Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!

[In~Plain~Site]

And Eat Shit is so much more under-handed, long live the righteous

Far and away you shred the understanding necessary for rebuke.

 

[whodare]

If this movement doesn't Occupy both corridors of the Corpratist Establishment.

Wall Street and Washington DC. Then I can't take it seriously.

true dat, and while they're at it bring the ruckus to all major media news stations...

 

[Green lung]

The pathetic media may be the thing that hurts this country the most.

 

[Dudesome]

95% of the global media is owned by 5 corporations.

 

[SpasticGramps]

bring the ruckus to all major media news stations...

Would love to see that. All of them too.

The pathetic media may be the thing that hurts this country the most.

There is something called "The CNN Effect." It speaks to all of the 24hr "news" channels and how they basically dumb down the population with completely irrelevant information/propaganda.

Occupy The Status Quo.

 

[bombadil.360]

it's a metaphor... don't you get it? eh. Guess not the most successful one.

no, I don't get the metaphor. what does it mean? to befriend the jewish? within the context of your post.

language barrier i think..
he misinterpreted your gist

what gist?

 

[Dudesome]

no, I don't get the metaphor. what does it mean? to befriend the jewish? within the context of your post.





what gist?

Let me put it anotherway:

To my thinking DB wants to use the current monetary system after having a couple of reforms and he thinks that the paper can have value. That is impossible IMO. So I give a metaphor to it:
The metaphor is The facism(monetary system) which he wants to have. But he also wants to modify facism so that the jews are friends to it(he wants paper to have value).

The jews can't be friends to facism. And so the paper can not have value with current system going on.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Bought Justice

Dylan Ratigan
Posted: 11/1/11 11:50 AM ET

Janus Capital Chairman Emeritus Landon Rowland is worried about the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is not so unusual, except for two factors. Rowland is a mild midwestern businessman, the type of sober fair minded moderate who doesn't express concern lightly. And Rowland's concern isn't bought politicians, but bought judges. Rowland believes that corruption in our courts, as usual spearheaded by money in elections, is slowly wrecking our economy. What makes America a great place to do business is the certainty provided by a world class court system that makes sure the rules of the road apply to everyone equally.

This, he believes, is now in jeopardy.

I've written before about the unholy alliance of business and state that sells our elections and our legislative process to the highest bidder. That same unholy alliance is corrupting our courts through a deep and effective campaign to buy off judges the way that our politicians have been purchased. Rowland pointed this out in a 2009 op-ed opposing a significant change in the way that Missouri judges are chosen. Currently, the state has a nonpartisan commission of experts that screen judicial candidates, and then the governor picks among them. The electorate gets to vote judges out of office through "retention elections". This protects the independence of the judiciary, and ensures that judges don't have to go begging to corporate interests for campaign solicitations. This "Missouri Plan" was implemented to ward off machine corruption in the 1940s, and is so successful that it is in use by 24 states.

A system like this works because it creates visibility, integrity, choice, and aligned interest. Experts credential candidates, elected public servants choose from among those candidates, and voters get a veto of those candidates through elections. The interests of all parties is aligned as there is legal integrity with a democratic check, and the visibility provided by an electoral campaign. Yet, judges, though elected, are not reduced to begging for campaign cash from people over whom they might have power. It's not a perfect system, but it provides a basic modicum of justice through a mix of professional norms, transparency, and elections.

So of course, corporate backed groups are now trying to end this "Missouri Plan" in favor of straight up judicial elections. And this is where the perversion of campaign finance corruption comes in - when money equals speech, elections become auctions. In the past ten years, the amount of money in judicial elections has doubled. Just ten organizations spent 40% of all money on state high court elections. Last year, the Supreme Court legalized unlimited amounts of corporate and labor cash in elections through its Citizens United, and now the amount of secret money flooding into these elections will skyrocket. This aligns the interests of judges not with citizens, or legal experts, but with those who can pay. Justice is now an auction, and the goal of the vampire industry who control vast sums of capital is to make sure the scales of justice weigh nothing but gold.

