Fraudulent then Fraudulent Now

Check this!

The Unreal Dr. Bjorn Nordenstrom

Orthodoxy in medicine is an area that seems to have come under increasing scrutiny. The quacks and mountebanks who typically challenge biomedical or more precisely biochemical hegemony are increasingly being joined by heretics within the biomedical ranks itself.

Any system of thought is comprised of more than rational processes. One must consider that interests coalesce around these systems that translate into careers, stocks, institutions, equipment, and perhaps most important, beliefs. Thought systems, consequently, take forms that make thought "real." That which lacks systems of interests to give form to thought is "unreal."

The phenomenon of the orthodox becoming unorthodox and vice verse is long. In recent history, the work of three-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling comes to mind. I can't help but appreciate the vilely unorthodox positions of prestigious National Academy of Science and Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg and independently minded Nobel laureate '92 Kerry Mullis on AIDS. Boy, if I hadn't heard that Canadian Broadcasting Company's program As It Happens, I would have never thunk it.

Anyway, in doing some reading on ions and acupuncture, I happened across a Dr. Nordenstrom, a Swede, whom you'll learn is of impeccable credentials, who has brazenly chosen to pursue electrically based therapies for tumors, instead of adhering to the biochemical dogma. One interesting observation about Nordenstrom and the other two: the brilliance that made them excel within real thought systems is the brilliance that made them vanish into the unreal.

Mammon

Mammon. I don't think I ran across this word till my mid twenties when I read Lewis Lapham's Money and Class in America. Suffice it to say, the word has struck a chord within. The week's events in the stock market have been glorious. At least from the trenches or perches (it's America so you can choose, no?), it looks as though the cracks in the facade of dollar imperialism are becoming much more glaring.

Beyond the wanting of more, most people haven't an inkling about money. This is the definition of mammon. Oh sure there's the scrimping and primping, the credits and the debits, but just the thought that money is a concept is likely to raise eyebrows in opprobrium. Sacrilege to the mammonist comes in varied forms. Taxes is one of them, especially when it comes in the form of aid to poor mothers, but not when in the form of .56 cents on the dollar that adds to nearly 1 trillion dollars to the military.

We'll leave the discussion about productive expenditures for another day. For the moment, a "crisis" is being used to foist yet more welfare for bankers. Here's a way to do something.

Taking Back October 7th

One Chance to "Save America"

How to Save the Day with Private Sector Coinvestment

The first thing you need to understand is that any media reference to the Resolution Trust Corp's bailout of the Savings and Loan mess is a deliberate misleading of American public opinion so that our collective life savings can be hijacked by the bankers cabal.

The key difference to keep in mind is this: In the case of the RTC, when the assets were rolled up and resold, the main players went out of business. In the flim-flam now being pulled on the American public, the main players will not only stay in business, they will make new fortunes paid for with your tax dollars.

Oh, and if you think this stinks, that's the smell of greed.

Now how to fix it? There is a very simple way - and I would urge you to write something along the lines in an email to your federal elected representatives:

---

Dear (elected official):

I am writing to demand that any bailout of investment bank include a mandatory requirement for private co-investment.

As you know, the current plan proposed by the Treasury - and now being rushed through approval is designed as follows:

• Financial Institution with 'bad paper' will be able to sell their paper to the government.

• The government will then sell this paper to other investors at whatever discount they need to in order to 'keep the system alive'.

• The buyers of this paper from the government have no incentive to bid up prices because the farther the asset valuation falls, the more money the bankers will make.

• Ultimately, the public will fund the difference between the current valuation of the instruments and however low these same investment bankers can drop their bids.

Obviously, this is an absurdity because under Game Theory, the lower the bids are when the government sells, the higher the yields on these debt instruments.

What's worse, an instrument sold my one firm, such as hypothetically Goldman Sachs (or more likely the Goldman Sachs Asset Management group) could ultimately be purchased from the government bailout agency purchased by Morgan Stanley. At the same time, a hypothetical Morgan Stanley\asset sold to the government could ultimately be picked up - dirt cheap - by the same Goldman group selling their hypothetical paper.

To my way of thinking, this "bailout" is a flim-flam deal. The investment "banksters" could 'wash the paper and take the spread' as things are presently proposed. As a Taxpayer, I am appalled and demand a better solution.

Is there an alternative? Of course!

Write and enforce a new provision requiring that any sales of government purchased instruments to private firms retain a minimum 90% public participation. Thus, when the [toxic waste] bonds are resold by the government, the tax paying public which is footing the bill would be compensated for its risk. Give the paper vultures compensation with a small 1-3 basis point spiff for managing the public's side of the deal.

The new deal structure would look like this:

• Financial Institution with 'bad paper' will still be able to sell their paper to the government.

• But because the government will sell only a maximum 10% private share (the rest being the public's skin in the game) the markdowns would likely be less.

• The public would retain a 90% ownership position. Thus any profits made by the paper vultures would be diluted 10:1 and the public compensated for its risk.

• In this way, the public would make back much of its initial cost and the debt load on the American financial system would be lessened dramatically - reducing the ultimate cost of the bailout dramatically.

As you can readily see, this approach - let's call it Private Sector Coinvestment - will work very well, although now that the investment bankers have "seen the green" in the form of the rudimentary "bailout plan" which is nothing short of a banker's coup d'état, will scream bloody murder when a rational and money saving plan is proposed.

It all comes down to whether you represent the interest of the People, or the interests of the Bankers who began their theft of the American economy in 1913, but that's another story.

As a vote in your district, I beseech you to look out for the interests of the American Taxpayer and honor the intent of the Framers to defend and protect this Great Nation.

Sincerely,

(share this freely)

---