Stocks and Precious Metals Charts - Risk Off - Jackson Hole on Deck

Mammon, child of Pride

“We must alter our lives in order to alter our hearts, for it is impossible to live one way and pray another.

If you have not chosen the kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead.”

William Law


"Day by day the money-masters of America become more aware of their danger, they draw together, they grow more class-conscious, more aggressive. The [first world] war has taught them the possibilities of propaganda; it has accustomed them to the idea of enormous campaigns which sway the minds of millions and make them pliable to any purpose.

American political corruption was the buying up of legislatures and assemblies to keep them from doing the people's will and protecting the people's interests; it was the exploiter entrenching himself in power, it was financial autocracy undermining and destroying political democracy.  By the blindness and greed of ruling classes the people have been plunged into infinite misery."

Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check


"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction."

Erich Fromm

Greed does not need— it wants.  It is a sickness that consumes, and craves more.  Until it consumes itself.

Visiting in-laws, extended family, and the newborn from the youngest goddaughter makes his debut.

It was a very good day.

Have a pleasant evening.

Notes on the Currency War - 'Old as Babylon and Evil as Hell'

Below is an excerpt from a much longer article which you can read in its entirety here.

It is an interpretation told from a certain perspective, but overall does a fairly decent job of laying out the general boundaries for the currency war that has been brewing in the background since 1971 with the collapse of Bretton Woods.

It is more visible to us now because it started manifesting more overtly in the 1990's and since then has slowly been gaining momentum.

If an analyst does not understand this, is not aware of it even if they do not agree with this particular interpretation, then they have a poor grasp of the major trends that are driving so much financial and political activity in the world today.

And fortunately or unfortunately, gold and silver are deeply involved as the traditional supra-national world currencies.

To put the entire thing in a nutshell, in 1971 the US arbitrarily ended the Bretton Woods Agreement by closing the 'gold window,' and placed the world on an entirely fiat reserve currency which the US controlled. Since the US is making monetary policy to suit its own domestic agenda, and increasingly so over the past twenty years, the stresses that this creates in the world have become unacceptable to many other countries, some of which are in a position to push back against this.

This tension between the dollar and the rest of the world is either going to end in an acceptable and workable compromise, or will result in a split of the world into regions of power and financial influence, most likely three or four. This will be accompanied by conflict on all the usual levels: diplomatic, economic, and military. We are seeing this today.

Compromise is being thwarted by a neo-conservative, militaristic and nationalistic group in the States, with clients in other countries, that view an American hegemony as the natural and highly desirable outcome of the end of the Cold War.  However, this is a patriotic cover story for what is essentially a bid for more money and power for a privileged few who have no patriotism and little decency, who serve only themselves and their patrons.  To quote Edward Abbey, their motives are 'old as Babylon and evil as hell.'

Signorelli, Sermons and Deeds of the Antichrist

Whether you agree with this or not does not matter so much, because it is painfully obvious to those thought leaders in countries like the BRICs that this is the situation.   And they are acting on this, and the US is reacting in response. But from reading the literature of the neoliberal economists and neoconservative politicians, it seems hard to come to any other conclusion based on facts and specific actions which have been taken by the US, the UK, Canada, Germany and Japan.

 

In some ways the situation in Europe, with Germany and a few northern countries driving the ECB and its monetary policy, is a microcosm of the type of tyranny of monetary policy which is held globally by the US Dollar.  This does not even have to be purposeful, but is the natural outcome of a fiat currency held as the major exchange mechanism over a region without political and fiscal unity.  It is inevitable by its very construction, and manifests in other economic problems such as those described in Triffin's Dilemma.  

 

So why do some people keep promoting these types of unsustainable mechanisms?  As always, money and power.  Controlling the reserve currency enables a form of financial neo-colonialism in securing and controlling the payments and politics of the indebted nations.  We are seeing a fine example of this now in Greece, but the US set the pattern for this, particularly in South America, long ago.

And the money masters rationalize this, as Polyani noted, "by indulging in prejudice and sentimentalism. The improvidence of the poor is a law of nature, for servile, sordid, and ignoble work would otherwise not be done.  Also what would become of the fatherland unless we could rely on the poor? 'For what is it but distress and poverty which can prevail upon the lower classes of the people to encounter all the horrors which await them on the tempestuous ocean or on the field of battle?'"

 

The role of the many is to suffer, labor, and die for the select few, however they may choose to define themselves, and assert and maintain their dominance.   This is nothing new, but again, a theory 'old as Babylon and evil as hell.'  Exceptionalism is the very rationale for evil, and pride,  the father of sin.

 

I do not think it is too much to say that we are experiencing a type of 'world war.' This seems to be the settling of differences and adjustments that tends to follow major economics shifts, as we had seen in the first half of the 20th century.  The gilded age, the great financial bubble, interspersed by almost twenty years of horrific carnage.  And the sociopathic few, those black holes of the human spirit, are unleashing the madness once again.

 

"The Fed effectively acts as the world’s central bank, but sets monetary policy only in its own interest. Under the pressure and the orders of financial oligopolies, it fixes interest rates and prints money to suit itself, sending economies across the globe into tailspins...

These policies aren’t enacted with the express goal of kicking the global South in the stomach, but this outcome is a necessary and predictable result of the domination of the global financial order by a sole country whose interest is to keep its hegemonic status. Other measures are taken precisely toward this end. This latest round of financial warfare has to be seen in the context of financial imperialism in general. Countries struggling for sovereignty are also being hit by sanctions, speculative currency attacks, commodity price manipulation, biased evaluations from US ratings agencies, massive fines on some banks for what the US has deemed inappropriate practices, and the prohibition of certain banks from participating in the international banking system...

Not only does the dollar enable the US empire, but also protecting the dollar’s status is a major reason for US imperial wars. American financial and military strength is based upon the fact that the dollar is the world’s reserve and international trade currency, creating a global demand for dollars which allows the US to print as many greenbacks as it likes. It then pumps them into the overbloated finance capital system and uses them to fund its criminal wars...

Without this international demand for dollars, the dollar would “correct,” and US hegemony would eventually, inevitably, come to an end. Therefore the US pressures and attacks countries that attempt to free themselves from the dollar’s yoke, not only because they’re guilty of lèse-majesté, but in order to force the world to maintain the status of the dollar and thus preserve US domination...

Although it has so far been unsuccessful, the idea of rebalancing the world monetary system is extremely threatening to the US, and goes a long way toward explaining recent US wars and warmongering, which may otherwise seem irrational...

The dollar is rallying less because of any supposed US recovery than because of higher global demand for dollars due to investors’ risk aversion, in the wake of the Fed pulling the plug on QE. Parenthetically, the US economy is definitely not recovering..."

Michèle Brand and Rémy Herrera, Dollar Imperialism 2015

"Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well.

Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

Tacitus, Agricola

Not exceptional, except in its delusions. It is a story of an otherwise decent people made capable of doing monstrous things, drunk on rhetoric and power, led on by the madness of the few and their visions of empire.   It is a story old as Babylon, and evil as hell.

Glenn Greenwald Interview with Matt Lauer

"An old historian says about the Roman armies that marched through a country, burning and destroying every living thing, They make a solitude, and they call it peace. And so men do with their consciences. They stifle them, sear them, forcibly silence them, somehow or other; and then, when there is a dead stillness in the heart, broken by no voice of either approbation or blame, but doleful, like the unnatural quiet of a deserted city, then they say, It is peace; and then the man's uncontrolled passions and unbridled desires dwell solitary within the fortress of his own spirit."

Alexander Maclaren

A country that stifles dissent and disclosure, strangling knowledge under a blanket of falsehoods and secrecy, eventually kills its own conscience and reason, thereby making soulless monsters of itself and its people.   They can become capable of almost any act, moving first from excess and then to outrage, mindlessly offending against both God and nature. 

Without a pang of regret or twinge of conscience, they feel only the heat of their own passions, their lusts and fears, which are driven by the necessity of the emptiness that fuels their insatiable hunger to consume the lives of others.   And this is how the madness begins.

Empire of the Exceptional: The Age of Narcissism

As a reminder, it is not possible to reliably diagnose someone from a distance. Why?  Because our view of them is by its nature self-selective: we see and emphasize things that support our hypothetical view of them and dismiss or minimize other things that do not. This is a recurrent weakness in social sciences to be avoided. I cannot stress this enough.  Extremes are sometimes easier to see, but most individuals are a rather complex mix. 

As the psychologist in the video below points out, most people do not fit into neat categories of anything, but are rather an amalgam of various tendencies that overlap and vary greatly in intensity and influence. Most people tend to be diffused in their interests.   We can find traces of almost everything in our selves, as it is the nature of being human.  The degree of that trait is what matters, and the other traits in our mix, and how we react to them, and use them in our daily lives.

And we might also keep in mind that we go through phases, and try out different aspects of our personality in different settings and situations, especially when we are growing  What our parents or society might approve of or not helps to shape the final person which we may become as an adult. And some people may arrive at self-actualization rather late, or in some sad cases never reach that point, locked in a perpetual adolescence because of some trauma or lack of appropriate growth opportunities at key developmental junctures.

Even though it is difficult to discern in the individual, certain trends can appear on the macro level, whether it be in an historical era or even a broader culture.   They can possess distinctive personalities.  As an example, the Japanese tend to be self-effacing and socially oriented with a heavy set of personal obligations to their family and to groups.

And yet I have met some Japanese businessmen who could pass easily for Donald Trump in terms of egoism and personal preoccupation. But on the whole the trend applies, or had applied when I last looked at it carefully and at first hand.  These things on the macro level do change as well, but slowly, generationally.  And the cultural self-image may significantly lag the actual change.   Look in the mirror and see what you have become, for it may not be as you imagine.

In the past thirty years it seems that Anglo-American culture has grown increasingly narcissistic. I do not know if there are more narcissistic individuals in society now, and perhaps there are not.

But I do think that narcissism is much more widely tolerated, rewarded, and even admired now than it would have been in the period of 1930 to 1950 for example. And that is what makes all the difference. More people feel free to indulge their selfish and egotistical tendencies, and to cultivate them, in order to be fashionable and competitive.

As an aside, I think this also tends to explain the decline of literature and poetry in American culture, and the rise of reality shows and the preoccupation with extravagance. Literature calls us out of ourselves, ex stasis, in order to fill us with knowledge and the creative impulse, while spectacle merely panders, and flows in to fill the empty and undeveloped voids in our being."

This video below uses a fictional Mark Zuckerberg from a recent movie as an example of the narcissist personality. I do not know the real Mark Zuckerberg at all so I cannot say if it is valid. But I do think that the fictional Zuckerberg in the movie is an artistic representation of the modern CEO or Wall Street fund manager, based on those that I have known or read about closely.

