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 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Economics
47 comments | Share | Flag

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.
SOURCE URL: http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2020/05/tinas-orgy-anything-goes-winners-take.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Abaco 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Just this weekend I was talking to my son about keeping an open mind about leaving the US...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Aurum79 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Ayn Rand gave us the script! You take all your goodness- capital, intelligence, energy, hard work, and you leave and let the dolts destroy themselves. We can do this in the continental US- it's a big place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
        The continental US is a big place. However if everywhere you go there are statists who are willing to turn in a freeman. If everyone's behavior is being tracked all the time with contact tracing there is nowhere and nothing that can be done that won't be watched and controlled.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by chad 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Where to go? Almost all the countries in the world have signed on to the plandemic scare and have opted in for absolute control in order to 'feel' safe. I don't think any country is 100% safe, some may be inept at control and thereby provide means to remain unobserved and not tormented by 'officials'.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Where would you go?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
        I don't have a specific place in mind. I am searching for someplace that is small and inept. It may be that the only way to remain free will be to find a way to remain unobserved.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Aurum79 1 month, 1 week ago
        It would be a matter of concentrating what we would call the "virtue" (all the things I detailed above) in small areas here and there, inside the US proper. Then let the remaining areas just continue to rot, decay, burn, etc. Creating inequality on purpose to accelerate the destruction of the corrupted parts- just like in AS.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
          While paying as much as half of our production to the enemy state in DC and state propaganda (public school) systems. That solution is only efficient if the swamp is turned to desert and home schooling gives relief from sales and property tax, and people with no children aren't taxed for propaganda mills.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Aurum79 1 month, 1 week ago
            You are correct. Isolation like that is only a partial solution; we would still be part of the corrupt financial system. On a side note- I think the creation of crypto-currency was an attempt to be free of the corrupt monetary system.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    While I don't support bailouts or debt-driven payouts in crises, I do find this paragraph somewhat confusing:

    "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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Aurum79 1 month, 1 week ago
      These are good questions. Might find the answers with some research- find someone who was around when these rules were put in place, and ask them the reasoning.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I look forward to how Trump destroys the central banking system and brings us back to a private banking system. He has already merged the Federal reserve with the Treasury...next move should be a checkmate...we'll just have to wait and see.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by chad 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I doubt if Trump's 'merger' has accomplished what you think. It has given the federal reserve more power over the supply of money. The only course of action that would have any affect would be one, abolish the federal reserve and all use of fiat currency and two use a money that meets the requirements of; holds its value, cannot be counterfeited, does not decay or change: as in gold and silver. Commodities that take effort to produce, are easily recognizable and accepted by most if not all and does not deteriorate or lose value.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
        What I hope is that the merger will give the Federal Government the ability to conduct an audit of the Federal Reserve. I'm sure the results would raise some eyebrows...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
          To hope is not a strategy. That an audit might inspire some trepidation and then change is to seek the rulers permission to change and seeking assistance from the majority is to try to find a desire for liberty where there is none. It is the majority after all that gave permission for the existence of immarality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
            As I am neither a policy-maker nor in any way otherwise directly involved, I must rely on the workings of others - thus hope.

            What is the alternative? Armed insurrection? Economic collapse? Defeatism gets us nowhere...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    The argument is fairly convincing.

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Secession is the one possibly peaceful action if the corporate corruption and just-us system can't be reformed. The other option available at present is to break away from the consumer addiction and buy necessities from local sources forcing collapse on the corrupt internationals. In either case the corporate corrupt state will use every power to maintain power. A peaceful return to individual liberty may not be possible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Secession? Like what the South tried and which precipitated a civil war? I'm not thinking that's such a good idea...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
          Lincoln fought the civil war to prove that people do not have the right to govern themselves in the manner they deem appropriate. As Lysander Spooner pointed out at that time; Lincoln won the war and the state made slaves of all the citizens.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 1 week ago
            Public sentiment of the time-
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
            That's some pretty revisionist history there. I'd suggest reading the Oxford History of the United States for a more balanced and comprehensive view. I've read the first four (Pre-Constitution, 1789-1807, 1807-1840, 1840-1865) and I'm on the next one (Reconstruction and the Gilded Age). Lincoln didn't want war and held out the olive branch to the end, but the pro-slavery South wasn't having any of it. And, unfortunately, Lincoln was assassinated before we could see what kind of peacetime President he would have been. (His successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson, was a racist and policy disaster.) As these history books point out, the Presidents at those times didn't have the huge bureaucracies behind them to implement sweeping change - it was the Legislatures who charted the course of history in many cases and these have always represented faction and policy splits.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
              Historical propaganda is neither balanced or comprehensive regardless of the source.
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                As far as history books go, these are the best I've found, examining the topics in great detail from a variety of angles. Each book spends over 800 pages covering a relatively short period of time yet containing an additional 80+ pages of references, many of which are documents from the times.

                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                  I have posted the books repeatedly that support my statements with valid documentation. You have seen me post them before and you haven't read them. You can't make a valid judgement without reading them.
                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                    I looked at one of the ones you sent (don't remember which right now) and it was clear from the tone in the first chapter that the author had an axe to grind; I wasn't particularly impressed. That's the same approach used by the 1619 project: confirmation bias. I might go back and take another look, but not until I finish the Oxford series and The Creature of Jekyll Island.

                    "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?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                      Slavery wasn't the issue you think it was because you haven't read the detailed history that includes original writings that can't be disputed.

                      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.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                        "Slavery wasn't the issue you think it was because you haven't read the detailed history that includes original writings that can't be disputed."

                        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.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                          You admit that you made up your mind without reading any of the supporting data in the books. I see no reason to waste my time further.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                            "You admit that you made up your mind..."

                            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?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                Thanks for the thumbs down. That's what I expect from people who don't bother considering historical documentation unless it supports your view of historical propaganda.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                  You haven't made a case. All you've done is berate me for not agreeing with you. Present the evidence for me to look at, but right now I don't have time for an entire book. If you would be so kind as to give me a few excerpts, I will look at them. But as I already said, the book will have to wait for another time.

                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          "one possibly peaceful action" is not a civil war which I agree would likely result in less liberty as it did in the 19th century. The federal government could be just as corrupt today as it was in 1860; the offenses it imposes on the people's liberty are certainly worse today. A peaceful return to individual liberty may not be possible.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I agree. Peaceful return to individual liberty could only happen if a LOT of the people just quietly refused to support the governmental system. Not likely to happen, as our government would imprison, kill, and maim those people before it gave up (look at Hong Kong)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I listened to a very interesting rebuttal of the 1619 Project by a libertarian historian yesterday (https://youtu.be/-KBiHKx54sg). He brought up the notion of blaming Lincoln for every evil which has befallen this nation since and pointed out several things:
            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.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Isnt it all about politicians doing things to get re-elected ?? Even Trump. Remember his first question to the scarf lady and the 30 year bureaucrat fear monger was "what happens if we do nothing and let the virus play itself out". They came up with over 2 million deaths (probably heavily exaggerated) and Trump had to play into the shutdown. Too bad. Now we have a destroyed economy for a longer than we expected time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo