If people refuse to become educated enough ...

If people refuse to become educated enough to figure out what is going on, and simply follow the braying of slogans by the ideologues of their ideology ... whatever that is ... we will never progress ... which seems to be the goal of the religious set, particularly the right-wing Christian Fundamentalists.

Let me be frank, if you still believe that stuff after reaching 30 then you are in a mental straight-jacket with blinders. Your sexuality alone should have informed you that Christian Fundamentalism is totally bogus. Didn't you pay attention to what was going on in your own body? Was that the work of Satan? Give me a [suitable expletive] break!

Christian Fundamentalists are toadies for the elite who want to rip off labor. That's my starting point for discussion.

We get the justice we can afford ...

The case of Troy Davis, sentenced to death for killing a police officer in Georgia, is another happening in these United States that begs the question of equal justice for all.

I am not going to go through a litany of legal history or even of the evidence in Mr. Troy's case. After 70 years living in this country of ours, I know that justice is so flawed that it mocks our founding principles. If you can't afford to pay for your defense, you have little or none ... virtually and effectively.

And those who continue to mouth the platitudes evoking those founding principles without putting their shoulder to the wheel of history, to turn it towards what we ought to become ... well ... that is also what the seven decades have taught me. Most of us hide behind our words, giving lip service to ideals and seldom if ever putting them into action ... especially if it exposes us to any risk.

Even those who say the wheel should turn, hardly ever push.

Most of us know that we are not trying to move our country toward the oughtness of our agreed upon principles. We are trying to earn our fair share of the wealth we help create.

And that — earning a fair share for our labor &mdash is where the elite — those who want and conspire to receive more than their fair share — have us — labor — by the short hairs IF we have given up the effort to base our way of life on our nation's principles.

Let's get some simple things affirmed. Wanting a fair share for the worker isn't socialism or communism. It is anti-slavery. Here in America it was called "middle-classism". Slavery is all about the elite slave-owner getting the slave's share.

Any system that conspires to withhold fairly earned wages from the workers is a form of slavery. And just to be clear, an economy in which the aggregate wealth is increasing while the elite are getting more and the workers aren't ... is headed in the wrong direction no matter how you slice it ... unless you believe in having an elite living off the workers.

Another thing, these concepts do not impinge on the concept of a market economy. But ... we the people have been so poorly served recently by our political leaders and theorists, that we have lost our way. And when you scratch the surface of these leaders you find the resources of the elite.

Maybe it is because so many of us aspire to become an accepted member or toady of the elite — and the rewards — that we don't question what is happening?

Obama gives a good speech ...

It's looking like we have an intelligent politician in the White House. The change is the intelligence. The politics are the same.

The elite bankers are trumping the workers, and still sucking up the wealth labor creates. The elite generals are trumping the grunts, and avoiding court martial for their policies that the enlisted carry out.

We are selling out our underlying principles of fairness and justice for all in order to pass health care and green earth legislation.

It's so simple it hurts ... it's another 3-shell street Monte game faking us out. And we are once again selling our birthright for porridge.

Guess the whole thing is going to have to crash once again for the people to wake up to what is happening.

Obama is proving to be a run-of-the-mill politician

President Obama is fading fast on principles and choosing political expediency with an eye to 2012 and an 8-year presidency.

But we should have seen it coming with his earlier reversal on FISA http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

Now with the reversals on the detainee photos (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/white-house-wants-a-delay-in-the-release-of-detainee-photos/) and detainee justice (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15gitmo.html) ...

Progressives still have something to hope for in Supreme Court appointees ...

But the FISA, photos, and justice reversals pierce our heart as a nation.

It's simple, pursue truth ... and be honest in our pursuit.

So Cheney says ...

So Cheney says President Obama is making our nation less safe by rescinding intense interrogation policies of the Cheney/Bush 43 administration... while the military honchos are begging Obama not to reveal the evidence of the results of the Cheney/Bush 43 intense interrogation techniques lest our soldiers really become less safe ...

There is a disconnect here. Or am I missing something?

Cheney's offensive defense of his crimes

Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to keep himself out of prison by going on the offense against President Obma's release of the torture memos. It looks to me like Cheney has violated the law by authorizing specific acts of torture. If the call for justice gathers steam, he would be in the legal crosshairs.

The idea that we should not prosecute these heinous crimes because they are somehow in the past ... is absurd on the face of it. All crimes we prosecute have occurred in the past. We don't yet convict individuals of future crimes. Is there anything more absurd in a nation of law?

