Showing posts with label Dylan Ratigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dylan Ratigan. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Geithner = "Chief Facilitator"
This is all getting fairly ridiculous. When will someone go to jail? Jeez, give us a scapegoat if nothing else. I don't know how they expect anyone to respect the law at this point. The fraud and malfeasance reaches to the very top.
Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism said: "Quite a few observers, including this blogger, have been stunned and frustrated at the refusal to investigate what was almost certain accounting fraud at Lehman." He goes on to note the possibility of "accounting fraud," noting "collusion" on the part of the Fed, ultimately condemning the activities described as the probable "aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations." But we will never know for sure unless the matter is investigated, which it most likely won't be. See:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/ny-fed-under-geithner-implicated-in-lehman-accounting-fraud.html
Our government now regularly bends over backwards to suborn criminal activity. And when the wrong-doers are caught, not only do they not go to prison as they should, they get made whole again on the back of everyone else's money.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Two Interesting Moves on the Board
Dylan Ratigan, outraged by Wall Street bailout socialism, makes the following comments and recommendations:
The Fix
1. Move money to small banks (to starve the bigger banks)
2. Pay with cash (instead of credit cards)
3. Contact lawmakers
I like the first two suggestions because actions speak louder than any words. Do it - as much as you can, starve the banks and use cash.
Still and with that said, I have to reveal that I don't love this Dylan Ratigan guy. Shockingly, I find this guy overly combative and browbeating to his guests. You'd think with my own rhino thick skin and foul mouth - the one I am so eager to have spew expletives almost all the time at every conceivable target - you'd think this trait of Ratigan's wouldn't bother me at all. Alas, I think he needs to be more professional given the numbers of eyes and ears to which he has access. Rachel Maddow gave a guy a total beating just last week but she did it fairly professionally and generally stuck to the format of a formal debate. She didn't just interview the person and ask tough questions, she finally confronted the man with conclusions and opinions of her own that she wanted to share with her viewers. It was pretty epic. See it here (and Dylan: take note!), Rachel interviews/debates Tim Phillips of the 'astroturf' organization "Americans for Prosperity":
------
Meanwhile, Alan Grayson has created a website for people to list the names of the people that have died because of congress' inaction on health care reform. His site is called "Names of the Dead" and includes some very informative links. The site is running really slow right now...
Go to these links and see for yourself:
http://www.namesofthedead.com/
This guy has huge balls. Sure, maybe he sees his chance as a political opportunist. As long as he does the right stuff, I don't mind it one bit. Someone has to take a leadership position in the absence of the U.S. Prez taking the leadership role.
Yeah, that's right - another shot at Obama (a.k.a. Mr. Very Weak Tea)...
The Fix
1. Move money to small banks (to starve the bigger banks)
2. Pay with cash (instead of credit cards)
3. Contact lawmakers
I like the first two suggestions because actions speak louder than any words. Do it - as much as you can, starve the banks and use cash.
Still and with that said, I have to reveal that I don't love this Dylan Ratigan guy. Shockingly, I find this guy overly combative and browbeating to his guests. You'd think with my own rhino thick skin and foul mouth - the one I am so eager to have spew expletives almost all the time at every conceivable target - you'd think this trait of Ratigan's wouldn't bother me at all. Alas, I think he needs to be more professional given the numbers of eyes and ears to which he has access. Rachel Maddow gave a guy a total beating just last week but she did it fairly professionally and generally stuck to the format of a formal debate. She didn't just interview the person and ask tough questions, she finally confronted the man with conclusions and opinions of her own that she wanted to share with her viewers. It was pretty epic. See it here (and Dylan: take note!), Rachel interviews/debates Tim Phillips of the 'astroturf' organization "Americans for Prosperity":
------
Meanwhile, Alan Grayson has created a website for people to list the names of the people that have died because of congress' inaction on health care reform. His site is called "Names of the Dead" and includes some very informative links. The site is running really slow right now...
Go to these links and see for yourself:
http://www.namesofthedead.com/
This guy has huge balls. Sure, maybe he sees his chance as a political opportunist. As long as he does the right stuff, I don't mind it one bit. Someone has to take a leadership position in the absence of the U.S. Prez taking the leadership role.
Yeah, that's right - another shot at Obama (a.k.a. Mr. Very Weak Tea)...
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Oligopoly! Not Capitalism...
