|Bunghole| Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 The unwashed masses are still holding out? I'd have thought they'd have been placed in happy camps by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted May 31, 2012 Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1338436087' post='1133253'] And if we're really lucky slavery will make a comeback... [/quote] That would fix our economy lickety-split. Excellent idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1338436087' post='1133253'] And if we're really lucky slavery will make a comeback... [/quote] Republicans are trying their damnedest to make that happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2012 [img]http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/trickle-down.jpg?w=269&h=316[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1338436087' post='1133253'] And if we're really lucky slavery will make a comeback... [/quote] I would define liberal extremism as the post quoted above, and the fact that many believe that. There must be some "grand scheme" to keep the 99% of us oppressed is absurd. But I'm all for a good conservative liberal debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338517353' post='1133406'] I would define liberal extremism as the post quoted above, and the fact that many believe that. There must be some "grand scheme" to keep the 99% of us oppressed is absurd. But I'm all for a good conservative liberal debate. [/quote] Oh so trickle-down economics isnt the common man getting pissed on? Enlighten me, how exactly is supply side, aka, trickle-down, economics a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1338517478' post='1133407'] Oh so trickle-down economics isnt the common man getting pissed on? Enlighten me, how exactly is supply side, aka, trickle-down, economics a good thing? [/quote] What does that have to do with reverting back to slavery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338517957' post='1133410'] What does that have to do with reverting back to slavery? [/quote] Ah mistook you when you said post quoted above. I agree with Homer though, but I would much rather him discuss it, he has a way of doing it that might enlighten the fair minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 i wish i had a slave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1338518105' post='1133411'] Ah mistook you when you said post quoted above. I agree with Homer though, but I would much rather him discuss it, he has a way of doing it that might enlighten the fair minded. [/quote] I've read some of his posts and cant quite follow his line of thinking. That's more on me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338517353' post='1133406'] I would define liberal extremism as the post quoted above [/quote] I believe that was what we call "sarcasm" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Alright. I took a peak at your profile, OHB, and because November 17th is a significant anniversary for me, too, I'll do my best to give you a useful reply. For me, Nov 17th is memorable because it is the day my Navy enlistment ended and thus represents an important inflection point in my progress through life. And it just so happens that the day you were born was my first anniversary. I like the symmetry of this and so I feel a distant bond of brotherhood with you. And as an "older brother" I'm going to lay this out for you--tough love style. You may not agree with or like what I suggest here--I know some others will not--but that isn't my problem. Actually, it's your problem. And while this problem is age-old and endemic to all societies, it has particular relevance to the kind of society we have created here in the United States. And that's because the very survival of our form of government is dependent upon keeping this problem in proper context. In fact, in recent years, this problem has gotten way out of hand and in many ways is the root cause for so many of our woes. Or, perhaps better said, it is the exploitation of this problem--its use as a weapon by immoral interests--that is the root cause for what can be described as the slow, inexorable decline of this nation from a republican form of government towards what I like to describe as "soft-fascism" and something others have described as "fascism with a human face." I don't want you to think of my characterization as hyperbole or "extremism" because I can assure you it is not. The issue first came to my attention via [url="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40719271?uid=3739680&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699054459177"]this article[/url], written four years before you were born. I photocopied it in 1980 or 81 and have it in my files somewhere. Be happy to dig it out and forward it to anyone who cannot get through to JSTOR. Here's the thing. To really come to grips with this trend in socio-political behavior, one has to do a lot of work studying the phenomenon of fascism, not only going back to its historical roots in the 19th century, but also in playing "whack-a-mole" with the myriad of segmented policy permutations that pop up as a result of this orientation in long-term policy objectives by some sectors of our elites. Personally, I have done a fair amount of this kind of work and when I was a younger man, I engaged in a lot of politics combating these kinds of initiatives. And here is the money shot. You ready? A lot of the policy proposals for "friendly fascism" [b]do[/b] come from the "liberal" side of the street. So when you characterize my remarks as "liberal extremism" you are doing me a great injustice. I'm one of the few people who have acquaintance with in your lifetime who has done some fighting back against the real extremism at work in our society