This narcissistic tendency in modern business occurred to me last night as I read Super Rich Irony in The New Yorker. Obama is, by historical standards, a moderate Republican who has accepted the pro-Wall Street and corporate money bias created in the Democratic Party by the Clintons.   And yet he is reviled by the modern super rich as if he were a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson.

Don't get me wrong, most politicians are by the nature of their calling a bit of a narcissist, some more than others. It takes a big ego to fill a big room, and to stand up and say, I can lead. But some are more than others, given the variability of human psychology and character traits.

Some of these super rich describe Obama as arrogant and narcissistic. I think what many of them really mean is 'uppity.'  Most everyone else is their inferior, especially a mixed race man of a lower class background.   To me he seems more a careerist  and professional (aka cynical) deal maker as politicians go, rather than an active reformer.  He is the typical modern manager ruled by expediency.  

But one of the common traits of the narcissist is projecting their faults on to others.  Since this person does not serve and love me, and I am without fault, perfect, they must have something wrong with them, or be out to get me.

Everyone has an ego.  It certainly takes an ego to write a blog for that matter, although again, some are more obviously so than others. How can one stand up and say, 'this is what I think?' Well, at least blogs are self-selecting; people have to come an read them, as opposed to people who endlessly spam other people with emails of dubious origin.  Do you get that too?  Where do these things come from?  Thank God for Snopes and Google search. 

But I point this out to emphasize that this narcissistic tendency is not something particular to the wealthy, but is a cultural trait, expressed in many ways including an increase in self-absorption and incivility.  Power expresses itself in the assertion of the will over others, and the cultivation of unrestrained personal power, the triumph of their will,  is the lifeblood of the narcissist.  And this is also why they tend to be rather antithetical to democracy.

But it does seem that what marks today's super rich more than anything is their preoccupation with their own natural superiority or chosenness as more than justifying if not dictating their good fortune, and almost demanding displays of their grandiose wealth and power, even if that wealth has been gained by cheating, stealing, and depriving others of their own deserved rights and property.  Certainly Hitler saw himself chosen by history, and he  often sought confirmation of it.  

For those with money, the growth process might be subject to the same warping so often experienced by an exceptionally beautiful woman or an enormously talented athlete.  How can one learn to form genuine friendships and loving relationships when they are constantly viewed through the prism of wealth or good looks or success on the field,  when there are so many willing to indulge your worst impulses?   There is some obvious merit to suffering and adversity, as it is the salt that can preserve the best in us if properly applied, destroying the worst.

It is the excess of the age, probably due to the circumstances of fortunate birth and an early childhood in which the young learned that greed is good, screwing everyone is acceptable business practice, that there is no law but their desires, and that most people are inferiors intended to be used by them.  Often parental approval, acceptance, the most basic love, is made contingent on the buy-in. 

I know people like this. I am sure we all do. A very successful acquaintance from school shared with me the lessons taught to him by his father, which he innocently repeated. He learned them both verbally and contextually.  And most of them were exactly as I described them in the above paragraph.  And so that is what he believed.  Can this explain why some sons of wealth turn out badly?   Life lacks real adversity and the normalizing experiences that make us whole?

I have a sense that the super wealthy as a class are reaching their self-destructive apogee, which as you may recall I suggested would happen in my longer term economic forecast of 2005.  It has quite a bit of historical precedent.  When their hatred of FDR was unsatisfied, they attempted to foment a coup d'etat, which was subsequently covered up.  That was a mistake made in the name of preserving the system, as so many similar errors incurring moral hazard have been made more recently.

Each success emboldens them to do more, ask for more, expect more as their due.  And eventually they go too far, and fall.  That in itself might not be so bad on the individual level, as in the case of Bernie Madoff who certainly deserves his time in jail, but they invariably inflict collateral damage on many good and innocent people in the process.

And that is when their own failing, and if you will, sin, can become ours if we do nothing to stop it and to repair it. Especially in an age in which narcissists and sociopaths,including their enablers, are actively assaulting the public interest and public trust in order to serve their own short term, selfish ends, no matter what the longer term consequences to society as a whole might be.

Enjoy the read and the video as something to think about.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder
By Mayo Clinic staff

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

Believing that you're better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem
Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others.

When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance.

But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.

The Mayo Clinic 

Confessions of an Insider Trading M&A Attorney Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison

Matthew Kluger's rationalization, self-defense, and righteous indignation is interesting.

"We had a gentlemen's agreement. My accomplices cheated me!"

But it does illustrate the familiar axiom: There is no honor among thieves.

And you just have to love the line from Matthew Kluger's full interview, not included in this clip,

"This is not a victimless crime. I'm going to jail!"

Ayn Rand: A Fitting Muse for the Tyranny of the Self

"At this point in my life, I did not think it was possible to significantly lower my estimate of Ayn Rand, or to regard her as even more of a psychological and moral mess than I had already taken her to be.

I stand corrected."

Excerpted by my friend JerryB:

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
by Michael Prescott

In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)

"A wonderful, free, light consciousness" born of the utter absence of any understanding of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Obviously, Ayn Rand was most favorably impressed with Mr. Hickman. He was, at least at that stage of Rand's life, her kind of man.

So the question is, who exactly was he?

William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes.

You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.[...]

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

Quite a hero, eh? One might question whether Hickman had "a wonderful, free, light consciousness," but surely he did have "no organ for understanding ... the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people."

