The rest of us just rent live/work space from them:
The number of people in the world with at least $1 million of investable assets---excluding their primary residence and collectibles---rose 9.2 percent to a record 12 million in 2012, according to an annual report by Capgemini and RBC Wealth Management. Assets held by the rich grew 10 percent to $46.2 trillion, driven by gains among people with $30 million or more. The number of millionaires in North America rose 11.5 percent to 3.73 million, making it the region with the most growth.
We had a chance to do something about this a few years ago. Too bad nobody who had the power to change the equation thought it was a serious problem. But it is a serious problem.
---Baron VPosted at 08:13 AM in America's Job Creators, Burdensome Regulations, Galtian Overlords, New Improved Burkeans | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I am guessing that this qualifies as a big fucking deal:
A study by James S. Henry, former chief economist at McKinsey & Company, estimates that wealthy individuals have $21 trillion to $32 trillion in private financial wealth tucked away in offshore havens---roughly equivalent to the size of the U.S. and Japanese economies combined.Even as the world economy has stumbled, the offshore world has continued to grow, said Henry, who is a board member of the Tax Justice Network, an international research and advocacy group that is critical of offshore havens. His research shows, for example, that assets managed by the world’s 50 largest “private banks”---which often use offshore havens to serve their “high net worth” customers---grew from $5.4 trillion in 2005 to more than $12 trillion in 2010.
As you might expect, America's job creators are well represented:
Among nearly 4,000 American names is Denise Rich, a Grammy-nominated songwriter whose ex-husband was at the center of an American pardon scandal that erupted as President Bill Clinton left office.A Congressional investigation found that Rich, who raised millions of dollars for Democratic politicians, played a key role in the campaign that persuaded Clinton to pardon her ex-spouse, Marc Rich, an oil trader who had been wanted in the U.S. on tax evasion and racketeering charges.
Records obtained by ICIJ show she had $144 million in April 2006 in a trust in the Cook Islands, a chain of coral atolls and volcanic outcroppings nearly 7,000 miles from her home at the time in Manhattan.
Since there's likely no way this problem ever gets rectified in full---it would take a multinational treaty, and even then there'd probably be ways to cheat it---I really hope they publish the names of every single person in those leaked e-mails. If we can't repatriate their money, we can at least shame them publicly. Small consolation, obviously, but it's about all we can realistically expect in our time.
---Baron VPosted at 11:34 AM in America's Job Creators, Burdensome Regulations, Galtian Overlords, The World is Flat | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
If I ran dog-and-pony show, this would be a firing offense:
Gary Gensler has for four years overseen a revolution atop the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as its oversight expanded into swaps markets and the agency handled fallout from a rash of scandals and the odd financial crisis.The spinning took on a rather different form this week as he challenged brokers and exchange executives to match his steps on the dance floor.
Mr. Gensler took to the floor at a late-night party during the annual Futures Industry Association confab in Boca Raton, Fla., transparently stepping and twirling before the industry elite.
“He moves well, for a regulator,” commented one European broker who observed the scene.
Great bunch of guys, eh?
To be fair, judging from what I've read of him, he's allegedly one of the less corrupt Obama financial appointees, but come on---partying down with the same bunch of vampires he's supposed to be regulating? You'd think this sort of thing would be strictly off-limits for an administration that has touted its moral rectitude as a model of good governance (regardless of the realities). Then again, Gensler's already on his way out the door, and his boss isn't running for re-election again, so perhaps they don't feel the need to keep up the pretense anymore. Besides, a dance party in Boca is probably as good a place as any to pass out your résumé and hustle some job interviews.
---Baron VPosted at 02:18 PM in Galtian Overlords, Looters and Moochers, New Improved Burkeans, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Was going to write something different about this article until I came upon this:
After the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they again pressed for capital gains rate cuts.Greenspan was then near the peak of his credibility in Washington. In 1993, he promised Clinton that he would lower interest rates if Clinton backed a deal to narrow the budget deficit. Both men delivered, building trust.
By 1997, the GOP leaders were turning to Greenspan for economic cover and inspiration.
“Now I agree with Steve Moore and Alan Greenspan that the correct rate is zero if you want maximum economic growth,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said at the Cato Institute on July 16, 1998. “If you really wanted the most wealth created over the next 20 years, you would have a zero rate for the capital gains tax, which is a tax on job creation” [...]
Clinton, seeking compromises with Congress, agreed to cut the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent.
“The irony is that Reagan got rid of the preferential rates for capital gains and Clinton put them back in,” Sullivan said.
Did this really happen? I was under the impression---mistaken, obviously---that the policy goals of the Federal Reserve were to set monetary policy with the aim of (a) achieving full employment, and (b) controlling inflation, not (c) using the prime lending rate as leverage to shrink the size of the government, or to squeeze out some tax cuts for your banker friends. This may have been perfectly legal, of course, but how, really, is this kind of interest-rate rigging any different than what happened in the LIBOR scandal? Absent the formation of some massive asset bubble (which came later in the decade), the budget deficit alone wouldn't have provided any reason to raise or lower interest rates if inflation was under control (it was) and unemployment was coming down (it also was). This was just a shakedown to extract political favors.
And as a special added bonus, the President who sought compromise with Republicans on taxes and the deficit was rewarded for his efforts by getting impeached by them. Have we always been ruled by freebooters and dunces, or is this just a fairly recent phenomenon?