today. Furthermore, I fully know that what you have in mind when you rail against "liberals" is pretty much nonsensical. And that is related to the problem I mentioned earlier, but have not identified yet. I will do that shortly. Just be aware--and I put this rather crudely--that every moment of your existence to this minute has been subordinate to this tendency towards "human fascism" promulgated by either witting or seriously misguided elements of our elite. You were birthed from one hole and immediately shoved down an Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole of modern political craziness. You aren't alone. No one said life is fair. This is your historical moment. For other generations it was the Civil War or WWII. This moment is yours. So, as a matter of practical advice, I'd suggest that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have undergone some shifts in meaning in recent decades. And my view is that we have reached a point where those terms have become genuine impediments to thinking clearly about the political divisions in this country. There are folks on both sides of the aisle that understand this--it's one reason why you see real extremists of a populist bent, such as the Tea Party folks and the OWS folks, surfacing more prominently the past few years. In both of these cases they are expressions of a surge of dissatisfaction in the way things are developing in this country. But the folks on these extremes are fairly ineffectual because they haven't identified the phenomenon of fascism accurately. Thus, the prescriptions of the Tea Partiers tend to accelerate our motion towards a corporativist state, while the OWS folks are engaged in a solipsistic orgy of masturbation. It feels good for a minute but it really doesn't resolve the matter at hand. (In hand?!) I want to clarify one other thing before I get to the really important part of this post. The folks on the fringes are responding to the symptoms of our current state of affairs. Some of them are turning towards radical ideas. Others are becoming radicals (in the pejorative sense) themselves. But the real trick to navigating through our present crises towards a renewed foundation of political stability and economic prosperity is to be able to examine radical ideas without becoming wild-eyed radicals. They only way we get through this mess is if the a significant portion of the great "center" of our populace manages to accomplish this. At least that's my view. I'm using the term radical here in two of its connotations deliberately. It's one thing to get to the root of an idea, it's quite another to become psychologically "unhinged" in that process. Now, to the problem. It's really quite simple. It's fear. That's your problem. Mine, too. And if you look around you you'll discover that it is everyone's problem. I'm not talking about cowardice. After all, it takes a certain kind of mundane courage to get up and walk out the door everyday. Nor am I going to go all FDR on your ass, either, other than to suggest that back in the 30s, the guy deftly put his finger on the problem, too. I am talking about a phenomenon which one sees most prominently coming from the so-called "right" nowadays, but it is also present coming from the so-called "left" as well. It's just that depending upon one's political orientation, this specific kind of fear manifests itself in different ways. This fear has to do with the relations between private virtue and public virtue and more importantly, it has to do with the general fear of our populace to get squared away and to seek truth in a straightforward, honest and civil way. The bugaboos may vary but the response to those bugaboos is generally the same: we're afraid to look a public problem in the eye and actually do something about it. I'm tempted to suggest that we don't have the steely backbones of our ancestors, except I'm fully aware that those folks were not so different than us. We seem to be more prone to temper-tantrums now than in the past, but this is not so. It's just that we tend to hear the loudest squalling best while sweet whispers of wisdom tantalize our ears but seem to be just out of clear hearing range. I'll demonstrate what I mean by referring to the debates surrounding the ratification of our Constitution. Gordon Wood touches upon the problem in his discussions of "American Exceptionalism" and Bernard Bailyn does, too, in his discussions of public virtue. Both pretty smart and level-headed fellows. I'm going to refer folks to a different source: Albert Furtwangler's [u]The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers.[/u] Specifically, chapter four, entitled "An Outcry Against Literate Civility." It's a nifty little book which attempts to situate the Federalist Papers in the literary context of the period. I've scanned the chapter and encourage folks to download it and read through Furtwangler's argument. He is much more literate than I am. In essence, his argument is that, for some anti-federalists, there was a tendency to see the Constitution as a sleight-of-hand: [quote]If Singletary and others saw all proponents of the Constitution as smooth-talking tricksters, then there is no way that they could see any literate man as honest or reliable. Literacy and chicanery are united, lumped together as a "they" who are essentially in league against "all us little folks," out to "make all us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill." Yet, there is something that rings true in these lines, an ancient grudge of rural folk against doctors and lawyers they have reason to distrust.