Rescuing the Wealthy Idiots
The rich who made this mess are too greedy to be grateful we're saving their hides.
Allan Greenspan, chief golden fleecer.
Barack Obama's dramatic new budget has begun the reversal of 30 years of Reaganomics.
Usually the differences between the two parties are small. Bill Clinton, for example, was an incrementalist who tinkered with the Gipper's enrich the wealthy and bugger everyone else mode of governing. And I believe that if the Bush Crash had not occurred, Barack Obama would have been another centrist nibbling at the edges of the so-called conservative agenda.
But Crash we are having, and this has liberated the forces of change, pushing the entire political spectrum to the left, meaning activist government and a regulated economy.
This is not Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but a basic change in direction. Obama, a truly masterful salesman, will appeal directly to the people in order to push congressional action on his agenda.
Once again, as during the New Deal, liberal Democrats will save the capitalist economy from the grips of the plutocracy, who are too stupefied with greed to understand that they will be the chief beneficiaries of the economic reconstruction. During the previous 30 years, the political economy of the United States was rigged on their behalf and now they will be rescued from the consequences of that re-rigging on which they were choking themselves.
Meltdown 101
I'm no economist but here is what the current collapse looks like to me.
The massive Reagan/Bush tax cuts for the wealthy wildly enriched the top five per cent of the populace (most especially the top one per cent), while the other 95 per cent stagnated, and in the case of the poor, declined. The tiny wealthy minority accumulated so much money so fast by the fleecing Republican tax policies enacted in their behalf that they did not know where to park their funds. After four houses, including perhaps a condo in Coal Harbour, and X number of cars and decadent banquets, it became such a vexing problem as to where to park that surplus.
In addition, the wealthy felt entitled to their money and deeply resented paying any taxes to buoy up the vast peasantry who lacked the guts to grab great wealth for themselves.
With their boundless greed, these children of the Second Gilded Age, having fleeced everyone else, set themselves up to be fleeced in turn. Why not invest in deposit accounts that promised and delivered a return of 15 per cent per annum. Enter Bernard Madoff and Robert Standard.
These two chaps set up Ponzi schemes that shouted out their crookedness by their steady and absurdly high rate of returns. (By the way, more Ponzites will be discovered.)
So if the wealthy are so smart, why did they invest millions with people promising them returns too good to be true?
Greed.
Therefore, the fleecers got fleeced.
For Canadian content, perhaps I should say that the hosers got hosed.
Plutocracy was no meritocracy
Where was the Securities and Exchange Commission that had regulations on the books sufficient to discover, stop and punish such obvious crooks? Well, central to Republican economics was the deregulation of the financial system. So despite dozens of whistle blowers who presented the facts to the SEC, the ideologically driven political hacks in charge refused to take action. They believed that the market inevitably righted itself. Right. They never heard of fraud. They forgot the recent lessons of the Savings and Loan scandal -- exactly the same sort of obvious crookedness created when financial operators are let loose unregulated around other people's money.
Swiss banks, which first grew to enormous wealth as Hitler's money launderers, provided the second major place for the fleecers to put their loot. They sent agents over to the United States to help the plutocracy set up hidden accounts in order to evade their already radically diminished taxes. (Remember, they are entitled to wealth and owe nothing to the lazy masses or to the government they hate except when it is legislating on their behalf.)
So far, the new authorities at the U.S. Treasury have uncovered 53,000 such American accounts in one bank alone -- UBS. What about the other Swiss banks? What about numbered accounts in the Bahamas? And in Antigua, which Robert Standard purchased? And how many of these accounts will prove to have been fleeced? The disclosure of fraud and corruption will only grow.
So, with deregulation, income distribution upwards, and the massive hunger for more and more wealth by the wealthy, we have witnessed a two-tiered institutionalization of fleecing, with psychopathic wolves moving in to gobble up the wealth of their fellow wolves. Serves them right.
Rich to the lifeboats first!
The only problem with that resentment is that the American banks were playing yet another set of frauds, creating all that real estate paper grounded on the proposition that the housing market would always inflate. In this case, the Ponzi scheme was based on the greed of the poor, who lusted to cash in on that housing market by taking out all those fraudulent mortgages, not reading in the fine print that their rates would rise in a year or two and bite them in the ass. Millions of tiny would-be fleecers were fleeced by big bankers who then bundled their trash and resold it. This was the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all. And the bankers skimmed huge portions of the profits, stuffing them in their own pockets.
So with the crash we see the government bailing out the most golden of the fleecers at the big banks, the only alternative being a total financial collapse that would ruin us along with them.
By dint of necessity, the wealthy will be saved as the only means to save everyone else.
Don't expect any thanks
Will they be grateful? Not on your life. Just watch the congressional Republicans excoriate the Obama tax plan that will actually ask the wealthy to pay slightly higher taxes in order to fund at least part of the bail out that will save them. Just watch them rant against re-regulation.