The mutilations Hickman inflicted on little Marian were worse than reported in the excerpt above. He cut the girl's body in half, and severed her hands (or arms, depending on the source). He drained her torso of blood and stuffed it with bath towels. There were persistent rumors that he molested the girl before killing her, though this claim was officially denied. Overall, the crime is somewhat reminiscent of the 1947 Black Dahlia case, one of the most gruesome homicides in L.A. history.

......

Eventually, Hickman confessed to a dozen armed robberies. 'This is going to get interesting before it's over,' he told investigators. 'Marion and I were good friends,' he said, 'and we really had a good time when we were together and I really liked her. I'm sorry that she was killed.' Hickman never said why he had killed the girl and cut off her legs.

It seems to me that Ayn Rand's uncritical admiration of a personality this twisted does not speak particularly well for her ability to judge and evaluate the heroic qualities in people. One might go so far as to say that anyone who sees William Edward Hickman as the epitome of a "real man" has some serious issues to work on, and perhaps should be less concerned with trying to convert the world to her point of view than in trying to repair her own damaged psyche. One might also point out that a person who "has no organ for understanding ... the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people" is what we today would call a sociopath.

Was Rand's ideal man a sociopath? The suggestion seems shockingly unfair - until you read her very own words.
....

In her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology:

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

Before we get to the meat of this statement, let us pause to consider Rand's claim that average members of the public are "beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives." Worse sins and crimes and kidnapping, murdering, and mutilating a helpless little girl? If Rand honestly believed that the average American had worse skeletons than that in his closet, then her opinion of "the average man" is even lower than I had suspected.

We get an idea of the "sins and crimes" of ordinary people when Rand discusses the jury in the case: "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"

Their sin, evidently, is that they are "average," a word that appears twice in three sentences. ...Rand dismisses the possibility that the public's anger might have been motivated by the crime per se. Apparently the horrendous slaying of a little girl is not enough, in Rand's mind, to justify public outrage against the murderer.

....

[As if in liberal-softie mode she depicts him as victim-of-society. H]e had a lousy home life and an unfulfilling job. And it would be asking too much of such a superior soul to put forth the long, sustained effort necessary to rise to a position of power and influence by means of his own hard work.

Rand's statement here reminds me very much of an attitude often found in career criminals -- that honest work is for suckers....

[W]e find her fulminating against the depravity of:

"... the pastors who try to convert convicted murderers to their religion... The fact that right after his sentence Hickman was given a Bible by the jailer. I don't know of anything more loathsome, hypocritical, low, and diabolical than giving Bibles to men sentenced to death.[...]"

I can think of at least one thing that is "more loathsome ... low, and diabolical than giving Bibles to men sentenced to death." And that is: ripping up little girls for fun and profit.

Incidentally, given Hickman's claim that he ransomed his victim in order to pay for Bible college, the jailer's decision to hand the condemned man a copy of the Good Book seems like poetic justice to me."

No one is a pure mixture of good and bad. We are all a mix of talent in some things and mediocrity in others. It is how we use our talents, to what purposes we put them, that makes the difference.

Ayn Rand wrote some remarkably good essays on money. She had insight into the mechanics of some things that is expressed quite well for the layperson. But her moral philosophy and the core of her social outlook seems strikingly underdeveloped,  almost adolescent in its careless disregard, and crudely nihilistic. 

One could speculate about a basis in trauma during a key period of development, some breakage or familial dysfunction, the neighborhood tough guy with the broken heart and home.  But this is all too easy to do, a cheap trick of pop psychologists, without hard data. However, whatever, the cause or motives, the outcomes and effects can be discerned.

Young men and women sometimes read stories about pirates, gangsters, and cowboys, who are 'rugged individualists' with an uncompromising, amoral response to anyone or anything that gets in the way of their fulfilling their needs.

And typically they start to graduate to less one dimensional heroes and role models, people who temper their strengths with restraint and compassion, who build as well as take. The archetype of this is Robin Hood. And finally one hopes, they mature into whole people who have a moral dimension that informs their baser instincts, and they obtain the ability to create, whether it be a home, or a business, or a family.

But some people never really grow up. Something in their psyche is broken, has gone astray, beyond the range of reason. They have a fatal attraction to lawlessness and callousness in the most classic imitation of the immature desire to shock, in their restless search for relief from their hollowness, to finally feel something. And on occasion even these can become powerful figures, despite their otherwise banal and stunted personalities, and beyond a small circle of cultish adherents, become fashionable.

And then the madness is unleashed, and in extreme instances an entire generation can go astray, exulting in their willful disregard for restraint, despising the ordinary and the conventional, dressing in costumes, and imagining themselves to be gods on earth, even as they plunge into the abyss.

Postscript

From Wikipedia:

"In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with famed novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. Greenspan was introduced to Rand by his first wife, Joan Mitchell. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan was initially a logical positivist, he was converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism by her associate Nathaniel Branden.

He became one of the members of Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard. Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Greenspan and Rand remained friends until her death in 1982."

Ayn Rand Took Social Security and Medicare Benefits

Trading in Hubris: Pride, Overreach, and the Inevitable Blowback and Consequences

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays...

We are beginning to abandon our tolerance of the abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life. In this process evil things formerly accepted will not be so easily condoned..."

Franklin D Roosevelt, Second Inaugural Address, January 1937

The hubris associated with the trading crowd is peaking, and heading for a fall that could be a terrific surprise. It seems to be reaching a top, trading now in a kind of triumphant euphoria after the European capitulation and the recent equity market volatility.