[/quote] I'll leave it to you to read the attachment to see how this seemingly plausible objection was met by a fellow farmer. What I wish to focus on here is the resonance between the attitude of anti-federalists then, and the "liberal-bashers" now. The term "liberal" has become a short-cut for many folks who really cannot give an articulate answer when the questions is posed: "What do you mean by liberal?" It's not that these folks are naturally stupid, or cowards, or anything like that. It's that they haven't developed enough critical thinking on the matter to be able to respond. So the short-cut will do, thank you very much. For those of us who have spent the time, and have honestly asked the question often enough, it quickly becomes apparent that the common denominator is a kind of fear that resembles the objections cited by Furtwangler, for example. It's the distrust that rings so loud, not any specific piece of empirical evidence. Even worse is this: the fearful folks are deliberately being misled by some smart folks. They know that the "poor illiterate people" will swallow some pills more easily than others. And thus the bombardment of propaganda begins...and continues...and continues...and continues. After all, it is the "tree of knowledge" that is to be feared, saith Genesis. And some of us are just snakes. tl;dr: the slavery quip was tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Not to take anything away from your eloquence Homer but for the tl;dr crowd (sois) ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1338533908' post='1133434'] Alright. I took a peak at your profile, OHB, and because November 17th is a significant anniversary for me, too, I'll do my best to give you a useful reply. For me, Nov 17th is memorable because it is the day my Navy enlistment ended and thus represents an important inflection point in my progress through life. And it just so happens that the day you were born was my first anniversary. I like the symmetry of this and so I feel a distant bond of brotherhood with you. And as an "older brother" I'm going to lay this out for you--tough love style. You may not agree with or like what I suggest here--I know some others will not--but that isn't my problem. Actually, it's your problem. And while this problem is age-old and endemic to all societies, it has particular relevance to the kind of society we have created here in the United States. And that's because the very survival of our form of government is dependent upon keeping this problem in proper context. In fact, in recent years, this problem has gotten way out of hand and in many ways is the root cause for so many of our woes. Or, perhaps better said, it is the exploitation of this problem--its use as a weapon by immoral interests--that is the root cause for what can be described as the slow, inexorable decline of this nation from a republican form of government towards what I like to describe as "soft-fascism" and something others have described as "fascism with a human face." I don't want you to think of my characterization as hyperbole or "extremism" because I can assure you it is not. The issue first came to my attention via [url="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40719271?uid=3739680&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699054459177"]this article[/url], written four years before you were born. I photocopied it in 1980 or 81 and have it in my files somewhere. Be happy to dig it out and forward it to anyone who cannot get through to JSTOR. Here's the thing. To really come to grips with this trend in socio-political behavior, one has to do a lot of work studying the phenomenon of fascism, not only going back to its historical roots in the 19th century, but also in playing "whack-a-mole" with the myriad of segmented policy permutations that pop up as a result of this orientation in long-term policy objectives by some sectors of our elites. Personally, I have done a fair amount of this kind of work and when I was a younger man, I engaged in a lot of politics combating these kinds of initiatives. And here is the money shot. You ready? A lot of the policy proposals for "friendly fascism" [b]do[/b] come from the "liberal" side of the street. So when you characterize my remarks as "liberal extremism" you are doing me a great injustice. I'm one of the few people who have acquaintance with in your lifetime who has done some fighting back against the real extremism at work in our society today. Furthermore, I fully know that what you have in mind when you rail against "liberals" is pretty much nonsensical. And that is related to the problem I mentioned earlier, but have not identified yet. I will do that shortly. Just be aware--and I put this rather crudely--that every moment of your existence to this minute has been subordinate to this tendency towards "human fascism" promulgated by either witting or seriously misguided elements of our elite. You were birthed from one hole and immediately shoved down an Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole of modern political craziness. You aren't alone. No one said life is fair. This is your historical moment. For other generations it was the Civil War or WWII. This moment is yours. So, as a matter of practical advice, I'd suggest that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have undergone some shifts in meaning in recent decades. And my view is that we have reached a point where those terms have become genuine impediments to thinking clearly about the political divisions in this country. There are folks on both sides of the aisle that understand this--it's one reason why you see real extremists of a populist bent, such as the Tea Party folks and the OWS folks, surfacing more prominently the past few years. In both of these cases they are expressions of a surge of dissatisfaction in the way things are developing in this country. But the folks on these extremes are fairly ineffectual because they haven't