Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Faryn Balyncd
Faryn Balyncd's Journal
Faryn Balyncd's Journal
October 3, 2013
Boehner to GOP: Grand Bargain in the Works
House Republicans tell me Speaker John Boehner wants to craft a “grand bargain” on fiscal issues as part of the debt-limit deliberations, and during a series of meetings on Wednesday, he urged colleagues to stick with him. . . . The revelation came quietly. Boehner called groups of members to his Capitol office all day, taking their temperature on the shutdown and the debt limit. It became clear, members say, that Boehner’s chief goal is conference unity as the debt limit nears, and he’s looking at potentially blending a government-spending deal and debt-limit agreement into a larger budget package.
“It’s the return of the grand bargain,” says one House Republican, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “There weren’t a lot of specifics discussed, and the meetings were mostly about just checking in. But he’s looking hard at the debt limit as a place where we can do something big.”
Beyond Boehner’s office, the leadership is sending out a similar message through its emissaries. The House GOP’s most influential fiscal strategists, Dave Camp and Paul Ryan, are privately reassuring nervous Republicans that the federal shutdown may be painful in the short term, but a budget deal is in the works — and they should be enthused about what they’re cooking up. . . . . “Ryan is selling this to everybody; he’s getting back to his sweet spot,” says a second House Republican who’s close with Ryan. “He and Camp are going to be Boehner’s guys. That’s why Boehner put them on the CR conference committee; he knows these guys are going to be his point men.”
And during Wednesday huddles, Ryan, Camp, and other House Republicans spoke openly about what kind of concessions they could potentially win from Democrats. Late Wednesday, “the CR-debt limit idea was what people were talking about on the floor,” says a GOP aide . . . . . . Per sources, entitlement reforms, such as chained CPI, an elimination of the medical-device tax, and delays to parts of Obamacare are all on the table as trades for delaying aspects of sequestration and extending the debt limit. Camp, especially, is pushing to have a tax-reform framework included. . . . . .From what I hear, this combined deal is being softly sold to members; Wednesday’s talks were about getting them engaged. And it’s all about what Republicans could win – and little about what they’ll give in return.What’s not being discussed: increased tax rates or revenues. That doesn’t mean, however, that revenue as part of a tax-reform pact has been ruled out. . . .
http://nationalreview.com/corner/360234/boehner-gop-grand-bargain-works-robert-costa
Boehner reveals the GOP End-Game:
Boehner to GOP: Grand Bargain in the Works
House Republicans tell me Speaker John Boehner wants to craft a “grand bargain” on fiscal issues as part of the debt-limit deliberations, and during a series of meetings on Wednesday, he urged colleagues to stick with him. . . . The revelation came quietly. Boehner called groups of members to his Capitol office all day, taking their temperature on the shutdown and the debt limit. It became clear, members say, that Boehner’s chief goal is conference unity as the debt limit nears, and he’s looking at potentially blending a government-spending deal and debt-limit agreement into a larger budget package.
“It’s the return of the grand bargain,” says one House Republican, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “There weren’t a lot of specifics discussed, and the meetings were mostly about just checking in. But he’s looking hard at the debt limit as a place where we can do something big.”
Beyond Boehner’s office, the leadership is sending out a similar message through its emissaries. The House GOP’s most influential fiscal strategists, Dave Camp and Paul Ryan, are privately reassuring nervous Republicans that the federal shutdown may be painful in the short term, but a budget deal is in the works — and they should be enthused about what they’re cooking up. . . . . “Ryan is selling this to everybody; he’s getting back to his sweet spot,” says a second House Republican who’s close with Ryan. “He and Camp are going to be Boehner’s guys. That’s why Boehner put them on the CR conference committee; he knows these guys are going to be his point men.”