That is the way fleecers think and behave. One hundred per cent of the time. As an historian I guarantee it.
Many would argue that this double-time fleecing just ought to be called capitalism. Barring a socialist revolution that would in the end just rename the corrupt elites in charge, the best we can hope for is better-regulated capitalism to prevent the recurrence of the systematized robbery of the last thirty years. The rich we shall always have among us, I am afraid.
After the banks are nationalized and saved, they will be denationalized but continue to be regulated. Until, that is, the plutocrats get the wind back in their sails and once more convince Americans that government is the enemy from which the Holy Hidden Hand of the Market will save them.
That is the political cycle, American style.
Should we laugh or cry?
Related Tyee stories:
- Rich as Hell
Reviewed: Richistan: A Journey through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich - After Meltdown, Back to School?
We need a new post-secondary for a post-recession world. - The Meltdown, Seen from Below
What union leaders, labour experts and anti-poverty activists say needs to be done.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
seth
11-03-2009
Force them to disgorge
their ill gotten gains.
Tax back every dime.
Massive inheritance taxes (100 K max per beneficiary)
Long jail sentences for fraud ie pretending a security was AAA when they knew it wasn't. 100% with interest take back of all fraudulent gains.
Taxes so high that the 1% who own 40% of domestic assets are reduced to 3% or 4%.
Leave them no place to hide.
Tbarnston
11-03-2009
This is trash
Sorry, but this article is trash. Very superficial analysis and lets the rest of society off easy by simply blaming the rich.
We live in an age where information is at our fingertips via the web. Basic critical thinking skills can allow you to separate hackneyed hype from quailty information when using the internet. This article ranks as one of the poorest, most simplistic write ups of the economy I have seen on the web over the last few years.
Just because this is a left leaning news site does not mean we can turn off our brain when it comes to economics. The Tyee needs to step it up in this department as there is no shortage of quality information regarding this issue from bloggers across the political spectrum.
We are all apart of this mess. If we get our heads together, we can use this situation to make a hell of a better world where we don't have to speculate to provide for our retirements. Lets stop the rhetoric and get on with it. The Tyee can expidite this by facilitating genuine debate and dialogue regarding economic strategies that work for the majority of the population.
Bailey
11-03-2009
Yeah, but
The problem with trying to make them disgorge, as lovely as that would be, is that they carefully got crooked legislators to declare fraud legal. Before committing it.
So, in order to prosecute, we would have to find a way to either negate the laws passed by lawful idiots retroactively, or change them and make the changes retroactive. That, I'm afraid would be such a very poor idea that it would in fact be worse than any other possible plan.
Imagine a Republican party with the power to make retroactive laws. Makes my very soul shudder.
A better solution might be to just reissue the currencies. Cancel all US, Canadian and Mexican money, then trade it in for Newbucks. With reference to the tax records, of course, so people can't change money they never declared.
Kind of a partial undo button. We need one of those for the repeals of civil and legal rights and protections that have happened over the last decade anyway. To replace Habeas Corpus, the right to counsel, to public trial and so forth.
G West
11-03-2009
Au contraire M. Barnston
I don't think the poor, the working poor and the lower middle class have bugger all to blame themselves for - except in the sense, as in here in British Columbia, that some of them voted against their best interests.
We live in a society of specialization and a time in which the reliance of the various parts of society upon each other (for advice, for leadership, for proper management and for ethical behavior) ought to be a given.
The behavior of the financial and managerial class has been all of greedy, irresponsible and CRIMINAL.
Have a look, for example, at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/business/12crime.html?hp
It is not the hod carrier, the nurse, the clerk and the working man who created this mess....although it will be ordinary people who end up bruised and bleeding because of it.
bontano
11-03-2009
Who are the idiots?
If we're all going to sit around and let "our" governments use our money to preserve a system in which a special interest group gets to treat us like slaves, a better title for this article would be "Idiots Rescuing the Wealthy".
frank2
11-03-2009
Let's hope this is not
Let's hope this is not tweedledum and tweedledee. A more "revolutionary" approach would have been to allow shareholders and bondholders in basically insolvent financial institutions to lose everything. AND to restructure those institutions fast. This approach would, I am sure, be supported by classic liberals as well as 'left wing' liberals. It would involve a major hiatus -- but establish a basis for subsequent healthy growth -- rather than, as is happening at present, constantly chasing the tail of almost failing companies...Will the government strenghten regulatory oversight (extent institutions covered, place strict limits on size of companies so none is "too large to fail", etc. Current headlines give little room for hope. The US is arguing against European calls for much tougher regulations, and greater transparency. Instead, it is talking up the need for more "stimulus."
lynn
11-03-2009
Need to bake this economic cake from scratch
For all the wealth of intelligence in this world, the solution, so far, to this economic crisis.... has been really sub-standard.
Where is the innovation and imagination?
The souffle has flopped. Badly.
And another half-baked one is only going to do the same thing.