identified the phenomenon of fascism accurately. Thus, the prescriptions of the Tea Partiers tend to accelerate our motion towards a corporativist state, while the OWS folks are engaged in a solipsistic orgy of masturbation. It feels good for a minute but it really doesn't resolve the matter at hand. (In hand?!) I want to clarify one other thing before I get to the really important part of this post. The folks on the fringes are responding to the symptoms of our current state of affairs. Some of them are turning towards radical ideas. Others are becoming radicals (in the pejorative sense) themselves. But the real trick to navigating through our present crises towards a renewed foundation of political stability and economic prosperity is to be able to examine radical ideas without becoming wild-eyed radicals. They only way we get through this mess is if the a significant portion of the great "center" of our populace manages to accomplish this. At least that's my view. I'm using the term radical here in two of its connotations deliberately. It's one thing to get to the root of an idea, it's quite another to become psychologically "unhinged" in that process. Now, to the problem. It's really quite simple. It's fear. That's your problem. Mine, too. And if you look around you you'll discover that it is everyone's problem. I'm not talking about cowardice. After all, it takes a certain kind of mundane courage to get up and walk out the door everyday. Nor am I going to go all FDR on your ass, either, other than to suggest that back in the 30s, the guy deftly put his finger on the problem, too. I am talking about a phenomenon which one sees most prominently coming from the so-called "right" nowadays, but it is also present coming from the so-called "left" as well. It's just that depending upon one's political orientation, this specific kind of fear manifests itself in different ways. This fear has to do with the relations between private virtue and public virtue and more importantly, it has to do with the general fear of our populace to get squared away and to seek truth in a straightforward, honest and civil way. The bugaboos may vary but the response to those bugaboos is generally the same: we're afraid to look a public problem in the eye and actually do something about it. I'm tempted to suggest that we don't have the steely backbones of our ancestors, except I'm fully aware that those folks were not so different than us. We seem to be more prone to temper-tantrums now than in the past, but this is not so. It's just that we tend to hear the loudest squalling best while sweet whispers of wisdom tantalize our ears but seem to be just out of clear hearing range. I'll demonstrate what I mean by referring to the debates surrounding the ratification of our Constitution. Gordon Wood touches upon the problem in his discussions of "American Exceptionalism" and Bernard Bailyn does, too, in his discussions of public virtue. Both pretty smart and level-headed fellows. I'm going to refer folks to a different source: Albert Furtwangler's [u]The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers.[/u] Specifically, chapter four, entitled "An Outcry Against Literate Civility." It's a nifty little book which attempts to situate the Federalist Papers in the literary context of the period. I've scanned the chapter and encourage folks to download it and read through Furtwangler's argument. He is much more literate than I am. In essence, his argument is that, for some anti-federalists, there was a tendency to see the Constitution as a sleight-of-hand: I'll leave it to you to read the attachment to see how this seemingly plausible objection was met by a fellow farmer. What I wish to focus on here is the resonance between the attitude of anti-federalists then, and the "liberal-bashers" now. The term "liberal" has become a short-cut for many folks who really cannot give an articulate answer when the questions is posed: "What do you mean by liberal?" It's not that these folks are naturally stupid, or cowards, or anything like that. It's that they haven't developed enough critical thinking on the matter to be able to respond. So the short-cut will do, thank you very much. For those of us who have spent the time, and have honestly asked the question often enough, it quickly becomes apparent that the common denominator is a kind of fear that resembles the objections cited by Furtwangler, for example. It's the distrust that rings so loud, not any specific piece of empirical evidence. Even worse is this: the fearful folks are deliberately being misled by some smart folks. They know that the "poor illiterate people" will swallow some pills more easily than others. And thus the bombardment of propaganda begins...and continues...and continues...and continues. After all, it is the "tree of knowledge" that is to be feared, saith Genesis. And some of us are just snakes. tl;dr: the slavery quip was tongue in cheek. [/quote] I really appreciate this post. Printed both articles and will read both. My intiial degree was in political science and this ahs made me remember why. I am curious of your thoughts on something that I have noticed and have developed some thoughts over. I feel like a major part of the problem is the expectation of people. I am not sure if it has to do with having more people educated, more exposure to people on TV or movies with incredible things, but people seem to need a lot more now to be satisfied then ever before and I view that as an unconscious greed in a sense. "My parents struggled, my parents parents struggled, but I have never had to struggle and now that I do this seems absurd to me and everything is falling apart." I am not sure I am being clear with this because I am just developing it but what I am getting at is I