Fed Bailout the Too Big To Fail's Orgy - Your share of the orgy is a bowl of thin gruel to keep up your debt service so the TBTF's stay afloat
Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 11 months ago to Economics
there is no alternative. We have to bail out the greedy corporations that borrowed billions to buy back their own stocks, the corporations that sold junk debt to finance their bonuses and dividends, the financiers who bought the risky debt, the speculators who front-run the Fed's purchases of assets and on and on in an endless parade of fraud and corruption--because if we don't bail out the speculators and other parasites, the whole financial system will implode and that would be terrible.
Terrible for who? To answer the question, we need to ponder the fundamental nature of the Fed and our financial system, which can be summarized in one line: anything goes, and winners take all.
Anything goes, because money buys political influence and so what was once illegal--buying back your own stock, advertising medications directly to consumers, etc.-- are not just made legal but normalized by constant propaganda in the corporate media that these forms of legalized looting are good for the nation because... well, that doesn't matter, just take our word for it.
When anything goes, the winners take all. This is how we've ended up with a unstable, fragile economy dominated by a handful of corporations in each sector whose sole purpose is to maximize profits by any means available, and it just so happens the most profitable arrangements are monopoly and cartels, and so that's what we have: an economy of high costs, enormous profits, low-quality goods and services for the bottom 95% and an extreme concentration of wealth and income in the hands of the winners.
Terrible for who? To answer the question, we need to ponder the fundamental nature of the Fed and our financial system, which can be summarized in one line: anything goes, and winners take all.
Anything goes, because money buys political influence and so what was once illegal--buying back your own stock, advertising medications directly to consumers, etc.-- are not just made legal but normalized by constant propaganda in the corporate media that these forms of legalized looting are good for the nation because... well, that doesn't matter, just take our word for it.
When anything goes, the winners take all. This is how we've ended up with a unstable, fragile economy dominated by a handful of corporations in each sector whose sole purpose is to maximize profits by any means available, and it just so happens the most profitable arrangements are monopoly and cartels, and so that's what we have: an economy of high costs, enormous profits, low-quality goods and services for the bottom 95% and an extreme concentration of wealth and income in the hands of the winners.
"Anything goes, because money buys political influence and so what was once illegal--buying back your own stock, advertising medications directly to consumers, etc.-- are not just made legal but normalized by constant propaganda in the corporate media that these forms of legalized looting are good for the nation because... well, that doesn't matter, just take our word for it."
Why should a corporation NOT be able to buy back its stock? It issued it in the first place...
Why should a company NOT be able to market its products to generate demand and influence potential customers? What makes this industry different from others that it should be gagged in the first place?
What is the alternative? Armed insurrection? Economic collapse? Defeatism gets us nowhere...
What is the way out for individuals?
What, if anything, should governments do?
I mean not just last century when unbalanced budgets came in and fractional reserve banking and the other Keynesian actions were invented - but now?
an easy to stir feeling in the public about some moral problem.
Fixing the problem requires no cost to the public (it says here), It was not the plan but the good part was achieved, on paper, slavery was abolished in law tho' not in fact, the cost was horrendous. At the end of the war, the moral posturers who write the histories claimed a great victory even tho' living conditions, and political rights were no better than before, or worse.
Yes the moral issue was long standing, but the impetus for violence was the need to preserve protection of monopolistic industries. When big money talks virtue with a friendly face, the open hand is for taking not giving.
Lincoln was a dictator and a war criminal.
Fortunately he was assassinated. Unfortunately that just made the treasonous looter into a martyr and people still believe the lies told to raise him to saint Abe. Unfortunately the other treasonous mass murderer and war criminal, Grant, was elected the next president (since voters in the south were enslaved and prevented from voting against the military dictatorship); individual liberty was destroyed.
As far as the other invective, since neither of us lived during the period, all we have is subjective interpretation. You're welcome to believe what you want, but I find no support for such inflammatory and extreme accusations. If the South had been willing to support human rights and individual liberty in the first place, none of it would have happened. That they persisted not only in supporting slavery and racism but pressing for its expansion came with tragic consequences to the entire nation. Let us hope we can learn from it.
You stating what "The South" represented is about as accurate as saying what all NYers think or what all Americans think, or what all Germans thought during WW2.
The tragic consequences were Lincoln's doing. He didn't even give the congress the chance to approve or disapprove. That is the action of a dictator.
"You stating what "The South" represented is about as accurate as saying what all NYers think or what all Americans think, or what all Germans thought during WW2."
Yes, yes, claim of fallacy of inclusion. You and I both know that I'm talking about the majority because that is how those states voted - and not just once. Slavery had been the hot-button issue since the Articles of Confederation. The 3/5 compromise was wholly a result of the South's desire to cling to their "peculiar institution." The Founders operated on the assumption that the institution of slavery would fade away as it became less viable. The development of short-staple cotton (and the cotton gin) and the import of sugar cane undid that notion even as the South was trying to find ways around the 1807 prohibition of the slave trade. And due to the profitability of those commodities - especially in international trade - the demand for slaves to support these industries rose.
Furthermore, the 3/5 compromise gave the South political control of the nation right up to the 1860 elections, resulting in an effectual veto over any resolutions deemed detrimental to the institution of chattel slavery, as well as the ability to pass legislation such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave laws. Even Lincoln's running mate was a Democrat from Tennessee - a direct play for Southern votes! Indeed, what is interesting is that for a group supposedly advocating for States' Rights and a limited Federal Government, the Southern States voted to increase the size of the Federal Government solely to increase enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act!