So why do we keep on with the same old mix?
Tbarnston
11-03-2009
My point is...
...that it is up to you and me and every other working and un/underemployed person to make this change happen. Every sector of society has had a role to play to some degree in this debacle (NINJA mortgages, mom and pop condo flippers, credit union "wealth" managers/financial advisors, union pension plans, not to mention the wall street sociopaths).
If we continue to buy in to the myth that the speculative capital markets can provide us with our retirements, then nothing will change. The speculative capital markets are wealth transfer mechanisms plain and simple. Until people understand that fact, and demand and create a society that doesn't force us to become speculators to some degree, we are doomed to repeat these cycles over and over.
Articles like those above do nothing to facilitate the dialogue needed to create that change. They are simply a mirror image of the bullshit that occurs on right wing news site. We need to cut the bullshit and get real.
Romeogolf
11-03-2009
So why do we keep on with
Because people ignore history, thus they are destined to repeat it.demotto
11-03-2009
Bailey
You have fallen for the trap. That is exactly the plan. Create the problem then provide the solution. They want one currency so they have total control, we lose any sovereignty we have left. Do you really think they want us to have anything, they want us all at the lowest wage level not to bring the wages up. The fix for us is in the Bills of Exchange Act. Read it. Learn it. Use it. They wrote it for us to use but forgot to teach us about it.
David Beers
11-03-2009
Tbarnston, another view
As the editor who published this piece, I never saw it as a technical analysis of the economy. It is political analysis, a learned observer's sense of where power resides, how those with power must be appeased even when they may not have earned it, and, yes, where to lay some blame. Rather than shallow, I find Michael's take to be unencumbered by a bunch of economic and academic gobbledygook. He calls it as he sees it -- and he sees it as a noted professor of US history.
Tbarnston
11-03-2009
Not trying to get last word
Look, I respect you Mr Beers and the Tyee very much, and I am not trying to get the last word here, but...
As a 28 year old, soon to be dad, I am looking at this crisis and trying to learn. What can I move forward with, where can I make a difference. I don't want my kid to see his parent's savings evaporate after spending an entire life working.
This article basically says that we need the rich. Without the rich, we all are screwed. That is a crock.
The rich need us. They need us to work for them, they need us to consume, they need us to buy in to the Wall Street wealth transfer schemes they dream up every 5 years.
The natives are correct, you can't eat money. The fact is that the rich don't actually produce, they merely own capital. Capital is useless until people like you and me are employed to operate it. It is you and me who every day, with nearly every purchase and transaction, are ratifying the system and agreeing to hand over the surplus of our economic activity to the rich so they can survive.
How many times are we going to have our savings stolen from us via market crashes before we learn this?
We don't need the rich. Now is a time for us all to realize this and move forward by organizing around a cooperative economy. I have been hammering on the cooperative drum on the housing forums - maybe I sound like a broken record. But it is the only viable option. The right wants us to believe the rich need to be saved for our own good or anarchy will prevail. The left seems to be buying that line too. Well, the third way people is for us to say "Forget both sides, we're doing it our own way, using existing legal structures and embracing cooperative values."
Not one riot, strike, or war needs to happen for us to all make a change. It won't happen overnight, but we can chart a course now to make it a reality for our kids. It starts right at you, me, all of us. We have to make that change and we need to do it now.
Not that long ago, weekends didn't exist. Child labour was rampant. Women couldn't vote, natives couldn't vote. Blacks were segregated. How did we correct all those mistakes? It was people agreeing to change things.
Are we going to let the rich tell us that we can't do it again? Or are we telling ourselves that we can't do it again?
seth
11-03-2009
parasites
Who builds the bridges, dams, the factories, the mines, the technologies that run our society. With rare exceptions it is not the rich, it is our scientists, engineers, and craftsman who generally no matter how brilliant get basically a salary for their labor.
The rich, the corporate CEO's, the board of directors, corporate upper management are for the most part useless parasites with political connections and law or arts degrees, that often wouldn't have a clue about how their companies' product was made.
Give these bums the clerical job that they really are qualified for, and strip them of their ill gotten wealth.
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
12-03-2009
But mightn't my Harvard crimson trump his Yale blue?
Folks, don't dare object to the piece, for it's written from a "learned observer," " a "noted professor"--that is, from someone from within an establishment David Beers evidently has great respect for. Considering that this journal (i.e., The Tyee) evidences some signs of being a guerrilla, alternative, "mouthpiece," some of us might now be confused as to when we're supposed to defer, and when we're allowed to object. If the editor doesn't want to have to chime in again to tell the unsavy why this particular piece is one they should just just try and learn from, or if compelled to comment, just offer up a Jeffrey J. and be done with it, he should find some way of marking the piece so we're all in the know. He kind of did--he told us this particular author is being published by YaleUP, but again, all that stuff about fiesty fish confuses--so we're NOT supposed to pour scorn on those who know what the little spoon is for? We're supposed to revere well-positioned plain-speaking academics, even though they tend to be conservative, and dump on those who talk in academic gobbledygoody, even though they tend to come from the postcolonial, feminist/gender studies, new historical, marxist schools, that tend to lean strongly progressive? Okay. Oh dear.
Jeffrey J.
12-03-2009
Fellman Says It All
When I was reading this article I thought I was reading the 'comments' section rather than a published piece. Why? It was plain, clear writing, without prevarication or spin. It's everything people have been trying to say for a number of years. And its all true.
Well done and well said, Prof. Fellman. We can only hope that through the internet publishers like the Tyee, Rabble, DeSmogBlog and others, citizens will continue to become educated about the root causes of our failed democracy and organize to create change.
Great coverage, as usual. I look forward to more from Prof. Fellman.
Skywalker
12-03-2009
Right on Michael.
Michael's analysis in Meltdown 101 sounds like a pretty good short version of what happened and how dumb we all are not to see through all the right-wing propaganda. Without understanding this mess we will be suckers for the elite forever. I for one am outraged that the same clowns that got us here are being touted as the ones that will get us out of the crisis. It is frankly sickening to watch them on TV still spouting the same dogma. But then that is exactly the role of the corporate media these days.
alive
12-03-2009
Where are you ED?
We sorely miss Ed Deaks input here!
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
12-03-2009
@Tbarnston
Re: "This article basically says that we need the rich. Without the rich, we all are screwed. That is a crock."
Yes, that is it, exactly. What you're hearing in this article is a voice not much different from one someone like Karl Rowe would advise his sort of clients to carry, when he senses the rabble on the verge of revolution. What you do then, is validate the rabble--"you guys are right!, you've endured great suffering while the rich have stuffed their greedy faces!"--offer them not crumbs but heaping spoon-fulls of validation, but at the same time suggest that asking for anything more, however valid, is, alas, beyond all hope and reach: History, the God you've all been schooled to worship, the entirety of the multi-millenium long record of human aspiration and sure defeat, says so. Broadcasting this sort of identification/sympathy with the disgruntled, was essentially the advice given to the English crown in French revolution days, and it worked to save the monarchy from the banishment their peers across the sea suffered. Please note, that Linda Colley, the eminant Oxbrige (I forget which) scholar, frequent New York Review of Books contributer, is one of those who've made this argument, which--by the standards of the Tyee--means you may object, but take care . . .
When you say that "Not that long ago, weekends didn't exist. Child labour was rampant. Women couldn't vote, natives couldn't vote. Blacks were segregated. How did we correct all those mistakes? It was people agreeing to change things," you talk the talk of someone aware of a history that is true, but one people who at heart fear the rabble more than they hate the wealthy, would prefer we not put too much focus on. You may not be eminant, but you're certainly worthy, and please God may there be more future in your efforts than in 'ventures defering sadly to those more sadly wise in the ways of things.
crh
12-03-2009
Firstly the blame needs to
Firstly the blame needs to be identified before we can take any sure direction on how to change things. If the grey area persists on what went wrong, then nothing will change other than a heightened level of back and forth bickering. I like this article as it actually outlines pretty well what happened. The level of deceit and corruption in our highest level of governments and coporate boardrooms is also what I would like to see debated, as this seems to me another big factor in the crisis. Many hard working citizens seem to forget that not everyone is as honest as they are. Let's recognize our political 'players' of the game for what they are and get them out of office.
Jared
12-03-2009
Not Robert Standard
His name is Robert Allen Stanford, usually shortened to "Allen Stanford": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Stanford
peasant43
12-03-2009
Enough already
How many more of these nasty rich people stories do we need?
The story is why the lower orders (me included) allow this to happen again and again. Throw out the bums and new bums hose us a few years later.
We are ants. We want someone in charge, as long as it's not us, programmed to serve.
These stories allow us to feel better about our apathy. Typing instead of acting.
G West
12-03-2009
ED Deak
He isn't well, alive.
Otherwise you can be sure he'd be here making the point that the meltdown he'd predicted so long ago is now in full swing.
I'll keep you posted when I learn more.
shabbaranks
12-03-2009
How the rest of us are to blame
yeah sure, the frauds are at fault, but we shouldn't stop there.
Our culture has continued to be advanced through rampant consumption and our standard of living has required increased costs to keep up.
Think about it: in 1980, what bills did you have to pay beyond mortgage, rent, heat, food and phone? Not much, meaning a lot was left over for savings, which we generally did fairly well at.
Now, as citizens of the 21st century, we are all entitled to the basics, including cell phone bills north of $50 (in my experience of phone ownership since the mid '90s, a landline has generally cost about $30), high speed internet, the acceptance that $200 jeans are a good price, and that even those who make minimum wage should pay two day's worth of wages for a pair of shoes. $12 movies and $6 popcorn are the norm. Remember $2.50 Tuesdays? Or even $5 matinees? Remember when kids could wear a t-shirt instead of one with a brand name on it with a brand name price?