think people now are just grabbing at everything they can to have this perfect life with no ups and downs, when other generations expected ups and downs. I also think that corporations are playing an unfair tactic of "We cant spend this money on growth because we don't know what will happen with the economy" when they are making record profits. (For me I am more connected to the idea that I am on the planet to do more then just make money for a company and dont have much profit motivation. More community focused. I do find that as a major struggle living in this society though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1338533908' post='1133434'] It's fear. ([i]&tc[/i]) [/quote] Well.. that was only one of the better things I've read on this, or any other, forum. I hope others take the time to do so, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 Homer. You are quite passionate about your views and I respect that. Are you a history or political science professor? If Im reading it correctly, you believe that the corporatism of America is the problem; is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI9VzSJjXfg&feature=fvst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1338572424' post='1133494'] I really appreciate this post. Printed both articles and will read both. My intiial degree was in political science and this ahs made me remember why. I am curious of your thoughts on something that I have noticed and have developed some thoughts over. I feel like a major part of the problem is the expectation of people. I am not sure if it has to do with having more people educated, more exposure to people on TV or movies with incredible things, but people seem to need a lot more now to be satisfied then ever before and I view that as an unconscious greed in a sense. "My parents struggled, my parents parents struggled, but I have never had to struggle and now that I do this seems absurd to me and everything is falling apart." I am not sure I am being clear with this because I am just developing it but what I am getting at is I think people now are just grabbing at everything they can to have this perfect life with no ups and downs, when other generations expected ups and downs. I also think that corporations are playing an unfair tactic of "We cant spend this money on growth because we don't know what will happen with the economy" when they are making record profits. (For me I am more connected to the idea that I am on the planet to do more then just make money for a company and dont have much profit motivation. More community focused. I do find that as a major struggle living in this society though) [/quote] Interesting thoughts and I think you may be on to something. It's certainly true that in many respects, even after 35 years of economic decline vis-a-vis living standards for the populace in general, that there have been many advances that tend to meliorate that decline. Among them are the greater "connected-ness" of society in terms of being aware that we are interdependent, as well as the rise and role of computing in our lifetimes. (And other forms of media, too.) I have a habit of stockpiling food and other sundries. I'm not a survivalist nutjob, but I do always seems to have a couple of months worth of stuff around the house. I think this is in part simple economic sense (I take advantage of sales to stretch my dollars) and also because of the example of my father, who lived as a adolescent through the Great Depression in conditions of marginal security. Ot better said, marginal insecurity. Growing up that way affected his behavior and his behavior has, I think, affected mine, too. Lastly, there are a lot of individual approaches to "making this a better world" and I think thoughtful folks will generally try to contribute to their vision of that. In my view, the root of many problems has to do with the premises underlying some of those individual approaches. It's one reason why I think this left/right dichotomy gets in the way most of the time. For example, some of the proto-fascist impulses that come from the left are premised on a view of "what it means to be human" that I think are false (not true.) A lot of the environmentalist, anti-human, anti-growth stuff comes from what appears (to me at least) to be a blurred understanding of "what it means to be human." I guess each of us has to figure out how to parse our understanding, especially when it comes to that old cliche: "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater." I don't have to believe in a supernatural God to think that much of serious theology is worth trying to understand. I don't have to draw a false equivalency between humans and animals to know that I shouldn't kick my cats. I don't have to accept sketchy notions of over-population and environmentalism in coming to realize that resource depletion is a serious challenge to our world. Etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 [quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1338611521' post='1133577'] Homer. You are quite passionate about your views and I respect that. Are you a history or political science professor? If Im reading it correctly, you believe that the corporatism of America is the problem; is that correct? [/quote] No. No. At least, not the way you ask the question. I'd suggest you re-read my post and look into the concept of corporativism more deeply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1339166831' post='1134527'] No. No. At least, not the way you ask the question. I'd suggest you re-read my post and look into the concept of corporativism more deeply. [/quote] I can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 So this isn't