Consider the key case cited by most experts in West Virginia showing the cost of judicial corruption. Rowland notes:

The CEO of A.T. Massey Coal Co. spent $3 million to elect lawyer Brent Benjamin to the state Supreme Court, while Massey Coal was appealing a $50 million jury award against it. Even after repeated requests from the petitioners, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself, instead casting the deciding vote to overturn the $50 million judgment.​

This is simply bought justice. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a narrow 5-4 decision, arguing that Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself violated due process. That's how bad it is, where the election of judges with corporate money is itself a named factor by the Supreme Court in biasing judicial outcomes. And this case took place before Citizens United.

The attack though isn't simply at the state level. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife took $680,000 in payments from a corporate funded think tank. Thomas didn't disclose this money as family income, as the law required. Thomas was of course a vote for Massey coal. These kinds of what-look-like-bribes are become more and more routine. "Judicial junkets" are now all too common; during these junkets, judges are now given lavish corporate vacations under the guise of education, and even have investments in industries with significant decisions pending before their courts. Talk about misaligned incentives.

And in our regulatory agencies, the courts are being corrupted as well. One judge for the Commodities Future Trading Commission promised the person who appointed him that he would "never rule in favor of a complainant." And the person who appointed him? Wendy Gramm, the wife of deregulatory king and former Senator Phil Gramm. And indeed, he has never ruled for an investor. This does not inspire faith in our business environment.

Massive election spending, junkets, overt payments while in office to family members, conflicts of interest and pre-appointment deals -- this are the kinds of tactics that have bought our Congress and separated us from our government. That this is taking place in our courts is not surprising. The same forces are buying our courts that are buying our politicians. That want to lock us in a national prison of injustice, and call it a democracy. They look at an auction, and call it an election. Visibility, integrity, choice, and aligned interest, four elements I use to test the resilience of a political system -- they are all increasingly missing from our corporate funded courts.

Historians refer to the late 19th century, during the first robber baron era, as the state of courts and parties. It was a brutally partisan era, with frequent violence at the polls, the murder of union organizers by corporate backed security forces, and child labor. The courts were forums of power, not justice. Political machines, corrupt puppets of railroads and racists, dominated courthouses and used them to control elections and the business life of the nation. American capital markets were incredibly corrupt, with frequent market rigging and booms and busts caused by rampant use of insider information. This is where we are heading with unlimited corporate cash flowing into the court system.

There is currently a large debate over the question of whether the 99% are served by this system, or whether the 1% have rigged it in their favor. The people in the streets at Occupy Wall Street feel a deep injustice over this system, but mostly they focus on Congress or politicians. They believe that our political institutions lack integrity. Our courts have as of yet been exempt from this level of scrutiny, but what we're seeing with this corporate attack on judicial integrity is that a lack of aligned interests, secrecy, and corruption are eroding faith here as well. The secrecy, the money, the lack of visibility over how judges are chosen, the lack of aligned interests -- it's all a part of undermining justice. Every court in the country has justice as its putative goal, every judge in the land should see these people as aligned with their job. Many judges do see their job as one of protecting and preserving justice in America. But increasingly, the incentives in the system cut against such a noble attitude. As we expose the forces trying to turn our courts into a forum for bought justice, we will eventually help everyone understand what Landon Rowland does -- justice corrupted by money is justice denied.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/judicial-corruption-_b_1069423.html

IMO, we're not fascist. El Duce wasn't manipulated by greedy capitalists. El Duce was a dictator and told business what to do.

IMO, what we commonly refer to as fascism in the US is actually capitalism. They don't have to preempt invasion. They don't even have to pick up a gun. Our capitalists buy what they want.

There's no dictator to answer to and for good reason. So long as contributions remain substantial, nobody wins without em. Corporations aren't being told what to do, they're dictating their own outcomes.

IMO, we're as close to laissez fairre as we've been in a long time, especially for the top. And capital is the weapon of choice. With record income disparity it's like a nuclear bomb. The 99% is Hiroshima.