Wiki says:
An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived from the Greek oligo 'few' plus -opoly as in monopoly and duopoly. Because there are few participants in this type of market, each oligopolist is aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists always involves taking into account the likely responses of the other market participants. This causes oligopolistic markets and industries to be at the highest risk for collusion.
More here:
------
Americans Have Been Taken Hostage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/americans-have-been-taken_b_285225.html
The American people have been taken hostage to a broken system.
It is a system that remains in place to this day.
A system where bank lobbyists have been spending in record numbers to make sure it stays that way.
A system that corrupts the most basic principles of competition and fair play, principles upon which this country was built.
It is a system that so far has forced the taxpayer to provide the banks with the use of $14 trillion from the Federal Reserve, much of the $7 trillion outstanding at the US Treasury and $2.3 trillion at the FDIC.
A system partially built by the very people who currently advise our President, run our Treasury Department and are charged with its reform.
...
Why is this? Who does our Government work for? How much longer will we as Americans tolerate it? And what, if anything, can we do about it?
As we approach the anniversary of the bailouts for our banks and insurers -- and watch the multi-trillion taxpayer-funded programs at the Federal Reserve continue to support banks and subsidize their multibillion bonus pools, we must ask if our politicians represent the interests of America? Or those who would rob America of its money and its future?
As a country, we must demand that our politicians stop serving those whose business models are based on systemic theft and start serving those who seek to create value for others -- the workers, innovators and investors who have made this country great.
An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived from the Greek oligo 'few' plus -opoly as in monopoly and duopoly. Because there are few participants in this type of market, each oligopolist is aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists always involves taking into account the likely responses of the other market participants. This causes oligopolistic markets and industries to be at the highest risk for collusion.
More here:
------
Americans Have Been Taken Hostage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/americans-have-been-taken_b_285225.html
The American people have been taken hostage to a broken system.
It is a system that remains in place to this day.
A system where bank lobbyists have been spending in record numbers to make sure it stays that way.
A system that corrupts the most basic principles of competition and fair play, principles upon which this country was built.
It is a system that so far has forced the taxpayer to provide the banks with the use of $14 trillion from the Federal Reserve, much of the $7 trillion outstanding at the US Treasury and $2.3 trillion at the FDIC.
A system partially built by the very people who currently advise our President, run our Treasury Department and are charged with its reform.
...
Why is this? Who does our Government work for? How much longer will we as Americans tolerate it? And what, if anything, can we do about it?
As we approach the anniversary of the bailouts for our banks and insurers -- and watch the multi-trillion taxpayer-funded programs at the Federal Reserve continue to support banks and subsidize their multibillion bonus pools, we must ask if our politicians represent the interests of America? Or those who would rob America of its money and its future?
As a country, we must demand that our politicians stop serving those whose business models are based on systemic theft and start serving those who seek to create value for others -- the workers, innovators and investors who have made this country great.
Talking Heads Agree!
In short, Robert Reich and Pat Buchanan both agreed that some big banks should have been allowed to fail. When two such politically polar opposites agree on anything it has to be accepted that anyone with functioning brain cells should also agree with them.
So why did congress bail out the banks in the precise manner that they did? Why didn't they follow a Swedish style plan as recommended here on this blog? Why was congress better pleased to condemn the U.S. to a jobless recovery ala Japan (a.k.a. the "Ten Year Plan")? Why was the taxpayer of today, and of future generations also, asked to pay for this hideously undemocratic and anti-capitalistic bailout?
As my old pal, Cicero of Rome, once said: "Cui bono?" "To whose benefit?"
The 1% got floated their life rafts first. The rest of us can go straight to hell. But right, there is no such thing as class warfare. It just so happens that every branch of government in this country seems to only do things that benefit huge corporatist interests. It's not intentional; it's a mere accident of fate.
Below we have Elizabeth Warren schooling us on the way the federal government has utterly failed us. Believe what you like, what they didn't do was anything like the right thing because they didn't stop ANY OF THIS from happening variously through anti-trust proceedings, RICO, existing anti-monopoly laws, SEC regulation, etc. In fact, if anything, the federal government entirely caused this to happen by deregulating the financial and banking markets in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Ultimately, even Warren doesn't go far enough. she's wearing the kid gloves here. We have a completely corrupt collapse of our nation as we know it, and the throat of the American public has been symbolically placed into the psychopathic grip of financial Jack the Rippers that want to dismember the body politic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