I had a conversation this morning with a trader that I have known from the 1990's, which is a lifetime in this business. I have to admit that he is successful, more so than any of the popular retail advisory services you might follow such as Elliott Wave, for example, which he views with contempt, a useful distraction for the little guy, the same way that casino operators view most gambling systems except counting cards. He is a bit of an insider, and knows the markets internals and what makes them tick. I remember a time when some of the more obvious market shenanigans used to bother his conscience a little. But he is well beyond that point now.

He likes to pick my brain on some topics that he understands much less, such as the economic relationships and monetary developments, and sometimes weaves them into his commentary, always without attribution. He has been a dollar bull forever, and his worst trading is in the metals. He likes to short gold and silver on principle, and always seems to lose because he rarely honors his first stop loss, which is a shocking lapse in trading discipline. That stubbornness is probably what kept him from making top management.

His tone was ebullient. The Street has won, it owns the markets. They can take it up, and take it down, and make money on both sides, any side, of any market move. I have to admit that in the last quarter his trading results are impeccable.

We diverged into the dollar, which he typically views as unbeatable, with the US dominating the international financial system forever. He likes to ask questions about formal economic terms and relationships, or monetary systems and policy. He relies on others for that knowledge, although he almost never admits it and will argue from pure emotion if necessary, until he gets what he wants to know.

I am not a social worker. Its a quid pro quo. He gives me insights into the trading world, and the pits where he dwells. What they are thinking, and what is going around in his crowd, with which I rarely associate these days.

He thinks the euro is done, and the dollar will remain the sole currency. His attitude is, "What will replace it?" He cannot even imagine anything different than what we have today. But interestingly enough he does not believe that the US government is running things. "Things are being run by a new world order, and have been for some time." He said that so matter of factly that it made me catch my breath.

And he's good with that. Does not bother him in the least little bit, as long as he is making money. And that is where our conversation started to go downhill, quickly. I was in no mood to hear his usual perspective on the future and the triumph of the willful.

If there is a new Mussolini in the US to maintain order, he's good with that. If they start putting people on trains to resettlement camps in the southwest, he's ok. If there are starving people in the streets, it doesn't bother him because he lives in a gated community. If the middle class gets crushed by a new market crash that is ok. He made a killing shorting the Crash of 1987, and was able to enjoy the resort where he spent the winter even more than ever because they were so few people there.

I would like to say he is an outlier, a one of a kind. But he is not. He is typical. He is driven purely and almost solely by personal greed, and he makes no bones about it. Life is a war, and he wants to conquer you.

But he is not a monster. If you met him you might like him. He's affable, conservative, a decent conversationalist, and personally well kept and engaging. But he is missing something, like the derivative of a human being. If you talk about the 'bad guys' he doesn't identify with them. He thinks he is 'us.' It's never occurred to him that he is the problem. Because his value system is utterly one dimensional and egocentric. In some ways he is the most intelligent twelve year old I have ever met. But I am sure he considers me a fool and an idealist. And I might agree. But it is not so much who you are, but why. Who or what do you serve?

He is a microcosm of Wall Street, and the prevailing attitudes in the Big Banks in particular. If you wish to form public policy, if you want to create a stable system, one based on human values, never ask a trader or a trading company for advice. They are incapable of framing the question in a way that will provide you a workable answer. What is good is whatever works for them in the most narrow definition of the terms. They think they are being altruistic when they take a little bit of a haircut on terms that are already well into the realm of usury.

The problem is the ability of Wall Street to buy power and influence among the regulators and politicians, and bring their unbalanced world view to bear so heavily on the formation of public policy and governance.

That is not to say that they are necessarily bad people. They are what they are. It's just that they need to be restrained by regulation, and certainly should not be in the driver's seat of anything outside of their own accounts, and those with external supervision and transparency. But certainly not in control of things in general, of running the system by proxy, which is where they are today. Or at least where they think they are.

Goldman trades big, but more probes loom
By Steve Eder
May 10, 2010, 11:55 am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc on Monday showed how its trading operations are stronger than ever, but warned that more litigation and investigations loom.

Goldman, in a quarterly regulatory filing, said it made it through the first quarter without a single day of trading losses, the first time it had accomplished such a feat. The firm reported trading revenue of more than $100 million on 35 days in the quarter.

In the same filing, Goldman said it still faces a number of probes and reviews, which could be damaging.

It said it anticipates additional shareholder actions and other investigations related to its offerings of collateralized debt obligations, which are at the heart of charges against the firm filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Goldman shares have tumbled more than 20 percent since the SEC accused the bank on April 16 of failing to tell investors who bought risky debt tied to subprime mortgages that hedge fund manager John Paulson helped select the underlying portfolio for the security and was shorting the deal.

Goldman shares were up 2.1 percent to $145.99 in morning trading but lagged behind others in the Amex Securities Broker/Dealer Index. Equities were rallying after tumbling last week.

Goldman, in its filing, said the SEC case "could result in collateral consequences to us that may materially adversely affect the manner in which we conduct our businesses." It said certain outcomes could impact the firm's ability to act as broker-dealer or provide certain advisory and other services to U.S.-registered mutual funds.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Goldman had begun settlement talks with the SEC.

Some analysts and investors have speculated that scrutiny surrounding Goldman would lead to the resignation of Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein. But at the bank's annual shareholder meeting on Friday, Blankfein said he had no plans to resign.

