Opens Today

See this movie.

On Our American Priorities

We seem to be getting more stupid, as a nation

I couldn't believe it when I read it:

Texas Teen Jailed For Sarcastic Facebook Comment

So bankers can take literally millions upon millions of dollars from people--stealing it, factually--and aren't even charged with a crime but let one teenager type something sarcastic on a social page and HE'S jailed?

Where on Earth are our priorities?

And that one, above, is on top of this one from the recent past:

Police arrest sidewalk chalk-drawers in LA Occupy protest 

We don't arrest the thieves and liars at Bank of America but we arrest the people outside their banks, writing on the sidewalks in chalk.

Does any of this make any sense at all?  To anyone?  

Well, except to the banksters.

Sprint labeled one of the "9 Great American Companies That Will Never Recover"

There's an article out right now, showing the companies that won't likely come back from the 2008 financial crush.

One of them is, as the title says, our own Sprint company is one of them:

"24/7 Wall St. has compiled a list of these companies that won't be making comebacks -- names that you know well, but that will never be leaders again."

What they have to say about them:

Sprint finally posted some reasonably good results recently. However, these could not mask the fact that the No. 3 wireless carrier is too small to ever really compete with AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

Sprint's $35 billion Nextel purchase in 2004 can be seen in retrospect as a key blunder. Their networks ran on different platforms, and integration issues drove customers away from the combined company. Sprint made the MSN "Customer Service Hall of Shame" several times, most recently in 2010. Its customer service has improved significantly since then, but the damage had been done.

Sprint's revenue has fallen from $41.1 billion in 2007 to $33.7 billion last year. It now has about 50 million subscribers to Verizon's 104 million and AT&T's 95 million. As a Morningstar researcher recently noted, "While Sprint has struggled, Verizon Wireless and AT&T have benefited at its expense. Fending off these much larger rivals will be increasingly difficult as data services become more important to the industry."

Not good. Not good at all.

Some of the other companies: Band of America, Dell Computer, Barnes & Noble and The New York Times.

Link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/01/9-great-american-companies-that-will-never-recover/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D188353#photo-6

What Americans don't know about their own economy

Bill Moyers, Matt Taibbi and Yves Smith discuss what the banks do and have done and why it's all so very criminal.
Things Americans aren't paying attention to and, it seems like, won't pay attention to, either.

JP Morgan loses $3b: You're darn right, Mr. President

Weekly Address: Congress Must Move Forward, Not Back On Wall Street Reform

The new Wal-Mart, Mexico banking brouhaha

In case you didn't see it, there was a big, rather significaant, if not important article in yesterday's New York Times about Wal-Mart's Mexico banking company: Vast Mexico Bribery Case Hushed Up by Wal-Mart After Top-Level Struggle Confronted with evidence of widespread corruption in Mexico, top Wal-Mart executives focused more on damage control than on rooting out wrongdoing, an examination by The New York Times found.

There are far too many details for me to go on about it here. Suffice it to say, it should be huge, if it isn't totally ignored. I'd like to know three things: First, are there any charges that need to be filed here in the US against whomever is involved?

Next, are there any charges that need to be filed in Mexico? Personally, I hope this will be pursued by the press and justice systems of both countries and that if they find any wrongdoing, they are prosecuted to the full extent of the laws in both countries.

Finnally, I'd like to see if any international laws were broken, too, as well as any other nation's laws, in addition to Mexico's, and if they're prosecutable. This is, after all, the company that wants to be cleared as a banking company in this country, too, as they've made clear. I think for most Americans, it will be extremely illuminating that Wal-Mart is a banking company, also, in Mexico, besides a retailer. I hope it's fascinating just where these revelations go, in positive ways. Meaning, if laws were broken, I hope everyone liable is held accountable, not the least being corporate Wal-Mart, anywhere and everywhere they may have broken any laws. Keep in mind, that Wal-mart all but owns Arvest Bank here in the States, too. (See last link, below).

Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120422; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/22/8-revelations-from-walmart-s-mexican-bribery-scandal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvest_Bank

Ayn Rand just took it too far

Ayn Rand just took her praise and dedication of and support for Capitalism--unfettered Capitalism--too far.

