Def: Tumbrel, Noun. A two wheeled horse cart with sides, similar to a dray.
Tumbrels were most notably used during the French Revolution to haul the nobility and other offenders off to the guillotine. They were carried barefooted through the streets as the populace spat upon them, threw stones, and the contents of chamber pots at them.
Harsh stuff.
But consider please the "crimes" and excesses of the banks and Wall Street and ask yourself if we ought not to take a few Wall Street Robber Barons for a tumbrel ride.
Consider the $85-billion bailout of AIG, whose executives immediately ganged together to splurge on a $442,000 weekend "retreat" at a posh Southern California resort. No doubt, to recover from the arduous task of putting together one of the biggest con jobs ever perpetrated on the American taxpayer.
Where are the tumbrels?
Consider the ensuing multi-billion dollar bailout of the banking industry and its more than five-million mortgage loans to indigents, credit risks, and under capitalized speculators. Those mortgage loans have been euphemized as "Toxic Assets". Toxic? I reckon. Assets? Hah!
Where are the tumbrels?
Remember when the first shoe hit the floor? I'll remind you. Lehaman Brothers or was it Bear Sterns? BS, I think. The stock was degraded and then the company was handed over, lock stock and barrel to JP Morgan. Quickly after that the Fed decided to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We had apt warning that big trouble was coming, and it was going to cost us a ton.
As one insider, supposedly aghast, put it, "if you want to know who is to blame, there are only two places to look: the financiers themselves and the nonfeasance of a feckless SEC!"
Where are the tumbrels?
Enter the FBI. Back in September 2008, the FBI began to take seriously the potential criminality behind these events: Lehman Brothers, Freddie and Fannie, and AIG. In less than a year the wide-reaching inquiry has grown from targeting 14 major firms to at least 26. The G-men (and women) aim is to determine whether any company executives had any responsibility through misinformation, material misinformation, and misstated assets, which caused the financial woes of the institutions being investigated.
Oil up the wheels of the tumbrels! Heads are going to roll!
Coming tomorrow, naming the names of those who should be taking a tumbrel ride.
08 April 2009
07 April 2009
The Real War
I know that some readers will label me as an "economic determinist", which those of a rightest persuasion label as a communist. This is because Marx and Engels postulated that "economic factors underlie all of society's decisions."
One need not be a communist to recognize the validity of the theory as it applies to governments. And herein is the real war being waged in America. The struggle isn't really about labels such Republican and Democrat or Conservative and Liberal, although each cohort subscribes to one of two very different economic theories.
And that is my point. The issue is economics and whether or not our government should pursue Keynesian economic practices or "Friedmaniac" economic theory. One promotes regulation and government spending while the other totters on a three-legged stool of privatization, deregulation, and eliminating government spending on social programs. The other promotes government spending and regulation as a means to control voracious, unrestrained capitalism wielded by greedy self-interests and to insure that wealth does not become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
That is the struggle, and if you're one who thinks Milton Friedman was on the right track, I offer you our current situation. And the experiences of Indonesia, Brazil, Chile and Argentina in preceding decades. We Americans don't do well with history. Ours or any one else's. So to elucidate, each of these countries were treated to the joys of Friedman's University of Chicago's School of Economics theories in practice. Each suffered rampant inflation, run away unemployment, dire social upheaval, and coporatist juntas, brutal dictatorship with torture, disappearances, and mass murder. All resulted from application of Friedman's theories by zealous, right-wing ideologues backed by the CIA and American corporations.
If you doubt this assertion, it behooves you do some research into the role Friedman's economics, the CIA and American corporations played in the turmoil and deconstruction of each of these Latin American nations not too many decades ago.
The unattractive thing about Friedman's economic theories in practice is that they act to concentrate more and more wealth in the coffers of the rich, eliminate a middle class, and increase the number of expendable poor people. Sound familiar?
On the other hand, John Maynard Keynes achieved his greatest prominence during the depression. He recommended to the Roosevelt administration that an increase in government spending along with price controls and other regulations, even if that resulted in deficits, would stimulate consumer demand and thereby reduce unemployment. He argued that cutting government spending or reducing production were not productive and would act to keep prices high and prolong the depression. History has shown him to be absolutely correct.
