Here are some revealing figures: because of the housing boom and bust, created by the recklessness of the large banks and their associates: mortgage service companies, rating agencies, etc., there is $700 billion in negative equity in the housing market today. About 3.5 million Americans are homeless, 18.5 million homes sit vacant, and since 2007, more than 7.5 million homes have been foreclosed.
Here are some more revealing figures: last year, Wall Street lavished $147 billion on bonuses to its executives. Estimated assets of the six largest banks: $7.29-8.7 trillion (with a T) in 2010.
Meanwhile, Obama's US Attorney General Holder is pushing the 50 states' Attorneys General to sign on to a negotiated settlement with the banks, in which the banks will pay penalties to aid in restitution of the housing market they destroyed. The total penalties: $20 billion, a large figure, but compared to the amounts of money controlled by these banks, it's miniscule; compared to the damage they did, it's like swatting at a fly on a raging bull.
What makes this proposed settlement even more outrageous: the banks wouldn't pay that $20 billion out of their own pockets. "Paying" means they can raise the money by devaluing the Mortgage Backed Securities on their books (but owned by investors), not the mortgages owned by the banks. So, the banks would only pay a tiny fraction even of the bonuses they lavish on themselves, and they wouldn't even use their own money!
Besides the insignificant punishment: the important part for the banks is a guarantee against further investigations into the banks' wrongdoing. There are piles of evidence, and witnesses that crimes of fraud, theft and extortion were committed widely, against millions of homeowners and hundreds of thousands of investors. But with no more investigations, the banks can just keep on doing all the things they did before, like robosigning, fraudulent foreclosures, wrongful evictions and mis-allocation of funds.
Worse, the agreement pushed by Holder and probably supported by Obama, would grant the banks and their officers immunity from additional suits for damages: immunity for the corporations and people who drove this country into the ditch, and hugely enriched themselves in the process!
They might still be liable for criminal prosecution, but the terms haven't yet been agreed to.
No wonder New York's AG, Eric Schneiderman, and about nine other state AG's, refuse to sign on to the proposed settlement; more are considering joining them.
Why would Holder negotiate this? His former law firm works for five of the six banks. Why would Obama? Wall Street provided a large portion of his campaign funds in 2008. Super-pacs can raise unlimited amounts of money for his Republican opponent. If Obama blasts Wall Street rhetorically, but makes a deal with them, he could still raise enough to win.
So, our Roman Senators go scot-free, their dominance remains unchallenged and everyone else is impoverished--and has no recourse, just like fifth century Rome.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Lockouts: Capitalism 2012
Corporations, or rather, their CEO's, are feeling their oats. They're sitting on mountains of profits and can see, from their corner window offices, the endless reserve army of the desperate, just waiting to be asked: work, no matter how badly paid, is better than no work at all.
So, more and more corporations aren't tolerating their union workers any longer: they're locking them out, or threatening to do so. If unions attempt to negotiate for their members, corporations refuse to listen. Instead, they demand: lower wages and benefits; they don't budge. It doesn't matter that their corporations have high profits at current wage levels; they want to cut wages, cut benefits, and claim they'll go out of business, or relocate, or offshore, if they don't get their way, or simply will hire replacement workers. After they make their claim--unsubstantiated by their balance sheets--they lock the doors if unions don't cave. Seventeen have done so in 2011, but before this year, lockouts were rare.
It's the new face of management: take it or leave it: capitalism 2012 style.
What managements want is clear: higher and higher profits, huge salaries for themselves and higher dividends if that will enhance the value of their stock, and incomes. What is also clear: workers may do the work necessary to the corporation, but workers are now fungible, just like money. They can be traded in for cheaper models, just like retiring high interest loans for lower cost ones. There are just so many willing to work, and so few jobs available.
Manufacturing is supposedly reviving in the US. This may be one reason: highly skilled, educated, hard-working (willing to work way more than 40-hour weeks), American workers come cheap, now that unions have been beaten down to the point where they are weak, almost impotent. Strikes are no threat to many corporations: replacement workers, what unions call "scabs," are willing and ready to take the place of strikers, and the authorities will send in the police, armed, armored and dangerous to insure the safety of replacement workers and corporate property. Strikers are no match for them.
