Taibbi: Eric Holder, Wall Street's Double Agent

"Holder doubtless seriously believed at first that in a time of financial crisis, he was doing the right thing in constructing new forms of justice for banks, where nobody but the shareholders actually had to pay for crime. You've heard of victimless crimes; Holder created the victimless punishment.

But in the end, it was pretty convenient, wasn't it, that "the right thing" also happened to be the strategy that preserved Democratic Party relationships with big-dollar donors, kept the client base at Holder's old firm nice and fat, made the influential rich immeasurably richer and allowed Eric Holder himself to crash-land into a giant pile of money upon resignation.

What a coincidence! In any civilized country, it'd be a scandal. In America, though, he's just another guy selling whatever he can to get by. It was just too bad that what Holder had to sell was the criminal justice system."

Matt Taibbi, Eric Holder, Wall Street Double Agent, Comes In From the Cold

 

Holder was no rogue political appointee.  He was very much in the mainstream of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, founded by the Clintons.  Obama did nothing to reform it and added Big Healthcare and Big Pharma into the corporatist money mix.

 

And so these reformers, throwing their constituency under the bus, have become the facilitators of the deep capture of our regulatory and political system in a bipartisan effort to get rich.

 

This is not to say that these are malevolently evil people by nature.  Although a few are. Most are just people, being carried along by an unsustainable tide of cynicism and personal greed that has imprinted itself on the minds of our privileged elites.  

 

They choose to commit criminal acts through a wonderful power of rationalization, in a downward spiral of moral decline.   One day they wake up and see the monstrous things they may have done, not in one grand moment in the dramatic rejection of the good, but in a thousand small choices and personal exceptions of self-indulgence. 

 

The worldview of the self-appointed elite is that now that I have gone to the right schools, said the right words, protected the right people, taken the right jobs and done the right things, now I get to cash in and get in filthy rich on easy money and the looting of the real economy.  I am finally gettin' paid.  This perverse mindset, which used to be a denizen of rural enclaves and big city bosses is becoming pervasive in Washington and New York.

 

It has all the hallmarks of the kind of dual class system that is specifically prohibited by the framers of the Bill of Rights.  But who will watch the watchers when 'everyone is doing it.'

 

The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustainable recovery.

 

Taibbi: A Whistleblower's Horror Story

"Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind."

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

"Flagrant evils cure themselves by being flagrant."

John Henry Newman

If a whistleblower reveals benign 'secrets' of government actions to a domestic reporter in the time honored tradition, they may be prosecuted as 'enemies of the state' under the abusive misuse of the Espionage Act.

 

It was Winston's contention that six week's after refusing to lie in his report to Moody's, Angelo Mozilo personally contacted Winston's supervisor and demanded his termination based on a personal website Winston maintained for his work as a motivational speaker and expert in leadership.

What I find particularly odious in the judgement is that not only will Winston NOT be able to obtain the reward from the jury verdict, which is a legal matter which I understand can be contended.  Although it seems that the appeals court took a fairly aggressive stance in this appeal, to the point of nullifying the jury not on the legal process but on their judgment about the evidence itself.  A copy of that first appeal is downloadable here.

 

The subsequent judgement against plaintiff to pay the costs filed by Bank of America seems excessive if not vindictive to say the least, given that the case itself was a 'close call' at worst.  And then there is the matter of his speaking to Frontline, and engaging in behavior in describing the ongoing frauds at Countrywide that were very embarrassing to Bank of America, and the DOJ itself.  It smells of vindictiveness.

I don't think it is this case alone that is so infuriating, but the context of Wall Street friendly judicial policy in the Obama Administration, and the hypocritical and harsh treatment of whistleblowers in general.   And Taibbi does a fairly good job of bringing these things forwards in his article linked below which I suggest that you read.

Deceit and theft by the privileged is excused and protected, while honesty and innocence are severely punished.    And the great mass of official journalists are silent, so we hear the news about this in a rock 'n roll magazine. 

 

Rolling Stone

A Whistleblower's Horror Story

By Matt Taibbi

18 February 2015

Two years ago this month, Winston was being celebrated in the news as a hero. He'd blown the whistle on Countrywide Financial, the bent mortgage lender that one could plausibly argue nearly blew up the global economy in the last decade with its reckless subprime lending practices.

He described Countrywide's crazy plan to give anyone who could breathe a mortgage in a memorable January, 2013 episode of Frontline called "The Untouchables," a show that caught the eyes of several influential politicians in Washington. The documentary inspired Senate hearings and even the crafting of new legislation to combat too-big-to-jail corruption in the financial world.

Winston was later featured in the New York Times as the man who "conquered Countrywide." David Dayen of Salon described Winston as "Wall Street's greatest enemy."

But today, Winston is tasting the sometimes-extreme downside of being a whistleblower in modern America.