good.... [url="http://robertreich.org/post/26708840314"]http://robertreich.org/post/26708840314[/url] [quote] [b] [url="http://robertreich.org/post/26708840314"]The Wall Street Scandal of all Scandals[/url][/b] [url="http://robertreich.org/post/26708840314"]SATURDAY, JULY 7, 2012[/url][color=#383838][font=Georgia, Times] [font=inherit] Just when you thought Wall Street couldn’t sink any lower – when its myriad abuses of public trust have already spread a miasma of cynicism over the entire economic system, giving birth to Tea Partiers and Occupiers and all manner of conspiracy theories; when its excesses have already wrought havoc with the lives of millions of Americans, causing taxpayers to shell out billions (of which only a portion has been repaid) even as its top executives are back to making more money than ever; when its vast political power (via campaign contributions) has already eviscerated much of the Dodd-Frank law that was supposed to rein it in, including the so-called “Volker” Rule that was sold as a milder version of the old Glass-Steagall Act that used to separate investment from commercial banking – yes, just when you thought the Street had hit bottom, an even deeper level of public-be-damned greed and corruption is revealed. [/font][font=inherit] Sit down and hold on to your chair.[/font][font=inherit] What’s the most basic service banks provide? Borrow money and lend it out. You put your savings in a bank to hold in trust, and the bank agrees to pay you interest on it. Or you borrow money from the bank and you agree to pay the bank interest.[/font][font=inherit] How is this interest rate determined? We trust that the banking system is setting today’s rate based on its best guess about the future worth of the money. And we assume that guess is based, in turn, on the cumulative market predictions of countless lenders and borrowers all over the world about the future supply and demand for the dough.[/font][font=inherit] But suppose our assumption is wrong. Suppose the bankers are manipulating the interest rate so they can place bets with the money you lend or repay them – bets that will pay off big for them because they have inside information on what the market is really predicting, which they’re not sharing with you.[/font][font=inherit] That would be a mammoth violation of public trust. And it would amount to a rip-off of almost cosmic proportion – trillions of dollars that you and I and other average people would otherwise have received or saved on our lending and borrowing that have been going instead to the bankers. It would make the other abuses of trust we’ve witnessed look like child’s play by comparison.[/font][font=inherit] Sad to say, there’s reason to believe this has been going on, or something very much like it. This is what the emerging scandal over “Libor” (short for “London interbank offered rate”) is all about.[/font][font=inherit] Libor is the benchmark for trillions of dollars of loans worldwide – mortgage loans, small-business loans, personal loans. It’s compiled by averaging the rates at which the major banks say they borrow.[/font][font=inherit] So far, the scandal has been limited to Barclay’s, a big London-based bank that just paid $453 million to U.S. and British bank regulators, whose top executives have been forced to resign, and whose traders’ emails give a chilling picture of how easily they got their colleagues to rig interest rates in order to make big bucks. (Robert Diamond, Jr., the former Barclay CEO who was forced to resign, said the emails made him “physically ill” – perhaps because they so patently reveal the corruption.)[/font][font=inherit] But Wall Street has almost surely been involved in the same practice, including the usual suspects — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America – because every major bank participates in setting the Libor rate, and Barclay’s couldn’t have rigged it without their witting involvement.[/font][font=inherit] In fact, Barclay’s defense has been that every major bank was fixing Libor in the same way, and for the same reason. And Barclays is “cooperating” (i.e., giving damning evidence about other big banks) with the Justice Department and other regulators in order to avoid steeper penalties or criminal prosecutions, so the fireworks have just begun. [/font][font=inherit] There are really two different Libor scandals. One has to do with a period just before the financial crisis, around 2007, when Barclays and other banks submitted fake Libor rates lower than the banks’ actual borrowing costs in order to disguise how much trouble they were in. This was bad enough. Had the world known then, action might have been taken earlier to diminish the impact of the near financial meltdown of 2008.[/font][font=inherit] But the other scandal is even worse. It involves a more general practice, starting around 2005 and continuing until – who knows? it might still be going on — to rig the Libor in whatever way necessary to assure the banks’ bets on derivatives would be profitable.[/font][font=inherit] This is insider trading on a gigantic scale. It makes the bankers winners and the rest of us – whose money they’ve used for to make their bets – losers and chumps.[/font][font=inherit] What to do about it, other than hope the Justice Department and other regulators impose stiff fines and even criminal penalties, and hold executives responsible?[/font][font=inherit] When it comes to Wall Street and the financial sector in general, most of us suffer outrage fatigue combined with an overwhelming cynicism that nothing will ever be done to stop these abuses because the Street is too powerful. But that fatigue and cynicism are self-fulfilling; nothing will be done if we succumb to them.