There are few political representatives, in this supposed democracy, to stand up for workers' rights. The Occupy movement represents the helplessness many feel in the face of corporate aggression and no countervailing force. What do we get instead? Obama will now take a more populist tone, will pledge to reinvigorate "the middle class," (no one speaks of "workers") and Romney, Gingrich, et al, clearly represent corporate interests and people like themselves with high incomes--Romney's unearned income came to over $20 million in each of the last two years!
This does look like the takeover of a class very like the fifth century's Roman Senators, with inequality growing, not receding. It's a prescription for stagnation and decline--just like the late Roman Empire.
So, more and more corporations aren't tolerating their union workers any longer: they're locking them out, or threatening to do so. If unions attempt to negotiate for their members, corporations refuse to listen. Instead, they demand: lower wages and benefits; they don't budge. It doesn't matter that their corporations have high profits at current wage levels; they want to cut wages, cut benefits, and claim they'll go out of business, or relocate, or offshore, if they don't get their way, or simply will hire replacement workers. After they make their claim--unsubstantiated by their balance sheets--they lock the doors if unions don't cave. Seventeen have done so in 2011, but before this year, lockouts were rare.
It's the new face of management: take it or leave it: capitalism 2012 style.
What managements want is clear: higher and higher profits, huge salaries for themselves and higher dividends if that will enhance the value of their stock, and incomes. What is also clear: workers may do the work necessary to the corporation, but workers are now fungible, just like money. They can be traded in for cheaper models, just like retiring high interest loans for lower cost ones. There are just so many willing to work, and so few jobs available.
Manufacturing is supposedly reviving in the US. This may be one reason: highly skilled, educated, hard-working (willing to work way more than 40-hour weeks), American workers come cheap, now that unions have been beaten down to the point where they are weak, almost impotent. Strikes are no threat to many corporations: replacement workers, what unions call "scabs," are willing and ready to take the place of strikers, and the authorities will send in the police, armed, armored and dangerous to insure the safety of replacement workers and corporate property. Strikers are no match for them.
There are few political representatives, in this supposed democracy, to stand up for workers' rights. The Occupy movement represents the helplessness many feel in the face of corporate aggression and no countervailing force. What do we get instead? Obama will now take a more populist tone, will pledge to reinvigorate "the middle class," (no one speaks of "workers") and Romney, Gingrich, et al, clearly represent corporate interests and people like themselves with high incomes--Romney's unearned income came to over $20 million in each of the last two years!
This does look like the takeover of a class very like the fifth century's Roman Senators, with inequality growing, not receding. It's a prescription for stagnation and decline--just like the late Roman Empire.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Romney, Roman Senator
You wouldn't think that in 21st Century "democracy," one that has stood the test of two and a half centuries, that we would emulate the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, but Willard (Mitt) Romney is the perfect Roman Senator, like the ones that ran the Empire in its dying days--ran it into the ground.
Perhaps, historically, he's most like Petronius Maximus, the Roman Senator who became Emperor after he arranged the assassination of Valentinian III. He was reputed to be the wealthiest of the wealthy, and Roman Senators (a legal class) had pretty much cornered the wealth of the Empire, in land, slaves, serfs and gold. Maximus lasted less than a year (455). He was literally ripped apart by the mob, in response to the Vandals landing at Ostia, before Vandals earned the meaning of their name, sacking and pillaging (vandalizing) Rome.
Just like those Roman Senators, Willard is to the manor (or manner) born, and just like them, he is a master at draining off wealth from those who have created it. He calls it "creative destruction," but the trail of ruined, looted businesses and lost or down-priced jobs, is a tale of predation. He hasn't made his case that he's created wealth--except his and his class, through financial wizardry and exploitation.
