America’s governance mind: FUBAR
by divorced one like Bush
UPDATED: Jim Watt Remember him?
If you did not see it, go watch this weeks Bill Moyers Journal. Part 2 is here.
From the second part we get all we need to know about where we’re going regarding government for, of and by the people and how little regard there is at the top for the seriousness of such a declaration and its implementation in perpetuity.
BILL MOYERS: Let me show you something that Ben Bernanke said to the annual meeting of economists earlier this week, last Sunday, I think it was.
BEN BERNANKE: The best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach for constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates.
DAVID CORN: Whoops.
BILL MOYERS: Whoops what?
DAVID CORN: Well, now he’s saying what a lot of us said earlier? That we should have had better regulation, you know, rather than just fiddling with interest rates?…
BILL MOYERS: You have a great chart in your story in “Mother Jones” on that.
DAVID CORN: I mean, my favorite one that I wrote about, and I don’t know him personally. He could be a great guy. Never even met him. I tried to interview him, but he wouldn’t consent. Mark Patterson. He’s the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Department Secretary. He was a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. What did he do as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs? He lobbied against a bill in the Senate to restrain it was a very modest bill, to restrain CEO compensation.
Basically, gave shareholders the right to say, “We think you’re paying them too much.” It wasn’t even mandatory. It wouldn’t even cut back pay. He you know, Goldman Sachs would have none of that. He lobbied against that bill. Who authored that bill? Barack Obama, when he was a Senator. So, the guy who fought Barack Obama on CEO pay, an issue that Barack Obama says he cares about. And I believe he does. Is now running the Treasury Department for Tim Geithner. I mean, this really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Yeah. Makes no sense to me either. In fact, the only mind that can make sense of such dichotomy in purpose and intent is a schizophrenic mind.
UPDATE
In responding to a comment by Guest who I assume is Cantab (we forget to check our sign-in names, Oh well), I mentioned James Watt.
Jim Watt’s experiences during and after his term as Secretary of the Interior is the perfect book end to Mark Patterson mentioned above. Back when Jim boy was Secretary, he got his ass booted. Sure, he created some messes. He was after all, the prototype for what we have in our administrative offices of our government.
From Wiki:
For over two decades, Watt held the record for protecting the fewest species under the Endangered Species Act in United States history… According to the environmental groups, Watt decreased funding for environmental programs,[5] restructured the department to decrease federal regulatory power,[5] wished to eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fund (which had been designed to increase the size of National Wildlife Refuges and other protected land),[5] eased regulations on oil[5] and mining[6][5] companies, and favored opening wilderness areas and shorelands for oil and gas leases.[5]…In 1983, Watt banned The Beach Boys from playing a Fourth of July concert on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., saying that rock concerts drew “an undesirable element”; the group had played each year on the Mall on the Fourth of July from 1976 to 1981.
But, unlike Bush’s Metal of Freedom winners, Watt’s got booted. Sure, it took this to do it:
A public controversy erupted after a speech by Watt on September 21, 1983, when he said about his staff: “I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent.”[13] Within weeks of making this statement, Watt submitted his resignation letter.[13][14]
but at least it was done. Not now though. Such countervailing, diametric behavior is apparently immune to public desire.
Worse though, is the loss of memory when people acted up-front. Jim Watt’s never hide his ideology. Also is the loss of memory of what justice used to mean in America:
In 1995, Watt was indicted on 25 counts of felony perjury and obstruction of justice by a federal grand jury.[15] The indictments were due to false statements made to a grand jury investigating influence peddling at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which he had lobbied in the mid to late 1980s. On January 2, 1996, as part of a plea bargain, Watt pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of withholding documents from a federal grand jury. On March 12, 1996 he was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 500 hours of community service.[16]
Now we call it “politicizing government”.
Has John Dugan of OCC been replaced?
The issue is not about executive pay. Banks should be able to pay their executives whatever they want given the constraints of shareholder approval. This issue has always been a red herring.
The FED adopted an easy money policy to fight the effect of the stock market bubble collapse that started in 2000, and then again to counter the recession in 2001; and then yet again to counter the stock market collapse following the WorldCom and Enron scandals. It seem after pushing rates down they looked around and said, gee, we don’t see any inflation so let’s keep things the way they are.
The real problem was the bubble in the housing market. Wall Street with the help of the FEDs easy money policy and also with foreign investment did what Wall Street does – match investors with borrowers. The flood of easy money and government intrusion into the mortgage-lending industry caused the boom in loan able funds which caused a bubble by itself, and was also an enabler for shady mortgage practices that happened in the back lots of main street strip malls.
It will be interesting in the future what the FED plans to do. Can you imagine in the year you decide to sell your house that the FED says housing prices are too high so they drive them down and the price of your home depreciates by 25 percent? Perhaps in the year your kid graduates from college the FED in its fight to depress a housing bubble increases rates which drive the economy into a mild recession keeping your kid living at home. I don’t see this working politically.