And during Wednesday huddles, Ryan, Camp, and other House Republicans spoke openly about what kind of concessions they could potentially win from Democrats. Late Wednesday, “the CR-debt limit idea was what people were talking about on the floor,” says a GOP aide . . . . . . Per sources, entitlement reforms, such as chained CPI, an elimination of the medical-device tax, and delays to parts of Obamacare are all on the table as trades for delaying aspects of sequestration and extending the debt limit. Camp, especially, is pushing to have a tax-reform framework included. . . . . .From what I hear, this combined deal is being softly sold to members; Wednesday’s talks were about getting them engaged. And it’s all about what Republicans could win – and little about what they’ll give in return.What’s not being discussed: increased tax rates or revenues. That doesn’t mean, however, that revenue as part of a tax-reform pact has been ruled out. . . .
http://nationalreview.com/corner/360234/boehner-gop-grand-bargain-works-robert-costa
October 3, 2013
This needs WIDE distribution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023773539#op
It has the capacity to hammer home the totally unprecedented nature of what the Republicans are pulling, a fact which corporate media is totally ignoring.
It might help if every Republican Representative had their incoming mail swamped with copies of this.
Subjected these creeps to the widespread contempt and mockery they deserve may be the only solution to a derelict corporate media.
If there ever was a analogy that can RESONATE with Americans . . . THIS is it:
This needs WIDE distribution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023773539#op
It has the capacity to hammer home the totally unprecedented nature of what the Republicans are pulling, a fact which corporate media is totally ignoring.
It might help if every Republican Representative had their incoming mail swamped with copies of this.
Subjected these creeps to the widespread contempt and mockery they deserve may be the only solution to a derelict corporate media.
October 2, 2013
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/designate-republican-party-terrorist-organization-repeatedly-threatening-full-faith-credit-usa/vy1cgtk5
These traitors have knocked up this one minor victory....
But they will NOT win their war against America.
Interesting. Petition to Designate GOP a Terrorist Organization disabled by shutdown.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/designate-republican-party-terrorist-organization-repeatedly-threatening-full-faith-credit-usa/vy1cgtk5
These traitors have knocked up this one minor victory....
But they will NOT win their war against America.
September 30, 2013
Scroll down to bottom right. This will influence who is reported to bear the blame for the shutdown.
Please help NOW!
http://www.ksat.com/
This poll NEEDS HELP now BEFORE 5 pm newscast:
Scroll down to bottom right. This will influence who is reported to bear the blame for the shutdown.
Please help NOW!
http://www.ksat.com/
September 30, 2013
Seems like only yesterday that an old line right winger like George Will felt impelled to chastise Republicans for being too cowed to cross Limbaugh.
But George Will was clearly too generous in his apparent expectation that Republican Congress-critters have potential for independent thought and/or action, (as opposed other alternatives to thought and courage (such as, for example, hitting the bottle.)
But with constant threats from the craziest of their base, what's a poor Republican to do? ( & Shutting down America is hard & stressful, dammit!):
Accusations of drinking among House Republicans during late-night debates spread like wildfire this weekend as they brought the government ever closer to a shutdown.
Members of the political press corps made the claims from Capitol Hill on Saturday night. Politico reporter Ginger Gibson tweeted: 'I'm not over exaggerating when I say I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor.'
There were reports from other sources of members of Congress 'putting a few back' on Penn - presumably referring to Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown DC. One reporter added that she had run into two politicians in a liquor store.
All work and no play... Rumors ran riot last night that Republicans in the House were drinking during the debates on Capitol Hill
Names of those letting their hair down in the midst of pressing government business have yet to emerge....
(There is no suggestion that anyone pictured was involved in drinking)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2437272/Congress-members-seen-drinking-late-night-debate-brakes-Obamacare.html
Shared shitless by Limbaugh & the "Teaparty", Republicans hit the bottle.
Seems like only yesterday that an old line right winger like George Will felt impelled to chastise Republicans for being too cowed to cross Limbaugh.
But George Will was clearly too generous in his apparent expectation that Republican Congress-critters have potential for independent thought and/or action, (as opposed other alternatives to thought and courage (such as, for example, hitting the bottle.)