He says he's spent over a million dollars fighting Countrywide (and the firm that acquired it, Bank of America) in court. At first, that fight proved a good gamble, as a jury granted him a multi-million-dollar award for retaliation and wrongful termination.

But after Winston won that case, an appellate judge not only wiped out that jury verdict, but allowed Bank of America to counterattack him with a vengeance.

Last summer, the bank vindictively put a lien on Winston's house (one he'd bought, ironically, with a Countrywide mortgage). The bank eventually beat him for nearly $98,000 in court costs.

That single transaction means a good guy in the crisis drama, Winston, had by the end of 2014 paid a larger individual penalty than virtually every wrongdoer connected with the financial collapse of 2008.

When Winston protested his preposterous punishment on the grounds that a trillion-dollar company recouping legal fees from an unemployed whistleblower was unreasonable and unnecessary, a California Superior Court judge denied his argument — get this — on the grounds that Winston failed to prove a disparity in resources between himself and Bank of America!

This is from the court's ruling:

Plaintiff argues that the disparity in the resources between the individual plaintiff and the defendant Bank of America make it unfair to place the cost of the premium on plaintiff. Plaintiff offered no evidence in support of this argument; it is rejected...

Read the entire story in Rolling Stone here.

Modern Economics: Austerity

"In Greek mythology Sisyphus (Greek: Σίσυφος) was the king of Ephyra. He was punished by the gods for his chronic deceitfulness by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a steep hill, only to watch it roll back down, over and over again."

In the modern mythology of bizarre economics, austerity can be described as 'the Reverse Sisyphus.'

The victims of systemic bank fraud and widespread cheating and manipulation of markets and laws are forced to pay the price, in an endless cycle of booms and busts, for the deceitfulness and injustice of the powerful financial interests and their privileged friends.

 

Related:  Bubblenomics

 

 

 

The NeoLiberal Colossus

"Keep, ancient lands, your human dignity!" cries she

With curling lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the weak, the homeless, the victims all to me,

And I will grind their bones, forevermore!"

 

 

Economists-Say-Dumb-Things Chronicles: 'Debt Is Money We Owe To Ourselves'

Like so many sloppy discussions of economics to make an important policy point, but badly, this one diverges from common shared reality fairly quickly. 

Let me strike the key hypothesis in this, that prompts a leap of faith, over a cliff and into the abyss of fantasy.

"Debt is money we owe to ourselves."

Something on which Mr. Krugman can agree with Dick Cheney who said, 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.'   How is that for a twist?  

From an accounting standpoint and within the realm of theoretical identities this is true. Each debt is someone else's asset.

The key of course is how we define 'ourselves.'  

If 'we' are the entire planet, equally and without distinction of interests and property, then perhaps one might say, ok, although it loses all meaning and significance.   I would not mind pooling my household books with one of the Banking billionaires and to be able to step up to the Fed's free cash window anytime to do my business, with the assurance that I have a government guarantee underpinning my ledger, but alas.

And this is a problem because the paramount issue we are facing today is the historically extreme concentration of capital assets in a relatively few hands, and the burden of unpayable debts being imposed upon a large segment of the people by a system that has been hijacked by the moneyed interests.

If you take this pithless observation by Mr. Krugman down one level of detail in the States for example, one finds that the debt is an asset on the books of a increasingly small number of wealthy people, with much of it controlled for them by a handful of Banks.

This system is not sustainable, and I see no sign that it will even cohere, without substantial reform.

I wonder if the average American who is losing their car and house, and who is being hounded by debt collectors for whom those debts seems to matter a great deal, can use that argument with the Banks.

Putting aside private debts, let's just stay in the realm of sovereign debt, where the economic imagination can more easily take its flights of fancy.

Debt is just money we owe to ourselves is similar to the flat pronouncement that a sovereign that issues its own currency can never default. Money is just an accounting entry so why the fuss?  And from this comes a Pandora's Box of muddy thinking, a selective myopia towards history,  and Trillion Dollar Platinum coins. 

I wonder if Greece can use this argument, that debt is just money that we owe to 'ourselves,' when they meet with the Germans this week. 

But no, the US is different.  Every other country may fail, and many have including that insubstantial nation of Russia not all that long ago,  but not us. We are young and immortal.  Our benchmark for virtue is power, and we are virtuous enough to be able to say that when things are not working out as we planned, we are able to decree that 'money is whatever we say it is,' and God help anyone who does not agree.

And so we might presume that the mighty US is going to be able to make that case about debt forever to its creditors who are outside the direct thought control of its monetary system, a short list of which is contained below.

It is funny how the moneyed interests and their courtiers are always saying, 'debt doesn't matter,' especially when they want us to assume their gambling debts which they incurred by frauds using our own money.   Until, that is, they decide to call in the loans and the debts, and impose their will upon the people with foreclosures, garnishment, austerity, and debtors' prisons.