The issue is not about executive pay. Banks should be able to pay their executives whatever they want given the constraints of shareholder approval. This issue has always been a red herring.
The FED adopted an easy money policy to fight the effect of the stock market bubble collapse that started in 2000, and then again to counter the recession in 2001; and then yet again to counter the stock market collapse following the WorldCom and Enron scandals. It seem after pushing rates down they looked around and said, gee, we don’t see any inflation so let’s keep things the way they are.
The real problem was the bubble in the housing market. Wall Street with the help of the FEDs easy money policy and also with foreign investment did what Wall Street does – match investors with borrowers. The flood of easy money and government intrusion into the mortgage-lending industry caused the boom in loan able funds which caused a bubble by itself, and was also an enabler for shady mortgage practices that happened in the back lots of main street strip malls.
It will be interesting in the future what the FED plans to do. Can you imagine in the year you decide to sell your house that the FED says housing prices are too high so they drive them down and the price of your home depreciates by 25 percent? Perhaps in the year your kid graduates from college the FED in its fight to depress a housing bubble increases rates which drive the economy into a mild recession keeping your kid living at home. I don’t see this working politically.
It makes perfect sense if you assume they are all scam artists working together, just as in a shell game. The shill in the rubes, there are plants in the crowd, the other guy works the cup, and so on. At the end of the day, they split the take. It’s only schizophremic if you assume that those in Versailles whom we laughingly call public servants have some actual interest in public policy. Surrender that illusion, and everything makes sense.
Neither was the post specifically about executive pay.
First broadly speaking this is about how America is governed and is very good. It needs to be linked to here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/guest-post-the-military-industrial-compex-is-ruining-the-economy.html
Now a comment about bank pay. “Shareholders” don’t really set the pay of bank executive or much of anything else. That is set by the board and the board is selected by the executives. Company pay in the USA is a circular situation and a ripoff of shareholders. In reality, if reality ever impacts Cantab.
The situation with the Treasury quite simply is that when things began to implode and disaster approached, Wall Street got very very very busy to make sure it controlled what was done and how the disaster was handled and it succeeded so that the “little people” paid and Wall Street basically got off free. Geithner and Paulson and all the others made sure the “clean up” of the mess was an inside job, for fear is outsiders were let in the guilty might really be punished.
Yeah the Ancien Regime is the real model here. Even to the special legal status of the nobility. The plutocrats aren’t treated like the rest of us at all. Only if they commit a “vulgar” crime like murder and not even always then.
Oh I forgot Bernie. I guess he did get punished. But then the crime he committed hit other plutocrats, not really the “little people”, so he had to pay. When plutos betray their peers then punishment is appropriate.
Divorcedone,
Basically, gave shareholders the right to say, “We think you’re paying them too much.” It wasn’t even mandatory. It wouldn’t even cut back pay. He you know, Goldman Sachs would have none of that. He lobbied against that bill. Who authored that bill? Barack Obama, when he was a Senator. So, the guy who fought Barack Obama on CEO pay, an issue that Barack Obama says he cares about. And I believe he does. Is now running the Treasury Department for Tim Geithner. I mean, this really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
This paragraph seems to be about cronyism, lobbying, and executive pay. What did I miss? Who do you want to get fired and what result to you hope to achieve?
Sometimes Charley (Steinbecks dog) shows up in my dreams and asks me all sort of questions. Last time he showed up he started making a ton of questions about the financials crisis and our dear Bernanke and his role as a rgulator.
Its incredible how someone that failed miserably on his job is confirmed again and praised for the handling of the crisis that he was one of the main responsibles.
part1
http://montyhallparadox.blogspot.com/2010/01/dialogues-with-charley-questions-from.html
part2
http://montyhallparadox.blogspot.com/2010/01/dialogues-with-charley-questions-from_05.html
part3
http://montyhallparadox.blogspot.com/2010/01/dialogues-with-charley-questions-from_8720.html
part4
http://montyhallparadox.blogspot.com/2010/01/dialogues-with-charley-questions-from_6919.html
You missed that Obama want to regulate CEO pay as shown by sponsoring a bill, yet put a person in place that put a person in place that lobbied against it.
Two totally opposite desired results. Which is a very glaring example of exactly what is and has been happening within the work of governing. Governance FUBAR.
Could be any issue. Had plenty with Bush, goes back to Clinton, got the governance feet wet with Interior Secretary Watts.
divorcedone
You missed that Obama want to regulate CEO pay as shown by sponsoring a bill, yet put a person in place that put a person in place that lobbied against it.
