Wilkerson: Who Makes US Foreign Policy

Part of what I teach is how since World War II and the acquisition of this enormous power by what in essence is the new Rome in the world, the United States, part of the shift that takes place in manipulating and managing that new power is a centralization of foreign policy away from the old cabinet places where it used to take place, most prominently through the Foreign Service and through the secretary of state, to the White House and to the creation of the 1947 National Security Act, the National Security Council.

So if you ask me pro forma where does it exist today, it exists more in the National Security Council and its staff than it does anywhere else, certainly anywhere else in the cabinet. So what I'm saying is it's centralized in the White House.

But what does that mean in terms of, I think, your real question, who's behind the White House, and who's therefore behind U.S. foreign policy, more or less? I think the answer today is the oligarchs, which would be the same answer, incidentally, ironically, if you will, for Putin in Russia, the people who own the wealth, the people who therefore have the power and who more or less (and I'm not being too facetious here, I don't think) buy the president and thus buy American foreign policy. So that's as succinct an answer as I can give you and touch on a few historical points...

And you could say in some respects this shadow behind the power that makes money off war, period, no matter who's the belligerent, makes money off that volatility now, especially with computers that are able to assist them in doing so, like currency manipulation, for example, or just general speculation. With computers you can do it at lightning speed and you can do it in a nanosecond, and you can make billions in that nanosecond, and you don't care about what you're doing to the real economy, because you're raking in the dough.

Lawrence Wilkerson

You may watch the entire three video interview here.

Letter to Edward M. House
Warm Springs, November 21, 1933

My dear Friend:

...I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day and he and he seemed more worried about Tugwell's speech than about anything else, especially when Tugwell said, "From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights." J.P.M. did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing, and confessed that he had been completely misled in regard to the Federal expenditures.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of WW [Woodrow Wilson]— The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United Stated - only on a far bigger and broader basis.

I am having a grand rest and am catching up on much needed sleep. Take care of yourself and do write me soon.

Franklin Roosevelt

War is a racket. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General.

The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912.

I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

US Tax Brackets Spread For the Past 100 Years and the Concentration of Economic Decision Making

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. Here is a history of the 'brackets spread.'

These are the nominal rates and do not account for tax shelters and deductions. This also does not include non-income taxes such as the federal gasoline tax.

Below this I also include a chart that shows the share of income obtained by the top 1%. I am not necessarily implying that low tax rates on the wealthy leads to a greater share of income for them, in a causal manner.

I think it is a correlation, that low tax rates for the wealthy are an artifact of their increased political power because of wealth obtained by other means, whether it be through monopolies, changes in public policy, cartels, financial fraud, technological change, and quite often corruption.

There should be little doubt from the last chart that the great turning point occurred during the Reagan era, but that it also obtained a 'second life' during the second term of Clinton and the beginning of the twin financial bubbles in tech and housing.

What was damaging in the Reagan philosophy was not so much any change in tax rates, but the promotion of the idea that the rule of unfettered markets was naturally superior to the rule of law, with beneficial effects for everyone. What this ignores is the tendency of unregulated markets to duopoly, monopoly, cartels, frauds and spectacular failures.

I hypothesize that not only does 'supply side economics' not work, but rather, a concentration of wealth and political power in the top one percent actually tends to drag down the overall well-being of the country in terms of robust growth and median standards of living.

This concentration of economic decision making tends to 'starve' the real economy by dampening aggregate demand, and distorting investment from the real to the artificial, particular, and ostentatious, in the manner of many third world oligarchies. It is similar to the concept that decisions made across the broadest number of market participants tend to be the most correct.

This is a somewhat counter-intuitive observation, that a ruling elite tends to 'get it wrong' as compared to a more broadly based decision model in a transparent information model, because their perspective tends more to distortion and group-think as compared to one that includes a reasonably educated and informed middle class. In other words, for all its flaws, democracy works when information flows.

Oligarchies never work, because benevolent dictatorships are mythical for many of the same reasons as the naturally efficient markets model.

Or as Lord Acton put it so succinctly some years ago:

"Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.

Lord Acton

There are two major models for recovering from such a situation: the Japanese model and the Swedish model, with a number of variations.

The Japanese model attempts to hold the financial structure largely intact, diverting huge amounts of policy action and public funds to supporting 'zombie banks' and interwoven corporate cartels. This led to a protracted period of stagnation.