More Investigations

For the past year, Goldman has faced a backlash over its quick rebound from the financial crisis, while benefiting from various government bailout programs, and its bonus pool, which topped $16 billion last year.

Goldman, which reported record profit in 2009, has been trying to live down a Rolling Stone article last year that labeled the firm a "giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity"

Its blockbuster trading performance in the first quarter, coupled with the SEC charges, could heighten the public furor surrounding the firm, which has been cast as profiting from the subprime mortgage meltdown.

Goldman, criticized for not disclosing it had received notice last year of the likelihood of SEC charges, discussed several investigations on Monday, including probes by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the UK's Financial Services Authority related to CDO offerings and related matters.

The bank said it is cooperating with a number of investigations and reviews into its sales and trading operations related to corporate and government securities and other financial products.

The firm also said it is facing investigations and reviews relating to the 2008 financial crisis, including the establishment and unwinding of credit default swaps with American International Group Inc. Goldman has been criticized for benefiting from the government rescue of AIG.

Inquiries into the financial crisis are also looking at Goldman's transactions with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

Goldman also disclosed that it is subject to inquiries related to its transactions with the government of Greece, including financing and swap transactions.

About That Seemingly Irrational Need for Bonuses...

Psychopath: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

He would sell his mother for an eighth.

He would betray his most solemn promise on a whim.

He was a law unto himself, forcing others to serve his needs.

He would grab society's tit and suck it dry.

He would grasp and tear until he showed them all.

He was beyond good and evil--- He was an American hero.

"Our hypothesis was that psychopathic traits are also linked to dysfunction in dopamine reward circuitry," Buckholtz said. "Consistent with what we thought, we found people with high levels of psychopathic traits had almost four times the amount of dopamine released in response to amphetamine."

In the second portion of the experiment, the research subjects were told they would receive a monetary reward for completing a simple task. Their brains were scanned with fMRI while they were performing the task. The researchers found in those individuals with elevated psychopathic traits the dopamine reward area of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, was much more active while they were anticipating the monetary reward than in the other volunteers.

"It may be that because of these exaggerated dopamine responses, once they focus on the chance to get a reward, psychopaths are unable to alter their attention until they get what they're after," Buckholtz said. Added Zald, "It's not just that they don't appreciate the potential threat, but that the anticipation or motivation for reward overwhelms those concerns."

Psychopaths' Brains Wired to Seek Rewards No Matter the Consequences

So let's give deregulation and the efficient markets hypothesis another chance to really maximize the damage.

An entire society built around white punks on dopamine, trapped in the infantile stage of development, allocating resources for the many, the arbiters of utility and worth, from Wall Street to the Congress: this is what America has become.

"How Could I Be So Selfish and So Foolish"

Were Lloyd and Jamie and the pigmen of Wall Street and Washington taking notes during Tiger Woods' apology?

Doubtful.

No one is perfect, of course. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone sins. We are all weak, and insufficient in ourselves. And yet we attempt great things, in fear and trembling. The spirit endures and abides.

But there are moments in history that are epidemic with excess, a pathological pursuit of lust, greed, and deceit with a nihilistic determination that is more like a fashion of the age than an aberration. Chic to be above conventional morality and the law, lacking all proportion. Accepted, and even admired.

Tiger himself is what they call 'small potatoes,' the personal foibles of a star athlete. What is more significant is the festival of fraud going on in the financial world, centered around Chicago and New York.

Tiger's words could be the new American Anthem for a generation of reckless, selfish, and self-destructive behaviour by those most blessed by its freedom, offered the greatest opportunities and privileges, sometimes undeserved, and most often paid for by the sacrifice of others.

Most of them still have no regrets, except of course for the fear of discovery. They will have to somehow grow a conscience for that. Or face the withdrawal of support by their sponsors. In the case of Tiger it was Nike. In the case of the Banks it is the US government. And in the case of the US government it is a gullible and complacent public.

"Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me, have worked with me, always supported me. Now, every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each on of you simply and directly I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behaviour I engaged in. I know people want to find out how i could be so selfish and foolish.

I knew my actions were wrong but I convinced myself that the normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I only thought about myself...

I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt that I was entitled.

Parents used to point to me as a role model for their kids. I owe all those families a special apology. I want to say to them that I am truly sorry.

I recognize I have brought this on myself and I know, above all, I am the one who needs to change.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules."

The Financial Times Man of the Year - Lloyd Blankfein

How fitting, to mark the high tide of the will to power of the Anglo-American banking cartel. No better symbol of hubris, of the overreach driven by obdurate insensitivity and sociopathic greed, of the cult of ego and the darker impulses of the human heart, that creates nothing.

Honoring the man as the epitome of 2009, a man whose bank helped to precipitate one of the greatest financial crises, if not crimes, of the century, and used it as a means of profit for their own ends. No matter what damage was caused in the process, what corruption was required to undermine the nation's well-being, thereby sowing the seeds of their own eventual destruction.

And no better day for it, than on the eve of the commemoration of the renewal of life, of genuine value, of the perennial yearning of the human spirit from within the images and the shadows, a turning away from the stench of corruption and decay, and into the light.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses himself?

Not even the whole world, but bragging rights, a false bravado, and a bonus.

The man of the year indeed. King of the ash heap, almost universally held in contempt. And in the end, alone. Not even rising to the level of high tragedy, but merely furtive, grasping, manipulative, pathetic. A monument to banality, and the hollowness of Western materialism.