Obama’s not a dictator so he does nto have the power to regulate executive pay. How could his person in charge enforce a law that does not exist. Many of the banks that took stimulus did not want it but took it because they asked to in order to not make other banks look bad. In the big profits they’re making today thats because the FED has driven their borrowing costs to zero. If the FED want to take that away from them they can raise rates.
Could be any issue. Had plenty with Bush, goes back to Clinton, got the governance feet wet with Interior Secretary Watts.
The democrats have the Whitehouse, Congress, and a filibuster proof majority, so maybe its time for them to stop passing the buck.
What do you want? Every member of the administration has to be in 100% agreement on every single issue? A tough standard indeed.
Or maybe Patterson does agree with Obama re. Executive Pay, but he just lobbied against it for GS because that was his job.
Having some challenges staying logged in.
Cantab
you have such an amazing mind. The post, and some of the comments, did a pretty good job of reminding us of the essential organzied crime nature of our elite in both parties. but you see it as a partisan issue.
yep can hardly wait until those noble Republicans are back in power. James WATT?
But we do love Harry Reid, and Harry does love those light skinned Negroes who talk like white folks.
A pox on both parties.
Contab,
Most people suffer from what the fed does, very few, the connected gain.
That goes with ‘let’s leave interest rates low and ignore the insanity’ because ‘why impede the bagmen making so much money?’
The fed acts to counter trends before they get out of control.
Which makes what Greendpan, Bush and Bernanke’s continuing the gorss neglect both FUMTU and FUBAR.
In the US racism lies JUST under the surface, like those crocs in those African rivers waiting for the wildebeasts. Never can tell when it will spring up and bite things.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6958528/Record-bonus-pot-at-JP-Morgan.html
Only fools think the US will ever escape the clutches of the plutocrats. They rule absolutely, like Louis XIV ruled France or even more appropriatelly, like Hitler ruled Germany. Untouchable. Unassailable. Immune.
Good Vice Bad Leverage
In order to lever politicians, who are ultimately dependent on recurrent election results, away from the de facto central bank financial industrial complex and away from their political positions, any politician who has supported the de facto CBFIC or received funding from the CBFIC should be targeted for political extinction by grassroots citizen political means, .ie, vote the in-the-CBFIC’s-pocket’s politicians out of office …. forever.
The de facto CBIFC has massively enriched itself at the expense of the real economy and the real economy’s real producers. The CBFIC created exponentialized leveraged debt instruments for self aggrandizement. When bankrupted by its bad bets, the CBIFC directly stole money from the treasury to rebank their losses and in the process defrauded citizens of future tax revenues produced by real citizen labor. Through debt instrument manipulations and leveraged derivative greed bets, the CBIFC has created massive economic distortions in the countervailing and self-regulating real macroeconomic system of supply, demand, and asset valuations resulting in virtual enserfment of citizens obligated to pay debts on overvalued assets and to repay CBIFC money fabrication (to the central bank) via future taxes.
To wit the central bank financial industry complex has created high employment and asset inflation for the citizens they are parasitising.
New rules, a new lending system, and new institutions designed to promote real economic growth via American ingenuity, engineers, and factories must be established by new politicians who are not in the pockets of the CBFIC. Justice must be served on those accountable parties, including politicians, easily identified through tax records and congressional voting records, who have enriched themselves during this 100 year CBFIC orchestrated malinvestment caricature of a real operating macroeconomy.
Citizens, regardless of their political party affiliation, must come together to the common purpose of voting out and levering out all parasitic politicians regardless of their party affiliation who have had relationships with and have been supported by the CBFIC and who have supported the re-bankrolling of deservedly bankrupted perpetrating elements of the CBFIC.
Accountability and Justice must occur for constitutional and individual citizen catharsis.
Above from the economic fractalist..
Coberly,
good job of reminding us of the essential organzied crime nature of our elite in both parties.
But its not a crime so what’s left in your statement is that they’re organized.
Coberly,
good job of reminding us of the essential organzied crime nature of our elite in both parties.
But its not a crime so what’s left in your statement is that they’re organized.
Welcome back.
You are now, sir, a paradox wrapped inside an enigma: to quote the fat man. Personally I like it. You have helped make merica ungovernable. You do a service to your ideals and the rest of the world thanks you!
Americans are very confused about how the US is run and who runs it and why. They don’t understand very well, especially how exploited they are. They are unhappy, but not clear sighted. The media does NOTHING to enlighten them since it serves the power structure absolutely. With an intellectually inert public you aren’t going to get any accountability from the rulers. Sex scandals are about the only thing that captures the public mind. The media doesn’t obfuscate there.