The Swedish model is to nationalize, reorganize, reregulate and reform the financial sector into a more benign banking system. This has proven to be more successful in several instances, including Iceland more recently.

It will be interesting to see how the next ten years play out in North America and Europe.

h/t Barry Ritholtz

Source: WSJ
Looking Past Fiscal Cliff to Fixing Taxes
By Gerald F. Seib

Let's imagine you just landed from Mars and discovered that America's political system is in gridlock, and its economy is being held hostage. What, you would ask, is the giant problem creating all this trouble?

The big dispute, you would discover, is over whether the top individual marginal tax rate should be 35% (the rate established under George W. Bush) or 39.6% (the rate under Bill Clinton).

That is an oversimplification of the issues that are driving Washington toward the so-called fiscal cliff, of course. Still, that top rate is at the heart of the roaring economic debate.

Read the rest here.

Top 1% Share of the Wealth of the US During the same 100 Year Period

Inequality Matters: Why Nations Fail

"To Egyptians, the things that have held them back include an ineffective and corrupt state and a society where they cannot use their talent, ambition, ingenuity, and what education they can get. But they also recognize that the roots of these problems are political.

All the economic impediments they face stem from the way political power in Egypt is exercised and monopolized by a narrow elite. This, they understand, is the first thing that has to change.

Yet, in believing this, the protestors of Tahrir Square have sharply diverged from the conventional wisdom on this topic. When they reason about why a country such as Egypt is poor, most academics and commentators emphasize completely different factors.

Some stress that Egypt’s poverty is determined primarily by its geography, by the fact that the country is mostly a desert and lacks adequate rainfall, and that its soils and climate do not allow productive agriculture. Others instead point to cultural attributes of Egyptians that are supposedly inimical to economic development and prosperity. Egyptians, they argue, lack the same sort of work ethic and cultural traits that have allowed others to prosper, and instead have accepted Islamic beliefs that are inconsistent with economic success.

A third approach, the one dominant among economists and policy pundits, is based on the notion that the rulers of Egypt simply don’t know what is needed to make their country prosperous, and have followed incorrect policies and strategies in the past. If these rulers would only get the right advice from the right advisers, the thinking goes, prosperity would follow. To these academics and pundits, the fact that Egypt has been ruled by narrow elites feathering their nests at the expense of society seems irrelevant to understanding the country’s economic problems.

In this book we’ll argue that the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, not most academics and commentators, have the right idea. In fact, Egypt is poor precisely because it has been ruled by a narrow elite that have organized society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people. Political power has been narrowly concentrated, and has been used to create great wealth for those who possess it, such as the $70 billion fortune apparently accumulated by ex-president Mubarak. The losers have been the Egyptian people, as they only too well understand.

We’ll show that this interpretation of Egyptian poverty, the people’s interpretation, turns out to provide a general explanation for why poor countries are poor. Whether it is North Korea, Sierra Leone, or Zimbabwe, we’ll show that poor countries are poor for the same reason that Egypt is poor.

Countries such as Great Britain and the United States became rich because their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed, where the government was accountable and responsive to citizens, and where the great mass of people could take advantage of economic opportunities.

We’ll show that to understand why there is such inequality in the world today we have to delve into the past and study the historical dynamics of societies. We’ll see that the reason that Britain is richer than Egypt is because in 1688, Britain (or England, to be exact) had a revolution that transformed the politics and thus the economics of the nation. People fought for and won more political rights, and they used them to expand their economic opportunities. The result was a fundamentally different political and economic trajectory, culminating in the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution and the technologies it unleashed didn’t spread to Egypt, as that country was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, which treated Egypt in rather the same way as the Mubarak family later did. Ottoman rule in Egypt was overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798, but the country then fell under the control of British colonialism, which had as little interest as the Ottomans in promoting Egypt’s prosperity.

Though the Egyptians shook off the Ottoman and British empires and, in 1952, overthrew their monarchy, these were not revolutions like that of 1688 in England, and rather than fundamentally transforming politics in Egypt, they brought to power another elite as disinterested in achieving prosperity for ordinary Egyptians as the Ottoman and British had been. In consequence, the basic structure of society did not change, and Egypt stayed poor."

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Why Nations Fail

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

Simon Johnson On the Quiet Coup d'Etat in the Anglo-American Financial System

This is a reprise of an interview with MIT economist Simon Johnson which was posted here in February, 2009.