Some of us, old enough to remember, were the beneficiaries of Keynes' economic theories as we came to maturity in the sixties, which many cite as the best economic times of our nation's history. Certainly there were societal ills; institutionalized racism and sexism, lack of health safety nets for the poor and elderly, and pockets of extreme poverty. I won't drift off into the Great Society and how Republicans attempted and in some cases succeeded in hamstringing programs aimed at correcting these ills, my point is that Keynesian economics works, and demonstrably works quite well.
This is the battle in Washington right now, Keynes versus Friedman. It would appear that the Obama administration has come down on the side of Keynes. Some naysayers claim he is gambling with our future. I'd point them to history and suggest that it dictates that this path is the only intelligent way to go into the future.
One need not be a communist to recognize the validity of the theory as it applies to governments. And herein is the real war being waged in America. The struggle isn't really about labels such Republican and Democrat or Conservative and Liberal, although each cohort subscribes to one of two very different economic theories.
And that is my point. The issue is economics and whether or not our government should pursue Keynesian economic practices or "Friedmaniac" economic theory. One promotes regulation and government spending while the other totters on a three-legged stool of privatization, deregulation, and eliminating government spending on social programs. The other promotes government spending and regulation as a means to control voracious, unrestrained capitalism wielded by greedy self-interests and to insure that wealth does not become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
That is the struggle, and if you're one who thinks Milton Friedman was on the right track, I offer you our current situation. And the experiences of Indonesia, Brazil, Chile and Argentina in preceding decades. We Americans don't do well with history. Ours or any one else's. So to elucidate, each of these countries were treated to the joys of Friedman's University of Chicago's School of Economics theories in practice. Each suffered rampant inflation, run away unemployment, dire social upheaval, and coporatist juntas, brutal dictatorship with torture, disappearances, and mass murder. All resulted from application of Friedman's theories by zealous, right-wing ideologues backed by the CIA and American corporations.
If you doubt this assertion, it behooves you do some research into the role Friedman's economics, the CIA and American corporations played in the turmoil and deconstruction of each of these Latin American nations not too many decades ago.
The unattractive thing about Friedman's economic theories in practice is that they act to concentrate more and more wealth in the coffers of the rich, eliminate a middle class, and increase the number of expendable poor people. Sound familiar?
On the other hand, John Maynard Keynes achieved his greatest prominence during the depression. He recommended to the Roosevelt administration that an increase in government spending along with price controls and other regulations, even if that resulted in deficits, would stimulate consumer demand and thereby reduce unemployment. He argued that cutting government spending or reducing production were not productive and would act to keep prices high and prolong the depression. History has shown him to be absolutely correct.
Some of us, old enough to remember, were the beneficiaries of Keynes' economic theories as we came to maturity in the sixties, which many cite as the best economic times of our nation's history. Certainly there were societal ills; institutionalized racism and sexism, lack of health safety nets for the poor and elderly, and pockets of extreme poverty. I won't drift off into the Great Society and how Republicans attempted and in some cases succeeded in hamstringing programs aimed at correcting these ills, my point is that Keynesian economics works, and demonstrably works quite well.
This is the battle in Washington right now, Keynes versus Friedman. It would appear that the Obama administration has come down on the side of Keynes. Some naysayers claim he is gambling with our future. I'd point them to history and suggest that it dictates that this path is the only intelligent way to go into the future.
06 April 2009
Seeds of Discontent
Seeds! Yep, seeds. Today's topic
Huh? You ask me, what's the deal with seeds.
Well, here's the deal and it is a raw deal for farmers and those of us building home gardens. Or, for that matter, all of us unless you're on a meat only diet.
Congress is about to sneak through, under the cloak of modernization of food safety, HR 875 which is as draconian a bill attacking biodiversity as one could conjure up. Imagine being sent to prison for growing from "heirloom seeds" a few rows of sweet corn.
The bill was introduced by Congress Woman, Rosa DeLauro, whose husband works for Monsanto and is designed to define only their, and other agribusiness, "genetically modified" seeds as safe. This prevents farmers and home gardeners from growing seeds for next year's crop, among other things. The seeds are "engineered" so that they can not be used as seed stock. Quite sterile!
You want seeds? You're going to have to buy them from Monsanto or some other monolithic agribusiness corporation. Buy heirloom seeds (yeah, for the kind of seeds grandpa used to grow those great old roasting ears you remember from your youth) and you could be sent to prison.