I see students with cell phones that cost $500. $500! For a phone! That will have to be replaced in a couple of years (if they are thrifty). And that's just for the hardware - you pay even more to use it.
Why are mortgages now able to stretch to 40 years with nominal down payments? So we all have the RIGHT to home ownership, as is guaranteed under the Charter or the Constitution or something...
Cable TV. Do you have it? Many packages cost thousands of dollars a year, and are not uncommon in many homes. Again, what did your TV cost you per month in 1980?
A computer every couple of years. Didn't have that expense 20 years ago.
We eat out more than we have in the past. More of us pay for housecleaning because we don't have the time (we're too busy working to pay for everything).
So, we are now stuck with maintaining a standard of living that does not allow for savings or any kind of future planning. The stats on this are very telling, showing that most of us don't have anything left after keeping up with the new "essentials".
The problem that we are all skirting around, is CAPITALISM. There I said it.
The requirement for growth and innovation has brought us a myriad of new needs that have impoverished us. We rush things to market so quickly, that more emphasis is put on new and faster rather than more durable and fixable. Fix a crystal diode radio - no problem. Fix a plasma TV? Buy another one.
The system is flawed, the culture is flawed and supports the system. Sure the rich benefit more from this system than others, but our compliance with living in the world they (we) have created is a factor as well.
BillMelater
12-03-2009
more greed is their only solution
For the gangsters, the banksters and the other power parasites, the only crime is getting caught.
Jeffrey J.
12-03-2009
Don't Forget Money as Debt
And who can forget the incredible video by Canadian Paul Grignon, required viewing for those curious about how banks create money out of thin air.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
lynn
12-03-2009
Buying into a failing mythology
Tbarnston wrote:
QUOTE:
" The right wants us to believe the rich need to be saved for our own good or anarchy will prevail. The left seems to be buying that line too. Well, the third way people is for us to say "Forget both sides, we're doing it our own way, using existing legal structures and embracing cooperative values."
END OF QUOTE
Can't let that insightful thought go by....you're right, Tbarnston, there is a lot of "buying into" the status quo on all sides - that is why we are in the mess we are in.
There is a certain "artistic" courage that needs to be brought into play economically- speaking, ( and I mean "artistic" in the true sense of the word: to be creative in a truly new and genuine way.) But you're right... we are not only being sold a bill of goods that implies anarchy will reign if we try something innovative ....but we are also buying into the fear of the new....fear of breaking with what are clearly traditional but ultimately doomed ways of economic behavior.
Good to read your intelligent and original voice here.
realisticman
12-03-2009
The Centre, eh.
As Tbarnston says and Lynne agrees, the centre is the most successful path. This is why Canada has not been so affected by the economic crash. The Conservatives in Canada are centrists. In the US Canadian Conservative policy would be considered left wing.
Ignatieff too is a centrist. Last week he wisely confirmed this along with his explanation for getting involved in that crazy Coalition thingy.
"As Mr. Ignatieff sees it, the party’s path to renewed credibility lies in the political middle. After taking power, he dropped Mr. Dion’s controversial carbon tax plan and has been instead touting his party’s economic credentials. In an interview this week, he suggested he was considering the return of income trusts, which could help energy companies raise capital.
Mr. Ignatieff was also quick to cancel the coalition agreement with the other two opposition parties—the left-wing New Democratic Party and separatist Bloc Québécois.
“I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,” Mr. Ignatieff explained Monday.
It’s actually an argument against the coalition made by Mr. Harper during the parliamentary crisis last fall. And it’s not the only similarity commentators are finding between the two leaders. Some argue that as Mr. Ignatieff charges toward the middle, it’s getting harder to tell the Liberals and the Conservatives apart. .."
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/13408/
Stump
12-03-2009
Hi TBarnston
I have to respond to one of your rhetorical questions.
"Not that long ago, weekends didn't exist. Child labour was rampant. Women couldn't vote, natives couldn't vote. Blacks were segregated. How did we correct all those mistakes"
Unfortunately, despite your assertions to the contrary, what helped those changes along was riots, strikes, and war (or at least violence).
lynn
12-03-2009
realisticman
realisticman,
You are too cute sometimes.
I don't think either Tbarnston or myself were defending the status quo "center"....quite the opposite ...no, sticking to the doomed conventions of the status quo is exactly what is killing us.
Anyway, best I speak for myself...I think it was more about finding a new and "effective" way of addressing our economy...that we courageously take on the challenge of that and stop all the wasteful pretending that the present status quo is working...or will ever work.
lynn
12-03-2009
and....
and actually, realisticman, if there is one reason Canada has been less affected by the economic crash ( and the fat lady hasn't sung yet in that regard) it is "because of" all the social-infrastructure, regulation and oversight put in place over the years....largely, policies attributable to the left.
