Our Economic Malaise: It’s The Banksters, Stupid
And so November rears its chilly head — in northern climes, anyway — with Europe having avoided a financial meltdown for the time being and the U.S. showing tentative signs that the hangover from the Great Recession may at long last be easing.
Bully for that, you might say, but I say bullspit.
This is because banksters (which conveniently rhymes with gangsters) are at the heart of the economic malaise here and across the pond, but whether it is here or over there the solution is the same: Banks must be bailed out but you and I must do the bailing.
The effects of this have been ginormous in the U.S. and in Europe, as well, because a crisis brought on by rampant government deregulation and aided and abetted by scandalous bankster behavior triggered mass unemployment and austerity measures in which job growth was choked off.
Paul Krugman put it this way in The New York Times:
“This doctrine was sold both with claims that there was no alternative — that both bailouts and spending cuts were necessary to satisfy financial markets — and with claims that fiscal austerity would actually create jobs. The idea was that spending cuts would make consumers and businesses more confident. And this confidence would supposedly stimulate private spending, more than offsetting the depressing effects of government cutbacks.”
Krugman, as usual, is spot on and as a member of what I refer to as the world’s second oldest profession, sees things clearly when many other economists and certain politicians do not:
* Like the notion that the way to end an economic downturn is not to stimulate the economy but to inhibit it, which is the flavor of the moment in the Republican House caucus.
* That trickle-down economics works, a GOP meme now so thoroughly discredited that the concept was recently rebadged as “income mobility” by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.
* And that all regulations and restrictions on Wall Street and the financial markets should be removed, which was a key feature of Representative Paul Ryan late, unlamented Reverse Robin Hood deficit reduction plan, and an idea that certainly has not gone away.
Despite the GOP’s relentless efforts to nominate someone who has no chance of beating Barack Obama in 2012, there is still a chance that he will be a one-termer.
That is a scary prospect but nowhere more so than when it comes to managing the economy. This is because to the very last man (sorry, Michele) the Republican wannabes support down-the-rabbit-hole pro-bankster plans that would further widen the gap between the rich and middle class and in the process punish the elderly, the poor and the infirm.
(It is also worth noting that Europe avoided an economic meltdown last week because the banksters blinked. No such thing has happened here, although several major U.S. banks have rolled back or have decided not to introduce debit card fees after a substantial backlash from their customers.)
I was talking to a friend the other day about why the GOP is so dead set against helping anyone other than the 1 percenters that Occupy Wall Street protesters are all afoam over.
Now this guy and I have a few brain cells to rub together, but neither of us could come up with an explanation other than avarice and greed. With Republican economic analyses so thoroughly discredited — chief among them that it was government alone and not the banksters who caused the Great Recession and its after effects — can there be any other explanation?
Cartoon via whatnowtoons.com
7 Responses to “Our Economic Malaise: It’s The Banksters, Stupid”
Your two foaming at the mouth articles, loaded with great vitriol, begs the question. How could these blood sucking vampires, the Reps, of which I am one, and the “banksters”, could have gotten to be so prominent and wide-spread? Is it the water, nah. Maybe, global change emitting radiation only effecting certain vulnerable people.
I keep thinking of Lon Chaney seeking out the little old woman, Maria Ouspenskaya, to cure him of his terrible affliction. At least he only pillaged on full-moon nights, while the Reps are always urinating on the poor and the frail, as Shaun says. What is the cure? Can Obama fix things? Tune in.
dduck:
How did they get so powerful? That’s easy: By rigging the game.
You can do better than that. Even rigging the game needs more of an explanation.
The banksters will be the target of author Mullen’s immoderation until it’s the turn of the GOP or another target of his once more.
I can do better than ‘Rigging the Game’. The Wall Street firms contribute substantial amounts of money to the campaigns of BOTH parties. That way, they can ‘gain access’ no matter who wins. That is how one rigs the game. There are some other subtleties, but that’s it in a nutshell.
The one glimpse of hope in a seemingly hopeless situation is the internet. China has hired thousands to try to drown out the opposition through repetition–and they are failing! The same can be done here. Just as anyone with a printing press could get his message out 250 years ago; anyone with a computer has a ‘chance’ to be heard. This is, if I am reading things correctly, what the OWS people are (more or less) trying to say (and do).