Willard is not the richest of the wealthy, but he's definitely high up in the modern senatorial class, at somewhere around a quarter of a billion dollars; he's not yet a billionaire. His candidacy, however, is emblematic of that class, and of its urge to take over this nation, and as much of the rest of the world as it can.
With Citizens United giving that corporate/senatorial class the perfect tool (its money) to take over, the only thing that stands in its way is Barack Obama and some Democrats, who may not represent the senatorial class quite so slavishly. There is the People, but with our modern version of Roman circuses, the people are lulled into passivity, or taught to follow their natural leaders. Only if Americans can awaken to what is happening in the United States, center of an undeclared, retreating global empire, can the people counterbalance the surge of money on the one side, and the weak reeds on the other.
Romney and the Republicans clearly represent the modern Roman Senators, what the OWS labels "the one percent." The Democrats, while partially bought off, still have some predilection to represent a larger portion of the population. The GOP is explainable in Marxist terms, as I pointed out previously: the party of the emergent super-rich, eager to wield their power.
It would take too much space, this time, to explore the likely results of a GOP takeover, but it could be like the destructive reactionary politics that drove the Empire in mid-Fifth Century Rome. The western Empire "fell" in 476.
Perhaps, historically, he's most like Petronius Maximus, the Roman Senator who became Emperor after he arranged the assassination of Valentinian III. He was reputed to be the wealthiest of the wealthy, and Roman Senators (a legal class) had pretty much cornered the wealth of the Empire, in land, slaves, serfs and gold. Maximus lasted less than a year (455). He was literally ripped apart by the mob, in response to the Vandals landing at Ostia, before Vandals earned the meaning of their name, sacking and pillaging (vandalizing) Rome.
Just like those Roman Senators, Willard is to the manor (or manner) born, and just like them, he is a master at draining off wealth from those who have created it. He calls it "creative destruction," but the trail of ruined, looted businesses and lost or down-priced jobs, is a tale of predation. He hasn't made his case that he's created wealth--except his and his class, through financial wizardry and exploitation.
Willard is not the richest of the wealthy, but he's definitely high up in the modern senatorial class, at somewhere around a quarter of a billion dollars; he's not yet a billionaire. His candidacy, however, is emblematic of that class, and of its urge to take over this nation, and as much of the rest of the world as it can.
With Citizens United giving that corporate/senatorial class the perfect tool (its money) to take over, the only thing that stands in its way is Barack Obama and some Democrats, who may not represent the senatorial class quite so slavishly. There is the People, but with our modern version of Roman circuses, the people are lulled into passivity, or taught to follow their natural leaders. Only if Americans can awaken to what is happening in the United States, center of an undeclared, retreating global empire, can the people counterbalance the surge of money on the one side, and the weak reeds on the other.
Romney and the Republicans clearly represent the modern Roman Senators, what the OWS labels "the one percent." The Democrats, while partially bought off, still have some predilection to represent a larger portion of the population. The GOP is explainable in Marxist terms, as I pointed out previously: the party of the emergent super-rich, eager to wield their power.
It would take too much space, this time, to explore the likely results of a GOP takeover, but it could be like the destructive reactionary politics that drove the Empire in mid-Fifth Century Rome. The western Empire "fell" in 476.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Reaction and Sharing--Romney, et al
Reactionary means someone whose politics could be characterized as "an action in a reverse direction or manner." Our whole politics is reactionary!
Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations.
The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist.
Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy.
Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy."
People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done.
That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less.
They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism.
But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share.
Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations.
The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist.
Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy.
Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy."
People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done.
That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less.
They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism.
But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Only His Hairdresser
…knows for sure. After seeing the ABC debate in New Hampshire: both Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney must dye their hair, including those carefully crafted perfect gray temples connoting wisdom. Neither projects a real person. Rick Santorum manages to look chinless, despite his long face; he's not quite as robotic as Romney, but still there is something not real about him. Gingrich, the Newt, projects a real person, albeit an unpleasant, even a nasty one. My wife found Rick Perry the only candidate who was at all attractive, but he was oh, so dumb! And then there's Ron Paul: he's not stupid, and he's real, but he's crazy, like a crazy older uncle.
