that fear....ooooooo....the fear.  "I might lose it all!".  Legitimate, to a point.  Detrimental to a fault, in the grand scheme of things.

  •  Actually, human bodies as gene, protein factories (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, bluehen96, Siri, Joieau

    Might be the capital of the future.

    Need food, shelter? Sure. Just take these big pills. The lab tech will come by to check on you. Here. Have some Comcastvision while you ... work.

    You may freak out now.

    Why can't we all just get a blog? :)

    by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:01:09 AM PST

  •  Bankers should be low pay grade, not too bright (6+ / 0-)

    employees.

    A bank should safely hold your money, loan money at reasonable interest rates, and a very few other actions.

    All this exotic shit is just shit. It's make believe. It's not based on anything real. Just shit.

    Hence, the true purpose of banks could easily be handled and run for the most part by McDonalds employees, or a parking attendant.

    I'm a banking ignormus, and I'm just spouting off a bit here, but really..... I suspect I'm not that terribly far off the mark.

    People like Jamie Dimon should be sent for an extended stay in Guantanamo. He and others of his ilk have done much more damage to this country than the "terrorists" in Guantanmo could have ever hoped to do to us.

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

    by Lucy2009 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:11:34 AM PST

  •  The only banking ecosystem model you need (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Snud, Arlys, maryabein, enhydra lutris

    is the twenty year old WATOR program.  Sharks and fish in a torus water world.  Sharks inevitably eat all the fish and then they go extinct.

    Guess who the fish are.

  •  The bailouts are the problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    All money that the "top 0.1%" is supposedly hoovering up is money that was given to them in exchange for performance of a service. If the service didn't exist and was not of value, no one would give them the money. The monetary exchange is purely between people who want a service and those providing it.

    The problem is that these people have now a second source of income: bailout money. That money is provided by We The People, not by private entities who at least nominally are responsible for keeping their business partners accountable.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 04:29:38 AM PST

    •  so you're saying that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Azazello

      control fraud is a public service that people are willing to pay for? That's an even more astounding formulation than "We're doing God's work" from Goldman Sachs.

      With respect to the bailout money, I don't think anyone here would argue that with you.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 04:52:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When lobbyists succeeded in changing laws (8+ / 0-)

    to benefit corporations, capitalism came to an end.

    Capitalism, as commonly defined, is not a rigged game--the Corporatism we live under, IS.  If you peel back the major financial crises of the past few years, you find people rigging the game at the heart of it.  

    S&L Crisis

    - The Garn-St. Germain Act -- which freed S&Ls to make risky loans, eliminate deposit caps, and hold less capital

    Enron

    - accounting rules were altered allowing Enron to treat product in the pipeline as an asset.  They were leveraging the value of something they didn't even own!

    CDO crisis

    - repeal of Glass Steagall, which, among other things, separated commercial and investment banking.  (BTW, I refuse to call this a 'mortgage crisis', that makes it sound like home buyers are the problem--classic Republican framing that blames the victims)

    Deregulation, guided by the "invisible hand" of corporate lobbyists, lies at the heart of our financial crises.  Let's force the R's and Tea Baggers to explain what a rigged game has to do with their beloved Capitalism

    We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

    by Mosquito Pilot on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 04:35:57 AM PST

    •  add to that list (7+ / 0-)

      demands for an explanation of the same subject from the "left" centrists of DLC, CAP, and the ones on the White House payroll as well.

      Financial deregulation is a bi-partisan disaster.

      And a major component of the takeover of the government by the rentier class and its repurposing as a rent capture tool from everyone else. I'm conventional enough to believe that the birth of Reaganomics (now called centrism) as far back as we need to go for that transition. That's it when started to become part of the official ideology of both parties.

      Note that when this happens, history shows that the courses of action are either the government captured by the rentiers is deposed (FDR 1932) or the nation / empire becomes a failed state. That's the usual cause of death of empire.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:03:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You really can't call the economic system of the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nchristine, enhydra lutris, Siri

    United States - Capitalism.