If banks, etc., cannot be prevented from paying obscene amounts to bozos many of whom have done criminal things economically then about the only way to stop it would be confiscatory taxation. Like 90% on amounts, say, above 3 or 4 million. If it would simply be taxed away there would then be no motivation to pay it. You might have a chance to get such taxes passed if you had the right leadership. There are of course morons who think it too too cruel to take away more than 4 million from people, but one hopes they could be educated, gradually.
margery
sad to say racism lurks just under the surface everywhere. can you tell a Tutsi from a Hutu?
the difference is that in American it is no loger legal to discriminate, or lynch, based on color. That is actually a huge improvement over when I was growing up.
margery
your examples defeat your point. untouchable? well Louis XIV maybe. it was Louis XVI who got it in the neck.
margery
the media? try the schools.
And never forget Mark Twain
“We have the best congress money can buy”
And
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
I put Cantab in the latter. Cause I am democratic like that.
Feet wet with Watts? What? You’ve not hear of Earl Butz?
Coberly,
I was just wondering on what basis you were calling the bankers criminals. So far you have not been able to give a reason.
No, I had not heard of him. I was less aware then beyond the politics of school while in high school. 🙂 But, he certainly qualifies as the toe dipping in the pond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz
Thanks Kharris.
No. His term runs through August 2010.
Mark Twain said that America had no criminal class except Congress. These days he would have to add bankers. 😉
save_the_rustbelt: “A pox on both parties.”
Hear, hear!
Filibuster-proof majority? Have you not been watching the news?
This notion that politics and party are all the same thing is:
1) Wrong,
2) Simplistic
3) Poisonous
Sadly, when the GOP manages to put party ahead of policy, while Democrats and those other two guys who caucus with them but aren’t Democrats because (in one case) Democrats were going to vote them out of the party actually differ on policy, the above list applies mostly to the GOP – wrong, simplistic and poisonous. When GOP guys begin voting with the Dems on issues that would benefit their constituents, we’ll be able to make exceptions.
Harry isn’t a party. He’s just a member of one party. That doesn’t mean party politics are a good thing, but we do need to try to think clearly.
Coberly,
I’m willing to explain to the kids how my friends in the Bilderberg group run our country (and all the other ones).
Kharris,
Don’t you belong to the democratic party. If so then by definition you’re a partisan. Your posturing by trying to sound superior is tiresome. Even if you’re registered as an independent you’re still a de-facto democrat.
What we need is for the democrats to abandon their leadership and to start voting with the republicans on issues that will benefit their constituents. Year one is strike one on the economy for the Obama administration and their democrat backers. What they ought to do is switch to a pro-growth agenda by continuing Bush’s tax cuts, saying hell no to trying to run carbon output, saying drill baby drill, and funding research on new energy sources.
Cantab
read slowly. get your mom to help. Ben Bernanke told congress to rob the money from Social Security, because that’s where the money is. he told them it’s only the law until Congress changes it. i can pretty well guarantee you’d see the criminality of that if a democrat said it about say, corporations.
harris
i am not exaqctly sure Reid was being racist. it sounded like he alluded to a political fact of life. it’s over sensitve liberals who hear racism in every “sterotype.” i have heard some black politicians today who agree with me about this.
cantab
if you can do it with convincing evidence and argument, be my guest. but i would say without going into any specific conspiracy theories, the public schools do a damn poor job of explaining the realities of politics.
cantab,
Ah, your narrow method of thinking is showing. What you’ve said A) misses the point that I made about party affiliation and politics and, B) engages in the worst sort of attribution – you want me to be a Democrat, so you simply decide that I am one. This is not the sort of thinking you should put on display if you want folks to allow you to convince them of anything.
Not that it’s any of your business, but I am not registered as a Democrat. All my close associations with elected officials have been with Republicans. My father (R) was in the state legislature and worked for – here we go – Jim Watt as a political appointee. I once worked for a Lt Governor and once for a US congressman, both Republcians.
Hope that helps.
Oh, and no, belonging to a political party does not mean, by definition, that one is partisan. I’m not at all surprised you think so, but you are not the measure of all things, especially when said things involve figuring stuff out. You think I’m posturing and trying to sound superior? All I’m doing is calling you on your nonsense. I realize that must be frustrating, because nonsense seems to be just about all you’ve got going.
What you have asked for is a partisans dream, by the way. Democrats were voted in as a repudiation of GOP policy and governance. You are among the minority which sees the GOP as somehow the solution to the various problems that face us, but that’s just you. As I noted above, figuring things out isn’t your big strength. Now, the way democracy works is, voters pick the guys who they think best represent them, and then those guys do what they think they were elected to do. The notion that the majority should just roll over and do what the repudiated minority wants – wow – that would allow for no change in policy when the public decides they don’t like the former set of policies. You know, like a one-party system.
Oh, and cantab, about that superiority thing? That’s just your insecurity talking. You think, down deep, that I’m superior to you. And you’re right.
Always nice to read about our readers. Thank you Kharris.