[/font][font=inherit] The alternative is to be unflagging and unflinching in our demand that Glass-Steagall be reinstituted and the biggest banks be broken up. The question is whether the unfolding Libor scandal will provide enough ammunition and energy to finally get the job done.[/font][/font][/color] [/quote] [color=#383838][font=Georgia, Times] [/font][/color]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouiuw26RA4g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 [quote][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3][left]Why is Nobody Freaking Out About the LIBOR Banking Scandal?[/left][/size][/font][/color] [left][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] The LIBOR manipulation story has exploded into a major scandal overseas. The CEO of Barclays, Bob Diamond, has [url="http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/07/03/1068771/no-flowers/"]resigned in disgrace[/url]; his was the first of what will undoubtedly be many major banks to walk the regulatory plank for fixing the interbank exchange rate. The Labor party is [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/barclays-should-face-criminal-investigation-says-ed-miliband_n_1633285.html"]demanding[/url] a sweeping criminal investigation. Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/29/mervyn-king-banks"]responded[/url] the way a real public official should (i.e. not like Ben Bernanke), blasting the banks:[/size][/font][/color][indent] It is time to do something about the banking system…Many people in the banking industry are hardworking and feel badly let down by some of their colleagues and leaders. It goes to the culture and the structure of banks: the excessive compensation, the shoddy treatment of customers, the deceitful manipulation of a key interest rate, and today, news of yet another mis-selling scandal.[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] The furor is over revelations that Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and other banks were monkeying with at least $10 trillion in loans (The [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]is calculating that that LIBOR affects $800 trillion worth of contracts).[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] The banks gamed LIBOR for two semi-overlapping reasons. As [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-huge-break-in-the-libor-banking-investigation-20120628"]noted here last week[/url], there were instances of Barclays traders badgering the LIBOR submitters to "push down" rates in order to fatten their immediate bottom lines, depending on what they were trading or holding that day. They also apparently rigged LIBOR downward in order to produce a general appearance of better health, essentially tweaking their credit scores a few ticks upward.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] Most intriguingly, or perhaps disturbingly, there were revelations last week that Bank of England deputy Governor Paul Tucker [url="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mps-to-question-bank-of-englands-deputy-governor-paul-tucker-7904459.html"]had a conversation[/url] with Diamond at the peak of the crisis in 2008. The conversation reportedly left Diamond, and subsequently his traders, with the impression that the bank had carte blanche to rig LIBOR downward in order to help allay spiraling public fears about the banks’ poor financial health.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] British officials, and Tucker individually, deny that Tucker gave Diamond permission to rig rates. But a report by British regulators did conclude that the two were talking about Barclays LIBOR submissions on October 29, 2008, and that as a result of that conversation, Diamond came away with a “misunderstanding.” The [i]Daily Mail [/i][url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167458/Libor-Dispute-said-Mervyn-Kings-deputy-senior-Barclays-boss.html#ixzz1zYvWm0IB"]quotes the Financial Services Authority report[/url]:[/size][/font][/color][indent] However, as the substance of the telephone conversation was relayed down the chain of command at Barclays, a misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred. This meant that Barclays’ submitters believed mistakenly that they were operating under an instruction from the Bank of England (as conveyed by senior management) to reduce Barclays’ Libor submissions.[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] That is explosive stuff. Members of Parliament will be grilling Tucker tomorrow about those events in what is sure to be a far more combative and entertaining legislative inquiry than the Jamie Dimon [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/senators-grovel-embarrass-themselves-at-dimon-hearing-20120615"]dog-and-pony show[/url] we just went through here in the states in recent weeks.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] The implications of that part of the story should be particularly chilling to Americans, who in recent years have been party to a number of revelations about strange and seemingly inappropriate contacts between senior regulatory officials and big bankers during the heat of the crisis.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] We know that American officials in 2008-2009 were extremely concerned about the appearance of weakness in the financial markets, so much so that they [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=GYaZj3l0VDwC&pg=PT286&lpg=PT286&dq=geithner+suskind+disclosure+fraud+Lehman&source=bl&ots=NIEJ7EIDE_&sig=ghWxv8hjZ5Ew2ZYVCpmuyG5f6EU&hl=en&ei=Nb_oTsUKxre3B_LmoeoK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]may have resisted pursuing criminal prosecutions[/url] against big banks, and we also know that they spent a lot of time commiserating with Wall Street figures before and during the crisis.