    That is what the practitioners of the policy wanted it to be called while we were trying to destroy Communism.

    The system we are actually using is best described as Communism for very large corporations ( The government will never let them fail no matter what it costs ) and Serfdom for everyone else.

    Whatever the system is called, it has already failed if its goal is supposed to be to better the standard of living of all the Citizens of the Country.

    European Socialism over the past 30 years has beaten us soundly on that score and any serious economic scholar should have been  pointing this out long ago.

    I know that the system has co-opted the media but I hope it has not also co-opted Academia.

    •  Not capitalist--financialist/corporatist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Siri

      It's been front-loaded from almost day one to serve the interests of banks first, under the assumption that if you help the banks, they will help the economy. This worked when supplemented with stimulative and protective policy like tarrifs, subsidies, incentives and public-private partnerships to industry, and regulations to protect the public. But we don't have much of that now, thus the runaway banks.

      Obama has to stop being afraid of and worshipful towards the banks, and start forcing them to get their shit together and do what they're supposed to do, finance commerce and industry--not leech off it. And there are other sources of campaign money.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:42:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's becoming more clear that he is not and never (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden

        was afraid of the banks.  The banksters are his buddies.

        Wall Street owns all three branches of government.

        by The Dead Man on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:13:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're not his "buddies"--they're his owners (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nchristine

          He just thinks they're his buddies, and they're more than happy to oblige. They sought and found an easily malleable dupe in him. And he's smart to fear them, because they can destroy him with their ad money. I suppose that some people still believe that he's actually conning them, via his 11D chess "long game". But they're fools.

          I should add that I'm not in denial about how dangerous and powerful these banksters are, and I don't believe that he's a total sap who's been taken in by their wining and dining and fundraising. He knows what's going on. It's just that he doesn't appear able or willing to fight them in any meaningful way. I.e. he's weak and unprincipled in this matter, even if he's convinced himself (as have his fans) that he has no choice.

          He does have a choice, as did FDR. He chose wrong.

          "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

          by kovie on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 03:25:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Capitalism sucks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus, LaFeminista, BlueDragon

    and it sucks more than ever these days.

  •  This is very close to BBC documentary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, LaFeminista, arendt

    Robert Peston had a very powerful documentary last night that covered a lot of this argument (sufficiently closely that maybe he should have a credit?).  If you are able it watch it on BBC iPlayer, please do.

  •  Biut derivatives are way cool (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill O Rights, LaFeminista

    And Obama really likes these way cool savvy business leaders, so why all the whining?

    /snark

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:34:43 AM PST

    •  I see your snark (0+ / 0-)

      and I respond with:  all we really need to shape up Wall St...and create jobs...is a little more deregulation (but kinder and gentler).

      But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats

      by Bill O Rights on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:37:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ha. Becoming TBTF (0+ / 0-)

    was exactly what Big Banking wanted. You're still thinking capitalism was meant to work for us, the hoi poloi. It's meant to work against us, forcing us into lower wages and robbing us of political power. As far as Big Business and Big Corrupt Politics (see both major parties) are concerned, today's capitalism is an unprecedented success.

    Accountability for all of them--"ours" too. It's our only hope.

    by Wom Bat on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:38:43 AM PST

  •  Slight Correction-- (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, neroden, LaFeminista, Siri

    monopoly capitalism is a failure already-- a gigantic one in terms of meeting the needs of the majority of the people.

    one of the things revealed by Hurricane Katrina is we have numerous, low-skilled people who are barely surviving.

    the great recession led to numerous more people barely surviving; their AND our long term financial survival is questionable.

    both the bush and Obama adminstrations have done us all a grave disservice-- by financially propping up and providing PR cover for the large banks.

    by not holding wreckless/greedy banks accountable, we are simply setting ourselves up for yet another financial bubble/crash. look at Goldman Suck's record over the years-- they are right smack in the middle of every bubble/crash.