The one good thing that should come of Cheney's taking to the soapbox, is that the issue will arouse the people to cry out for justice, to punish — according to our laws — the leaders who thought they could get away with torture.

The Tag Teams: Geithner & Summers vs. Krugman & Stiglitz

Tim Geithner's and Larry Summers' and careers and personal wealth benefited from the recent derivatives bubble. They are up to their armpits — again, career-wise — in support of the bank bailout plan. They are connected, you might say ... in several dimensions.

On the other hand, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economists, say the bank bailout plan is not so hot.

Krugman writes in his column America the Tarnished in The New York Times:

In an article in the current issue of The Atlantic, Mr. Johnson, who served as the chief economist at the I.M.F. and is now a professor at M.I.T., declares that America’s current difficulties are “shockingly reminiscent” of crises in places like Russia and Argentina — including the key role played by crony capitalists.

In America as in the third world, he writes, “elite business interests — financiers, in the case of the U.S. — played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive.”

Stiglitz is quoted in Stiglitz Says Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue in Bloomberg.com::

All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.

If it's tag teams, Geithner & Summers vs. Krugman & Stiglitz, we know who should win ... but in wrestling, you go by the script ...

Let me put it this way ...

Let me give you an example to explain my view of money or "financial instruments".

I have end stage renal disease and I am being evaluated for a kidney transplant. In the evaluation process — looking forward — they told me that if I had a volunteer kidney donor who was not a good tissue match for me, I could participate in a multiparty transplant group where my volunteer would give her/his kidney to someone else and the other person's volunteer would give her/his kidney to me. This could involve as many participants as could be efficiently — in medical terms — handled.

Let's call the agreement between the parties a "transplant agreement" or "transplant instrument". It is quite obvious that the agreement is only worth more than the paper it is printed on IF there are enough kidneys to go around. And if — for example — twice as many agreements come in play as available kidneys because transplant hospitals "sold" more transplant agreements in the short term simply because they could earn a huge profit from selling the transplant agreements ... and then a need for kidneys from individuals holding transplant agreements exceeded the number of actual kidneys available ... Dah! The market would collapse, wouldn't it?

The same is true of money or "financial instruments". They make the exchange of diverse items in multifaceted transactions over time and distance possible ... but only if I am able to get something I want for a price I am willing to pay when I want it ... for the money I have ... unless I can borrow some ...

The Obama (Geithner?) bank bailout plan ... is a swindle

In today's Op Ed piece published March 31st in The New York Times, Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism, Joseph E. Stiglitz lays out the the problem with the Obama (Geithner?) bank bailout plan. It's a swindle of taxpayer money to benefit the banks that helped get us into this mess.

And when we start thinking about the government coordinating the auction of banks' toxic assets ... for the purpose of recapitalizing the banks ... so they can start lending ... so we can start borrowing and spending? What's wrong with this picture?

Geithner seems to believe these toxic assets have real value, and by getting them priced "realistically" it will put the financial system back on its feet.

He probably hasn't visited many ghost towns where the buildings are still standing because they are worth less than the cost of their demolition.

Financial gurus lose sight of the fact that money and other financial instruments have no value in themselves. Their value derives from adding efficiency in making transactions in the market between seemingly diverse elements, including the guarantee of future events ... allowing us to pay for something such as a home or auto over its use life, instead of up front. (However ... when you start paying double-digit interest on groceries bought on a credit card, or lose the means — a job — for making the payments ... dah!)

At the end of the day — as in, "at the end of the bubble" — if there aren't other real goods or services to put up to back up whatever financial instruments are in play ... well, golly gee whiz ... why DO bubbles keep happening? And aren't we watching the Obama financial team repeating the basic "borrow to invest more than we will ever be able to repay (or get back)" of the bubble syndrome?

The new bailout for banks ...

So ... let me get this straight ...

We package these toxic assets ... and put them up for bid ... in an auction where the bidders only have to put up 15% of their winning bid? And the government will match the private money of the bidders dollar for dollar, up to 15%? And the government will loan up to 85% of the purchase price — the winning bid — in a non-recourse loan? (Isn't that one that doesn't have to be paid back?) And this is supposed to provide a market to properly value these assets? Are you kidding me?