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] If Bob Diamond and Paul Tucker were having these talks about LIBOR, is it fair to wonder what else Hank Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein were talking about in the [url="http://business.time.com/2009/09/01/hank-paulson-thinks-lloyd-blankfein-is-really-smart-is-that-a-crime/"]24 discussions they had[/url] in the six days following the AIG disaster? When Paulson had a [url="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/10/20/the-secret-paulson-goldman-meeting/"]secret meeting with the entire board of Goldman Sachs[/url] in, of all places, his hotel suite in Moscow, in June of 2008? Or what other material nonpublic information was exchanged when Paulson [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html"]met with a gang of hedge fund chiefs[/url] at the offices of Eton Park management in July 2008, and laid out for them a possible scenario for putting Fannie and Freddie into receivership?[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] Anyway, the LIBOR story is leading the front pages of most of Britain’s dailies, it’s [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IStbWcMe_Y"]on TV[/url], and it’s producing blistering editorials and howls of outrage amongst politicians and activists. But as compadre Yves Smith at [i]Naked Capitalism [/i]put it, [url="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/07/massive-furor-in-uk-over-libor-manipulation-wheres-the-outrage-here.html"]where’s the outrage here[/url] in America?[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] The big story on our shores in the last few weeks has been the health care ruling, which makes sense, but then after that… what? The [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48056207#.T_Lv4MWnJ8E"]heat[/url]? Tom and Katie? (There’s actually a story about how [url="http://omg.yahoo.com/news/katie-holmes-wears-heels-again-free-5-7-115955733.html"]Katie can wear heels[/url] again, now that she’s not married to a short person). Joe Sandusky? [i]Nightline[/i]’s big story tonight, which is [url="http://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-weight-were-easy-id-already-fixed-100118802--abc-news-politics.html"]already being hyped[/url] on the net, is about how fat Chris Christie is and why the hell he hasn’t done the bypass surgery yet:[/size][/font][/color][indent] New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie opened up about his weight problem in an interview with ABC News and stressed he is "trying" to lose weight, a battle he's waged for 30 years, but said he's never considered gastric bypass surgery because it's "too risky." "I mean, see, listen, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding among people regarding weight and regarding all those things that go into, to people being overweight," Christie said in an interview that will air Tuesday on "Nightline."[/indent][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] Glad to be informed! The [i]New York Times, [/i]meanwhile, did chime in with a [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/opinion/rigged-rates-rigged-markets.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss"]house editorial[/url] yesterday, and it was appropriately somber. And there has been some coverage in the financial press.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] But to me what’s missing from all of this is the “Holy Fucking Shit!” factor. This story is so outrageous that it shocks even the most cynical Wall Street observers. I have a friend who works on Wall Street who for years has been trolling through the stream of financial corruption stories with bemusement, darkly enjoying the spectacle as though the whole post-crisis news arc has been like one long, beautifully-acted, intensely believable sequel to [i]Goodfellas. [/i]But even he is just stunned to the point of near-speechlessness by the LIBOR thing. “It’s like finding out that the whole world is on quicksand,” he says.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3] So as far as the stateside press goes, I’ve got to assume the cavalry is coming soon. But when?[/size][/font][/color][/left] [/quote] [left] [color=#000000][font=georgia][size=3]Read more: [url="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-is-nobody-freaking-out-about-the-libor-banking-scandal-20120703#ixzz1zyzZscQ5"]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-is-nobody-freaking-out-about-the-libor-banking-scandal-20120703#ixzz1zyzZscQ5[/url][/size][/font][/color][/left]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2M1olG2Oo&feature=player_embedded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 [url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/13/rate-fixing-scandal-hits-u-s-fed-drops-libor-bombshells.html"]A little more on US side of the LIBOR fraud.[/url] Note that revelant folks were aware pre-2008 blowout. Really need to send a few of these fools off the jail for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1342273914' post='1138814'] [url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/13/rate-fixing-scandal-hits-u-s-fed-drops-libor-bombshells.html"]A little more on US side of the LIBOR fraud.[/url] Note that revelant folks were aware pre-2008 blowout. Really need to send a few of these fools off the jail for a long time. [/quote] With how LIBOR is set I dont know how you cant prove collusion. Forget jail, these assholes need the guillotine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1338533908' post='1133434'] After all, it is the "tree of knowledge" that is to be feared, saith Genesis. And some of us are just snakes.[/quote] [url="http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/132813/"]What's happened to intellectual life on the right?[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.