Completely,  utterly "free markets" leads to things like Gulf of Mexico oil spills and the collapse of both national and international economies and markets, as we've so tragically experienced recently.

Capitalism needs limits because there is no limit to greed.

One more way Americans show we're just not that bright

Okay, remember oh, so long ago, the big banking financial crisis/scandal/debacle we had that almost brought down our--the world's largest--economy and then, for good measure, the world's economy, too?

Remember that?

Yeah, I thought so.

Remember, too, how the Feds brought a bunch of bankers into the room on Dubya's watch and forced them all to sign that piece of paper and promise to take the multi-billion dollar loans?

Hopefully you heard or read about that.

Well, it all happened and the reasons for the collapse were stupid and irresponsible and then the reasoning behind the loans was questioned--and then later ridiculously, absurdly blamed on the successor to Dubya', the black guy, 'cuz, hey, that's just fun--and then no one was held accountable or responsible for all the insane, illegal home mortgage loans that were created and signed off as AAA rated but actually they were junk.

Okay, confusing, sure but follow me here.

Anyway, we came out, on the other side, a lot worse for wear but at least we're here and not everything has fallen apart.

Well, it just so happens, at the time, that our banks and banking system was falling apart and these big loans were made to American banks, to save our collective, financial and economic butts.

But, surprise, surprise, WE ALSO MADE BIG MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOANS TO FOREIGN BANKS.

Check it out:

...foreign banks also relied heavily on the emergency lending program. On one day in late October, Dexia, a Belgian-based European bank, and Depfa, a German subsidiary headquartered in Dublin, each drew about $25 billion in overnight loans. That represented about half of the money that was borrowed by 44 banks that day.

Then it gets worse:

The documents also show that the Arab Banking Corporation took out loans from the discount window during the financial crisis. The central bank of Libya owns a large stake in that bank, according to the bank's web site.

We made big multi-billion dollar loans to an Arabian bank?  Don't they have all our oil money?  Isn't that enough?

Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders said it best when, yesterday,  he called the Fed discount-window lending "welfare for the rich and powerful."

What conclusion can you come to but that we Americans seem to be the world's largest patsy?

If not humanity's.

And history's.

I wish this were an April Fool's joke.

Try to have a great weekend, y'all.

Link:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fed_crisis_lending

Why haven't we made "naked credit default swaps" illegal?

First, a definition:


Credit Default Swap:  A "swap" (trade) designed to transfer the credit exposure of fixed income products between parties.


Or there's this definition:


A specific kind of counterparty agreement which allows the transfer of third party credit risk from one party to the other. One party in the swap is a lender and faces credit riskfrom a third party, and the counterparty in the credit defaultswap agrees to insure this risk in exchange of regularperiodic payments (essentially an insurance premium). If the third party defaults, the party providing insurance will have to purchase from the insured party the defaulted asset. Inturn, the insurer pays the insured the remaining interest on the debt, as well as the principal.


Good luck with a definition of a credit default swap.  Trust me on this.  Google "credit default swap" and go through the list, see if you can understand it.  


Here's the best, simplest definition I could find:  The buyer of a credit swap receives credit protection, whereas the seller of the swap guarantees the credit worthiness of the product. By doing this, the risk of default is transferred from the holder of the fixed income security to the seller of the swap. 


What it boils down to is a giant ripoff, designed by JP Morgan and company:


The first CDS contract was introduced by JP Morgan in 1997 and by mid-2007, the value of the market had ballooned to an estimated $45 trillion, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association - over twice the size of the U.S. stock market.


And as anyone who has read anything by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine would know, these are a) not really, officially "insurance" at all and so b) are not regulated by the Federal Government.  The banking community created a $45 trillion dollar market and has kept it away from any regulation which would be fine but if this market crashes, as it nearly did in 2008, it could take down not just the US markets but the world's.