Have we heeded Simon Johnson's warning? Has he proven to be prescient? Is crony capitalism and the kleptocracy becoming bolder, more aggressive, ever more demanding?

"I think I'm signaling something a little bit shocking to Americans, and to myself, actually. Which is the situation we find ourselves in at this moment, this week, is very strongly reminiscent of the situations we've seen many times in other places.

But they're places we don't like to think of ourselves as being similar to. They're emerging markets. It's Russia or Indonesia or a Thailand type situation, or Korea. That's not comfortable. America is different. America is special. America is rich. And, yet, we've somehow find ourselves in the grip of the same sort of crisis and the same sort of oligarchs...

But, exactly what you said, it's a small group with a lot of power. A lot of wealth. They don't necessarily - they're not necessarily always the names, the household names that spring to mind, in this kind of context. But they are the people who could pull the strings. Who have the influence. Who call the shots...

...the signs that I see this week, the body language, the words, the op-eds, the testimony, the way they're treated by certain Congressional committees, it makes me feel very worried.

I have this feeling in my stomach that I felt in other countries, much poorer countries, countries that were headed into really difficult economic situation. When there's a small group of people who got you into a disaster, and who were still powerful. Disaster even made them more powerful. And you know you need to come in and break that power. And you can't. You're stuck....

The powerful people are the insiders. They're the CEOs of these banks. They're the people who run these banks. They're the people who pay themselves the massive bonuses at the end of the last year. Now, those bonuses are not the essence of the problem, but they are a symptom of an arrogance, and a feeling of invincibility, that tells you a lot about the culture of those organizations, and the attitudes of the people who lead them...

But it really shows you the arrogance, and I think these people think that they've won. They think it's over. They think it's won. They think that we're going to pay out ten or 20 percent of GDP to basically make them whole. It's astonishing....

...these people are throughout the system of government. They are very much at the forefront of the Treasury. The Treasury is apparently calling the shots on their economic policies.

This is a decisive moment. Either you break the power or we're stuck for a long time with this arrangement."


Bill Moyer's Journal - Interview with Simon Johnson, February, 2009.

Johnson also wrote a piece in the Atlantic Magazine titled The Quiet Coup. It may be worth re-reading.

Here is the introduction to this in The Fall of the American Republic: The Quiet Coup d'Etat in August 2010.

"I am not so optimistic that this reform is possible, because there has in fact been a soft coup d'etat in the US, which now exists in a state of crony corporatism that wields enormous influence over the media and within the government.

Let's be clear about this, the oligarchs are flush with victory, and feel that they are firmly in control, able to subvert and direct any popular movement to the support of their own fascist ends and unslakable will to power.

This is the contempt in which they hold the majority of American people and the political process: the common people are easily led fools, and everyone else who is smart enough to know better has their price. And they would beggar every middle class voter in the US before they will voluntarily give up one dime of their ill gotten gains.

But my model says that the oligarchs will continue to press their advantages, being flushed with victory, until they provoke a strong reaction that frightens everyone, like a wake up call, and the tide then turns to genuine reform."

As far as I can tell, we are right on track for a very bad time of it. And you might be surprised at how far a belief in exceptionalism and arrogant superiority can go before it finally ends, or more likely, falls.

Lair of the Pigmen: FHA to Extend Government Loan Subsidy Benefits to NYC Luxury Condo Market

Weren't FHA loans supposed to be a form a welfare for 'poor people?' Not since the Expanding America Home Ownership Act of 2007.

And it appears this is one 'reform' that can't be blamed on 'the liberals' and Obama. Crony Capitalism is not a political party, it's a way of life in which power and greed are the measure of all things.

Well, some of the New York real estate developers are poor, relatively speaking, compared to an investment banker or a trader pulling down a fifty million dollar annual bonus for packaging fraudulent financial instruments. But they are all rich in their well connected friends in the government.

The kleptocracy never sleeps; crony capitalism knows no bounds...

NBC New York
Luxury Condos Asking the Feds For Help
By JUAN DEJESUS
Fri, Aug 13, 2010

Seek FHA insurance to drive condo sales

The federal government may soon come to the rescue of stalled luxury condominiums in Manhattan.

Manhattan luxury condominiums known for posh amenities and high price tags are beginning to apply for Federal Housing Administration backing.

Condominium developers hope to open financing opportunities for their purchasers as well as guarantee a little protection for themselves. Not only will lending institutions be more willing to lend to purchasers with FHA backing, but the FHA will pay the mortgage should a home buyer default.