Aside from the fact that the genetically modified seeds are supposedly more disease and insect resistant, they do not produce crops that are as tasty as grandpa's. And doesn't it rankle you just a tad that the feds could send you to jail for growing what you wish to grow on your own land. Already there are severe penalties if your crop from heirloom seeds (contaminates) pollinates a neighbor's field of "approved safe" genetically modified corn, or soy beans, or...well now you can fill in the blanks.
Additionally, as written, the bill is vague, leaving open the potential of a "seed czar" in the federal bureaucracy with the power to create new regulations and definitions to insure that Monsanto and other huge agribusiness corporations holds, under penalty---including prison, onto the seed franchise in America.
To learn more and to take action against HR 875 go to:
Stop HR 875 Action Page
Huh? You ask me, what's the deal with seeds.
Well, here's the deal and it is a raw deal for farmers and those of us building home gardens. Or, for that matter, all of us unless you're on a meat only diet.
Congress is about to sneak through, under the cloak of modernization of food safety, HR 875 which is as draconian a bill attacking biodiversity as one could conjure up. Imagine being sent to prison for growing from "heirloom seeds" a few rows of sweet corn.
The bill was introduced by Congress Woman, Rosa DeLauro, whose husband works for Monsanto and is designed to define only their, and other agribusiness, "genetically modified" seeds as safe. This prevents farmers and home gardeners from growing seeds for next year's crop, among other things. The seeds are "engineered" so that they can not be used as seed stock. Quite sterile!
You want seeds? You're going to have to buy them from Monsanto or some other monolithic agribusiness corporation. Buy heirloom seeds (yeah, for the kind of seeds grandpa used to grow those great old roasting ears you remember from your youth) and you could be sent to prison.
Aside from the fact that the genetically modified seeds are supposedly more disease and insect resistant, they do not produce crops that are as tasty as grandpa's. And doesn't it rankle you just a tad that the feds could send you to jail for growing what you wish to grow on your own land. Already there are severe penalties if your crop from heirloom seeds (contaminates) pollinates a neighbor's field of "approved safe" genetically modified corn, or soy beans, or...well now you can fill in the blanks.
Additionally, as written, the bill is vague, leaving open the potential of a "seed czar" in the federal bureaucracy with the power to create new regulations and definitions to insure that Monsanto and other huge agribusiness corporations holds, under penalty---including prison, onto the seed franchise in America.
To learn more and to take action against HR 875 go to:
Stop HR 875 Action Page
03 April 2009
Republicans Are Insane!
If you have any doubt that the Republicans are full-blown, moon-barking, car-chasing lunatics just consider these few items.
One. They are floating the notion of a Palin - Jindal ticket for 2012. Ahem! Yeah, that is correct. Sarah Palin who has been dis-invited from the major Republican annual spring fund-raiser, the Senate-House Dinner. And who replaced her? you ask. Why that womanizing fraud, Newt Gingrich, of course. One anonymous Republican honcho said she's a "disaster". And like Newt is not?
Meanwhile, other Republicans are floating trial balloons of a 2012 ticket with a "disaster" at the top and that goofy little guy from Louisiana that gave that embarrassing and laugh provoking Republican response to President Obama's address to congress a few weeks ago.
One wonders if these people ever talk to each other. One disses Palin publically while others are promoting her as presidential material
Oh please let it be. Then the ass-kicking we gave them in 2008 will look like a school yard fracas by comparison.
Two. With what can only be called bizarre sincerity they first came out with a counter budget proposal, which had no details, earning the ridicule of even right-wing media outlets. Without proper shame or embarrassment they then head-huddled, burned the midnight oil and have come forth with yet another budget proposal...and, folks as the cliche goes, the Devil really is in the details.
No new discretionary spending for five years in the middle of a recession. One asks, how then might we create jobs and rebuild our infrastructure? Aside from this effort to stymie economic recovery their budget also offers tax cuts of 10% for the very same Wall Street Robber Barons who managed to run aground the financial ship-of-state.
There's more, but that should be enough to convince the more rational among us that the only sensible thing to do with the Republicans is to chain them to a tree in the backyard. Isn't that what one does with an egg-sucking, car-chasing dog?