A nonrecourse debt or non-recourse debt or nonrecourse loan is a secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable. If the borrower defaults, the lender/issuer can seize the collateral, but the lender's recovery is limited to the collateral. If the property is insufficient to cover the outstanding loan balance (for example, if real estate prices have dropped), the lender is simply paid out the difference. Thus, non-recourse debt is typically limited to 80% or 90% loan-to-value ratios, so that the property itself provides "overcollateralization" of the loan. The purpose of non-recourse debt is to require lenders to underwrite their loans on a sustainable and prudent basis since the lender is in the first-loss position with these loans, not the borrower.

wikipedia.com

B-b-bu-but the government is simply going to underwrite whatever the winning bid/purchase price is. How is that sustainable or prudent?

In this auction the only thing determining the bid will be what 15% dollar amount are the banks willing to lose to gain the 85% remainder? Gee, I wonder.

See, the banks are going to get paid off at 100% of the purchase price. Now, if a bank loaned the 15% for the private equity in this deal to some type of limited liability company that used the toxic asset to balance whatever liability it carries on their books ... then if the LLC goes belly up when the toxic asset defaults ... well, all the bank would lose is its 15% ... and if Bank A loans the 15% to X LLC that purchases the toxic assets from Bank B, and Bank B loans the 15% to Y LLC that purchases the toxic assets from Bank A ... so it all looks impartial ...

Are you kidding me?

And Geithner or Bernake or Summers are going to coordinate this for the banks?

Are you kidding me?!

Oh ... and check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#29875591

Variations on a Ponzi theme

Harvard economist Kenneth S. Rogoff, who with Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland has analyzed 800 years of banking crises. “You can study all the financial crises, and there is a common pattern, that the faster you mark down the assets in the financial system and recapitalize the banks,” the sooner the economy recovers, he says. “As long as you leave the banking system sick, you’re not going to have sustained growth.”

Macroegonomics by Virginia Postrel, an Atlantic contributing editor

There you have it. The financial gurus create the illusion of wealth with variations of Ponzi schemes and other manipulations of the velocity of money and leverage aka borrowing against assets until the bubble they are blowing up can no longer be sustained by the market value of the underlying goods and services we actually need and want ... and the whole thing explodes, forcing the pricing of these goods and services at real market value ... what people are really willing to pay for them outside the illusion of increased value created by the financial schemers aka bankers.

It isn't so much about curing the banks, as it is about getting their excessive illusory wealth wrung out of the money supply, and returning money to its useful place of facilitating the exchange of goods and services that do have value ... their real market value.

Anyone who still thinks the cure is to get the banks to start lending again for the purchase of this generation of goods and services rather than the production of the next generation of goods and services that will in turn create demand ... is out of their ever-loving mind.

Obama picked the wrong players for his economic team

Hey, of course the coach has to take responsibility for the team ... but if you're losing with the players on the floor, shouldn't you be thinking about making some substitutions? Or, is this the best you can do? And what does that say about you?

As Frank Rich writes in his NY Times OpEd column, Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived?:

"We must have governance to match the message."

We have a ways to go before we reach bottom ...

Together with other Fed programs, the aim is to lower borrowing costs for consumers, businesses and the government. More borrowing and spending, in turn, would bolster the impact of the fiscal stimulus package passed in February.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this will work. With unemployment rising, debt loads high and household wealth falling, consumers may be reluctant to resume spending anytime soon, no matter how low rates and prices go. And even if consumers and businesses want to borrow, banks — stung by their own losses — may not be willing to lend.

The Fed Does Battle, Again
The New York Times Editorial
Published: March 20, 2009

Is the Fed crazy? Borrowing and spending what we borrowed got us into this mess. Somehow the financial sector brilliant idiots still think that their pieces of paper actually create wealth ... and not the illusion of wealth ... the bubble.

Until folks are working at jobs that actually create wealth — the goods and services that have value in a transparent and well-regulated market (everyone uses the same weights and measures, for instance) — and are paid a fair return for their labor — the mental and physical effort used in creating that wealth with its historical investment — there is not going to be a turn around.

And as we are still losing jobs faster than we are creating them ... we still have a ways to go before we hit bottom.

Is Obama's credibility now DOA?

If Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council for President Barack Obama, aren't gone in 60 days then the credibility of Barack Obama's presidency is permanently DOA ... before the end of the initial 100 days of his presidency.

IMHO ...

A few things about us ...

Let's get a few things straight.

We are a tribal animal. How do I (we) know that? We cannot survive as an individual nor as a family. With a solitary human being the future is obvious. The future ends in that person's death. With a family we now know that the gene pool is not robust enough to perpetuate the species.

We are a hunting animal. I would suggest that the biological basis of our human society is caught up in the alpha person leading the hunt ... and then fairly dividing the spoils of the hunt according to tribe's "rules".

Those tribal rules that increased the success of tribal activity led to a more successful tribe.