We the People are us. In a one person-one vote situation the 99% can vote in anything (they may have to alter the constitution but, hey, been there done that). Incidentally, I do have a suggestion for beginning the long process back to sanity:
Way to fix the obscene compensation in corporations
First off, we are talking only about corporations that are publicly owned and operate in more than one state (or operate internationally). Such corporations are supposed to be regulated by the federal government due to interstate commerce clause in the constitution. The reason it should only apply to publicly owned corporations is that if someone privately owns a corporation, he is entitled to its profits as a matter of fairness.
1. No one is allowed to have a salary (including bonuses—see exceptions below) more than 10 times (or 20) that of the lowest paid person working for the corporation. This includes those who are ‘contracted’ to do work for the company and spend the majority of their time (or the most time of any place they work in similar contract) for that company (think contracted cleaning crew, etc)
2. Exceptions to the above include those who cause the corporation to immediately realize the fruits of the their labor. Examples would include artists (singers, etc), professional athletes and sales people who sell items that allow the corporation to get the money immediately (not some promise of money in the future). Since these people cause the corporation to get the money immediately, they should be allowed to get their commision (or whatever) immediately.
3. Employees may be given stock options that are set at the price when the options are issued or the price of the stock when the employee got his job—whichever is HIGHER! For those who don’t know how stock options work: you get the right to purchase stock at a guaranteed price, regardless of what the price at the market is. This would allow top management to earn those bloated salaries—but only if they get the corporation’s stock to rise in price!
4. The stock options offered above can not be used until three years after they have been awarded. This will make it that management will not make short-sighted, potentially dangerous or risky decisions since much of their compensation will depend on the long-term viability of the corporation.
R, you make it sound like you have the holy grail of why the Reps and Banksters are so prevalent. So they give money to both parties, and sometimes equally. OK, so that pollutes the water, I get it, so far. So then, how come the Dems don’r turn out to be as evil as the Reps and banksters? And how come Soros and other billionaires can’t cancel out the evil billionaires.
Other than that, I agree with you, compensation is out of hand and bonuses that you and I will pay ($12 million) to execs at FNMA, without our vote is egregious as is the over bonusing done by private corporations with a board of directors deciding and shareholders free to complain or exit, as a contrast.
Duck lemme explain how a small group maintains such dominance. Lets say I run a pretty large company, once that can afford $20 million to spend on trying to get elected officials to do what I want. Things I want:
1) Dismantling of regulations or laws that impede my business practices or affect the profitability of them in any way.
2) Failing that, to have sway over or an end around those who are responsible for implementing regulations. If I can control them its basically the same thing as there being no regulation in the first place
3) Influence on the distribution of government dollars, either in specialized spending or tax shelters/breaks, that will benefit my company or industry.
4) Lowest possible taxation of my income.
Now I have money to spend, who do I give it to? Well as luck would have it there is an entire industry of guys called lobbyists whose sole purpose is to be a paid advocate for me in these matters. This is especially good for me because the average voter has no such advocate, and a good chunk of what I want is going to impact them negatively. These lobbyists know which politicians to talk to, how much money they need, and how to get them elected or re-elected. Whats more, there are likely other related businesses who have similar goals to mine. We can form a group, pool our resources to maximize the pressure we can put on politicians to do things our way. For the sake of argument lets call this organization the US Chamber of Commerce.
Now I’ve got money to spend, lobbyists to voice my case, and politicians sucking greedily from my ever flowing teet. But how do I get the voters too keep electing these politicians even when much of what I want is not in the publics best interests? Well it turns out regulation of big businesses like mine is a dreary mind numbing endevour comprised of complicated issues not in the general layman’s area of expertise. So it also turns out its not too tough to get voters to focus on something easier to digest. If I can get some people to focus on side issues like gun control, or abortion, something far easier to pitch and much more visceral to many voters, I can sneak my undermining of the general welfare right under the radar.
I mean if I can convince 23% of my base that 2 years into office our president is a foreign born muslim, surely I can muddle the vageries of progressive vs. flat tax programs enough to confuse even most of the ones that are paying attn right? I can actually get voters to vote for those working against their own best interests. I once heard tell of a man who told a nation in recession it was all their fault and he still shot up in the polls! Anything is possible if you control the message, and the voters are gullible.