Money, Politics, and Forclosures

I'm posting a few links here that you may find informative. The first is an interview with Timothy Canova, law professor at Chapman U. here in So. Cal. This is an MP3 recording. Professor Canova's perspectives on the history of money are instructive here.

The second article I'll quote from and allow for you to decide whether it's worth exploring further.

The principal technique employed in the US is to get people so busy that they don't have time to think about anything, and it is important to remember that with one person, one vote, this doesn't have to be everyone, just the majority. Thus, both men and women are encouraged to work long hours and coerced into accepting work with virtually no vacation time, and a sizable proportion of their free time is eaten up by bureaucratic concerns, such as paying bills etc. With what little time they have left they are often too fatigued to do much else and end up doing something like watching a movie. The long working hours and lack of vacation time also mean more profits for the politicians' pals and associates in the business world. Another technique involves what is called atomization in order to undermine the sense of community and the empowerment that a sense of community brings. This is achieved again through distraction, the principal weapon being the television, but also trivia such as video games.

A simple example of the way this works would be a person choosing to stay home and play a video game rather than going to have a chat with a neighbour. Still another important technique employed is obfuscation - making it hard for ordinary citizens to connect them with particular actions by acting as a group or through intermediaries. Perhaps the greatest factor contributing to the concentration of power and impending end of democracy in the US however is comfort. The majority of citizens have lived comfortable, affluent lives for many decades. This has led to unquestioning trust in politicians and a "leave it to them" attitude. Many people have more important things to do than keep tabs on what their politicians are up to, such as watching the ball game, drinking with their pals or going to the racetrack. The attitude has also been cultivated amongst all classes of society that "money talks" and "might is right".

The entire article can be read here.

Finally, here's a more personal look at the impact of foreclosures here in So Cal. The foreclosed home is probably of a Korean family judging from the rice cooker and Korean ramen box filled with junk on the kitchen counter, as well as the Christian cross in the bedroom. Although those affected have been presented have having primarily black and brown faces, there's little doubt that this is an equal opportunity disaster, even for model minorities.

Sensible Proposition: Smart Voters Only

Folks, after considerable thought, I regrettably have decided that stupid people shouldn't vote. Again, I come to this decision regrettably, but I've come to realize that our democracy depends on it.

There could be lot's of ways to determine an individuals stupidity: we could go by SAT scores; we could use IQ; we may even consider family history. It seems to me that these are relatively arbitrary measures of one's smarts. I believe a flat smart standard should be applied that is based purely on income. After all, there are plenty of individuals with high test scores who don't have any money. Now in all honesty, of what good is such intelligence if it cannot be converted into the objective basis of existence: money? Clearly, none at all. Money-making is the only true measure of smarts.

But how much money makes one among the ranks of the smart? This is where our social engineers will have to think hard, but I would estimate that an annal income of one million or a net worth of over 5 million should be the starting point.

Of course, stupid people will probably take exception to this proposition, but we cannot pander to lowest common denominator. This pandering is what has got us in the position we're in today. Some may argue that such a proposition is elitist, but if smart and elitism are synonymous then so be it. We'll let the philosophers decide, but we people of action cannot idly sit by why the morons have their benighted way.

Now before one concludes that my thinking is out of line, I content that this is precisely what happened this week when Congress voted for the bailout. The smart people, that would be all the governors of European banks and the heads of Wall St, insisted that Congress and Senate not fall prey to the stupid masses by listening to them.

Individuals working for Wall Street finance, insurance and real estate companies and the companies’ political action committees have contributed more than $47 million to the campaigns of Senator Obama (three of top five sources) and Senator McCain (top five sources), both of whom voted for the bailout.

More to the point, Wall Street has contributed more than $1.1 billion dollars to congressional candidates since 2002. Nine of the top ten House recipients of Wall Street largesse, who each received an average of $1.5 million, are on the financial oversight and taxation committees.

Even more telling, the bipartisan Congressional "leaders" most responsible for pushing the bailout through Congress, Senators Dodd and Gregg and Representatives Frank and Blunt have taken almost $20 million from Wall Street sources during the last 20 years. Dodd recently received $6 million in contributions during his presidential primary campaign, and Frank has collected $720,000 this year.

You can go here for more. The fact is that Congress does precisely this.

Derivatives: Bigger than Sub-prime Mortgages

Folks,

Here's a bit of a discussion on this important topic of derivatives and why you need to call your congress person and tell them to vote NO. It's an MP3 file.

Here.

The role of Buffet here is important, but I'd be interested in what others believe what the trends are given his recent purchases. Buffett On Derivatives: 'A Fool's Game' is an article written a year and a-half ago quoting the sage himself.

We need to be clear that the problem is much larger than sub-prime mortgages, which is the principle way that this story is being spun. People's stock portfolios rose in the 90s and 2000s, but no one seemed to ask why and how as jobs flowed overseas and most rural and industrial America became ghost towns. Those who remained wrapped themselves in a bloody flag, meth labs, and Nascar.

The tranquilizing effects of "entertainment" also ensnared the cynical sophisticates of the urban meccas. They had been to college and believed that they as Americans were beyond reproach. Never mind that the militarization they intended for the world became a karmic noose that tightened progressively with each collateral mistake, with each uranium bullet, with each refugee, and hollow claims for "human rights." Of course they were hollow, every one knows you put your money where your mouth is and everyone's money is still in Ratheon and Goldman.

Well, now that it's becoming increasing apparent that this model may not actually be in their best interest, the question becomes what is the best solution? First is to stop funding "them", and reallocating these resources in ways that increase revenue within communities as opposed to centralizing it in the hands of corportists.

The Shock Doctrine has been getting some coverage from the media. In it you'll find a discussion of how the current situation resembles happenings in S. America over the last 20 years. I feel I've belabored the point about SE Asia and Argentina, but these were lies I saw unfold before my eyes and affected people I know. The arrogance from Sorros to Bush to Clinton to Rubin to Summers to Greenspan to NPR to Wall St. Journal to NYT, all the glib disregard!

Catherine Austin-Fitts runs a site called Solari, which analogizes Wall St. to a parasite draining from the "host"-- Main St. As a Wharton graduate and one who has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations, few have her insider expertise and smarts. Here.

# 25 Bush’s Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer

Here's an article that you may find interesting given the present situation:

Spitzer had become increasingly public in blaming the Bush administration for the subprime crisis. He testified in mid-February before the US House of Representatives Financial Services subcommittee and later that day, in a national CNBC interview, laid blame squarely on the administration for creating an environment ripe for predatory lenders.

Go here for the whole story.

Wonder why Obama and McCain are both supporting this welfare for Greenspan and company?

we have a campaign of personalities and platitudes. There is a race candidate, a gender candidate and a tortured veteran candidate, each talking about change in America, national security, freedom, and the American way. The candidates are running with support of political parties so deeply embedded with the military industrial complex, the health insurance companies, Wall Street, and corporate media that it is undeterminable where the board rooms separate from the state rooms.

The whole article here.

Folks, the Bush administration hasn't gotten anything right so far, how is Obama thinking he's going to change anything by going along with this horrible payoff? Either he doesn't understand the issues or his largest contributor is Goldman Sachs. Hmm.

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)

---