But with constant threats from the craziest of their base, what's a poor Republican to do? ( & Shutting down America is hard & stressful, dammit!):
Accusations of drinking among House Republicans during late-night debates spread like wildfire this weekend as they brought the government ever closer to a shutdown.
Members of the political press corps made the claims from Capitol Hill on Saturday night. Politico reporter Ginger Gibson tweeted: 'I'm not over exaggerating when I say I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor.'
There were reports from other sources of members of Congress 'putting a few back' on Penn - presumably referring to Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown DC. One reporter added that she had run into two politicians in a liquor store.
All work and no play... Rumors ran riot last night that Republicans in the House were drinking during the debates on Capitol Hill
Names of those letting their hair down in the midst of pressing government business have yet to emerge....
(There is no suggestion that anyone pictured was involved in drinking)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2437272/Congress-members-seen-drinking-late-night-debate-brakes-Obamacare.html
September 28, 2013
...pure & simple.
They refuse to pay their bills, the biggest single cause of which are the unfunded wars they started, and now they are attempting to rationalize their obstructionism by insanely blaming a healthcare plan that is the spitting image of the plan Republicans promoted in 1995.
They have promised for years to drown America in the bath-tub, & now they are attempting to do it.
Their is only one consistency to their actions: They despise America and everything this republic stands for.
These traitors have royally earned the contempt & rejection they will receive at the polls.
The GOP shutdown gang are un-American deadbeat TRAITORS ...
...pure & simple.
They refuse to pay their bills, the biggest single cause of which are the unfunded wars they started, and now they are attempting to rationalize their obstructionism by insanely blaming a healthcare plan that is the spitting image of the plan Republicans promoted in 1995.
They have promised for years to drown America in the bath-tub, & now they are attempting to do it.
Their is only one consistency to their actions: They despise America and everything this republic stands for.
These traitors have royally earned the contempt & rejection they will receive at the polls.
September 23, 2013
Lindsey Graham:
"There are... nuggets of his budget that are optimistic... It's overall a bad plan for the economy . . . but when you look at chained CPI and Medicare reductions, WE'RE BEGINNING TO SET THE STAGE FOR THE GRAND BARGAIN."
(Graham starts at about 1:25 )
When this shifty guy gets "optimistic" about a "Grand Bargain", sounds like we need to make ourselves heard again:
(If there is anything to learn from recent events, it would seem to be that raising hell works a lot better then waiting for our elected party leaders to do the right thing on their own.)
Lindsey Gtraham: "chained CPI & Medicare reductions: We're setting stage for the Grand Bargain!"
Lindsey Graham:
"There are... nuggets of his budget that are optimistic... It's overall a bad plan for the economy . . . but when you look at chained CPI and Medicare reductions, WE'RE BEGINNING TO SET THE STAGE FOR THE GRAND BARGAIN."
(Graham starts at about 1:25 )
When this shifty guy gets "optimistic" about a "Grand Bargain", sounds like we need to make ourselves heard again:
(If there is anything to learn from recent events, it would seem to be that raising hell works a lot better then waiting for our elected party leaders to do the right thing on their own.)
September 21, 2013
From Harry Binswanger's Forbes.com Op Ed:
Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%
"...Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
"Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind. (Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created.)"
Harry Binswanger, "objectivist"
Interesting, that Forbes (who employ the slogan "Information for the World's Business Leaders", and who bill their web site as "among the most trusted resources for senior business executives, providing them the real-time reporting, uncompromising commentary, concise analysis, relevant tools and community they need to succeed at work, profit from investing and have fun with the rewards of winning."
would publish, with an apparent straight face, not simply the rantings of an "objectivist" "philosopher" former sidekick of Ayn Rand herself. . . . . but one who sees no irony in presenting the poster-child CEO of of a company from the Gangster Capitalism Hall of Fame, as the centerpiece of his adoration.