The FHA loosened the condo rules because of “market conditions,” Lemar Wooley, an agency spokesman told Bloomberg.com

The administration recently agreed to insure mortgages for apartments at the 98-unit Gramercy Park development, known as Tempo in Match, according to Bloomberg. That deal allowed buyers to make a down payment of as low as 3.5 percent in a complex where apartments run up to $3 million...

Feds Probing JP Morgan Silver Manipulation as Merkel Sounds Defiance to the Banks

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel accused the financial industry of playing dirty. 'First the banks failed, forcing states to carry out rescue operations. They plunged the global economy over the precipice and we had to launch recovery packages, which increased our debts, and now they are speculating against these debts. That is very treacherous,' she said. 'Governments must regain supremacy. It is a fight against the markets and I am determined to win this fight.'"

UK Telegraph

The story of this crisis is the people versus the Banks. The largest mistake that Europe made was in bailing out their biggest banks, and not simply nationalizing them. But that would not have resolved the problem of the gangs of the New York and London, and their partners in the hedge funds and the ratings agencies.

I do not wish to sound pessimistic, but it will be a surprise if the US under the Obama Administration does anything meaningful and significant to curb the abuses of the large Wall Street firms. While the corruption in the campaign financial process and the revolving door between government and the Street remains open the progress to reform will remain a diversion at best.

NY Post
Feds Probing JPMorgan trades in Silver Pit
By MICHAEL GRAY
May 9, 2010

Federal agents have launched parallel criminal and civil probes of JPMorgan Chase and its trading activity in the precious metals market, The Post has learned.

The probes are centering on whether or not JPMorgan, a top derivatives holder in precious metals, acted improperly to depress the price of silver, sources said.

The Commodities Futures Trade Commission is looking into civil charges, and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is handling the criminal probe, according to sources, who did not wish to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the information.

The probes are far-ranging, with federal officials looking into JPMorgan's precious metals trades on the London Bullion Market Association's (LBMA) exchange, which is a physical delivery market, and the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex) for future paper derivative trades.

JPMorgan increased its silver derivative holdings by $6.76 billion, or about 220 million ounces, during the last three months of 2009, according to the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.

Regulators are pulling trading tickets on JPMorgan's precious metals moves on all the exchanges as part of the probe, sources tell The Post.

JPMorgan has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The DOJ and CFTC each declined to comment, as did JPMorgan.

The investigations stem from a story in The Post, which reported on a whistleblower questioning JPMorgan's involvement in suppressing the price of silver by "shorting" the precious metal around the release of news announcements that should have sent the price upwards.

It is alleged that in shorting silver, JPMorgan sells large blocks of silver option contracts or physical metal -- actions that would bring down the price of the metal -- closely following news that would otherwise move the metals higher.

Last week, The Post got a telling e-mail the Justice Dept. sent to a concerned investor. "Thank you for your e-mail regarding allegations that JPMorgan Chase, and perhaps other traders, are manipulating the silver futures market," the e-mail read.

Telling, indeed, as the concerned investor, in an e-mail to Justice's Anti-trust division, never mentioned any companies or traders.

Investors Who Lost In Madoff and Stanford Schemes Want Government to "Make Them Whole"

These are, by and large, relatively well-to-do people who were considered 'qualified investors,' or ought to have been. They were able to place large sums of money in obviously risky investments seeking abnormally high rates of return, which they did receive for many years.

The notion that the government should retroactively cover their losses, even indirectly, by taxing the public is obviously repugnant.

What about the many who have lost, on a percentage basis, equally if not more devastating amounts of their retirement savings in the tech, housing and credit bubbles? Their only fault is that they lack the political connections and high powered lawyers to make the case for them to the Congress, and the influence to get their way from pliable Congressmen.

I feel mightily sorry for anyone who has lost money in these fraudulent markets. I spend quite a bit of my personal time trying to warn people about the snares and pitfalls that are allowed to continue in the US financial markets even today. And there are many of them. Consumer Protection is not a priority in Washington.

A better case might be made to sue the Wall Street exchanges, the private self-regulators, and the auditors and ratings agencies for gross negligence in allowing these frauds to continue for so many years. Prosecutions for fraud and corruption across a much wider circle of enablers is generally what is done. It was done in the 1930's and it was done after the Savings and Loan Scandal.

