Aftermath

I should probably wait a few days or weeks before writing my reaction to last night's national insanity exhibition. But I doubt I'll "level out" on what has happened. First off, what part of Mr. Obama's "fixing this will take a long time" did people not understand? Did anyone seriously expect all this mess to be cleaned up in two years? Or is it really just that people are only concerned about their own situation and everyone else can just---well, worry about their own situation? Let me say this slowly, so there can be no misunderstanding: we have been digging this hole for 30 years. It will take a bit longer than two years to climb out of it. Thirty years, that's right. Since Reagan. Dear Ronnie, so classically American in so many ways. Carter began the deregulation frenzy with oil, hoping the oil companies would plow their new profits into development of American resources in the aftermath of the first major OPEC embargo. Reagan was surrounded by the rest of the business community, who whispered into his ear, sweetly, oh so sweetly, "Take the restraints off, Ronnie, and we will build you that shining city on the hill all those Moral Majority types are going on about." So he did. And that started it. (Unlike others, I am inclined to believe that Reagan was naive about this. I think he was from that generation that actually trusted people of a certain stature, relied on native patriotism, and so was completely blindsided by the corporate vampires who talked him into deregulating damn near everything. I think he expected them to reinvest in America, not start the whole ugly off-shore account boom and the outsourcing of American jobs. Inclined, I say, but not willing to give him a complete pass. Because along with that, Reagan oversaw the foreign take over of hundreds of American businesses, many of which were involved in basic research and development and manufactured things vital to our national interest. Throughout the 80s, one company after another was bought by Japanese, British, German, French, and occasionally Korean interests and the result was a serious hemorrhage of expertise, know-how, and manufacturing capacity, not to mention the loss of good-paying, high-tech jobs as those businesses were all moved out of the United States and to their new host countries. Why did he do this? Because Reagan was a traditional conservative who believed government should have nothing to do with private sector business, either pro or con, and he refused to establish an "industrial policy" that would have protected these businesses. At the time there was a tremendous wave of sentiment opposed to protectionism, which smacked of a "liberal" or at least Democratic program, but in hind sight clearly was all about keeping international boundaries as open as possible for the multinationals that have presided over the disemboweling of our economy.) Deregulation has been the culture in Washington ever since. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingAftermath

An alternative to capitalism working its way into every corner of society – the story of the commons

Media Education Foundation recently released a new documentary titled "This Land is Our Land." The video is critical of fair market fundamentalism, arguing that the idea of "the public commons" is fundamental to America's past successes. "We forget what the commons is and why it matters." Air, water, government research, community garden, public forests, public libraries, the G.I. Bill, material protected by only limited copyright and the public airwaves. Some states named themselves "commonwealths." The idea of the commons has been with us forever. Even Babylon had nature preserves. "This Land is Our Land," narrated by David Bollier, offers dozens of examples of the importance of the commons. The idea of public property is critically important: "We have a moral personal connection with it." Yet those who dare to honor this age-old idea of the commons now face blistering allegations that they are communists, or at least socialists.  Bollier runs a website titled "On the Commons."   At that site you can read a well written article titled, "Why the Commons Matters Right Now." What is hard to miss is that recognizing the importance of the commons is often not convenient to corporate interests. Especially amazing is the section of the documentary discussing the fact that, according to a law from the mid-1800s, companies have, with out any payment reaped great profits from public lands. What we have today is the "enclosure of the commons," the process by which the commons is clawed back from The People. A prime example is the fact that huge telecoms are currently working hard to gain control over the Internet, incrementally winning the battle over those who are fighting for net neutrality (And see this speech by Senator Al Franken). Perhaps the most salient part of the documentary is the opening story about Jonas Salk, who refused to apply for a patent on his polio vaccine. When Edward Murrow asked him, "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?." Those with possible interest in purchasing,"The Land is Our Land," can view a low-res version of the entire documentary here.

Continue ReadingAn alternative to capitalism working its way into every corner of society – the story of the commons

Who’s Afraid of the Tea Party, or, What Are Those Silly People Talking About?

At a Rand Paul rally, a woman who intended to present Paul with an ironic award (Employee of the Month from RepubliCorps) was assaulted by Paul supporters, shoved to the ground, and then stepped on. Police had nothing to do with this, it was all the supporters of one of the Tea Party leading lights. What they thought she intended to do may never be known, but they kept their candidate safe from the possibility of enduring satire and questions not drawn from the current playbook of independent American politics. Another Tea Party candidate, Steve Broden of Texas, has allowed that armed rebellion is not “off the table” should the mid-term elections not go their way. Sharron Angle of Nevada alluded to “second amendment remedies” in a number of interviews in the past six months. “Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government,” Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. “In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” Next to this kind of rhetoric, the vapidity of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware is more or less harmless and amusing. In a recent debate with her opponent she appeared not to know that the much-debated Separation Clause is in the First Amendment. Of course, a close hearing of that exchange suggests that what she was looking for was the exact phrase “separation of Church and State” which is not in the First Amendment. She thought she had won that exchange, as, apparently, did her staff, and they expressed dismay later when they were portrayed as having lost. The best you could give her is points for trying to make a point through disingenuous literalism. Not understanding the case law that has been built on the phrase that is in the First Amendment does not argue well for her qualifications to even have an opinion on the matter. Leading this apparently unself-critical menagerie is Sarah Palin, who despite having a dismal record in office and a clear problem with stringing sentences together has become the head cheerleader for a movement that seems poised to upset elements of both parties in the midterms. It’s one thing to throw darts and poke fun at the candidates, many of whom sound as if they have drawn their history from the John Wayne school of Hollywood hagiography and propaganda. But the real question is why so many people seem to support them. A perusal of the Tea Party website shows a list of issues over which supposedly grass roots concern is fueling the angry election season. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWho’s Afraid of the Tea Party, or, What Are Those Silly People Talking About?