...A company that, according to "objectivist philosopher" Binswanger "creates value" ("Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created." - Harry Binswanger) by such innovative techniques as betting against the bonds it fraudulently peddled to clients, and pioneering "in the area of securing completely underserved public bailouts, including the collection of nearly $17 billion in public money for speculative trades with bailed-out AIG and the outrageous receipt of a Commercial Bank Holding Company charter in late September of 2008, allowing it to borrow billions in lifesaving money from the Federal Reserve discount window at a time when Goldman execs were already selling their beach houses for cash in anticipation of the firm's collapse."
Lloyd Blankfein
Matt Taibbi describes a few of Goldman's innovations:
• In the infamous "Abacus" case, Goldman teamed up with a hedge-fund billionaire named John Paulson to create a born-to-lose portfolio of mortgage derivatives, which were then marketed by Goldman to a pair of sucker European banks, IKB and ABN-Amro. When the instruments crashed, Paulson made bank on bets he made against his own loser portfolio. Goldman's peculiar role was in "renting the platform," i.e. allowing IKB and ABN-Amro to think that neutral Goldman, not a hedge funder like Paulson massively betting against the product, had created the portfolio. Goldman only made $15 million in the deal that ended up causing over a billion in losses, meaning this wasn't even just about money – they were just trying to curry favor with a hedge fund client out to screw a bunch of Euros. They were fined $550 million.
• In the even more absurd Hudson deal, Goldman unloaded a billion-plus sized chunk of toxic mortgage-backed crap on Morgan Stanley during a time when Lloyd "Mother Teresa" Blankfein was telling his minions to unload as much of the firm's 'cats and dogs' as possible, ie. its soon-to-explode subprime holdings. In its marketing materials, Goldman represented to Morgan Stanley that its interests were aligned with Morgan, because Goldman owned a $6 million slice of the Hudson deal. It didn't disclose that it had a $2 billion bet against it. Morgan Stanley, which was subsequently bailed out by taxpayers like Harry Binswanger, lost $960 million.
• Goldman bought a series of aluminum warehouses and has apparently been serially delaying the delivery of aluminum in order to artificially inflate the price. Even Binswanger might have heard of this one. The CFTC sent a wave of subpoenas on this score just last month. . . . Earlier this year, Goldman and Chase agreed to pay a combined $557 million to settle government claims that the banks and/or their mortgage servicing arms engaged in wholesale abuses in the real estate markets, including (but not limited to) robosigning, the practice of mass-producing fictitious, perjured affidavits for the courts for the purposes of foreclosing on homeowners. . . . . . In 2009, a Goldman programmer named Sergey Aleynikov left his office in possession of a code that contained Goldman's high-frequency trading algorithms. Goldman promptly called the FBI – which up until that point had done exactly zero to prevent crime on Wall Street – to help Mother Teresa's bank recapture its valuable trading code. In court, a federal prosecutor admitted that the code Aleynikov had in his possession could, "in the wrong hands," be used to manipulate markets. Aleynikov just pulled an eight-year sentence. Goldman, incidentally, has gone entire quarters without posting a single day of trading loss – in Q1 2010, the bank made at least $25 million every single day, somehow never once betting wrong in 63 trading days. Imagine that! What foresight! What skill! One can see how Mr. Binswanger could believe that the bank's CEO should be exempt from income taxes.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/forbes-calls-goldman-ceo-holier-than-mother-teresa-20130920#ixzz2fWmw9uea
So what would defenders of capitalism from ages past think of "philosopher" Binswanger and "value creator" Blankfein, andtheir ilk?
Well, we don't have to go very far back to ask Paul Volcker (the former Fed Chairman who has been harshly critical of purported "innovations", and of compensation trends, in the financial service sector over the last 2 decades) and who has “berated bankers for their failure to acknowledge a problem with personal rewards and questioned their claims for financial innovation.” Here's a sample of his views on the :
“I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence.”
"...the only useful banking innovation was the invention of the ATM."
- Paul Volcker, Former Fed Chairman (1979-1987) interview February 5, 2010
Former Carter & Reagan Fed Chairman Paul Volcker
But, while we're asking old school capitalists what they think of corporate apologist Binswanger & Blankfein's Goldman-Sachs, and of today's Gangster Capitalism in general, why stop with Ronald Reagan's Fed Chief?