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:47:17 AM PST

  •  Any Business Too Big. Banks, Media, Mfr, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Situational Lefty

    anything.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 05:47:40 AM PST

  •  Only Iceland did the right thing (5+ / 0-)

    They flipped off the banks and are prosecuting the banksters.

    Wall Street owns all three branches of government.

    by The Dead Man on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:11:08 AM PST

  •  Rentier Society (5+ / 0-)

    The medicine suggested by Keynes

    What’s the rentier economy by Hudson

    «A century ago when the classical economists, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, in the reform era, tried to say: look, there are some incomes that are not earned. Rent is not earned, it’s an excess price. Interest is not earned, it’s a monopoly price. Monopoly profits aren’t earned, they’re extortionate. All this was viewed (by classical economists) as something that government regulators should get rid of, either by not permitting it in price, or by holding the monopolies in the public domain, or by the land itself being either nationalized or taxed. The classical economists divided almost the entire economy into productive and unproductive labor, into wealth, and overhead, into real income and costs. This threatened the vested interests with taxing away their free lunch, so you have an anti-classical reaction that is epitomized by the Chicago school of anti-government, anti-tax people whose leader, Milton Friedman, said there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Well, classical economics was all about the free lunch. Look at Ricardian rent theory. That’s all about the free lunch. The role of modern economic theory — I should call it post-modern economic theory and statistics — is to pretend that the banks, the landlords and the monopolies actually earn their income instead of extracting it from the (productive) economy. »

    Why America had a 90% tax rate (VIDEO) Michael Hudson explaining why income taxes were first designed to only hit unproductive wealth, interest, rent, dividend income.

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

    by whoknu on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:16:19 AM PST

  •  And the credit rating agencies... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Kristina40, Siri

    ....had no clue -- didn't even try to understand all this.  "You're spending too much time on this account.  Just rate it and get the hell to the next one."

    For me -- laissez-faire economics is absolutely frickin' dead.  I tried to find substantial discussion on this depression in objectivist forums.  I couldn't find any discussion on this!!

    I wish I could erase my defense of that economics and politics from my first couple of years here.

    My last nightmare: Pressured into buying life insurance from a five-headed hydra.

    by dov12348 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:34:18 AM PST

  •  Even those of us... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Siri

    who are not economists can understand this:

    When banks harvest the profits and the public carry the losses then we have a system designed to fail.

    I agree with the diarist, especially reagrding the ongoing class war, but I am at a loss to know what the battle plan is...

    "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." - Le Petit Prince

    by littlezen on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:52:05 AM PST

  •  This is essentially gambling (5+ / 0-)

    and should be taxed and regulated as such.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:56:46 AM PST

    •  Do you know what always (0+ / 0-)

      pisses me off when we file our taxes?  The line about gambling losses.  Apparently if I took my salary to Vegas and lost it, it would be a capital loss.  Are stock losses the same?  I don't know.  We own real estate, but no stocks.  

      "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." - Le Petit Prince

      by littlezen on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:07:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Kristina40, Tom Taaffe, Siri

    Very good diary.  To big to save.  Which means the entire global financial system will simply collapse.

    bonddad used to write diaries like this.  Now he is just a cheer leader for the Obama admin.  Pity that.

    In a generation, Chinese (changed) human rights activist will be picketing WalMart stores because of the sweat shop produced goods made in the US - Mr Bojangles

    by RichM on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 06:58:12 AM PST

  •  actually this doesn't go far enough... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, littlezen, Kristina40, Vega, Siri

    In particular, strategies that tend to minimise risk for individual banks can – under certain circumstances – maximise the probability of systemic failure.

    As we see, banks hedged risk by selling it, though it was more common than not that the banks themselves retained the underlying asset, as well as first turn at any revenue streams (the top tranches).