I agree wholeheartedly that the rhetoric around the discussion of spending priorities gets silly and overheated and quite frankly disgusting.  That has more to do with a society in the grip of a greedy few, corrupt public servants, sophistical theoreticians, and boisterous minions than it does with the need to expand our economic theories into existential irrelevance.  Madness is certainly attractive perhaps in a land going mad, but it is unlikely to be productive.

Arguments like those from the MMT crowd, both right and left, and economists like Paul do us no favors in concocting some fantastical solution to what is primarily a problem of governance, justice, transparency, and power gone horrible wrong.

The 'debt' and the 'budget' are not an economics argument but a policy argument.  What is important to us?  What do we continue to hold as these truths?   And how do we resolve those disagreements?  Avoiding that policy and priority discussion enables those who are caught in the credibility trap to continue to beg the question entirely, and the real task at hand, which is reform. 

We cannot discuss reform until we expose the corruption.  And therein lies the problem, because quite a few powerful hands have been dipping into the largesse, and quite a few courtiers have a vested interest in continuing to propagate the lies and myths of a failing system.

I am not a 'hard money' guy.  I am certainly not in favor of a domestic gold standard as a remedy for our current set of problems. 

 

What I am saying, and I think it has been consistently so, is that the system that we have now is so fundamentally broken that no matter what incidental things that we do, no matter how much stimulus is provided under whatever rationales, that all good will be turned to ill, the gap of inequality will keep widening, and that the situation will continue to worsen, lurching from crisis to crisis.

 

Is this not what we have seen since all the programs were put in place since the crisis of 2008?  That the rich are getting richer, because all we have really done is prop up an unjust, broken, and unworkable system.  And I think that this is the point that is being made by Greece in Europe today.

You cannot keep a game running when the insiders that control it are making up the rules as they go along, hiding their assets, dictating the judges' decisions,  dipping into the other players money at will, and generally cheating and doing whatever they wish when they wish, because they can.

The system is too flawed to be sustainable, and must change in order to cohere.

NY Times

Debt Is Money We Owe To Ourselves

By Paul Krugman

February 6, 2015

Antonio Fatas, commenting on recent work on deleveraging or the lack thereof, emphasizes one of my favorite points: no, debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations. Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means, because as Fatas puts it, one person’s debt is another person’s asset; or as I equivalently put it, debt is money we owe to ourselves — an obviously true statement that, I have discovered, has the power to induce blinding rage in many people...

More than that, as Fatas points out, rising debt could be a good sign. Think of my little two-classes model of debt, where some people are less patient than others — perhaps (to step outside the model a bit) because they have better investment opportunities. Moving from a very limited financial system that doesn’t allow much debt to a somewhat more open-minded system should, in that case, be good for growth and welfare...

And the problems with public debt are also mainly about possible instability rather than “borrowing from our children”. The rhetoric of fiscal debates has been, for the most part, nonsense.

Read the entire piece here.

US 2nd District Court of Appeals Issues the Economic Equivalent of the Dred Scott Decision

SEC. 20A. (a) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION BASED ON CONTEMPORANEOUS TRADING.

Any person who violates any provision of this title or the rules or regulations thereunder by purchasing or selling a security while in possession of material, non-public information shall be liable in an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to any person who, contemporaneously with the purchase or sale of securities that is the subject of such violation, has purchased (where such violation is based on a sale of securities) or sold (where such violation is based on a purchase of securities) securities of the same class.

Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

In their zeal to exonerate some Wall Street wiseguys associated with the infamous insider trading ring involving SAC Capital, the sophists on the 2nd US Court of Appeals, located in lower Manhattan near Wall Street, just issued the equivalent of the Dred Scott decision for US markets.

"Although the government might like the law to be different, nothing in the law requires a symmetry of information in the nation's securities markets."

Barrington Parker, 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals Judge

Are you kidding me?  Equal protection under the law?   Who says we have to do that? We can do whatever we want, and just try and stop us.  We own the lawmakers and we own the courts.

Symmetry of information, also known as a 'level playing field,' is the cornerstone and underlying principle of US Securities laws since 1933.

"Information symmetry is a condition in which all relevant information is known to all parties involved. For example, in the stock market, stock information has a full public disclosure, and all investors are in the same position to share information."

"In contract theory and economics, information asymmetry deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. This creates an imbalance of power in transactions which can sometimes cause the transactions to go awry, a kind of market failure in the worst case. Examples of this problem are adverse selection, moral hazard, and information monopoly."

Is this the point where the pigmen take the masks off and say, 'what the hell, we really are just robbing and cheating you. So what are you going to do about it?  We own the system, and can have our sophists rationalize just about anything.'