Why not ask the granddaddy of free market capitalism Adam Smith himself?
Emma Rothschild, director of the Center for History and Economics at King's College, Cambridge, in her study ''Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment'' portrays an Adam Smith far, far different from the "philosophy" of today's right wing corporate apologists. Rothschild discusses how, despite the fact that Smith has been "reinvented" & misrepresented as "a narrow, unyielding defender of unfettered free enterprise", the real Adam Smith was much more complex.
The real Adam Smith:
- - - "railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power",
- - - "worried about the encroachment of government on economic activity, but his concerns were directed at least as much toward parish councils, church wardens, big corporations, guilds and religious institutions as to the national government",
- - - "was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, especially when the object is to reduce poverty'',
- - - "supported universal government-financed education because he believed the division of labor destined people to perform monotonous, mind-numbing tasks that eroded their intelligence, not because education led to economic gain."
So let's listen, for a while, to Adam Smith himself:
"The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)
"This monopoly has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of [manufacturers], that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature. The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services, can protect him from the most infamous abuse and destruction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 368)
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 220)
"But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but for their own particular purposes."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 218)
''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
''No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.''
Adam Smith
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/business/economic-scene-the-many-faces-of-adam-smith-rediscovering-the-wealth-of-nations.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The reality is, that the "philosophical" porn that Harry Binswanger espouses on the pages of Forbes, is not only a philosophy totally rejected by none other that Ronald Reagan's Fed Chief, but it is not even a philosophy that the "father of capitalism" would recognize.
If Adam Smith could know what corrupt, monopolistic, & exploitative practices would come to be defended in the 21st century as "free market capitalism", Adam Smith would VOMIT.
(Not The Onion) Forbe's Gangster Capitalist Apologist would make Adam Smith VOMIT.
From Harry Binswanger's Forbes.com Op Ed:
Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%
"...Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
"Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind. (Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created.)"
Harry Binswanger, "objectivist"
Interesting, that Forbes (who employ the slogan "Information for the World's Business Leaders", and who bill their web site as "among the most trusted resources for senior business executives, providing them the real-time reporting, uncompromising commentary, concise analysis, relevant tools and community they need to succeed at work, profit from investing and have fun with the rewards of winning."
would publish, with an apparent straight face, not simply the rantings of an "objectivist" "philosopher" former sidekick of Ayn Rand herself. . . . . but one who sees no irony in presenting the poster-child CEO of of a company from the Gangster Capitalism Hall of Fame, as the centerpiece of his adoration.
...A company that, according to "objectivist philosopher" Binswanger "creates value" ("Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created." - Harry Binswanger) by such innovative techniques as betting against the bonds it fraudulently peddled to clients, and pioneering "in the area of securing completely underserved public bailouts, including the collection of nearly $17 billion in public money for speculative trades with bailed-out AIG and the outrageous receipt of a Commercial Bank Holding Company charter in late September of 2008, allowing it to borrow billions in lifesaving money from the Federal Reserve discount window at a time when Goldman execs were already selling their beach houses for cash in anticipation of the firm's collapse."
Lloyd Blankfein
Matt Taibbi describes a few of Goldman's innovations:
• In the infamous "Abacus" case, Goldman teamed up with a hedge-fund billionaire named John Paulson to create a born-to-lose portfolio of mortgage derivatives, which were then marketed by Goldman to a pair of sucker European banks, IKB and ABN-Amro. When the instruments crashed, Paulson made bank on bets he made against his own loser portfolio. Goldman's peculiar role was in "renting the platform," i.e. allowing IKB and ABN-Amro to think that neutral Goldman, not a hedge funder like Paulson massively betting against the product, had created the portfolio. Goldman only made $15 million in the deal that ended up causing over a billion in losses, meaning this wasn't even just about money – they were just trying to curry favor with a hedge fund client out to screw a bunch of Euros. They were fined $550 million.