One. They are floating the notion of a Palin - Jindal ticket for 2012. Ahem! Yeah, that is correct. Sarah Palin who has been dis-invited from the major Republican annual spring fund-raiser, the Senate-House Dinner. And who replaced her? you ask. Why that womanizing fraud, Newt Gingrich, of course. One anonymous Republican honcho said she's a "disaster". And like Newt is not?
Meanwhile, other Republicans are floating trial balloons of a 2012 ticket with a "disaster" at the top and that goofy little guy from Louisiana that gave that embarrassing and laugh provoking Republican response to President Obama's address to congress a few weeks ago.
One wonders if these people ever talk to each other. One disses Palin publically while others are promoting her as presidential material
Oh please let it be. Then the ass-kicking we gave them in 2008 will look like a school yard fracas by comparison.
Two. With what can only be called bizarre sincerity they first came out with a counter budget proposal, which had no details, earning the ridicule of even right-wing media outlets. Without proper shame or embarrassment they then head-huddled, burned the midnight oil and have come forth with yet another budget proposal...and, folks as the cliche goes, the Devil really is in the details.
No new discretionary spending for five years in the middle of a recession. One asks, how then might we create jobs and rebuild our infrastructure? Aside from this effort to stymie economic recovery their budget also offers tax cuts of 10% for the very same Wall Street Robber Barons who managed to run aground the financial ship-of-state.
There's more, but that should be enough to convince the more rational among us that the only sensible thing to do with the Republicans is to chain them to a tree in the backyard. Isn't that what one does with an egg-sucking, car-chasing dog?
15 March 2009
Governor Perry Lies & State by State list of "Stimulus" money!
In Texas, Governor Rick Perry has rejected over $500-million dedicated to the rescue of the state's financially doomed unemployment fund. This tactic is straight from the Republican Resistance movement headed up by drug-addict, Rush Limbaugh, and hell's imp, Dick Cheney.
Perry continues the tradition of Texas Republicans in punishing the poor, working families, minorities, and older people by pursuing the nihilistic politics of the past which helped create the mess we're now in. Perry claims that accepting the money will cause future tax increases on businesses to continue the funding of jobless benefits. Perry lies!
The truth is that the fund already is a short six-months away from deficit at which time there will be required---yes! that is correct: An unemployment tax increase for businesses! The governor knows this and his refusal to accept the money to stave off that increase amounts to no more than a politically based assault on the poor and working families of Texas. Oh yeah, just a tad of posturing also---if you're inclined to be cynical.
Here is the truth, accepting the $555-million and making some tweaks and adjustments to the current unemployment program would allow its solid funding for the next ten years. Perry knows this, but lies in order to frighten businesses and play the old anti-government card so beloved by uninformed and reactionary conservatives as he preps for his 2010 reelection bid.
What Perry does not seem to know is that we had an election in 2008 resulting in the vividly clear and resounding loud message that we Americans have had a gut full of being lied to and gamed by our politicians. Perhaps we can drive that message home for him in 2010.
Meanwhile, the Legislature could try to accept the money by way of provisions in federal laws. That, however, would require a two-thirds veto proof majority. The only way that will happen is if you stay informed and let your State Representatives know that you would support them in such an action.
Perry continues the tradition of Texas Republicans in punishing the poor, working families, minorities, and older people by pursuing the nihilistic politics of the past which helped create the mess we're now in. Perry claims that accepting the money will cause future tax increases on businesses to continue the funding of jobless benefits. Perry lies!
The truth is that the fund already is a short six-months away from deficit at which time there will be required---yes! that is correct: An unemployment tax increase for businesses! The governor knows this and his refusal to accept the money to stave off that increase amounts to no more than a politically based assault on the poor and working families of Texas. Oh yeah, just a tad of posturing also---if you're inclined to be cynical.
Here is the truth, accepting the $555-million and making some tweaks and adjustments to the current unemployment program would allow its solid funding for the next ten years. Perry knows this, but lies in order to frighten businesses and play the old anti-government card so beloved by uninformed and reactionary conservatives as he preps for his 2010 reelection bid.
What Perry does not seem to know is that we had an election in 2008 resulting in the vividly clear and resounding loud message that we Americans have had a gut full of being lied to and gamed by our politicians. Perhaps we can drive that message home for him in 2010.
Meanwhile, the Legislature could try to accept the money by way of provisions in federal laws. That, however, would require a two-thirds veto proof majority. The only way that will happen is if you stay informed and let your State Representatives know that you would support them in such an action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)