    Buyers of credit derivatives bought risk, and that's all they bought. They bought the credit risk, of course, but they also took on market risk, liquidity risk, operational risk and as we've seen play out in the mortgage foreclosure scandal, legal risk as well. People who don't manage risk for a living haven't a clue.

    The "under certain circumstances" Lord Robert May qualifies his statement with is inaccurate, especially in light of one other kind of risk not mentioned above: integrity risk—the assumption that the counterparty trying to sell you a derivative is what he says it is, that he and his organization in fact knows how to evaluate risk, and does so with integrity is as we have seen, another very real type of risk:

    One problem with risk management is that is it expressly designed to spread risk around, in other words, to make it systemic.

    The other problem with risk management of this kind is that it becomes a revenue generating profit center in its own right, and the revenues derived from the underlying assets became a sideshow.

    Banks forgot their mission, their own business model, and they call that "business," and that too became systemic.

    22 December 2010: Democrats have one good day in two years, and what will it cost us?

    by papicek on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:00:02 AM PST

  •  As I sit at my computer... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Kristina40, Siri

    I can hear Squawk on the Street playing in the next room.  Current topics?  How to profit from snow (apparently having to do with snow removal  equipment, tools, products, etc), whether the US-Chinese summit might yield some clues for good investments, and the $15B+ 4Q bonuses for Goldman Sachs.  

    How crazy is this?  Las Vegas with nicer suits and smoother operators.  

    "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." - Le Petit Prince

    by littlezen on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:04:57 AM PST

  •  I think we're beyond "too big to fail" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kristina40, Siri

    It seems more accurate to say that the big banks are running the show.

    However, that doesn't negate your claims that the banks are too big and destructive to capitalism.

  •  Capitalism failed long before that. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Kristina40, Siri

    Capitalism failed once corporations become the norm in our society.  At that point we went from capitalism to corporatism and it has been downhill ever since.

    Capitalism allows us all to vote with our dollars, for uncompetitive businesses to fail, and for there to be plenty of market choice and competition.

    Corporatism, which is what we currently have, means most customers don't even know who owns/runs the businesses they shop at anymore.  Or when they watch TV or listen to the radio where that money is going or who is controlling the content.  Like democracy, if you aren't properly informed you can't make a proper choice.  

    In corporatism, businesses don't fail when they should.  They just cut jobs and outsource to keep prices high but lower their costs.  They buy each other because it is easier to buy other products/ideas than come up with your own.  This leads to job losses and less competition as the markets built toward near-monopolies.  

    Corporatism is all about less competition, less choice, moving toward powerful monopolies, and customers getting less while paying more (money AND "externalities") to keep corporate profits always increasing.

    I would argue that in light of this new economic system we are stuck in, the "too big too fail" banks were inevitable to happen.  

    •  I would say its in ER (0+ / 0-)

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:58:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It ain't capitalism (0+ / 0-)

      if there's no competition in the marketplace. A handful of well-coordinated companies makes it a cartel and as they eat each other like cannibals, it becomes, as you say, corporatism, in the classic sense of the term.

      Neither capitalist, democratic or justifiable, except by appealing to the rest of the fascist political agenda.

    •  are corporations really the problem? (0+ / 0-)

      where would we be without GE or Ford or Boeing etc?  

      The problem isn't with corporations or profits or monetary castes.  The problem is government and consumer.  Governments are notoriously ungoverned and inextricably linked with wealth.  So long as we elect the rich to govern the rich...should we expect greed to be subservient to the common good?

      Corporations aren't necessarily evil.  Costco consistently pays higher wages and has less turnover than Wal-mart.  Wal-mart locked employees in so that they wouldn't steal...Wal-mart underpays...Wal-mart is notorious as an employer of immigrants while not letting those immigrants be upwardly mobile.  The problem is that Wal-marts don't have a membership fee and they are easily found so we patronize them; that patronage reinforces the idea amongst the Wal-mart hierarchy that they are doing things right...so they continue to sell the cheapest toys made by the lowest paid....they continue to sell clothes made in sweatshops...they continue to sell the shoes glued together by children...