But that will not happen. The financial sector is contributing far too much to the politicians in Washington, and too many powerful politicians are beholden to them, despite what smooth words that might pass their lips in public.

To take the losses of wealthier investors from hedge funds and other high risk investments having no productive benefit or socially redeeming value, and socialize them to the many is almost unbelievable.

And the backing of Senators Richard Shelby and Bob Corker for this is just another sign of the disgraceful corruption and patronage to a select few that infests the Finance Committee in the Senate. These are the Senators on the Finance Committe, among others, who are blocking and weakening financial reform. What hypocrites!

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel." Abraham Lincoln, speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837

BusinessWeek
Madoff Victims Join Stanford Investors to Lobby for Payback
By Robert Schmidt and Jesse Westbrook
March 10, 2010, 12:16 AM EST

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- Victims of Bernard Madoff and accused Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford are banding together to lobby Congress for a law that could require Wall Street firms to pay billions of dollars to cover some of the losses they suffered.

As the groups’ leaders walked the Capitol halls separately over the past several months, they learned how to find the Senate’s Dirksen Office Building and to call their proposal “revenue neutral,” meaning no cost to taxpayers.

They also gleaned another lesson: The broader the geographic base of support, the better the chance of legislative success. The result is a coalition of the Democratic-backed, East Coast, and mostly Jewish investors defrauded by Madoff, with the Republican-backed, largely Christian, Sunbelt residents victimized by Stanford. The disparate groups now find themselves bound by a common notion: They’ve been cheated, and they want the government to make them whole....

The lobbying initiative “gives new meaning to the word chutzpah,” said James Cox, a professor at Duke University School of Law. “This is just a tax increase. It’s levied on banks but customers end up paying.” Until recently, the two groups were going at it alone, and not winning much support except from lawmakers in their regions.

Shaw’s Stanford group had backing from Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, and other panel Republicans like Bob Corker of Tennessee, David Vitter of Louisiana and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, said Shaw, who also works part-time as a spokeswoman at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

“These are very Christian” people, Shaw said, referring to the Stanford victims. A lot of members were marketed the Stanford securities “at church...”

Iceland's Failure: Not All Banana Republics Deal in Bananas

Here is a nice snapshot of an oligarchy at work in a small country. It is a microcosm of the United States. One only has to substitute "major corporations" for power individuals and the parallel becomes more obvious.

It appears to outsiders that in the US, rather than reform or change, rival organizations are in conflict with each other in the US for the spoils of corruption, and alternatively exchange political power to provide the appearance of change, but never relinquishing the primary mission of transferring wealth from the many to their own particular constituents.

The solution in Iceland is for a third party, a progressive party, to rise up and be supported in the elections, despite the stiff opposition from the status quo. Iceland is a small country and its citizens on average reasonably well educated and easily reached. They simply need to get seriously concerned for the future of their children and grandchildren and take control of their country back from the political elite.

It is a much more daunting task for a third party to bring reform to a large country with diverse population, often easily managed into conflict with each other by propaganda from a co-opted mainstream media. Potential leaders often have large egos, and in the States bloggers too often tend to enjoy squabbling with each other over relatively inconsequential things, rather than the primary task at hand. I wonder if it is the same way in Iceland?

UK Telegraph
David Oddsson's ascent to Iceland's editor in chief splits opinion as bloggers gain ground
By Rowena Mason
September 29th, 2009

Plus ca change! And I thought Iceland was moving on from a society where the same elite that caused the financial crash held an iron grip on public life,” groaned one resident of Reykjavik.

The cause of her dismay was the news that David Oddsson, the former prime minister and central bank governor has been appointed editor of the country’s best-respected newspaper.

Only six months ago, shortly after a change in government, he was forced out of the central bank as campaigners lobbied for a new order to help the country recover from the failure of its banking system a year ago.

Mr Oddsson – whose Thatcherite policies led to the privatisation of Iceland’s three big banks in the 1990s – inspires both extreme devotion and antipathy in his home country.

Many blame him for de-regulation of the financial system in the years before the collapse that sparked a domino of corporate bankruptcies, rising unemployment and an investigation into “suspicions of criminal activity” at the failed banks.

Others, including one reader who emailed me this morning, believe the appointment of Mr Oddsson will be a steady force for good behind the many excellent reporters uncovering suspected corruption in Iceland’s financial system.

A couple of Morgunbladid journalists I spoke to were ambivalent – surprised by the choice, but willing to give Mr Oddsson a chance as an editor who must hold those who contributed to the crash responsible.