• In the even more absurd Hudson deal, Goldman unloaded a billion-plus sized chunk of toxic mortgage-backed crap on Morgan Stanley during a time when Lloyd "Mother Teresa" Blankfein was telling his minions to unload as much of the firm's 'cats and dogs' as possible, ie. its soon-to-explode subprime holdings. In its marketing materials, Goldman represented to Morgan Stanley that its interests were aligned with Morgan, because Goldman owned a $6 million slice of the Hudson deal. It didn't disclose that it had a $2 billion bet against it. Morgan Stanley, which was subsequently bailed out by taxpayers like Harry Binswanger, lost $960 million.
• Goldman bought a series of aluminum warehouses and has apparently been serially delaying the delivery of aluminum in order to artificially inflate the price. Even Binswanger might have heard of this one. The CFTC sent a wave of subpoenas on this score just last month. . . . Earlier this year, Goldman and Chase agreed to pay a combined $557 million to settle government claims that the banks and/or their mortgage servicing arms engaged in wholesale abuses in the real estate markets, including (but not limited to) robosigning, the practice of mass-producing fictitious, perjured affidavits for the courts for the purposes of foreclosing on homeowners. . . . . . In 2009, a Goldman programmer named Sergey Aleynikov left his office in possession of a code that contained Goldman's high-frequency trading algorithms. Goldman promptly called the FBI – which up until that point had done exactly zero to prevent crime on Wall Street – to help Mother Teresa's bank recapture its valuable trading code. In court, a federal prosecutor admitted that the code Aleynikov had in his possession could, "in the wrong hands," be used to manipulate markets. Aleynikov just pulled an eight-year sentence. Goldman, incidentally, has gone entire quarters without posting a single day of trading loss – in Q1 2010, the bank made at least $25 million every single day, somehow never once betting wrong in 63 trading days. Imagine that! What foresight! What skill! One can see how Mr. Binswanger could believe that the bank's CEO should be exempt from income taxes.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/forbes-calls-goldman-ceo-holier-than-mother-teresa-20130920#ixzz2fWmw9uea
So what would defenders of capitalism from ages past think of "philosopher" Binswanger and "value creator" Blankfein, andtheir ilk?
Well, we don't have to go very far back to ask Paul Volcker (the former Fed Chairman who has been harshly critical of purported "innovations", and of compensation trends, in the financial service sector over the last 2 decades) and who has “berated bankers for their failure to acknowledge a problem with personal rewards and questioned their claims for financial innovation.” Here's a sample of his views on the :
“I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence.”
"...the only useful banking innovation was the invention of the ATM."
- Paul Volcker, Former Fed Chairman (1979-1987) interview February 5, 2010
Former Carter & Reagan Fed Chairman Paul Volcker
But, while we're asking old school capitalists what they think of corporate apologist Binswanger & Blankfein's Goldman-Sachs, and of today's Gangster Capitalism in general, why stop with Ronald Reagan's Fed Chief?
Why not ask the granddaddy of free market capitalism Adam Smith himself?
Emma Rothschild, director of the Center for History and Economics at King's College, Cambridge, in her study ''Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment'' portrays an Adam Smith far, far different from the "philosophy" of today's right wing corporate apologists. Rothschild discusses how, despite the fact that Smith has been "reinvented" & misrepresented as "a narrow, unyielding defender of unfettered free enterprise", the real Adam Smith was much more complex.
The real Adam Smith:
- - - "railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power",
- - - "worried about the encroachment of government on economic activity, but his concerns were directed at least as much toward parish councils, church wardens, big corporations, guilds and religious institutions as to the national government",
- - - "was sometimes tolerant of government intervention, especially when the object is to reduce poverty'',
- - - "supported universal government-financed education because he believed the division of labor destined people to perform monotonous, mind-numbing tasks that eroded their intelligence, not because education led to economic gain."