      We, the consumer, might disagree with Wal-mart....or Comcast...or ATT...or Apple...but so long as those shitty shady outsourcing, labor law skirting corporations are given the impression that our disagreement is not as important as our access to cheaper goods and services...the megacorp has no incentive to change their ways.  So long as we are willing to pay exorbitant prices for the inane bells and whistles "Platinum Plans" for phones, cable, internet etc...why would the corporation lower the rates?  The simple truth is this:  Corporations don't TWIST a single arm.  We sign up for the credit cards and we sign up for the unlimited data and the broadband and the every channel under the sun plan.  We buy the bigger, better, faster, more powerful car/truck.  We empower the Corporation and their greed and their anti-competitive practices.  

      So long as government officials are rewarded with re-election, so long as government isn't told that the Boardroom to Cabinet Post pipeline is unacceptable...we deserve the government and business climate we empower.  Collusion between govt and Wall St isn't a new phenomenon...but it has gotten more blatant and more accepted...and that is not good.  

      But regulated corporations with a commonsensical govt should/could/would work.

      But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats

      by Bill O Rights on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:33:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you...somewhat. (0+ / 0-)

        You are right that a big part of the problem is government too willing to profit off of the system they are supposed to be watching.

        However, I disagree that corporations aren't necessarily evil.  They are legally obligated to always increase profits.  That is insane.  That is like saying airplanes are legally obligated to always increase their altitude and then act confused when they eventually crash or the passengers die from lack of oxygen.  The very idea at the heart of corporations is flawed.

        Because of that ALL corporations will eventually do harm.  There is just no possible way around that.  It may be a "necessary evil" like outsourcing or layoffs or wage cuts, etc.  It may be something more harmful like polluting the environment or exploiting poor labour laws of other countries.   Or, it will be that they do everything right, like you say Costco does, and eventually they have to expand and control more market or product which means a move to monopolization and less choice for the consumer.

        There just is no way around it.  Harm is the by product of any and all corporations because their DNA is completely wrong.  Corporations can start off with great ideas, behaviour and intentions.  Then again, we all know what the road to hell is paved with...

        And when we live in a system that is already way too far down the corporate road, what do you honestly expect politicians to do.  Increase regulations?  Corporations will just lay off workers to get a political backlash then buy different candidates.   Or maybe they should make corporations pay for the problems they cause.  Oh wait, that is an increased cost so they'll lay off workers and jack up prices to take it out on consumers.  Raise their taxes?  Yeah right.  They'll close their doors and move their operation somewhere with low taxes and that means people lose their jobs.  

        So really, in this system, what can politicians really do?  I do agree they are part of the problem but only in the sense that they are Frankenstein unable to deal with the monster they created.  But regardless, the monster is created and we can't just wish it wasn't true.

  •  The only solution I can think of... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kristina40, BlueDragon

    ...after putting in ungodly hours of study on this:

    We need to print new money and mail an enormous check ($100,000-plus) to every person in the country.  

    My last nightmare: Pressured into buying life insurance from a five-headed hydra.

    by dov12348 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 07:58:34 AM PST

    •  Then it becomes worth about one dollar (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Situational Lefty

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 09:58:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not necessarily. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, BlueDragon

        Banks and individuals are hoarding; bank reserves are fantastically high. Stuff from China likely won't inflate. And even Germany solved its hyperinflation.

        Anyway there is no alternative. Normal economic rules don't apply here.  Without that, the domino effects from everything going on now will sink us. We have to drastically increase the money supply.

        Again - this is an emergency and there is no alternative.