Extreme-right wingers, Mr Harper and his side-kick, Mr.Campbell, have done their utmost to weaken and threaten this country through their policies of de-regulation... and through the watering down of public oversight.
That Canada may be in a better position than some countries is "in spite" of their reckless policies. Their policies have only served to betray this country... and are an attempt to destroy our sovereignty.
It is more than shameful. It is despicable.
G West
12-03-2009
Good point Lynn
If Pee Wee had had power in Canada for as long as georgie-boy did in the US we'd be as up to our armpits in out of control debt as the US is - it's not as if he didn't try.
Furthermore, the successive multi-billion dollar bailouts of so-called 'operating' bank mortgage paper pulled out of the fire by Flaherty both during and since the election put paid to the rumour that our banks are doing as well as Pee Wee would have us believe.
How many jobs were lost in January, February...and, wait for it - March?
We're in just as bad - perhaps worse - trouble than the US of A...and we'll recover, as we always do, long after they have...
The next shoe to drop will be the young research scientists leaving Canada because grants have dried up for their projects just as the US is set to increase funding...watch for it.
Tbarnston
12-03-2009
@Stump
What I actually said was:
"Not one riot, strike, or war needs to happen for us to all make a change. It won't happen overnight, but we can chart a course now to make it a reality for our kids. It starts right at you, me, all of us. We have to make that change and we need to do it now."
Obviously previous progressive movements have used various tactics to force change.
Monk
12-03-2009
Great stuff..
Love the discussion. Lots for me to chew on.
But the story was a bit of a rant I have to agree. In this case, we're scandalized by greed from the financial elites... or is that on the right? But I've noticed greed appearing in lots of places: up, down, right and left. It's just nice to have a bit of a forum to attack this particular incarnation... We so need these kinds of discussions in this day of profit focused media. Maybe with more of these discussions showing up we can break this cycle and the plutocrats won't get the chance to get "the wind in their sails".
Re: Canada is protected because we're more regulated. Sort of true but then let's not forget the SEC vs OSC. It was the SEC that brought down our dear Conrad, not the toothless waste of money calling itself the OSC! (2 cases brought to the courts last year according to a CBC report!)
Re:The fleecers getting fleeced by the odd ponzi scheme. Yeah I wish! That's doesn't even approach the kind of justice these traitors deserve.
And "will they be grateful?", the venerable Yale professor asks rhetorically. Hah! Propublica reports that some of the American bankers have now started to give the money back to Obama. Patriotism? Uh... no. Not quite. It turns out the CEO's are starting to read the fine print of accepting the public cash for their dear downtrodden shareholders. The fine print says that their bonuses will be compromised a couple of hundred G's. Oh! The indignity! So Signiature Bank, for one, made the er, ...corporate decision that they will quietly give back the 120 mill so that the CEO can have his couple-o-hundred G bonus.
Words fail me.
This is a remarkable display of raw, unrestrained greed. For me, this is the pioneering of a new frontier of specious behaviour... all conducted in a atmosphere of some perverse form of respectablility. I'd prefer to have an infestation of mafia bosses than these cretins! At least the Mafia doesn't try to pretend to be anything else but nasty. Heck, bring on the Nazis! At least they had the honour to challenge us to a fight! The damage from this vermin is more insidious. Can something be done other than write really bad things about these people?
JStog
13-03-2009
The Damage is wide spread
Hey monk
I couldn't agree with you more.
The vermon hide in sheeps clothing everywhere. Here too. Unrestrained greed hides behind many so called Ethical Funds, plus there's lots of bogus Charities in Canada.
There's nothing ethical about the comical Hat dance the professional dupers use shifting proceeds from hat to hat. Up, down, right and left it crosses all borders.
Sadly the ponzi schemes grow more clever with time. The perps skim the proceeds with immunity from Can Law. Bogus Charity's fill entire buildings now. Americans flock here to launder their funds. Boardroom criminals are some of the worse in our society. This malady infects all levels of public officials down and up.
Bailing out the rich... No Thanks. Sadly its the less fortunate who get impacted the most. Buyer beware sounds great if you have an uncrooked lawyer in your pocket.
Maybe we need to make Law degee's mandatory throughout our school system.
Trust? Whats that? Ethics really are meaningless unless our society adopts a "1 strike and your out law" for those in positions of trust. Greed reigns Suckers lose. Nice society Eh!
Cynic
13-03-2009
Money as Debt is a great
Money as Debt is a great video as is the Zeitgeist Movie, both adress the root problem: money and how it is produced to maintain the elite's power over us. Nothing could be more timely or important than for the Tyee to do an investigation and expose of the banking industry. This is the Big Idea I proposed, to a seemingly thunderous silence from the Tyee. No matter, awareness is growing nonetheless.
realisticman
13-03-2009
Don't worry Lynn
The left policies you refer to were introduced during Mackenzie King's Liberals. Iggy's Liberals are the only possible replacement for the steady and successful hand of the Harper Conservatives. To which direction Mr. Ignatieff says he's moving to.