Some judicial propeller head was encouraged to put themselves into super-literalist, laser-beam mode, and twist the letter of the law hard enough to find a reason for excusing some particularly blatant insider trading, and the substance of the law be damned.

As long as the exchanging of favors is sufficiently soft and undocumented, and not the explicit exchange of cash, videotaped and posted to Youtube, it's all good.  Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of financial fraud on the general public.

The purpose of information symmetry is to prevent certain market actors from engaging in control frauds. This principle taken to a perfect and natural ideal was a cornerstore of one of the great economic canards that justified deregulating the markets. 

"In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis asserts that financial markets are 'informationally efficient'. In consequence of this, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information available at the time the investment is made."

And now they are dropping the pretext. Are they counting on most people not understanding what 'symmetry of information' means?   Are they counting on you doing nothing about this?

Information symmetry means that some analyst or CEO cannot tell his friends that they are going to give downward guidance in a week, so that they can all sell their stock and even short it ahead of the public.

It means that the most powerful players in the market cannot traffic in private knowledge, presenting two sorts of datastreams, one for the public and one for themselves.

It's a big club.  And you aren't in it.

I expect this decision to be reversed, because otherwise there can be no confidence in US markets any longer, and no one who is not an insider can no longer believe in their impartiality and honesty.  They are worse than any casino, because the dealer can signal some of the players when he has an ace in the hole.

The basis of the reversal will be the judgement that the 2nd Court has misapplied the principles in Dirks v SEC.   In this case the Supreme Court sought to exonerate the recipient of information from a whistleblower who wished to exposed a corporate fraud, and in doing so released information to Dirks, who while passing it on to the Wall Street Journal, also passed it on to clients who used it to sell their stock in advance of the fraud and stock sell off. 

This led to the establishment of 'The Dirks Test' by the SEC:

A standard used by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to determine whether someone who receives and acts on insider information (a tippee) is guilty of insider trading. The Dirks Test looks for two criteria

1. Whether the individual breached the company's trust
2. Whether the individual did so knowingly

Tippees can be found guilty of insider trading if they know or should know that the tipper has committed a breach of fiduciary duty.

I believe this is one of those cases where courts can and will argue about reasonableness. Is it more reasonable to expect a trader who is licensed under Securities Laws to know the difference between legitimate information and material non-public information, moreso than an unlicensed amateur?

 And I think that the 2nd District Court has overreached in declaring that the prosecution ought to demonstrate that the tipper received personal benefit, rather than violated fiduciary trust of the corporation, and that the tippees needed to know this fact, rather than understanding the difference, as a professional, between gossip, information, and material non-public information which provides them a trading advantage which has been obtained in some manner which most certainly involves the violation of fiduciary responsibility in the chain of communication.
 

The most rational response from the rest of the world will be to shun US markets, and take steps to prevent the contagion of this abuse of privilege.

The only law the moneyed interests recognize is 'Do what you will,' and just don't document the evidence of wrongdoing and post it on the internet for bragging rights.

This is the kind of situation where the locker room talk at the Country Club gets leaked out in public, and the Very Important People who do it are suddenly exposed for exactly who and what they really are, and what they really believe. 

 

And brother, its a brave new world if this decision stands. 

Moral Hazard: The Abysmal Failure of the Doctrine Of Selective Justice For Finance

Moral Hazard - In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation in which a party is more likely to take risks because the costs that could result will not be borne by the party taking the risk. In other words, it is a tendency to be more willing to take a risk, knowing that the potential costs or burdens of taking such risk will be borne, in whole or in part, by others. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place.

Wikipedia says that Economist Paul Krugman described moral hazard as "any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."

Moral hazard is not only the misallocation of risk, but the mispricing of risk without significant consequences as well.  This also speaks to the misallocation of risk. As in a bubble.

In our most recent financial crisis we saw both the mispricing of risk in the initial collateralized debt obligations that fed the housing price bubble, and in the aftermath, where much of the consequences of the ensuing financial crisis were allocated to the taxpayers after the fact and without an explicit prior agreement to do so, under duress.

A rather sophistic defense of that approach and subsequent policy was provided by Larry Summers who in September of 2007 wrote an article entitled Beware of Moral Hazard Fundamentalists:

"In the financial arena the spectre of moral hazard is invoked to oppose policies that reduce the losses of financial institutions that have made bad decisions. In particular, it is used to caution against creating an expectation that there will be future 'bail-outs'."

As an aside, when I saw the new 'reform President' bringing in Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulsen, and Larry Summers to key posts in his administration, I suspected that the people's mandate for reform had been deflected, although there was the prior example of FDR bringing in Joe Kennedy to spearhead the SEC.  But, alas, Obama quickly turned out to be no Franklin Roosevelt, but a loyal member of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.