        My last nightmare: Pressured into buying life insurance from a five-headed hydra.

        by dov12348 on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:22:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it would work. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueDragon

        Basically, it would level the wealth status in this country somewhat.  A single burst of inflation would eliminate the shocking power held by the superrich, and get consumer spending going again.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:33:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cornel West (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Kristina40, Tom Taaffe, Siri
    Did a great little rant on this last weekend on Smiley and West where he went thru Reagan and Clinton how they both cut services to the POOR because "we couldn't afford it"  but when circumstances arose where the big banks and businesses were in trouble they rushed to aid them.
  •  You had me at "Capitalism fails...." (4+ / 0-)

    Not even Adam Smith believed in the sort of free markets these job-exporting fools want....

    -7.88, -6.72. "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins."--John Locke

    by caseynm on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:48:01 AM PST

  •  Capitalism Works.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    An Affirming Flame

    unfortunately.

    The capitalists are doing fine.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:52:27 AM PST

  •  I get pissed when these assholes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Kristina40, Siri

    call themselves "investors".

    Bullshit.  Investors invest.  They invest money, in companies, that stays in those companies to help them grow.

    This whole business of "investing" in paper is bullshit.  Even daytrading - putting money in one company for a half-hour and then moving it somewhere else - is not how our stock system is supposed to work.

    All this needs to stop.  It's nothing more than Vegas for billionaires.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:42:14 AM PST

  •  You really need an editor (0+ / 0-)

    I enjoy reading your diaries but you really need an editor. I would be more than happy to edit your diaries for grammar and punctuation.

    "Universal health care for every man, woman & child. That is our cause." -John Edwards 1/30/2008

    by jesses on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:52:36 AM PST

    •  I'm a dyslexic and comments like (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Situational Lefty, Tom Taaffe

      this make me wonder why I bother at all.

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:57:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm offering to help edit your diaries (0+ / 0-)

        Just a little constructive criticism and an offer to help. Not clear what prompted that reaction. I enjoy your diaries and want to help you by editing. I think your diaries will be much more effective and easier to read if they are fixed up a little.

        "Universal health care for every man, woman & child. That is our cause." -John Edwards 1/30/2008

        by jesses on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:01:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To clarify (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Situational Lefty, Tom Taaffe

          Its mine and my method of expression, and you have no idea what a pain in the ass it becomes.

          Punctuation is meaningless to me I deal in word shapes

          When I look at a text without my violet filtered glasses most text has huge holes in it.

          If it was my profession I would hire an editor since most of my work centers around mathematical and CFD models I try my best for the time I spend on here.

          "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

          by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:06:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  My diary on the subject (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Situational Lefty, Tom Taaffe

          "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

          by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:14:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  they probly mean well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LaFeminista, Tom Taaffe

            personally I didnt notice any spelling or grammer errors. HAHAHAHAHA

            but some folks are minutia maniacs.  jesses is offering you prosocial monkey grooming.  he or she wants to pick your nits.  its friendly :-)

            •  I know I know I know but (0+ / 0-)

              it's a bit like asking a one legged person if you can walk for them

              "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

              by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 11:43:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

                but only if you see yourself as one legged.  you seem to be running along nicely.  

                some people buy into top down authoritarian rules for communication.  which is one method (rules of the road) for speed.  other people will find other ways to commicate that better suit their individual needs/style and other methods for speed (short cuts etc).  

                if you get past the style dif and you get to the heart of the communication - its well meaning.  this person likes you so much they are offering free services.  

        •  You can edit my diaries (0+ / 0-)

          I don't have dyslexia, but I have no shortage of typos in my writing (despite 3 degrees and a writer's background). My problem is that I write at a furious speed. I wrote 300 pages of my dissertation in 6 weeks.

          I've usually write over 3000 words by the time I finish my my first coffee of the morning. Some might suggest that I finish that coffee before I write, because of the typos that lay like IED's in my writing.