So let's listen, for a while, to Adam Smith himself:
"The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)
"This monopoly has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of [manufacturers], that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature. The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services, can protect him from the most infamous abuse and destruction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 368)
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 220)
"But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but for their own particular purposes."
(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 218)
''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
''No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.''
Adam Smith
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/business/economic-scene-the-many-faces-of-adam-smith-rediscovering-the-wealth-of-nations.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The reality is, that the "philosophical" porn that Harry Binswanger espouses on the pages of Forbes, is not only a philosophy totally rejected by none other that Ronald Reagan's Fed Chief, but it is not even a philosophy that the "father of capitalism" would recognize.
If Adam Smith could know what corrupt, monopolistic, & exploitative practices would come to be defended in the 21st century as "free market capitalism", Adam Smith would VOMIT.
September 20, 2013
...that strips the entire American judicial system of jurisdictional and appellate authority?
...and subjects democratically elected federal, state, and local governments to the whims of a secret, corporate tribunal which is exempt from from observation and appeal?
If You Want To Know Why The TPP Is A Terrible Idea, Look At NAFTA's Chapter 11 Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3700905
Trading Democracy - A Bill Moyers Special on Nafta Chapter 11
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradingdemocracy.html
How Constitutional is NAFTA?
http://economyincrisis.org/content/how-constitutional-nafta
Since when can Congress pass laws that strip federal & state courts of constitutional powers?
...that strips the entire American judicial system of jurisdictional and appellate authority?
...and subjects democratically elected federal, state, and local governments to the whims of a secret, corporate tribunal which is exempt from from observation and appeal?
If You Want To Know Why The TPP Is A Terrible Idea, Look At NAFTA's Chapter 11 Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3700905
Trading Democracy - A Bill Moyers Special on Nafta Chapter 11
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradingdemocracy.html
How Constitutional is NAFTA?
http://economyincrisis.org/content/how-constitutional-nafta
September 20, 2013
Right Wing Watch: Beck, Barton Support Right-Wing Vote-Rigging Scheme
As a general rule, the candidate who receives the most votes in an election is declared the winner. But that would all change if the Family Research Council's Ken Blackwell gets his way and states start adopting a vote-rigging scheme that he is recommending whereby, in a presidential election, electoral votes would switch from winner-take-all allocations to a system where they were awarded according to congressional districts.
As a result of such a switch, candidates who lose the overall popular vote in a state could still end up receiving a majority of that state's electoral votes simply by virtue of winning the popular vote in more individual districts.
As Blackwell admitted several months ago, if this sort of system had been in place during the last election, Mitt Romney would have won the presidency despite the fact that he lost the overall popular vote by nearly 5 million votes. . . .David Barton has eagerly been supporting the scheme by laughably claiming that it would "give the people a greater voice" and last night he got Glenn Beck to endorse it as well on his television program:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-supports-right-wing-vote-rigging-scheme
Why do RW-ers hate America?
RWW: America-Haters Beck,Barton endorse Blackwell's vote-rigging scheme.
Right Wing Watch: Beck, Barton Support Right-Wing Vote-Rigging Scheme
As a general rule, the candidate who receives the most votes in an election is declared the winner. But that would all change if the Family Research Council's Ken Blackwell gets his way and states start adopting a vote-rigging scheme that he is recommending whereby, in a presidential election, electoral votes would switch from winner-take-all allocations to a system where they were awarded according to congressional districts.
As a result of such a switch, candidates who lose the overall popular vote in a state could still end up receiving a majority of that state's electoral votes simply by virtue of winning the popular vote in more individual districts.
As Blackwell admitted several months ago, if this sort of system had been in place during the last election, Mitt Romney would have won the presidency despite the fact that he lost the overall popular vote by nearly 5 million votes. . . .David Barton has eagerly been supporting the scheme by laughably claiming that it would "give the people a greater voice" and last night he got Glenn Beck to endorse it as well on his television program:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-supports-right-wing-vote-rigging-scheme
Why do RW-ers hate America?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2005, 09:15 AMNumber of posts: 5,125