So here's what's been going on, and what a "naked credit default swap" is, as told by that same Matt Taibbi, on his blog (link below):  


In insurance...you can’t buy policies on someone else’s property. But in finance, you can buy credit default protection on anything, whether you own the underlying property or not. This is called a naked credit default swap. So if Bank of America is holding a billion dollars in mortgage-backed securities, Goldman Sachs can actually buy swaps on all of those MBS, even though it doesn’t own them. Your problem with this is that you don’t understand it because you think it doesn’t make sense, and that’s because it doesn’t make sense – a naked CDS is totally indistinguishable from gambling, but it’s legal. There was an ill-fated attempt by Byron Dorgan to outlaw naked CDS in the negotiations for the Dodd-Frank bill, but that attempt failed. 


So, other than the fact that Goldman Sachs is inside the White House and has been for at least decades and the fact that the banking industry virtually runs, if not owns our government, why have we not made "credit default swaps" and especially "naked credit default swaps" illegal?  It's a great question.  CDS's and the banking industry nearly wrecked our economy and they're still running the game.


Why are you not mad as hell?


And why aren't you raising hell with your Congressman about this?


(Well, other than the fact that we're all just trying to keep our jobs, not have our unions wrecked by the Republicans, keep up our payments on our homes and our outrageously-high health care, etc., etc.)


Final note:  If you want to get a great, enjoyable, even fun, if sick read that will also tell you where America has been economically for the last decade or so and where we likely still are, go get Matt Taibbi's
 book Griftopia:  Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America.  You'll be very glad you did.


Links:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-friedman-naked-swaps-and-madoff-20110228
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/cds.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/exclusive-excerpt-america-on-sale-from-matt-taibbis-griftopia-20101018
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780385529952.html

Casino Jack: Coming to a theater near you

And we still don't have meaningful financial reform.

Banking trivia questions

1) How many banks has the FDIC had to close, to date, so far this year?

140

2) How much has the closing of these banks cost us, to date?

30 billion dollars

The correct answers to the above questions begs the following question:

Should the US more stringently regulate the banks, the banking system and the bankers, here in the US?

It seems the answer is clear.

And yet, check this out:

"The American Bankers Association issued a "Call to Action" on Wednesday, urging its lobbyists and member banks to make an all-out effort to crush regulatory reform in Senate. As part of that campaign, it lashed out at its community-bank rival, charging it with being too soft on bank reform efforts."

"In an unusually frank memo from ABA Chairman Art Johnson, the lobby group congratulates bankers for sending some 300,000 letters to Congress opposing reform, crediting the effort with killing several significant provisions."

What chutzpah.

Contact your Congressperson---Senators, Representatives, both--and tell them we need this regulation back. We used to have it. We need it to return.


Find answers here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/19/fdic-shuts-down-seven-mor_n_398071.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/bank-lobbyists-launch-cal_n_394673.html

More magnificent irony

Yes, more magnificent irony for America, Republicans and, really, the world.

Deregulation of the banking and financial markets was supposed to be this magnificent, brilliant, liberating, stimulating idea for virtually everyone and everything. It was supposed to bring on nothing but good financial times and rising economic futures for everyone--the rich, Wall Street, the poor, the Middle Class, corporations, the little guy, everyone.

Ayn Rand, anyone?

But, lo and behold, the deregulation of the largest economy in the world, the United States, has wreaked havoc on the country and, now we've found out, the world.

The first big irony is that it's been the conservatives, Republicans, fat-cats, corporations and wealthy of the US who thought this deregulation would be not only a good idea but, indeed, a boon to our economy and the world.

There was supposed to be virtually no one this deregulation idea wouldn't benefit.

"Leave the corporations alone and the money will rain down from heaven," seems to have been the idea.

Well, when you leave greedy people alone in a room with money, they'll end up stealing it every time.

So the people hawking these ideas were also supposed to be the free market capitalists, of course. That just makes sense.

The worst thing these people could imagine for ANYONE, anywhere in the world was the evil Socialism or, worst yet, Communism.

The big, final irony now?

All that "free market", deregulation has brought us to the brink of a world bankruptcy with, so far, no end in sight.

Adding to that? (Yeah, we can).

Not only are we going back to regulation, as we ought, with all the countries in the world right now, with economies collapsing (and everyone is, rightfully, it seems, blaming the United States for the cluster mess), we're apparently going to have to join together with all the other world economies and regulate ALL markets, world-wide.