And here we are, SEVEN years later. Forget 'future bailouts.' We have what seems to be never-ending bailouts, and subsidies, and special arrangements, and deals benefiting Wall Street, to the detriment of almost everyone else.

Here is a video of Senator Elizabeth Warren from yesterday's testimony in a hearing chaired by Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) “Wall Street Reform: Assessing and Enhancing the Financial Regulatory System.”  

She begins by questioning Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo.  As you may recall, the Fed is one of the primary banking regulators, acquiring even more and broader regulatory powers in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Her second question about the TBTF Banks and failure resolutions goes to FDIC Chair Martin J. Greenberg.

Near the end is a long statement/question from Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. 

I bring this to light, in order to respond to those who say that the banking system has already been reformed.   It has not.

It is only 11 minutes in length and is worth watching. You can see it in its entirety here.

Special thanks go to Pam Martens for bringing these quotes to light in her excellent article, Jamie Dimon Gets $8.5 Million Raise for Illegal Conduct at JPM. I had not yet found a proper transcript. Pam's articles are consistently timely and of high content value.

“As Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York has noted, the law on this is clear. No corporation can break the law unless an individual within that corporation broke the law. (unlike some recent delusions from the Supreme court about the inalienable rights of soulless, disembodied Corporations which are constructs merely of common law with no superior claim to a higher authority equal to an individual's rights - Jesse)

Yet, despite the misconduct at these banks that generated tens of billions of dollars in settlement payments by the companies, not a single senior executive at these banks has been criminally prosecuted. Now, I know that your agencies can’t bring prosecutions directly, but you’re supposed to refer cases to the Justice Department when you think individuals should be prosecuted. So, can you tell me how many senior executives at these three banks you have referred to the Justice Department for prosecution?...

After the savings and loan crisis in the 1970s and 1980s, the government brought over a thousand criminal prosecutions and got over 800 convictions. The FBI opened nearly 5,500 criminal investigations because of referrals from banking investigators and regulators.

The main reason we punish illegal behavior is for deterrence; to make sure that the next banker who’s thinking about breaking the law remembers that a guy down the hall was hauled out of here in handcuffs when he did that.

These civil settlements don’t provide deterrence. The shareholders for the company pay the settlement; senior management doesn’t pay a dime. And, in fact, if you’re like Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, you might even get an $8.5 million raise for negotiating such a great settlement when your company breaks the law.

So, without criminal prosecution, the message to every Wall Street banker is loud and clear: if you break the law you are not going to jail, but you might end up with a much bigger paycheck.

No one should be above the law. If you steal a hundred bucks on Main Street, you’re probably going to jail. If you steal a billion bucks on Wall Street, you darn well better go to jail too.”

Green Slime: The Return of Franken-Money

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.

When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin!

Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."

Andrew Jackson

The reason that there is a 'currency war' underway globally, and why there is increasing civil and political tension domestically, is not because of an envy for the Anglo-American one percent's way of life.

The reason is that the monetary system and the Western economies have gone off the rails with financialization and speculation, and there is a commensurate revulsion from it from those who are in a position to seek alternatives wherever they may. Those who cannot will be victims.

This system is fragile, and will not cohere.

This is why the precious metals have spiked, and will contain to struggle against the very obvious financial repression that is being driven by the Banks.  It is an exercise in the abuse of power and the corruption of governance.

This does not mean that austerity or repression are the solution, anymore than mindless stimulus in pursuit of a top-down recovery of a corrupt, wealth transfer system is either. 

The nature of the cure is in equal justice and significant reform, the protection of the weak from the overreach and encroachments of the powerful and the wealthy, whether they are allied in a foul bargain with the state or not.

We may try scheme after scheme, from clever gimmicks to 'new' theories, until we will stand exhausted on a wreckage of our own devices. There is no substitute for transparency, justice, and reform.

Related: Money Supply, A Primer

 

Robert Johnson with Paul Jay: The Convergence of Finance and Politics

As you may know, Robert Johnson is one of my favorite speakers on economic matters. He does not get sufficient exposure, and certainly not on the mainstream media.

Here is an interesting perspective on recent financial history of the US, leading up to the development of our current system of finance and governance. It is an interview on The Real News with Paul Jay. You may find the interviews there with transcripts.

Reality will indeed assert itself at some point. The longer the wait, the great the force required to delay it, and the more dramatic the eventual reversion to the mean, whatever that might ultimately prove to be. It does vary, depending on the selected dataset and how one chooses to measure it.

Some would contend that the natural state of mankind is the dominance of the few and the enslavement of the many. Others would see it as an ever rising and falling impulse to freedom and virtue. Perhaps as Heraclitus contended, the only constant is change.

I will present the next segment on 'breaking the Bank of England' in the next segment as it becomes available.




Here are parts I and II of the same interview which consist largely of Johnson's personal background and development.

