Party Like It's 1929


shays
shays's picture

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 825

Paul Krugman posted an interesting op-ed piece the other day … "Partying Like It's 1929" (at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/opinion/21krugman.html, amongst other places). In it, he correctly reminded us that the Wall Street crash of 1929 was not the harbinger of the Great Depression (instead, a bunch of gamblers got busted for taking too many risks with their money). The Great Depression began in 1930 and deepened in 1931 when frightened people attempted to pull their savings from banks and the banks did not have the capital reserves to honor their promise to depositors. Others (fiscal conservatives) say the bank runs probably would not have happened had not Herbert Hoover intervened and attempted to force markets to hold their value (price controls, tariffs, protections for wheat and cotton, and other efforts to stabilize prices) – there was too much money in the system and bank contractions were necessary to naturally correct for that fact. Periodic bloodbaths are necessary to correct for inflation. This point of view is fine and dandy if the only people hurt by such "natural forces" are the wealthy sobs who caused the problem in the first place. But this generally is not the case, and government of and for the people must act to protect all people. Unfortunately, as we are witnessing today, in 1929 the government first acted to protect those who had the most to lose.

This is why, Krugman goes on to say, that regulations were placed on the banking system to better safeguard savings and to more tightly control lending. Over the years, because big capital chafed at the regulations limiting risk (and simultaneously reducing potential profit), financial institutions developed an underground banking system that avoided the regulations altogether. Now, savers put their money into funds that buy asset-backed commercial paper from special investment vehicles that have purchased collateralized debt obligations created by securitized mortgages – with no safety net and no regulators anywhere in sight.

Big profits ensue (for some). In the same fashion, deregulation of the energy business allowed big capital (and the sleaze merchants guiding it) to manipulate energy futures and to job the market by selling and reselling energy "packages" for increasing profit margins. And, following the same gambit (George Bush and Ken Lay were good friends, mind you), an unregulated (unchecked) President manipulated the data to frighten enough people to give him unrestricted war powers, which he further manipulated by rewarding unbid contracts to his best supporters to transfer huge amounts of the U.S. treasury to private hands.

In my mind, justice must be served. Justice is a pretty simple thing, and it is not always associated with "laws" (especially when the laws have been written by lawyers representing the people who are robbing us blind in order to protect them in their theft … or by representatives in Congress who have been bought and sold just like the lawyers). Here's how it works. Ken Lay may be dead, but he robbed a lot of people. That money he stole needs to be taken from his surviving wife and redistributed amongst the people from whom he stole it. To her … you married the sucker with open eyes, and stayed married to him; your natural consequence for your blindness, stupidity or collusion is that you must surrender your ill-gotten wealth! Every member of the board of Enron and every investor who similarly profited must do the same.

Rather than give Bear Stearns $200 billion to "stablize" it, Bear Stearns needs to be stripped of all its equity (which includes taking money from investors, executive officers and members of the board who have not had to lose a thing in this fiasco) and the money distributed equitably amongst all depositors and/or borrowers who were ripped-off. The CEO of Countrywide Home Loans (Angelo Mozilo, who "earned" a $77 million "buy-out bonus" this year on top of the $656 million – that's more than half a billion dollars, folks – he made between 1998 and 2007) needs to surrender his money to pay back the money he foreclosed on, if not outright purchase all the homes for the people he screwed.

And Dick Cheney and George Bush need to surrender every bit of cash and property they own up to the $3 trillion this war is going to cost the American people for the lies, manipulations, and cover-ups they have perpetrated (if they have anything left over, they are welcome to keep it). They should not be incarcerated (as should the loan sharks and petty thiefs mentioned, above) … instead, they should be left to walk the streets, hopefully penniless, and learn to live off their own talents/skills as well as suffer any abuse given by folks who might recognize them in daily life.

No votes yet

shays
shays's picture

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 825

Federal Reserve to the Rescue!

Guess I'll post it here, too. For all of you out there who love the role of the Federal Reserve in our banking and financial systems, the President today rolled out a new solution to unregulated monetary practices (you know, let the market take care of all the swindlers and crooks and high rollers) ... he wants to centralize many of the oversight duties now spread across many agencies and departments into the Federal Reserve and let it be the Big Policeman! How do you like them cookies?

roygur
roygur's picture

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 555

And he's leaving office when...?

Roy Gursky http://gurskyranch.com

shays
shays's picture

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 825

First ... even though I got him when I lived in Trinity County (that's the "true north" for any Bay Area Californian who thinks they live in a geographic region other then Central California), took him to Monterey County where I lived of close to a decade, then brought him up here to Portland when we retired, my dog comes from Brentwood. My wife had me drive through Brentwood in 1994 on our way from Coffee Creek to Long Beach for Christmas with my family, to surprise me with an Australian Shepherd puppy that her daughter (living in Walnut Creek) had helped her pick out online. Couldn't tell you, any longer, from whom it was that we purchased Mick all those years ago ... but just seeing the name of "Brentwood" (and not when in LA, either) brings fond memories. Good luck with your apricots! Myself, I am raising raspberries and hops ... though haven't been here long enough for them to be commercially viable. Soon ...

Anyway, in answer to your question ... barring an unfortunate or untoward event, the current President is scheduled to leave office on January 20 of next year. As far as my reckoning goes, that's about 10 months of unfettered and so far unrestrained mischief that he can cause. Turning monitoring of the banking/financial segment over to the Federal Reserve is but one example. I could give you more, but when I really cut loose and start to brainstorm, people accuse me of holding whacko "conspiracy" theories. On the other hand, before this man came into office, how many Americans thought that it was any longer possible for American president to purposefully deceive the American people in order to launch a full-scale invasion of a sovereign state that posed no immediate (or even long-distance) threat to us for the sole purpose of removing that country's head of state and building a bunch of permanent military bases? Granted, on at least three occasions past Presidents have lied to take us into war (Mexico, Spain and Vietnam) ... but I think most of us always thought that such practice could only happen when communication was poor and/or the perceived threat was much more clear. There are, of course, many who still do not wish to accept the fact those three "wars" were all initiated through deception and subterfuge.

That said ... you will note that I am not one of those folks who think that a President's wrongdoing should be swept under the covers simply because he leaves office. Just as Ken Lay's widow should be forced to repay all the money her husband stole, so too should the President and the Vice President be held personally responsible for all the losses this country has suffered because of their irresponsible, deceitful, and criminal actions.

However, just because I think actions leading us into war, as well as plenty of other actions of this administration, are irresponsible, deceitful, and criminal does not make them so. I am one person, with but an opinion and no concrete evidence with which to prove my assertion(s). I realize I am not the only one ... but numbers alone do not make false claims true. This is why, in another thread, I urge the Congress to get on with its business and to be a little more aggressive in seeking answers to many of the unanswered questions raised about this administration's actions. If such investigations are held, and they prove no wrong doing has taken place -- so long as they are open, transparent, and available for the general public to witness -- then I am more than willing to acknowledge the broader wisdom of the majority of our elected representatives and let the matter rest. But we are talking about potentially very serious high crimes and misdemeanors, here -- not simple perjury over a matter of consensual sex.

shays
shays's picture

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 825

My bad ... posted in the wrong place ...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate the change.