America's political genius was giving everyone in the hunt a fair reward out of the spoils of the hunt ... the counterpoint to slavery and indentured servitude.

No matter how complex things seem to get, they really stay pretty simple ... if you pay attention.

The lesson of these United States of America is simple

The lesson of these United States of America is simple. Reward the individual fairly out of the material wealth his/her labor creates and the dynamism created in the agrregate of individual motivation within our society will create (created) the greatest society known to the human race.

Some thoughts on the subject ...

Material wealth for human beings is produced by the mental and physical effort of human beings.

The mental and physical effort of human beings is what we define as labor.

The primary economic concern of a just society is the fair distribution of material wealth for the labor that created it.

If in a given society the material wealth contained in the assets of production — the land, buildings, and equipment — becomes more and more centralized in their ownership among fewer and fewer individuals, creating a classification of stored wealth separated from the labor that produced those assets, then that society is no longer just in relationship to a fair distribution of material wealth based on the labor that produced that wealth.

And ... if the centralized accumulation of the assets of production attenuates the fair distribution of material wealth, then the dynamism of our society will also be diminished.

Dah!

On labor, liberty, and the common good

Defining "Labor" as the aggregate of human effort — physical and mental — that produces something of value ... then ... what is wrong with "Labor" that we withhold our labor as human effort from ourselves when the larger economy in which we live and work cannot employ us? "Labor" needs to form something like a "collaborative labor corporation" to employ Labor when the larger economy doesn't ... for whatever reason. Why do we only work to create wealth for others, and consider this — a form of slavery — the primary legitimate or substantive economic structure to use in harnessing the wealth creating potential of human effort? Isn't time we learned from communities like the Amish and the Mormons on how to generate wealth for the common good?

I propose that we explore the development of economic organizing structures that I call "collaborative labor corporations" (CLC) — both profit-making and nonprofit — to create the economic environment where everyone able and willing to work can find work that creates value for which they are fairly rewarded.

All wealth has been produced by human effort — our labor, physical and mental.

That is the underlying fact of any economy.

Human labor is the synergy of our creative imaginations — ideas — and the physical ability to produce the concrete embodiment — products — of our ideas in the time and space continuum of our reality.

The machines and energy that we use to replicate the products of our ideas are also products of human labor. Energy is our product in the sense of our inventing ways to harness it to our directed use.

The organizations, tribes, natons, societies cultures that maximize the output of human labor, the integration of our creative imaginations — think cerebral cortex — and our physical ability — think hands with thumbs — will win the economic race, not as a zero-sum game, but as a collaborative engagement.

The American ideal is (was?) to reward individual effort fairly, relative to the wealth that person's effort creates, regardless of the social status of the individual. Our collective effort then creates our progress. Whenever our progress is guided by liberty in individual choice in a well-regulated market that maximizes the efficiency in transactions derived from trust and transparency, the American economy outpaces anything else known to us and we benefit — not equally, but collectively — if each of us is rewarded for his or her labor fairly. The maximization of human labor collectively is due to the maximization of motivation individually. That is the basic tenet supporting freedom and fairness.

What I call the British Imperialist Model (BIM ... and it's adherents, BIM-bos) is built on the concept that human labor produces wealth for an elite class of individuals who are then free to create the progress of the world. However, when this elite class is allowed to impose its sense of entitlement — its greed — on a society, extracting the wealth of labor to its own purposes — what worked in a feudal society or a slave-based society for some period of time— in a modern economy cycles through boom and bust. Its limitations in maximizing human labor collectively and, hence, the creation of wealth are obvious. However, because it maximizes the wealth of the elite for a time, if they usurp economic power through strategies like the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, they can and will use their economic power to impose their model.

The only antidote to BIM is democracy, wherein the people can gain a countervailing political power to an elite's economic power. However, democracy devolved into mob rule is the precursor of socioeconomic chaos by being able to disrupt orderly markets.

Again the U.S. has created the most rational form of government yet known to us with the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual in a form of federal government with its power divided between the three branches — executive, legislative and judicial — with additional checks and balances in the conduct of elections to elective office.

Addendum: The key to getting us out of the current economic mess the BIM-bos have gotten us into, is not to get the banks working, but to get the American people working. With Americans at work we will once again benefit from the tremendous wealth creation of our human labor. The mantra should be: Every person willing and able to work will be given a job to do, a job that creates value in a market economy.

And this time, let's make sure that those who create the wealth through their human labor, get their fair share of the wealth they help create.