"“Yes, I’m moving the party into the centre because I think we win from the centre. We win when people think we’re a moderate, pragmatic, sensible party that connects to what Canadians are worried about,” Mr. Ignatieff said."
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/13408/
As you say Lynn, "...Canada may be in a better position than some countries...".
"RBC and Toronto-Dominion are among only seven banks worldwide that still carry a Moody’s triple-A credit rating – the others being Bank of New York Mellon; Banque et Caisse d’Epargne de l’Etat of Luxemburg; Rabobank Nederland; Shoko Chukin Bank of Japan; and Zuercher Kantonalbank of Switzerland.
None of the five Canadian banks has cut its dividend since the second world war. Over the past year they have outperformed banks globally by 30 per cent but their own shares are still down 40 per cent collectively."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/433568fe-0824-11de-8a33-0000779fd2ac.html
Stump
13-03-2009
@TBarnston
I agree those things don't need to happen, I just wanted to point out that the advances you mentioned needed riots, strikes, etc to come about. I worry that nothing has really changed and it will still take force to bring about justice. I take no pleasure in that situation believe me.
G West
13-03-2009
Optimism
The idea that Canadian banks are not being harmed because they still pay dividends will come a cold comfort to holders of GE shares...(who for the longest time took comfort in their quarterly stipends too) in other words, the crisis is coming and it'll be hitting Canada as hard as elsewhere.
I think I read somewhere that the jobs (nearly all of them full time) lost last month topped 83,000.
Every month it'll be getting worse.
And don't forget about, what is the total now? - almost 80 billions in mortgages that PEE WEE and his little dog Flaherty have taken off their books already.
G West
13-03-2009
And by the way
Before anyone accepts a version of history that gives ANY credit to the Liberals and McKenzie King for social progress I suggest they read a little history.
Maybe start with a worthy called Frederick Charles Blair...who believed "that people should be kept out of Canada instead of being allowed in."
This was the King Government policy and Blair was exactly the man the ruling Liberal government wanted. His inflexibility suited an administration that had no intention of allowing Jewish refugees in. He was later inordinately proud of his success in keeping out Jews. He saw Jews as being "utterly selfish in their attempts to force through a permit for the admission of relatives or friends." He saw a "conspiracy" behind all Jewish attempts to get their people into the country. He said he was doing them a favor keeping them out. It might create Anti-Semitism he said. In a revealing letter to a strong opponent of Jewish immigration he said the following:
"I suggested recently to three Jewish gentlemen with whom I am well acquainted, but it might be a very good thing if they would call a conference and have a day of humiliation and prayer, which might profitably be extended for a week or more, where they would honestly try to answer the question of why they are so unpopular almost everywhere...I often think that instead of persecution it would be far better if we more often told them frankly why many of them are unpopular. If they would divest themselves of certain of their habits I am sure they could be just as popular in Canada as our Scandinavian friends are."
Mackenzie King was the Liberal Prime Minister throughout the 20's and after 1935, He was responsible for keeping Jews out of Canada and Blair was his attack dog.
In 1938 Blair said Canada didn't want Jews who could farm because they were not capable. He scrutinized all Jewish applications himself.
After attending the Evian Conference Mackenzie King recorded in his diary that any action permitting an appreciable number of Jews to settle in Canada would undermine the unity of the Nation. He said "This is no time for Canada to act on humanitarian grounds. but that Canada must be guided by realities and political considerations."
Social progress in this country has come from one source and it's neither Liberal nor Conservative.
lynn
13-03-2009
Re: More shoes yet to drop
Well said, G West....and excellent points about MacKenzie King.
I, too, think that Canada cannot be too smug..wait until EI runs out for all those who have currently lost their jobs. And there are a lot of couples who count on their mortgages being met by both spouses working. ( Not a good idea btw). When one of them loses their job, suddenly they have placed themselves at risk of losing their home. That shoe is just waiting to drop, too.
Michael Fellman's article has inspired a great discussion....some really interesting thoughts swirling about here...Monk's last paragraph, especially good:
QUOTE:
"This is a remarkable display of raw, unrestrained greed. For me, this is the pioneering of a new frontier of specious behaviour... all conducted in a atmosphere of some perverse form of respectablility. I'd prefer to have an infestation of mafia bosses than these cretins! At least the Mafia doesn't try to pretend to be anything else but nasty. Heck, bring on the Nazis! At least they had the honour to challenge us to a fight! The damage from this vermin is more insidious. Can something be done other than write really bad things about these people?"
Bailey
13-03-2009
That WOULD be silly
To clarify my earlier post, I wasn't suggesting merging the currencies, just reissuing them all. They all seem to me to be pretty much wrecked by the counterfeiting effect of credit card usage. Without currency to back them, every transaction adds to he money supply without adding value.