          But they'll be there, coffee or not, and I'm likely not to see many of them. Nor will any spell check catch all of them for me, nor will it correct them to the right tense (or word). I can catch your typos, but I will not catch mine.  :)

    •  OK I apologise for getting snotty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Situational Lefty

      but it is a sore point, I have often treated as dim due to my handicap

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 12:11:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't listen to this asshole. (0+ / 0-)

        You do just fine.  May I remind you that teacherken is also dislexic.  Those who have power in America don't like to have their values deconstructed and you happen to do just that.  The powerful will attack those who question their judgment with reckless abandon in this country.  Their goal is total domination of any means of communication.  You threaten the status quo and you are under attack.  Take it as a compliment.

        -9.50/-7.59 - Bring 'em back, Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

        by Situational Lefty on Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:52:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Superskepticalman, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, Sylv, coral, ferg, teacherken, Sparhawk, Detlef, Gooserock, saraswati, mattman, emal, tommurphy, musicalhair, TJ, maracucho, genethefiend, hyperstation, eeff, Mnemosyne, RFK Lives, Creosote, opinionated, TracieLynn, wonkydonkey, Agathena, ask, boadicea, vmibran, chimpy, JuliaAnn, someRaven, greenomanic, Nate Roberts, ctsteve, tidalwave1, psnyder, danthrax, gmb, lcrp, alizard, bwintx, Kitsap River, fran1, Mosquito Pilot, xyz, lyvwyr101, Julie Gulden, joanneleon, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, radarlady, caul, JanetT in MD, unclejohn, OpherGopher, PBen, panicbean, frandor55, Simplify, drewfromct, stagemom, reflectionsv37, eru, Mr X, Burned, lotlizard, Rex Freedom, neroden, sodalis, coolbreeze, bunsk, Alan Arizona, Snud, Jim P, Mehitabel9, martini, kovie, Showman, Orinoco, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, cybersaur, dharmafarmer, tonyahky, cookseytalbott, koNko, The Wizard, arlene, Son of a Cat, jwhitmill, blueoasis, Blue Wind, DarkestHour, global citizen, mikeatuva, gatorcog, JVolvo, NearlyNormal, Preston S, el cid, Pilgrim X, Turbonerd, onionjim, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassiodorus, Dreaming of Better Days, shaharazade, bstotts, Hedwig, gerald 1969, Pandoras Box, DBunn, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, samfish, dov12348, nathguy, Ken in MN, Margfh, psychodrew, Mary Mike, yowsta, Jimdotz, BehereBenow, aliasalias, newpioneer, Strabo, artisan, HCKAD, bluehen96, jayden, buckshot face, mcc777c2, Uberbah, jnhobbs, millwood, LWelsch, cloudbustingkid, zorp, Bikemom, TomP, rmonroe, seriously70, scooter in brooklyn, bythesea, FarEasterner, KJG52, jamess, Greyhound, Calamity Jean, geomoo, bluesheep, rubine, mofembot, luckylizard, venger, DixieDishrag, BYw, allie123, Executive Odor, priceman, Robobagpiper, palantir, David Futurama, papicek, statsone, arendt, aufklaerer, ewmorr, banjolele, dark daze, maryabein, Partisan Progressive, JesseCW, EquationDoc, Daily Activist, John Shade, kevinpdx, A Voice, Nonconformist, mahakali overdrive, littlezen, GeeBee, fidellio, renzo capetti, ctlrick, gulfgal98, ItsSimpleSimon, Kristina40, 2020adam, albrt, DrTerwilliker, elengul, Oh Mary Oh, Colorado is the Shiznit, ozsea1, nicethugbert, La Gitane, BlueJessamine, palm springs progressive, BlackQueen40, Situational Lefty, trumpeter, Wolf10, KVoimakas, tardis10, LSmith, whoknu, enhydra lutris, Wom Bat, MotherTrucker, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, No one gets out alive, Azazello, Rejoinder, fgsfds, Patric Juillet, Tom Taaffe, greenbastard, Siri, turn blue, J Brunner Fan, Ultranaut, belinda ridgewood, Free Jazz at High Noon, Leo Flinnwood, radical simplicity, MartyM, ricklewsive, Julie Waters

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site