And finally, it is the responsibility of the larger society to actively pursue fairness in the distribution of the wealth our human labor creates. AND it is the responsibility of the individual to participate in the larger society in determining that distribution BUT TO ALSO creatively explore ways to contribute his or her individual human labor to the benefit of the common good.

The reward follows labor. Where we might withhold our human labor from a given organization, we have no right to withhold it from our communiy. We can clean the common areas in our neighborhood. We can volunteer at our local church, synagogue, temple, mosque, food bank or homeless shelter. Whatever we can do to improve the socioeconomic environment benefits the common good of our community. It is only when those of us who are able to perform human labor don't, that we go downhill.

Our mantra requires us to participate in providing work for each and every individual whereby that individual can perform his or her human labor to the benefit of the common good of our community. We then must participate is providing a fair reward for the human labor thus performed. However, the fact that there is a lag at times between performance and receiving the reward, should not deter us from doing the work. We are, after all, embedded in our community, and our human labor benefits our community. It gives us the dignity of doing our part for the common good.

The bailout is a bust!

With a "$2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm." -Paul Krugman, Failure to Rise, Published: February 12, 2009, NY Times OpEd.

Then David Brooks chimes in with: "Between 1990 and 2007, the total mortgage debt held by Americans rose from $2.5 trillion to $10.5 trillion." -The Worst-Case Scenario, Published: February 12, 2009, NY Times OpEd. That's $8 Trillion we have to absorb.

What the hell is going on?!

Do the Republicans also believe the bailout is a bust and are positioning themselves to be the political party of "I told you so!"?

And we wonder why the Taliban are willing to destroy the tranquility of their nation for an ideological belief?

THE TALIBAN WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.... From time to time in recent years, liberals have identified the "Taliban wing" of the Republican Party -- those conservatives who reject church-state separation, taking marching orders from James Dobson, and wonder why the government doesn't do more to promote and endorse their vision of Christianity.

The phrase is generally considered offensive by most Republicans, and it's easy to understand why. Indeed, no U.S. political contingent wants to be compared to the Taliban.

It came as something of a surprise, then, to see a leading House Republican make the comparison unprompted.

Frustrated by a lack of bipartisan outreach from House Democratic leaders, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said House Republicans -- who voted unanimously last week against the economic plan pushed by President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- will pitch a "positive, loyal opposition" to the proposal. The group, he added, should also "understand insurgency" in implementing efforts to offer alternatives.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

He added that if Democrats don't give the minority party more "options or opportunities," Republicans "will then become an insurgency."

- Political Animal
by Steve Benen and Featuring Hilzoy,
February 5, 2009
WashingtonMonthly

Geithner is the fox in the henhouse!

From today's — Tuesday, February 10 — NY Times front page:

Geithner Said to Have Prevailed on the Bailout
By STEPHEN LABATON and EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: February 9, 2009
WASHINGTON— The Obama administration’s new plan to bail out the nation’s banks was fashioned after a spirited internal debate that pitted the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, against some of the president’s top political hands.
In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.

He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

Because of the internal debate, some of the most contentious issues remain unresolved.

That says it all about the Obama team. They are in the control of the global financier mindset that got us into this economic mess.

Brilliant idiots like Secretary Geithner —running the Federal Reserve Bank of New York while we descended into economic chaos — value their financial acumen over the worth of a tool and die maker ... to the detriment of our modern economy.

It isn't the Republicans we the people have to worry about. They were defeated soundly in the last election. It's the global financial gurus embedded in the Obama administration ... and obviously calling the shots. Do I see feathers in Geithner's smile?

Obama is screwing up the recovery bigtime

It's all over but the shouting. (See What the hell is going on?! below.)

Why? It's simple. Frank Rich lays it out in black and white in his column today, Slumdogs Unite!:

The new president who vowed to change Washington’s culture will have to fight much harder to keep from being co-opted by it instead. There are simply too many major players in the Obama team who are either alumni of the financial bubble’s insiders’ club or of the somnambulant governmental establishment that presided over the catastrophe.

-Frank Rich
Slumdogs Unite!
Ny Times OpEd
Sunday, February 8, 2009

This is going to get ugly ... all because the major players are beholden to the global financial model that got us into this mess in the first place.

Note: I call this the British Imperialism Model or BIM ... and folks like Geithner, Summners, and Rubin (and their ilk) BIM-bos. (See The Republican's plantation mentality ... below.)

Monday, Feb 9, update: Paul Krugman writes in today's column on the NY Times OpEd page, The Destructive Center :

So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.

For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”

No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.