 

[bombadil.360]

Let me put it anotherway:

To my thinking DB wants to use the current monetary system after having a couple of reforms and he thinks that the paper can have value. That is impossible IMO. So I give a metaphor to it:
The metaphor is The facism(monetary system) which he wants to have. But he also wants to modify facism so that the jews are friends to it(he wants paper to have value).

The jews can't be friends to facism. And so the paper can not have value with current system going on.

holy cow, you get that from your sentence: "Hey lets use the whole facism system and just change some things so we can have the jews to be our friends."

?


syntax, syntax, syntax


if you want to mean what you explained, it should be: "so we can have the jews be its friend", as it refers to the monetary system as you perceive it. when you see "our" the syntax and hence context completly changes.

I still strongly disagree with the notion of the system being created to enslave people... rather, the people take advantage of the system to fuck people over, this is more a flaw of individual personality rather than a flaw of the system.

 

[bombadil.360]

IMO, we're as close to laissez fairre as we've been in a long time, especially for the top. And capital is the weapon of choice.

fucking a man, money talks, what sucks is what many people make it say... if people weren't so shitty, the system would rock tha house.

 

[dagnabit]

IMO, what we commonly refer to as fascism in the US is actually capitalism.

less capitalism and more corporatism/corporate socialism.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Let me put it anotherway:

To my thinking DB wants to use the current monetary system after having a couple of reforms and he thinks that the paper can have value. That is impossible IMO. So I give a metaphor to it:
The metaphor is The facism(monetary system) which he wants to have. But he also wants to modify facism so that the jews are friends to it(he wants paper to have value).

The jews can't be friends to facism. And so the paper can not have value with current system going on.

You'd do well to leave the jew comments alone.

Fascism is a word to describe ie disguise crony capitalism or corporatism. Our system hand shakes ie shakes down deals for the top at the expense of the rest. Multinationals don't even have a nationalist element like fascist Italy. They play for themselves, not a national entity.

The only media peeps calling us fascist are those seeking less reforms so they can speculate, short, leverage, hedge and swap into oblivion.

The market can't regulate this foolishness and never pretended to. All these Wall Street traders eschewing cash and praising gold are working 365 days a year to grab all the dollars they can get their bony fingers on.

All that work would be for naught if the monetary system implodes. Enter the excuse for implosion before-the-fact. The media guys warning of gloom and doom are the same types cutting the brake lines on the bus. It might not fool hindsight economists but it beats revisionist history.

 

[SpasticGramps]

IMO, what we commonly refer to as fascism in the US is actually capitalism.

I'm polar opposite. IMO what we commonly refer to as "capitalism" in the US is actually fascism.

IMO, we're as close to laissez fairre as we've been in a long time, especially for the top.

Laissez Fairre implies no government intervention. With governments constantly intervening to prop up markets today I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion. We are a full blown command economy IMO.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Does this graph imply laissez fairre economics or command economy?

I agree with you in that it is lawless at the top (in politics and finance), but that's not laissez fairre economics IMO. That's a symptom of a fascist system.

 

[dagnabit]

wonder if that spike in mid '08 was a math error?

just dont seem to fit the trend.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm polar opposite. IMO what we commonly refer to as "capitalism" in the US is actually fascism.

Laissez Fairre implies no government intervention. With governments constantly intervening to prop up markets today I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion. We are a full blown command economy IMO.

If one cuts off their arm for no reason, they might be considered crazy. But if they risked fatal gangrene the alternative might be too drastic. Under these circumstances, they'd be crazy to allow natural forces to manifest.

Cutting off our national arm isn't economic strategy. Cash infusions are an attempt to mitigate gangrene i.e. systemic risk.

IMO, we don't have to wait until 100% of government regulations are waxed to see the way this ball is rolling. I hate cash infusions too. But the alternative could be worse than what we have.