All of them.

We're all interconnected, so we're finding out, and if one is a stinker, it has ramifications for all of us.

To repeat, for clarification and effect:

Republicans, free-marketeers, corporations and conservatives wanted deregulation;

The deregulation has led to our collapse--all of us--in the entire US and the world;

We're now going to have to re-institute regulation, in the US;

We're going to have to institute world-wide, shared regulation--and rules--so everyone can be kept honest;

All the deregualtion brought on this collapse, which is, in turn, requiring Socialism, really, here in the US and 'round the world.

If that's not the most delicious, all-consuming irony, I don't know what is.

Thank you Republicans, Conservatives, Corporations, free-market supporters and your ilk.

For nothing.

___________________________________________
For a glimpse of what's going on right now, worldwide, with all the financial systems, go to this link:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/economic-crisis-around-globe-continues.html

We'd have loved to have been wrong

In 2000, there were a great deal of us who were concerned about having George Walker Bush as our President--at all, let alone for 8 full, inglorious years.

And while the same is true of Ronald Reagan, at least with him we survived and he didn't totally ruin the country. Sure, his administration did things that were illegal and unconstitutional, too, like George has done and is doing, but even he didn't have the cajones and outright, outrageous ignorance to take his administration and our country too far.

Then came George.

Before Molly Ivins died, God bless and rest her soul, she warned us what kind of spoiled child/dolt we were dealing with here.

And the family, too--she warned us about them, as did Kevin Phillips.

But now, here we are, at the end of George's 2 crime- and cronyism- and incompetence-ridden terms and the only things we can say are that 1) we'd have loved to have been wrong about him (that he really wasn't that stupid and/or irresponsible) and 2) I told you so.

The only satisfaction and vindication about having suffered this fool for 8 years is that now, the chickens have come home to roost, so to speak.

To wit:

Time Magazine recently ran an article, summarizing this President's tenure and resultant effects on the country. I will only give two paragraphs of the full article (which, as a matter of fact, isn't even all about George, he's incidental):

"It now seems clear that George W. Bush will be remembered for symmetrical disasters. His presidency began with the destruction of the Twin Towers by al-Qaeda terrorists. It is ending with the devastation of the Twin Trillions — the money spent on a foolish war in Iraq ($653 billion and counting) and on the bailout of a financial industry gone hog wild during the Reagan-initiated Era of Deregulation. Bush has revived Big Government in the worst possible way: the middle class will pay, in perpetuity, for the sins of the powerful."

More:

"It is hard to put a smiley face on this stinker. A crash — and this one seems a doozy — usually announces the arrival of hard times. The real economic woe is yet to come, as credit dries up and the economy slips into recession. The power of the next President seems destined to be severely constrained by huge debts and diminishing tax receipts — unless he finds some creative ways out of the morass ..."

(A link to the full article is here:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1844157,00.html)

So I come back to a question I've posted before and asked many times:

Can someone please tell me what was ever conservative about George W. Bush?

--His administration reached government further into American's personal lives than any other in the history of our nation.

--He spent more money than any other President, again, in the history of this country.

--He used our military, against our Constitution and international law, to go into another country, preemptorily, unilaterally and without cause, to attack them and oust their leader, however much a tyrant he was.

--He has now taken nearly one trillion dollars of this country's tax money--our money--and given it to private business because unregulated banks manipulated us into a nightmare economic scenario.

and so much more.

I repeat: WHAT WAS, EVER, CONSERVATIVE, ABOUT GEORGE WALKER BUSH?

As a last mention: I will also say again, if you voted for George W. Bush, even once, let alone--God forbid--twice, WE BLAME YOU.

I'm not kidding on that last part.

Pop quiz!

Okay, kids, since WaMu just failed this evening (formerly worth 307 billion dollars), I thought it was time for a bit of a brief, educational trivia quiz so here goes:

1) What was the last, biggest bank failure, before WaMu's today/tonight?

Answer: Continental Illinois (remember that one?) in 1984 (yeah, that long ago).

2) How much were they worth?

Answer: 40 billion dollars.



kinda puts the current situation in perspective, don't it?

If you're not somewhat concerned yet, stay tuned.