However this flamboyant politician chooses to sit in his editorial chair, the fact remains that almost a year after the crash Iceland has not yet quite escaped the financial and political powers who have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo and protecting their reputations.

One of the main factors behind Iceland’s financial implosion – an extreme microcosm for the problems in the rest of the world – is the secrecy, interconnection and conflicts of interest in its public life.

That the major shareholders of the banks also owned much of the non-state media undoubtedly helped to perpetuate many myths about Iceland’s economic strength.

Frettabladid, a free newspaper distributed to every home, and Channel 2 television, are both still owned by Jon Asgeir Johannesson – whose companies are strongly linked to Glitnir, one of the collapsed banks, and Baugur, the failed retail giant that owned dozens of British high street shops.

Another television channel, Skjareinn, is backed by the brothers that owned the biggest share of Kaupthing, Iceland’s biggest failed bank.

And Morgunbladid itself was previously owned by Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, one of a billionaire father and son team behind the third collapsed bank, Landsbanki. It is now in the hands of fishing magnates, who fiercely oppose Iceland’s entry to the European Union out of fear that quotas may be restricted.

One consequence of the links between big business and the media has been that the Icelandic public’s faith in traditional and official sources of news has started to erode, increasing reliance on blogs to provide news services, spread gossip and provide a discussion forum.

This has increasingly irritated some of Iceland’s financiers. Lydur Gudmundsson, one of the two brothers who backed Kaupthing, has publicly blamed bloggers for creating a negative atmosphere and pointing too many fingers.

It’s a sure sign that these new media journalists, empowered by the internet, are digging around in the right back yards.

America vs. the Oligarchs

Bill Moyers has an interview with former IMF Chief Economist and MIT professor Simon Johnson that is excerpted and linked below.

Simon Johnson's premise is that the big Wall Street banks represent an oligarchy that is exerting undue influence and control on our government and the economy. They are turning this crisis to their advantage, and circumventing the democratic process.

What we are seeing looks to Simon Johnson like a financial coup d'etat.

Now is the time to break up the big money center banks. Now is the time to reinstate Glass-Steagall. We must demand the reforms for which we elected the Obama Administration.

Watch this interview. Think about it. Let other people know. Write your congressmen.

And be prepared to act on a larger scale in a peaceful way to get the point across that we value our liberty and we will stand for justice. We are not optimistic that the government will do the right thing without more prodding and significant support from the public.

"I think I'm signaling something a little bit shocking to Americans, and to myself, actually. Which is the situation we find ourselves in at this moment, this week, is very strongly reminiscent of the situations we've seen many times in other places.

But they're places we don't like to think of ourselves as being similar to. They're emerging markets. It's Russia or Indonesia or a Thailand type situation, or Korea. That's not comfortable. America is different. America is special. America is rich. And, yet, we've somehow find ourselves in the grip of the same sort of crisis and the same sort of oligarchs...

But, exactly what you said, it's a small group with a lot of power. A lot of wealth. They don't necessarily - they're not necessarily always the names, the household names that spring to mind, in this kind of context. But they are the people who could pull the strings. Who have the influence. Who call the shots...

...the signs that I see this week, the body language, the words, the op-eds, the testimony, the way they're treated by certain Congressional committees, it makes me feel very worried.

I have this feeling in my stomach that I felt in other countries, much poorer countries, countries that were headed into really difficult economic situation. When there's a small group of people who got you into a disaster, and who were still powerful. Disaster even made them more powerful. And you know you need to come in and break that power. And you can't. You're stuck....

The powerful people are the insiders. They're the CEOs of these banks. They're the people who run these banks. They're the people who pay themselves the massive bonuses at the end of the last year. Now, those bonuses are not the essence of the problem, but they are a symptom of an arrogance, and a feeling of invincibility, that tells you a lot about the culture of those organizations, and the attitudes of the people who lead them...

But it really shows you the arrogance, and I think these people think that they've won. They think it's over. They think it's won. They think that we're going to pay out ten or 20 percent of GDP to basically make them whole. It's astonishing....

...these people are throughout the system of government. They are very much at the forefront of the Treasury. The Treasury is apparently calling the shots on their economic policies. This is a decisive moment. Either you break the power or we're stuck for a long time with this arrangement."

Bill Moyer's Journal - Interview with Simon Johnson

Simon Johnson's Web Site Baseline Scenario