The Scandal in America That Is Hidden In Plain Sight - Privilege Blindness

“There’s a new isolationism,” Kerry said during a nearly one-hour discussion with a small group of reporters. "We are beginning to behave like a poor nation,” he added, saying some Americans do not perceive the connection between US engagement abroad and the US economy, their own jobs and wider US interests.

The Guardian, John Kerry Slams 'New Isolationism'

Things may seem rosy from your perspective, John, but the sad truth is that far too many people in this country are doing without, doing more with less, too often living on the edge, and are far too often afraid.  They are referred to disparagingly as 'the common 99%',  as takers not makers, and even the 'parasitic 47%,'.   They are what is commonly referred to as 'the people' in the Constitution.

They are being spied on, bullied, repressed, and conned at almost every turn by a foul partnership of big money and power.  They often sacrifice their personal liberties, and send their children to foreign shores to fight in a perpetual war against a loosely defined 'enemy.'

One of the great marvels of the time is how effectively well-funded propaganda campaigns and a captive mainstream media have distorted the peoples' view of reality so that they act as if they are sleep-walking.

An ongoing trend in the US has been a tax code that favors large multinational corporations with loopholes and subsidies that far too often result in an effective tax rate of close to zero, despite booming corporate profits in the face of a long stagnation in median family income and wages. 

The real unemployment numbers are shockingly high, and those jobs that are available are often part time and poorly paid.   Justice is openly administered in ways that give the powerful a free pass on grossly criminal activity, from laundering drug money to financial racketeering. The rigging of prices and markets by powerful interests, and the lack of effective prosecution of such grave abuses of power, is something that seems to be de facto government policy.

This places small private businesses and individuals at a distinct disadvantage with regard to economic viability in the marketplace.  It fosters consolidation and monopoly.  It lends itself to a cynicism that is undermining the conscience of many of those who have sworn oaths of office.  It isolates dissent to corrals and 'free speech zones.'  It breaks up peaceful gatherings of protest with pepper spray, bullets, and clubs.  It pollutes the internet with campaigns of disinformation, and silences the voices of journalists.

It is intertwined with the financialisation of the real economy that is a tool for the redistribution of wealth from the many to the well connected few.  It feeds the corrupting influence of big money on the political landscape.

And often these multinationals are beneficiaries of government spending of tax revenues on procurements, outsourcing, and other initiatives, particularly with regard to infrastructure and defense spending on perpetual and largely discretionary wars.

And lately corporations have been making headway in the courts to receive all the benefits and privileges of personhood, without having to pay the price of citizenship.   War, far from being an occasion of personal loss and privation and risk, is often a beneficial period of significant revenues and greater profits.

The way in which dividends, certain types of executive compensation, and private equity investments are treated for tax purposes merely exacerbates the problem and the ongoing hypocrisy in the trickle down approach to The Recovery™.

The partnership between large corporate America, often called the moneyed interests, and the political class is something that is of deep concern to some, but not known nearly enough.  It has been a point of political contention over and over again in US history, and the history of all nations.

If tax reform is on the agenda, closing loopholes, subsidies and government welfare programs for corporate America ought to be a top priority.  But change must come.

We are acting like a poor nation John, even a third world nation, with widespread corruption, declining press freedom, a crumbling infrastructure, and an alarming concentration of power in a few hands, a few powerful families. Both political parties are owned by the same elite class and are essentially the same corporate sponsored products; they are just different brands with different target markets.

And you and yours have made it that way. Welcome to our brave new world.

The following is from Ralph Dillon at Global Financial Data:

"Inevitably, the tax man will cometh…..Except of course, if you are a large multinational corporation. Despite the political banter over who pays and who does not, the 2000s have ushered in an era of corporations avoiding paying taxes. Armed with teams of CPAs and attorneys, these large multinational companies have pushed the limits on how they can avoid paying taxes and have done so quite successfully.

General Electric, one of the largest and most well respected companies in America has been criticized for paying little or nothing on their corporate taxes the last few years. In fact, GE is currently suing the IRS for over 650 million dollars they feel should have been a tax credit instead of a liability that they owe taxes on.

If you look at the S&P 500 members citing effective tax rates of 0%, it is staggering. With names like Broadcom, Verizon Wireless, Public Storage, Seagate Technologies and even News Corp having not paid any taxes in the past twelve months. The list of companies with a 0% effective tax rate is a long one and perhaps one that needs some attention. It just seems odd that we can tax everything in this country but not huge multinational companies that make billions of dollars each year.

Favorable tax codes and massive amounts of lobbying have created corporate welfare in this country and perhaps the time has come to address the inequalities that exist in the tax code.

It is estimated that that there is over 2 trillion dollars in cash sitting in the coffers of corporate America right now. Shareholder activists like Carl Icahn, are forcing companies like Apple to address what they are going to do with the loads of cash they are sitting on.