The fact remains that the Southern States voted to secede and many of those votes were ridiculously one-sided. Several of those votes were taken before Lincoln even assumed office, the others taking place only a few months afterward. Asserting that Lincoln caused the Civil War is outright fallacy. The South incited it - and why? It's right there in their Letters of Secession - which ALL bring up the slavery they were becoming less able to maintain by legislative means. Immigration and the industrialization of the North in the mid 1800's began to stranglehold previously enjoyed by the South. This alarmed the Southerners and there began calls for secession even in the 1840's - predating the Republican Party and Lincoln by nearly two decades.
The South turned to force of arms because they believed their cause to be just. But neither their moral justifications nor appeals to Divine Providence nor any other nation on Earth were enough. Were they victims of Lincoln or Grant... or were they victims of their own hubris and inherently flawed ideology - an ideology of oppression and coercion they refused to give up willingly?
You looked at reviews of the book by the statists who cover Abe Lincoln's treasonous ass because they have a vested interest in continuing to get federal money and keep their positions in academia. You didn't read them and you can't judge the issue because you only have a one-sided biased set of data. You are accepting it like the Democrats accept CNN as gospel truth. This appears to be completely unlike your approach on other topics.
All your other commentary above is biased because you have stopped considering the possibility of flaws in the data and you don't want to accept any evidence that doesn't agree with your existing view.
One thing you said right. The south's cause was just and it had nothing to do with slavery. They were being taxed to death and they refused to pay to support the northern industrialists who wanted to loot them. But you'll never know if this is true or not because you have closed your mind.
I'm not sure what other "evidence" you want to submit, but I'll look at it just as soon as you admit the various Letters of Secession as the sovereign Will of the Peoples of those several States at that time. Given that those were created by the individual legislatures of the States in question and then ratified by popular vote in each State, they are not only authoritative but official documents representing the public sentiment of the time - not just one individual's interpretation given 150 years later.
"This appears to be completely unlike your approach on other topics."
Which should throw up a flag...
"You looked at reviews of the book by the statists who cover Abe Lincoln's treasonous ass because they have a vested interest in continuing to get federal money and keep their positions in academia."
I didn't read any reviews of the books you recommended, I read the first chapter - myself - of the one book. I found it so dripping with bias I had no desire to continue reading at that time.
"All your other commentary above is biased because you have stopped considering the possibility of flaws in the data and you don't want to accept any evidence that doesn't agree with your existing view."
If you want to persuade me to change my opinion, you have to provide me something to think about. Use excerpts from the book you hold as authoritative if you want. Bring out some of the arguments you say I'm not factoring in. But you have to do more than simply accuse me of not being open-minded. Good grief, I read four 800-page+ books with the intent of educating myself better regarding American History!
Is every view of history going to be perfect? No. But the pervasiveness of the topic of slavery throughout the history of the new republic is such that it colors nearly everything leading up to the Civil War. To argue that the most contentious pieces of legislation from 1807 to 1860 had nothing to do with slavery is to ignore the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Slave laws, and many more. I'm just not willing to prejudice an objective inquiry like that.
I would also point out that the notion that the South was a victim/minority in the US Legislature just isn't borne out in either the Census or its resulting Representation in Congress. The South controlled a majority in the House from 1789 to 1856 (Democrats pretty much ran things from Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln), 50% of the Senate and eight of the first seventeen Presidents. No legislation - including taxation - passed without at least some of them voting "Aye." Was economics a part? Sure. But what was the basis for the economic system used by the South that they were trying to protect? Chattel slavery-produced commodities, chiefly cotton.
I said no such thing. You want to paint me as unreasonable. Why? Why the need for a rush to judgment when the subjects have been dead for 150+ years? And based on what, exactly? You won't say anything other than "read the book." Again - I already have three fairly lengthy studies before me - two of which directly pertain to the matter at hand. All others will have to wait.
I will take this opportunity to interpose a mirror in this conversation and ask if you are willing to honestly subject yourself to the same criticism you level at me: have YOU made up your mind without reading other supporting data (i.e. the Letters of Secession)? Maybe before getting angry at me, you might just want to take a step back and ask yourself why it matters so much to condemn a man who lived 150 years ago that are willing to destroy a relationship with a living individual?
In return, however, acknowledging the Letters of Secession would go a long ways towards establishing your objectivity in this investigation. Continuing to refuse to do so in spite of repeated claims of reliance on historical documentation smacks of the most egregious bias and hypocrisy.
1. Lincoln was assassinated before he was able to guide the nation through reconstruction/reconciliation. Andrew Johnson - his successor and Vice President - wasn't a Republican but a Northern Democrat chosen as Lincoln's running mate for political purposes. Johnson was thrown out of office for his policies and replaced by Grant - a military general with little experience in politics. In other words, many libertarians blame Lincoln for the federal government during the war but fail to acknowledge that he had no opportunity to actually demonstrate his peacetime policies.
2. Many of the changes to our federal government were actually due to the Progressives such as Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900's. That included the Federal Reserve, the personal income tax, as well as the Seventeenth Amendment which gutted States' representations in the Senate. Those actions took place two generations after Lincoln.
(He also begins his rebuttal by taking on the notion of "King Cotton" and the numbers used in the 1619 Project by pointing out that in reality, cotton was about 5% of the GDP of the nation - not the 50% cited.)