NY Times
Financial Times Names Blankfein Person of the Year
December 24, 2009, 2:37

The Financial Times has chosen Lloyd C. Blankfein as its person of the year. The Goldman Sachs chief has become the public face of Wall Street during its most testing period since the 1930s, the newspaper said, and Mr. Blankfein’s position and his personality were the basis of his selection.

Goldman Sachs, said the newspaper, “navigated the 2008 global financial crisis better than others,” and is about to make record profits while paying up to $23 billion in bonuses to its 31,700 staff.

The newspaper called Mr. Blankfein “a tough, bright, funny financier who reoriented Goldman. Under his leadership, trading and risk-taking have pushed to the fore, reducing the influence of its investment banking advisers.”

Facing public anger in 2009 — as taxpayers raged at having to bail out the big Wall Street banks — Goldman’s profitability, and suspicions that its ties to governments around the world give it unfair advantages, made it a symbol of greed and excess.

But Mr. Blankfein has rebutted the criticism effectively, the newspaper wrote, “shifting from insisting that it would probably have survived the crisis without help from the U.S. Treasury, to apologizing for its conduct,” and finally, the newspaper noted, in an interview with the Sunday Times of London, asserting that Goldman was “doing God’s work”.

The Predator Class

Its interesting to read this essay from early 2006 today in the light of what we have seen in the intervening period. A number of people who might have dismissed this out of hand back then might see a little more truth behind the rhetoric today.

So, how can the political system reform itself? How can we reestablish checks, balances, countervailing power, and a sense of public purpose? How can we get modern economic predation back under control, restoring the possibilities not only for progressive social action but also—just as important—for honest private economic activity? Until we can answer those questions, the predators will run wild.

It is something to think about for the New Year, for all parties involved. FDR was denounced as a 'traitor to his class' at the time, but in reality he was one of the most insightful of leaders. If one views outcomes in other contemporary governments from 1916 to 1940, and considers what a Huey Long administration might have been as an example, the New Deal seems like a wise and appropriate political move for all involved.

Why are people so reluctant to believe that sociopaths and narcissists can use the power of the pen to prey on people? Because they are well spoken and organized? We would contend that these are the most dangerous of the emotionally warped with a need to acquire, dominate and control, because they are smarter and more calculating than the impulse murderers, burglars, rapists, thieves, and pedophiles.
There is a need for economic law and enforcement as there is a need for the less cerebral, hairy knuckled criminal law and enforcement. The notion that people become naturally good, rational and well-adjusted because they are wearing a suit is ludicrous, especially to anyone who has worked with many of those who move in the upper echelons of money and power.
Some of the scariest people we have ever met were articulate and pathologically driven borderline psychopaths with a need to acquire political and economic power. It is the focus of their illness that makes them powerful. They are not distracted by the diffusion of emotional responses that color most people's actions. They have a need, and the will to satisfy it, no matter what it takes.
As an aside, we have met many kind and gentle and thoughtful people in all walks of life, rich and poor. It is not the office that makes the person; it is their character. Class prejudice is mistaken and unjust, and there is always someone less fortunate than you who might view you as the object of their anger, no matter who you might be. The hypocrisy and injustice of prejudice and 'class warfare' knows few limits.
There will always be those at the extremes who need to 'take it to the limit,' with a well stocked foreign retreat in case things get ugly. But for most of us, restoring a sense of justice and order and putting the nation back into some kind of working balance will be high on the priority list, if not for ourselves, then for our families. Violence does not work, ever. The Constitution is a restraint that works both ways, against the predations of the powerful, but also as a shield against would-be Robespierres with their dark reigns of terror.
It is going to take a lot of hard work, and time. Its been a long time coming, it will be a long time gone. But it has been done before by those who created this nation, and it can be done to restore it again.
We are not doomed. Our situation is not hopeless. But the system is badly out of balance, and will have to be restored by meaningful reform. There will be inflation and selective defaults, real justice and show trials, innovation and false starts, disproportionate suffering, uncertainty and even some level of conflict. But eventually the accounts will be squared and we will gather ourselves together an move forward. The sooner we start, the sooner it will be over.

Mother Jones
The Predator State
By James K. Galbraith
May/June 2006 Issue


WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE of American capitalism today? Is it a grand national adventure, as politicians and textbooks aver, in which markets provide the framework for benign competition, from which emerges the greatest good for the greatest number? Or is it the domain of class struggle, even a “global class war,” as the title of Jeff Faux’s new book would have it, in which the “party of Davos” outmaneuvers the remnants of the organized working class?

The doctrines of the “law and economics” movement, now ascendant in our courts, hold that if people are rational, if markets can be “contested,” if memory is good and information adequate, then firms will adhere on their own to norms of honorable conduct. Any public presence in the economy undermines this. Even insurance—whether deposit insurance or Social Security—is perverse, for it encourages irresponsible risktaking. Banks will lend to bad clients, workers will “live for today,” companies will speculate with their pension funds; the movement has even argued that seat belts foster reckless driving. Insurance, in other words, creates a “moral hazard” for which “market discipline” is the cure; all works for the best when thought and planning do not interfere. It’s a strange vision, and if we weren’t governed by people like John Roberts and Sam Alito, who pretend to believe it, it would scarcely be worth our attention.