What’s really interesting to see is that the divergence between corporate profits and tax receipts on that corporate income. In early 2000, we saw a gap that widened and then virtually exploded.

Currently, corporate profits have never been better yet the liability of paying taxes on those profits has stayed flat. It has created the largest divergence the 2 series have had in over 65 years!"

I have written about this on occasion over the years.  You may find prior posts on this subject by clicking on the subject 'Corporate Tax' at the bottom of this posting. Or any of the other subjects as well.

Thomas Frank: Pity the Billionaires, Marxism for the Master Class

“Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society....to justify and extol human greed and egotism.”

Gore Vidal


"It is not Man but nature that raises into one class those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity -- the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior caste -- I call it the fewest -- has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few...

The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types -- the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all. A right is a privilege. Everyone enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence.

Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of equal rights."

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Der AntiChrist

In light of the recent outcries by billionaire Tom Perkins for fair and loving treatment, I thought it might be interesting to explore the mindset that pictures the doyens of Wall Street, and those who have taken fortunes out of the dot.com and housing bubbles, as the real victims of the financial collapse and The Recovery™.

I think that part of this comes from the phenomenon that for some people, gratitude is their natural response to good fortune, even if it has come from hard work. Whereas others are possessed by a restlessness, an insatiable spirit, and their response to everything is 'I deserve more!.' 

Tom Perkins not only wishes his wealth, and his banal collection of toys, but he wishes to have public adulation as well, or at least the power to compel people to defer to him.

Mr. Frank thinks that this time around the cultural response to a Great Depression is 'backwards,' as compared to that of the 1930's, and one might tend to agree. There certainly has not been the rising of a national sympathy for victims, or a proper outrage at the arrogance and excesses of the financiers.

But this might overlook the fact that the US was a bit of an outlier back then, as only a few countries turned towards progressive reforms, while other developed nations embraced the hardness of totalitarianism, and even went so far as systematically murdering the weak.

But it is a mistake that the US is some sort of paragon, if one recalls John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. The allure of selfishness and evil is a natural tendency that we overlook in our economic models, among other things. And we certainly ought not overlook the consecration of the country to the principle that 'greed is good,' or more plainly to Mammon, in the latter part of the last century.

I agree with him that Obama has been a pivotal disappointment, and I was interested to hear the reasons why he thought this was so.  Overall I found his perspective to be interesting, as though he was not an American historian and journalist, but some foreign observer sharing an exterior perspective of wonderment.

I have started the tape beyond the introductory remarks and welcomes at this talk he gave in Seattle.

"Do you think he is so unskillful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in his warfare against the truth? No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty; he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes; he promises you reform.

This is the way in which he conceals from you the kind of work to which he is putting you; he tempts you to rail against your rulers and superiors; he does so himself, and induces you to imitate him; or he promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them.

He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

J.H.Newman, The Times of Antichrist

Who Is Above the Law? There Is At Least a Partial Official List

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, 4 July 1776

As you may have noticed, Google is trying to sort out its software that allows me to post links under Matières à Réflexion.

Sorry if this inconveniences you, but these things happen, particularly when programmers improve something, and in the process break something else.  Google are generally quite good about fixing this if one can catch their attention.  Normally I work around it, put in some temporary fix, but this week I am caught up in other matters pertaining to the holiest week in the Christian and Jewish tradition.

In the meanwhile, Golem XIV has a post that reminds us that there are some entities, and people, who are literally above the law. And he even provides a partial list, not including well connected individuals not otherwise associated with or operating under the cover of a systemically important bank.

The problem with selective justice, even if it is for what might otherwise be considered good intentions, is that it presents an enormous moral hazard, and tempts those who might otherwise be restrained by the law to excess. And by their example they teach the rest of the people lawlessness.

And this is the danger of the credibility trap in which we find ourselves today. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Twilight of Justice
By Golem XIV
March 26, 2013

Back in December of 2012, when it was proved in U.S. court that billions of dollars of drug money had been laundered through HSBC and yet somehow it was also found that HSBC was NOT guilty of laundering and neither was anyone in the bank, there was an outcry.

In America Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, when she was grilling federal bank regulators at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, said

“No one individual went to trial, no individual was banned from banking and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States.

Which did seem outrageous at the time given that, for example, according to Senate and Justice department reports, HSBC had,

…failed to monitor over $670 billion in wire transfers and over $9.4 billion in purchases of physical US dollars from HSBC Mexico from at least 2006 to 2009.

And that,

HSBC’s Mexico bank had a branch in the Cayman Islands that had no offices or staff, but held 50,000 client accounts and $2.1 billion in 2008.

Who in the bank knew about this? Evidence uncovered by investigations into HSBC’s activities revealed,

“senior bank officials were complicit in the illegal activity.”