If banks were re regulated to the point that systemic risk wasn't a global destroyer, all we'd need is a firewall to separate high risk from the rest of the market. As it is now, banks are creating the need for cash infusions by refusing to deal with their toxic assets and instead using those assets to justify billions in bonuses.

At the turn of the 20th century, oil and power companies were regulated and subsidized to prevent barons from sapping the national economy in ways the railroads did in the 1800s. Since, banks have once again bought enough power from government to wildly speculate on the same commodities we regulated the primaries from doing.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Does this graph imply laissez fairre economics or command economy?

I agree with you in that it is lawless at the top (in politics and finance), but that's not laissez fairre economics IMO. That's a symptom of a fascist system.

If you can call America fascist, I can call the most deregulated and income disparate period in American history "as close to laissez faire as we've been in a long time."

I would call government assistance for the poor socialism. I would call government assistance for rich corporations corporatism. IMO, the only one-word name that fits our system of government is hybrid. IMO, fascism isn't a piece in our hybrid puzzle. But that's just me.

Considering the fact that 50 million Americans need a full-time job, I'm a little surprised we don't have more on food stamps. Considering all the children that don't work, looks like millions are struggling to make it w/o assistance or the benefit of full time employment.

 

[SpasticGramps]

If one cuts off their arm for no reason, they might be considered crazy. But if they risked fatal gangrene the alternative might be too drastic. Under these circumstances, they'd be crazy to allow natural forces to manifest.

Cutting off our national arm isn't economic strategy. Cash infusions are an attempt to mitigate gangrene i.e. systemic risk.

Has all this intervention and all these trillions and trillions of bailout monies mitigated systemic risk? Contagion is still spreading like wildfire in Europe and has already collapsed one FED primary dealer MF Global. I would argue it's done nothing, but make the day of reckoning much worse.

I understand the fear of letting the free market do it's thing, but that argument is a way of rationalizing all this government intervention which completely negates LF economics. I would submit that your faith in central planning to prevent the inevitable is misplaced IMO.

Corporatism is Fascism IMO. Maybe that's where our views diverge?

 

[SpasticGramps]

I'm not anti-regulation nor a proponent of complete LF economics. Capitalism dictates competition. Sometimes governments must intervene to keep competition going (ie. busting up monopolies).

I reckon busting up the Federal Reserve monopoly would be a good start to returning to some semblance of capitalism.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Has all this intervention and all these trillions and trillions of bailout monies mitigated systemic risk? Contagion is still spreading like wildfire in Europe and has already collapsed one FED primary dealer MF Global. I would argue it's done nothing, but make the day of reckoning much worse.

I understand the fear of letting the free market do it's thing, but that argument is a way of rationalizing all this government intervention which completely negates LF economics. I would submit that your faith in central planning to prevent the inevitable is misplaced IMO.

Corporatism is Fascism IMO. Maybe that's where our views diverge?

To answer your question, cash infusions are happening because key players resist the regulations necessary to mitigate systemic risk. It's like a bad plan B gone de facto but only because Summers, Geitner (and practically 100% of the opposition) don't want to regulate.

IMO, the fed is like an I.V. and the banks are slitting their (and our) wrists. IMO, regulation to stop the bloodletting would be the first step in ending cash infusions.

IMO, allowing systemic risk to continue unabated while simultaneously allowing TBTF banks to fold would deplete national wealth faster than tax supported bailouts. And the only thing to keep some of these guys from folding is unfortunately more QE.

But I've bitched about what's wrong long enough. IMO, here's ideas for the fix.

#1 - Bad news for the near term. Until regulations and consumer protections are in force, cash infusions aren't out of the picture.

#2 - Regulate systemic risk where 20/20 hindsight proves we're perpetuating junk assets.

#3 - Separate investment banking from commercial like Glass Steagal.

#4 - Consider breaking up corporations that become too big to fail before the fact.

#5 - (and not necessarily in this order) - allow corporations to fail, plain and simple. IMO, we can stop cash infusions but only when we mandate that corporations stop fraudulent practices.