The idea of class struggle goes back a long way; perhaps it really is “the history of all hitherto existing society,” as Marx and Engels famously declared. But if the world is ruled by a monied elite, then to what extent do middle-class working Americans compose part of the global proletariat? The honest answer can only be: not much. The political decline of the left surely flows in part from rhetoric that no longer matches experience; for the most part, American voters do not live on the Malthusian margin. Dollars command the world’s goods, rupees do not; membership in the dollar economy makes every working American, to some degree, complicit in the capitalist class.

In the mixed-economy America I grew up in, there existed a post-capitalist, post-Marxian vision of middle-class identity. It consisted of shared assets and entitlements, of which the bedrock was public education, access to college, good housing, full employment at living wages, Medicare, and Social Security. These programs, publicly provided, financed, or guaranteed, had softened the rough edges of Great Depression capitalism, rewarding the sacrifices that won the Second World War. They also showcased America, demonstrating to those behind the Iron Curtain that regulated capitalism could yield prosperity far beyond the capacities of state planning. (This, and not the arms race, ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.) These middle-class institutions survive in America today, but they are frayed and tattered from constant attack. And the division between those included and those excluded is large and obvious to all.

Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither benign competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia. Instead, predation has become the dominant feature—a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; it may be opposed by many others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we live.

Our rulers deliver favors to their clients. These range from Native American casino operators, to Appalachian coal companies, to Saipan sweatshop operators, to the would-be oil field operators of Iraq. They include the misanthropes who led the campaign to abolish the estate tax; Charles Schwab, who suggested the dividend tax cut of 2003; the “Benedict Arnold” companies who move their taxable income offshore; and the financial institutions behind last year’s bankruptcy bill. Everywhere you look, public decisions yield gains to specific private entities.

For in a predatory regime, nothing is done for public reasons. Indeed, the men in charge do not recognize that “public purposes” exist. They have friends, and enemies, and as for the rest—we’re the prey. Hurricane Katrina illustrated this perfectly, as Halliburton scooped up contracts and Bush hamstrung Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic governor of Louisiana. The population of New Orleans was, at best, an afterthought; once dispersed, it was quickly forgotten.

The predator-prey model explains some things that other models cannot: in particular, cycles of prosperity and depression. Growth among the prey stimulates predation. The two populations grow together at first, but when the balance of power shifts toward the predators (through rising interest rates, utility rates, oil prices, or embezzlement), both can crash abruptly. When they do, it takes a long time for either to recover.

The predatory model can also help us understand why many rich people have come to hate the Bush administration. For predation is the enemy of honest business. In a world where the winners are all connected, it’s not only the prey who lose out. It’s everyone who hasn’t licked the appropriate boots. Predatory regimes are like protection rackets: powerful and feared, but neither loved nor respected. They do not enjoy a broad political base.

In a predatory economy, the rules imagined by the law and economics crowd don’t apply. There’s no market discipline. Predators compete not by following the rules but by breaking them. They take the business-school view of law: Rules are not designed to guide behavior but laid down to define the limits of unpunished conduct. Once one gets close to the line, stepping over it is easy. A predatory economy is criminogenic: It fosters and rewards criminal behavior.

Why don’t markets provide the discipline? Why don’t “reputation effects” secure good behavior? Economists have been slow to answer these questions, but now we have a full-blown theory in a book by my colleague William K. Black, The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Black was the lawyer/whistle-blower in the Savings and Loan and Keating Five scandals; he later took a degree in criminology. His theory of “control fraud” addresses the situation in which the leader of an organization uses his company as a “weapon” of fraud and a “shield” against prosecution—a situation with which law and economics cannot cope.

For instance, law and economics argues that top accounting firms will protect their own reputations by ferreting out fraud in their clients. But, as with Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, at every major S&L control fraud was protected by clean audits from top accountants: You hire the top firm to get the clean opinion. Moral hazard theory shifts the blame for financial collapse to the incentives implicit in insurance, but Black shows that the large frauds were nearly all committed in institutions taken over for that purpose by criminal networks, often by big players like Charles Keating, Michael Milken, and Don Dixon. And there’s another thing about predatory institutions. They invariably fail in the end. They fail because they are meant to fail. Predators suck the life from the businesses they command, concealing the fact for as long as possible behind fraudulent accounting and hugely complex transactions; that’s the looter’s point.

That a government run by people rooted in this culture should also be predatory isn’t surprising—and the link between George H.W. Bush, who led the deregulation of the S&Ls, his son Neil, who ran a corrupt S&L, and Neil’s brother George, for whom Ken Lay sent thugs to Florida in 2000 on the Enron plane, could hardly be any closer. But aside from occasional references to “kleptocracy” in other countries, economic opinion has been slow to recognize this. Thinking wistfully, we assume that government wants to do good, and its failure to do so is a matter of incompetence.

But if the government is a predator, then it will fail: not merely politically, but in every substantial way. Government will not cope with global warming, or Hurricane Katrina, or Iraq—not because it is incompetent but because it is willfully indifferent to the problem of competence. The questions are, in what ways will the failure hit the population? And what mechanisms survive for calling the predators to account? Unfortunately, at the highest levels, one cannot rely on the justice system, thanks to the power of the pardon. It’s politics or nothing, recognizing that in a world of predators, all established parties are corrupted in part.

So, how can the political system reform itself? How can we reestablish checks, balances, countervailing power, and a sense of public purpose? How can we get modern economic predation back under control, restoring the possibilities not only for progressive social action but also—just as important—for honest private economic activity? Until we can answer those questions, the predators will run wild.

James K. Galbraith teaches economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. He previously served in several positions on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.