I don't know, maybe we can just keep on like this, or maybe some bright light will come up with a clever fix I can't see, but ordinary monetary theory says that all real estate, plus all income, plus all value added etc, divided by the number of dollars equals the value of one dollar.
After using credit cards for 30 years, how many dollars are there, exactly?
The German Mark was similarly treated in the 20s by France and England. When they finally reissued that the exchange rate was about 1,000,000,000,000 Marks to one Newmark. A Trillion to one.
After, it was the strongest currency in Europe, until the war.
The Yanks could call theirs the Greenbuck. We could call ours the Looneytoon.
dgiVista.org
15-03-2009
I fear the idea that
I fear the idea that re-booting the economy will just enrich the plutarchs.
This fear has to be the motivation to re-frame the economy so it works for humans and our symbiotic environment. The new economy must exhibit social and economic justice, not business as usual.
In the end, we should look at the bailout like this, Capitalism as Extortion: 700,000,000,000 Ways; then we must make sure the new economy does not allow the rich to hold a gun to our heads.
Bailey
15-03-2009
I had a dream, .org
In my dream there were pickup trucks fitted out with folding guillotines. The plutarchs, which is to say everybody who had ever pissed off a conspiracy theorist or an angry illiterate, were looking distinctly nervous.
We are an odd species. We create elaborate constructions out of pure meaning, then we move in and live in them. We seem to sort of know they're fictional, but we never acknowledge the fact, and we carry on as if they were real.
And the oddest part is that, in some weird way, they become real. It's quite remarkable.
Money is fictional, like all our best stuff, we just made it up. Thousands of cultures over millenia have thrived without ever inventing it.
The only way to stop the rich from holding "a gun to our heads" will be to change the storyline completely. Without either resorting to mass murder or abolishing money, all there is for us is public regulation.
It's imperfect, because it's another meaningful construct, subject to corruption by the forces of twisted meanness, run by humans. All such constructs are compromises. Negotiated truces at best.
I read a story once about an ancient king who, to accomplish what you say you want to accomplish, Called on all his nobles to turn in all their gold to the mint, to be restruck into commemorative coins in honour of the kings reign.
When he reissued it, it was restruck alright. It was iron.
The weight of the new currency worked to prevent nobles from becoming so rich they could ever threaten the order of things again.
I don't recall if the story said what eventually happened to that king after he pissed off so many plutarchs, but imagination can suffce.
The only way to remove the threat from the rich would be to kill them, and the downside to that is that you thereby become murderers.
I think we'd better stick to playing some version of this interesting game we have going, but just try to get better referees. The ones we've had are fools. They ignore or even abet the worst fouls, genocidal wars, daylight robberies and the like, but then obsess over stupid trivialities.
Somehow, sometime soon, we are going to have to reset, reframe what it means to win and lose, and carry on with that.
A great opportunity for the makers of meaning to make some great new ones.
RickW
15-03-2009
R/M old man....
.....has landed us where we are now. If they can take credit for "prudent" fiscal management before the economy tanked, then they can take the flak for "imprudent" management now that we're spinning down the toilet.
But thanks for pointing out just who Tweedledee and Tweedldum are in Canuck politics..........
Aimless
15-03-2009
Speak to Ottawa or be scr*wed. Again.
You can bet the powers that be are hard at work re-tooling the system to their continued benefit, somewhere well behind the scenes. Only long, hard and incessant howling from the rest of us can possibly have a (slight) effect on the outcome. Let your MPs know your feelings, people, or live with the inevitable consequences.
Sociopathy is the norm days, and everyone feels perfectly justified in stacking the deck to their own advantage, as much as they are able.
Des
16-03-2009
Rescuing the rest of us
means re-learning old lessons and using them well.
First, shed the Friedman philosophy that the primary purpose of the corporate entity is to ensure that the shareholder's investment gets a good return. Then the real purpose of a business enterprise can emerge - "build a better mousetrap..." Which does not mean a flashier one, or a bigger one, but one which catches more mice. Making money will follow automatically, legitimatising the shareholder's investment. Ponzi schemes will also be perceived to be what they are, unrealistic promises which cannot be fulfilled.
Second, recognize that all enterprise, from baking a cake to putting a man on the moon, is comprised of three necessary and interdependent parts. Which are Capital, Management and Labour. Nothing can be accomplished without the three spokes of the wheel co-operating at all times.
Capital is not necessarily money but includes things like both flour and fire for the cake, and spacesuits and fire for the rocketship.
Management then is knowing what to do with the capital, how to mix the cake and the proper temperature at which to bake it, or when to launch the rocket and how much air the astronauts will need.
Labour is actually doing what is necessary to get the desired results, making the cake or riding the rocket.
Adversarial relationships between the three will ultimately defeat the enterprise. We must learn that co-operation is always better than competition, that bigger is not necessarily better for its own sake, and that money itself is only one of the tools we can use to improve our lives.