William Black: Stop the banks. Indict the banksters.

Wire fraud and mail fraud are extremely serious federal crimes. Thousands of people who have perpetrated fraud through the mail or through telecommunications of any sort have been sent to prison for up to 20 years.  The U.S. Department of Justice warns that prosecution of wire fraud is not always merited, however. Prosecutorial resources should not be expended where fraud is a small piddling crime. For example:

Prosecutions of fraud ordinarily should not be undertaken if the scheme employed consists of some isolated transactions between individuals, involving minor loss to the victims, in which case the parties should be left to settle their differences by civil or criminal litigation in the state courts. Serious consideration, however, should be given to the prosecution of any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.
What, then, should we make of the decision by the biggest banks in the United States to spew millions of lies through the mail in the zealous attempts to kick people out of their houses?  Everything about this bank fraud meets the test for serious fraud.  Not isolated.  Not between individuals.  Not involving minor losses to victims.  The victims, for the most part, cannot settle their differences by litigation because they have been put into desperate financial situations by the lenders, working hand-in-hand with the bank.  And yes, this scheme is directed to defrauding a large class of persons, and the general public is going to suffer the consequences of this "substantial pattern of conduct," namely, the large tracts of foreclosed homes in their neighborhoods. Note too, that the federal fraud statutes kick up the penalty to up to 30 years in prison "if the violation affects a financial institution."  Of course, the politicians and bank are going to argue that the increased penalty only applies if the institution is the victim. Then maybe it's time to pull out that wonderful quote by Anatole France:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

In steps bank regulator/investigator William Black, into the fray.  Black is one of the few nationally prominent voices I completely trust with it comes to the conduct of banks over the past few years (and yes, decade).  Here is the solution Black offers, one that politicians are going to choke on because the banks own Congress.

S&L regulators, criminologists, and economists recognize that the same recipe that produced guaranteed, record (fictional) accounting income (and executive compensation) until 2007 produced another guarantee: massive (real) losses, particularly if the frauds hyper-inflated a bubble. CEOs who loot "their" banks do so by perverting the bank into a wealth destroying monster -- a control fraud. What could be worse than deliberately growing massively by making loans likely to default, converting large amounts of bank assets to the personal benefit of the senior officers looting the bank and to those the CEO suborns to assist his looting (appraisers, auditors, attorneys, economists, rating agencies, and politicians), while simultaneously providing minimal capital (extreme leverage) and only grossly inadequate loss reserves, and causing bubbles to hyper-inflate?

This nation's most elite bankers originated and packaged fraudulent nonprime loans that destroyed wealth -- and working class families' savings -- at a prodigious rate never seen before in the history of white-collar crime. They created the worst bubble in financial history, echo epidemics of fraud among elite professionals, loan brokers, and loan servicers, and would (if left to their own devices) have caused the Second Great Depression.

Nothing short of removing all senior officers who directed, committed, or acquiesced in fraud can be effective against control fraud. We repeat: Foreclosure fraud is the necessary outcome of the epidemic of mortgage fraud that began early this decade. The banks that are foreclosing on fraudulently originated mortgages frequently cannot produce legitimate documents and have committed "fraud in the inducement." Now, only fraud will let them take the homes. Many of the required documents do not exist, and those that do exist would provide proof of the fraud that was involved in loan origination, securitization, and marketing. This in turn would allow investors to force the banks to buy-back the fraudulent securities. In other words, to keep the investors at bay the foreclosing banks must manufacture fake documents. If the original documents do not exist the securities might be ruled no good. If the original docs do exist they will demonstrate that proper underwriting was not done -- so the securities might be no good. Foreclosure fraud is the only thing standing between the banks and Armageddon.

I should add that there are many cases where foreclosure is perfectly appropriate.  On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of cases where disreputable loan originators such as Ameriquest and Countrywide systematically lied to borrowers, sticking them into loans that the borrowers had no hope of paying off when the hyper-charged "adjustable rate mortgage" came into effect two or three years later.  Add in the deceitful "yield spread premiums," hidden fees and the many lies about prepayment penalties, and you've got enough fraud to fill the courts of this land for many years to come, where banks who foreclosed based on these shameful scenarios should be punished and forced to make amends to the homeowners.   That is what should happen.

Continue ReadingWilliam Black: Stop the banks. Indict the banksters.

Is the Supreme Court biased towards corporations?

I wrote last week about the plutocracy or corporatocracy which has emerged as the dominant force in American politics. Today, Bloomberg News has a teaser article up featuring an interview with Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed to the court by Bill Clinton in 1994. Before I get into the substance of the post, permit me to point out that Bloomberg News is a subsidiary of Bloomberg L.P., a company with revenues in the billions of dollars, and owned by Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City and America's 10th richest person. See how money, the media and politics all work together? And I'm sure this was entirely coincidental, but Bloomberg TV was severely reprimanded a few years ago in the United Kingdom for breaching British rules on broadcasts before elections. It seems that Bloomberg covered the Labour Party's "Business Manifesto", but failed to provide equal coverage to the Conservative or Liberal Democratic parties.

Continue ReadingIs the Supreme Court biased towards corporations?