I find it unbelievable that the 1% hasn't found a more personable representative than any of the above, especially Romney, to whom the major money seems to be flowing. Republicans should hire a real actor, like Reagan.
The ABC panel lobbed such softball questions. The classic: Do you, Rick Perry, believe that because you served in the military you'd be the best to lead this country as Commander in Chief?
What's he going to say? "Of course not; I wasn't a General?" Gingrich claims to empathize with every soldier he would send to war, because he was an Army brat growing up. He brushes aside the claim that he got five deferments.
Gingrich came across as the most articulate--and cantankerous--but he made a major booboo at the end: he said he'd be watching Saturday night basketball; it's still the football season.
Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul acts as if he's raring to attack Iran. Each, again except Paul, also states as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: there is no proof that it is, only data that imply it's keeping the option open. Santorum goes everyone one worse. We should attack Iran: our credibility is at stake.
All of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, also deplore Obama's proposed cuts to Defense: Romney and Santorum want to spend more, although they make pro-forma noises about cutting the deficit. Only Paul addresses our fundamental budget problem with Defense--maybe that's why significant campaign funds come from rank and file military--but his solution--cut almost everything government does--would usher in the Dark Ages, like the Goths' takeover in 476.
If any one of these men becomes President, we'll have a disaster that makes 2008 look like a minor rehearsal. Slash regulations to unleash business--like the deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse? We need more regulations. Cut taxes on "job creators," cut or eliminate the corporate tax--and the "death tax?" Who will pay for the expanded military, the police to enforce abortion and immigration laws and the support for unwanted babies, generated by banning abortions and Santorum's desired elimination of contraception?
The "99%."
These "leaders" are as awful as Honorius and Valentinian III at the tail end of the Roman Empire.
I find it unbelievable that the 1% hasn't found a more personable representative than any of the above, especially Romney, to whom the major money seems to be flowing. Republicans should hire a real actor, like Reagan.
The ABC panel lobbed such softball questions. The classic: Do you, Rick Perry, believe that because you served in the military you'd be the best to lead this country as Commander in Chief?
What's he going to say? "Of course not; I wasn't a General?" Gingrich claims to empathize with every soldier he would send to war, because he was an Army brat growing up. He brushes aside the claim that he got five deferments.
Gingrich came across as the most articulate--and cantankerous--but he made a major booboo at the end: he said he'd be watching Saturday night basketball; it's still the football season.
Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul acts as if he's raring to attack Iran. Each, again except Paul, also states as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: there is no proof that it is, only data that imply it's keeping the option open. Santorum goes everyone one worse. We should attack Iran: our credibility is at stake.
All of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, also deplore Obama's proposed cuts to Defense: Romney and Santorum want to spend more, although they make pro-forma noises about cutting the deficit. Only Paul addresses our fundamental budget problem with Defense--maybe that's why significant campaign funds come from rank and file military--but his solution--cut almost everything government does--would usher in the Dark Ages, like the Goths' takeover in 476.
If any one of these men becomes President, we'll have a disaster that makes 2008 look like a minor rehearsal. Slash regulations to unleash business--like the deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse? We need more regulations. Cut taxes on "job creators," cut or eliminate the corporate tax--and the "death tax?" Who will pay for the expanded military, the police to enforce abortion and immigration laws and the support for unwanted babies, generated by banning abortions and Santorum's desired elimination of contraception?
The "99%."
These "leaders" are as awful as Honorius and Valentinian III at the tail end of the Roman Empire.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Ron Paul vs Obama
Ron Paul says we should get out of the Middle East (and everywhere else), but is also for dismantling the so-called 'social welfare' state and the IRS!
If Ron Paul were a major candidate, instead of consigned to the "loony right-wing fringe," we could have a real debate: on foreign and military policy, on civil liberties and national security policies, on drug policies and on the function of government.
