The Wall Street sales tax is very much in the mainstream. HR-6411, introduced by Congressman Keith Ellison (MN), is gaining support in the US Congress and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has pledged to introduce such a bill in the US Senate.
Just watch this. It is 1 minute long.
Could it be anymore surreal?
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS? HOW MANY FREAKIN’ TIMES DO WE HAVE TO LEARN THE LESSON?
Obviously, the lesson has not been relearned since at least sometime before 1992. If it had been relearned, we would not be here still proposing solutions that sound just like, almost word for word like the 1920’s. (start reading at 1920) I mean, it’s not like people haven’t been sounding the horn on what the results would be from the proposed solutions in 1992. Nope, it’s the same proposals as in 1992, which will produce more of the same.
Senator Brown: When you were U.S. Attorney, my understanding is you consulted Bob Rubin and Larry Summers when considering whether to bring charges against financial firms. Is that correct?
White: I actually consulted the Deputy Attorney General who had Mr. Summers call me back. I was asking a factual question.
Senator Brown: Did they reject the argument that institutions could not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
White: I’d like to answer that yes or no but I can’t. Essentially, I was seeking information based on an argument that had been made by the lawyers for the institution that I ultimately indicted, as to whether an indictment of that institution would result in great damage to either the Japanese economy or the world economy. And the answer I got back is that I should proceed to make my own decision; which I took to mean that it would likely not have that impact.
There actually is an official policy but its finer points have certainly not been expanded upon by either Attorney General Holder or SEC nominee Mary Jo White. The policy is called Title 9, Chapter 9-28.000: Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.* The policy thoroughly advocates the prosecution of corporations — especially when there is a serial history of fraud as in the case of Wall Street.
“…Virtually every conviction of a corporation, like virtually every conviction of an individual, will have an impact on innocent third parties, and the mere existence of such an effect is not sufficient to preclude prosecution of the corporation.”
In support of Beverly’s latest post and all her past postings wanting for Obama (or the Dem’s in general I would say) to explain the truth about how a government’s money really flows, I present this video from the Watson Institute. (via Didby at Hullaaloo.) I happen to agree, it would be nice if our president would get it straight, but…
Of course, my pet peeve is that no one is talking about our nation’s equity. I am confident that the American family would get that part of financing as it relates to borrowing and investing. Heck, how long was it before Amazon broke even yet they kept right on borrowing and growing?* Or lets put it closer to home. How many Americans purchased a home that was valued at and borrowed against for the purchase that was equal to their annual income? What was the old rule…3 times the median income was the average home price?
*incorporated 1994, 1st profit announced 2002
This past week the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement has been post worthy on a couple of the more read blogs. There are specific groups working to get the public up to speed on this treaty. One is the Citizens Trade Campaign. Crooks and Liars posted Lee Camps Moment of Clarity episode regarding the treaty. Common Dreams posted a video by Friends of the Earth. This potential treaty has direct bearing on the subject of innovation, production and infrastructure as discussed in the posts regarding Richard Elkus’s thesis in his book Winner Take All and MIT’s latest report on the subject.
“The TPP is poised to become the largest free trade agreement in the world, potentially impacting jobs, wages, agriculture, migration, the environment, consumer safety, financial regulations, Internet protocols, government procurement and more.The pact is currently under negotiation between the United States, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, but is being specifically written as a “docking agreement” that other countries can join over time. Canada, Japan and Mexico are currently pressing to do so. The thirteenth major round of TPP negotiations will be held at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront Hotel from July 2 – 10.”
investor of a non-Party means, with respect to a Party, an investor that attempts to make, is making, or has made an investment in the territory of that Party, that is not an investor of a Party
Article 12.4: National Treatment1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.]Article 12.5: Most-Favoured Nation Treatment1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
Article 12.6: Minimum Standard of Treatmentll1. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.2. For greater certainty, paragraph 1 prescribes the [applicable rules of] customary international law [minimum] standard of treatment of aliens as the [minimum] [general] standard of treatment to be afforded to covered investments. The concepts of “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create additional substantive rights. The obligations in paragraph 1 to provide:(a) “Fair and equitable treatment” includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of the world; and(b) “Full protection and security” requires each Party to provide the level of police protection required under customary international law.
Article 12.6bis: Treatment in Case of Armed Conflict or Civil Strife1. Notwithstanding Article 12.9.5(b) (Non-Conforming Measures, subsidies and grants carveout), each Party shall accord to investors of another Party, and to covered investments, non-discriminatory treatment with respect to measures it adopts or maintains relating to losses suffered by investments in its territory owing to armed conflict or civil strife.2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, if an investor of a Party, in the situations referred to in paragraph 1, suffers a loss in the territory of another Party resulting from:(a) requisitioning of its covered investment or part thereof by the latter’s forces or authorities; or(b) destruction of its covered investment or part thereof by the latter’s forces or authorities, which was not required by the necessity of the situation, the latter Party shall provide the investor restitution, compensation, or both, as appropriate, for such loss. Any compensation shall be prompt, adequate, and effective in accordance with Article 12.12.2 through 12.12.4 (Expropriation and Compensation, paragraphs 2 through 4), mutatis mutandis.)
Article 12.7: Performance Requirements1. No Party may, in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, or sale or other disposition of an investment of an investor of a Party [or of a non-Party] in its territory, impose or enforce any requirement or enforce any commitment or undertaking: 12(a) to export a given level or percentage of goods [or services] ;(b) to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content;(c) to purchase, use or accord a preference to goods produced in its territory, or to purchase goods from persons in its territory;(d) to relate in any way the volume or value of imports to the volume or value of exports or to the amount of foreign exchange inflows associated with such investment;( e) to restrict sales of goods [or services] in its territory that such investment produces [or supplies] by relating such sales in any way to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings; [(f) to transfer a particular technology, a production process or other proprietary knowledge to a person in its territory;] [or](g) to supply exclusively from the territory of the Party the goods that such investment procedures [or the services that it supplies] to a specific regional market or to the world market [; or(h) (i) to purchase, use, or accord a preference to, in its territory, technology of the Party or persons of the Party13 ; or(ii) that prevents the purchase or use of, or the according of a preference to, in its territory, particular technology, so as to afford protection on the basis of nationality to its own investors or investments or to technology of the Party or of persons of the Party] .2. No Party may condition the receipt or continued receipt of an advantage, in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, or sale or other disposition of an investment in its territory of an investor of a Party [or of a non-Party,] on compliance with any requirement:(a) to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content;(b) to purchase, use, or accord a preference to goods produced in its territory, or to purchase goods from persons in its territory;(c) to relate in any way the volume or value of imports to the volume or value of exports or to the amount of foreign exchange inflows associated with such investment; or(d) to restrict sales of goods [or services] in its territory that such investment produces [or supplies] by relating such sales in any way to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings.3. (a) Nothing in paragraph 2 shall be construed to prevent a Party from conditioning the receipt or continued receipt of an advantage, in connection with an investment in its territory of an investor of a Party [or of a non-Party,] on compliance with a requirement to locate production, supply a service, train or employ workers, construct or expand particular facilities, or carry out research and development, in its territory.
Article 12.8: Senior Management and Boards of Directors1. No Party may require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to senior management positions natural persons of any particular nationality.2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality, or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.
Article 12.15: Investment and Environment] [ ,Health Safety and Labour] [ Article 12.15: Health Safety and Environmental Measures][1. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from adopting, maintaining or enforcing any measure otherwise consistent with this Chapter that it considers appropriate to ensure that investment activity in its territory is undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental [ , health, safety, or labour] [ , health or safety] concerns.]2. The Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing its health safety or environmental measures. Accordingly, a Party should not waive or otherwise derogate from or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, such measures as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion, or retention in its territory of an investment of an investor.]
Article 12.15 his: Corporate Social Responsibility[ Each Party should encourage][ nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from encouraging] enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies, such as statements of principle that have been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. [ These principles address issues such as labor, the environment, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption. The Parties remind those enterprises of the importance of incorporating such corporate social responsibility standards in their internal policies.]]
With all this stalemate posturing in Washington, today Chris Hayes has come up with the best idea I have heard yet to move the players. And, in my opinion actually solve our economic depression.
I watched Dr. Wolff (Professor emeritus, UMass) on this past week episode with Bill Moyers. At the end of this show, Mr. Moyers invited the viewers to submit questions to Dr. Wolf who has agreed to return in a couple of weeks to answer them.
Here is he with an interview by Julianna Forlano of Absurdity Today report. If you are not familiar with Julianna, she does a very funny short news broadcast on the issues of the moment. I am a subscriber. It’s is worth your time for sure.
This is the first part of 4. It is about 12 minutes. I want to say, at the end, Dr. Wolff is also pointing out that the cuts do not come all at once.
I figure this video is also posted in response to the video rjs linked to in comments to Bev’s post.
I promise, there are numbers here, but lets have some fun first and write a screen play to set up the point. It is long, but…
I was watching C span Washington Journal this morning. Rep Marsha Blackburn was the guest. I got to listen to her explanation of how the Social Security funds flow and just had to post the clip. Copied from the transcript of the clip:
THEIRS MONEY THAT GOES TO MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND I THINK IT IS JUST IS SO INAPPROPRIATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT USE THAT AS A TRUST FUND BUT THEY MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO THE GENERAL FUND AND STACK UP IOU’S THAT ARE SITTING IN A CABINET IN WEST VIRGINIA.
What she says should not be allowed to stand and if C-span were half of what it used to be, she would not have had the following go uncorrected. Thus I leave it to the Angry Bears to correct her here and thus document her ignorance of the subject.
I have not watched this lady before. I could not help but think she is just a more polished version of Sarah Palin. She is totally capable of pulling off what we used to call a “snow job” when writing their essay.
I have just learned of a new book that I believe every AB reader could relate to.
by: ANAT SHENKER-OSORIO
An excerpt from the book summary:
This concise, entertaining book shows us how wrong-headed metaphors and deceptive language have muddled our economic thinking, and how better word choice alone can win the debate.Today the term “dismal science” seems almost too kind: too many of today’s economic arguments deserve the mantle of mysticism.
Mainline thinking about the U.S. economy is starting to resemble Scientology: beyond a coterie of high-profile, high-income believers, the more those of us outside the fold learn about the teachings, the wackier the whole enterprise sounds.Members who attempt to leave either orthodoxy—in one case a church and in the other a market-worship orientation—are shunned and ostracized.In a nutshell, the overriding message is twofold: it’s your fault that the Economy sucks, but there’s not much you can do to improve it. This storyline must sound achingly familiar to Christians. The blame for damnation to hell lies with you and you alone. Yet though prayer and piety are good ideas, only God determines who merits redemption. Economic salvation is out of your hands, but that’s no excuse to quit your night job or start spending on luxury items like college.
In most domains, policies must be advertised as serving our national interests, but when GDP talk rolls around, this is no longer the case. We’re here to please the economy, not the other way around.