The Question
No wonder then, that Senator Warren was driven to ask,

So … what does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?”

What indeed.

In the UK it was noted that during the time the laundering was going on, the chief executive of HSBC in 2003 who then became its chairman in 2006, was Lord Green, who is now the UK trade minister. So obviously no great concern to get to any truth about HSBC, in the hierarchy of the UK establishment.

Warren’s question, ‘What does it take?’ was finally answered by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2013, when he told the U.S. Judiciary Committee that the Justice department had decided not to pursue any criminal prosecution of HSBC because ,

“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,”

The U.S. Justice Department felt it could not criminally prosecute the bank because a criminal conviction would mean the bank would lose its license to bank in the US which would kill it  and a whole range of other institutions, which the bank relies on to buy its debts and its investment products would be prohibited from doing so as soon as the bank was deemed to be criminal.

So the official answer to Senator Warren’s question, according to the mighty U.S. Justice Department, is that ,yes, HSBC had laundered, but it was simply too big to prosecute. The bank and its senior staff were and are untouchable. They could be fined but not criminally prosecuted. The real answer to Senator Warren’s question, “What does it take…?” is … that she asked the wrong question.
This isn’t about lack of proof or the complexities of financial crimes or showing who knew or proving actual intent. It is not about proof or criminality at all. It is about there being a new category of  financial entity which our law makers and prosecutors have decided for us, is above the law. They are called  G-SIFIs, Globally, Systemically Important Financial Institutions or G-SIBs, Globally Systemically Important Banks.

I think  we have not yet thought through the immense consequences of the decision that has been made for us, that G-SIFIs are above the law.  But I think we need to make a start.

The List

We all know the HSBC isn’t the only bank too large to prosecute. There is in fact a list.



The list is decided upon by the FSB. It is updated every year.

The FBS (Financial Stability Board) is a new international body. It is made of representatives from the central bank, financial regulator and Treasury from each of the 25 member nations plus representatives from:

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the ECB, the European Commission, the IMF, OECD and World Bank, plus representatives from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (part of the BIS), the Committee on the Global Financial System (another part of the BIS), the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (another part of the BIS), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, the International Accounting Standards Board, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

Guess which institutions provide the membership for ALL of the above international bodies? Yes, you got it – the big banks. And how many Central banks can you think of that are staffed or even headed by people formerly from one of the Big Banks?
You tell me who is really staffs the FSB and whose world view and interests the FSB actually represents?

Then consider, they are the ones who decided who is above the law.

28 banks are officially above the law and WILL NOT be criminally prosecuted no matter what they do. Remember that’s not me saying this. It is the U.S. Department of Justice saying it.

Not only 28 banks but all their senior executives, chairman/woman and board members. It would be very difficult to find a senior person in a bank to be criminally guilty but yet not find the institution guilty. So we could compile a list of people who are now, at least as concerns any financial and professional actions, also above the law. They can do things you would go to goal for. How does that feel?

Oh, by the way, this year, in April, we will see the announcement of another list, this time of Globally Systemically Important Insurers (G-SIIs). They too will be above the Law.

Assets Above the Law

When we say a bank is above the law, not only should we remember that this means specific people are above the law (at least in how they make money) but we should also remember that this also means the assets in those banks are above the law. This means if a banks does things which are illegal but lucrative – such as laundering money in order to get the use of those laundered billions to then use them as, lets say, capital to underpin loans or for speculating, for example, and by doing those illegal things it makes out sized profits for its shareholders and staff, that money, those profits are also above the law.

Since the bank and its senior staff are above the law and breaking the law is profitable, a) no one has an interest to say no, b) shareholders and staff will directly benefit from breaking the law. They will make more money by participating in law breaking or by investing in a bank which is law breaking. They will, in fact have an interest making sure it continues.

Two questions. Whose wealth are we talking about and how much?

Second question first. Is this a big problem?

Read the rest here.

 

Financialization of Justice: SEC Settles Insider Trading Case With SAC Capital For $600 Million

Stevie Calls His Shot, Hits It Out of the Park

Breaking news per Bloomberg:

SEC settles with SAC Capital for $600 million over insider trading related to Mathew Martoma case.

Apparently Stevie Cohen's deposition really was that bad. But luckily he was able to monetize any criminal charges.

I think this is a bigger fine than Goldman paid for Abacus.   Of course SAC is not as systemically important as Goldman.

But that fine is less than Steve Cohen's reported personal compensation in 2005 and 2010 alone, according to the WSJ, which pegs it as a billion dollar paycheck each year for Steve.  His normal compensation is in the mere many hundreds of millions.

Steven A. Cohen, aka The Wizard of Great Neck, or Guru of Gruntal, is worth approximately $8.8 Billion as of March 2012.