What is more important: protecting (minimally) the already shredded safety net, or personal liberties? Obama is for the former. However, Obama signed the NDAA, with its provision for indefinite detention by the military of anyone, anywhere in the world, deemed to have some undefined relationship or alignment with al Qaeda, with no right to trial or even Habeas Corpus. Obama is no protector of civil liberties. He has signed the death warrant for democracy, as we have known it.
Just as in the Roman Empire, the military has been given the power of judge, jury and executioner, even though emperor Obama and his successors are supposed to approve their actions. During most of the Roman Empire, the military chose the Emperor: that could happen here. As of now, someone like Ron Paul, who is judged "anti-military" could never become President. Could an anti-military Caesar have become Emperor?
Ron Paul opposed the NDAA, and its predecessors, the Patriot Act and FISA, because they infringed on our civil liberties.
He's opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in wars and conflicts all over the world. He would dismantle our overseas military empire! Obama is only "winding down" our involvement in the two wars, but is an interventionist in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and the South China Sea.
Ron Paul has not been particularly forthcoming about racist statements in past newsletters attributed to him. He would also eliminate, like any other Republican, whatever safety net Democrats have already eviscerated. And his economic policy of abolishing the Fed, the IRS and reinstating the gold standard would be disastrous.
But Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, legalization, and points out what most black people know and white people deny: the war on drugs is racist and fuels the prison-industrial complex. He was labeled racist, because he was against the Civil Rights Act, ironically, because he's against government controlling everyone's behavior--which is also why he's against drug laws! He's also been tarred with anti-Semitism, probably because he's against slavishly supporting Israel's every policy, but that's also a position with which a lot of progressives, and progressive Jews, agree.
Maybe Ron Paul is racist, anti-Semitic, a disastrous economist and against even Social Security, but he brings into political discussion many issues that have been "off the table" for far too long. He would be the most interesting Republican nominee--he'd likely lose--but he'd bring the empire--and a whole lot more--into question.
If Ron Paul were a major candidate, instead of consigned to the "loony right-wing fringe," we could have a real debate: on foreign and military policy, on civil liberties and national security policies, on drug policies and on the function of government.
What is more important: protecting (minimally) the already shredded safety net, or personal liberties? Obama is for the former. However, Obama signed the NDAA, with its provision for indefinite detention by the military of anyone, anywhere in the world, deemed to have some undefined relationship or alignment with al Qaeda, with no right to trial or even Habeas Corpus. Obama is no protector of civil liberties. He has signed the death warrant for democracy, as we have known it.
Just as in the Roman Empire, the military has been given the power of judge, jury and executioner, even though emperor Obama and his successors are supposed to approve their actions. During most of the Roman Empire, the military chose the Emperor: that could happen here. As of now, someone like Ron Paul, who is judged "anti-military" could never become President. Could an anti-military Caesar have become Emperor?
Ron Paul opposed the NDAA, and its predecessors, the Patriot Act and FISA, because they infringed on our civil liberties.
He's opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in wars and conflicts all over the world. He would dismantle our overseas military empire! Obama is only "winding down" our involvement in the two wars, but is an interventionist in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and the South China Sea.
Ron Paul has not been particularly forthcoming about racist statements in past newsletters attributed to him. He would also eliminate, like any other Republican, whatever safety net Democrats have already eviscerated. And his economic policy of abolishing the Fed, the IRS and reinstating the gold standard would be disastrous.
But Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, legalization, and points out what most black people know and white people deny: the war on drugs is racist and fuels the prison-industrial complex. He was labeled racist, because he was against the Civil Rights Act, ironically, because he's against government controlling everyone's behavior--which is also why he's against drug laws! He's also been tarred with anti-Semitism, probably because he's against slavishly supporting Israel's every policy, but that's also a position with which a lot of progressives, and progressive Jews, agree.
Maybe Ron Paul is racist, anti-Semitic, a disastrous economist and against even Social Security, but he brings into political discussion many issues that have been "off the table" for far too long. He would be the most interesting Republican nominee--he'd likely lose--but he'd bring the empire--and a whole lot more--into question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)