---Baron VPosted at 01:45 PM in Galtian Overlords, Looters and Moochers, Market-Oriented Meliorism, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It looks legit, but scratch beneath the surface, and the game's as rigged as ever:
One of the CDOs was a $502 million deal called Plettenberg Bay. The government’s suit said S&P rated $436 million of the debt AAA, its highest mark, and that “Citibank suffered an almost total loss of its investment” after buying $8 million of the CDO’s lower-rated tranches. The suit didn’t mention that Citigroup was the CDO’s underwriter, or that other Plettenberg Bay investors are suing the bank over their losses.---Baron VUnder the government’s version of the facts, S&P’s fraud caused the banks’ losses, and Citigroup and Bank of America were victims. I would hate to be a government attorney who has to stand in front of a jury and try to make that argument [...]
In real life, it probably will be hard to convince anyone that S&P deceived Citigroup or Bank of America about the safety of their own monstrous creations. S&P’s ratings duped lots of investors, for sure---but these investors? Come on. It’s almost like the feds are suing on the banks’ behalf.
Posted at 10:58 AM in Burdensome Regulations, Galtian Overlords, Market-Oriented Meliorism, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
You can stop reading after the sixth paragraph:
A new paper from Patrick Sims of Hamilton Place Strategies, a policy and communications firm led by Bush administration White House and Treasury official Tony Fratto, amounts to a case for the big banks. (Hamilton Place counts major banks and their trade associations among its clients).
Layman's translation: Don't break up our clients because it'll be bad for our consulting business.
Now granted, I'm no economist, but it seems to me that a pretty good rule of thumb would be: If any single financial institution---or any single corporate entity, for that matter---has grown so enormous that its failure would implode the entire global economy, that would suggest that a breakup is in order. Unless we want to max out systemic risk across the banking system, which means that yes, in flush times the banks will yield generous returns for their investors---and in bad times, either taxpayers will come rushing in with trillions more in bailout relief, or it's the financial equivalent of nuclear winter for the rest of us. I really do believe that there's a better way.
---Baron VPosted at 02:55 PM in Galtian Overlords, Get Out of Jail Free!, Hayekian Modesty, Shared Sacrifice | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Got a feeling this is just the latest teaser pitch:
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is giving its wealthiest clients the chance to invest in the single-family rental market after other investments linked to the U.S. housing recovery jumped in value.The firm’s unit that caters to individuals and families with more than $5 million, put client money in a partnership that bought more than 5,000 single family homes to rent in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California, said David Lyon, a managing director and investment specialist at J.P. Morgan Private Bank. Investors can expect returns of as much as 8 percent annually from rental income as well as part of the profits when the homes are sold, he said.
Why anyone would trust these people in any kind of investment involving real estate ever again, well, there's one born every minute, I guess.
Doe it does underscore the greater reality that one day in the future, we are all going to be ether working for, or renting from, our New Feudal Overlords. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but as long as policymakers and regulators keep allowing them to steal houses for which they can't prove title, then extract rents and sell the properties all over again, there's no incentive for them to behave otherwise. Make fraud unprofitable, on the other hand, and they'll stop committing fraud.
---Baron VPosted at 11:33 AM in America's Job Creators, Creative Destruction, Galtian Overlords, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
As a slogan, it doesn't tell you anything, and while it's catchier than, say, "Greedy or Stupid?", it should tip off everyone that, for all their deficit-scolding, the league of serious persons and the job creators who endow them really don't have a clue how to fix what's broken in the global economy:
Businesses will only invest if they perceive growing demand for their goods and services. But the dilemma for the CEOs gathered in Davos is that the policies they have championed in the past---fiscal austerity, weaker trade unions, aggressive cost cutting---have hammered consumer spending. In the past, spending could be supported by rising household debt, but the banks don’t want to lend and the consumers don’t want to borrow.---Baron VThis is a recipe for continued economic torpor.
Posted at 05:55 AM in Galtian Overlords, Grecian Formulas, Hayekian Modesty, Serious Persons | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear that market-rigging is going on here:
During the Fed's August 16, 2007, conference call, Geithner said that banks had started to ask about borrowing from the Fed earlier in the month after the central bank had released a statement saying it stood ready to provide liquidity to credit markets.Geithner said banks "obviously don't have any idea that we're contemplating a change in policy"---a statement that Lacker then questioned.
"Did you say that they are unaware of what we're considering or what we might be doing with the discount rate?" Lacker asked, according to the transcript.
Geithner said yes, and Lacker followed up: "I spoke with Ken Lewis, president and CEO of Bank of America, this afternoon, and he said that he appreciated what Tim Geithner was arranging by way of changes in the discount facility. So my information is different from that."
Geithner responded, "I cannot speak for Ken Lewis, but I think they have sought to see whether they could understand a little more clearly the scope of their rights and our current policy with respect to the (discount lending) window."
"The only thing I've done is to try to help them understand ... what the scope of that is," he said.
Don't really know which is worse if this is true: That he was leaking insider information that could have given them a competitive edge over other banks that weren't tipped off, or the way he talks about them is if they're a business partner of the central bank. Okay, in a way they are business partners, but the whole idea is not to selectively leak useful info that can be monetized to them because it will move the financial markets in a way that is, well, rigged.
---Baron VPosted at 12:05 PM in America's Job Creators, Galtian Overlords, Get Out of Jail Free!, Market-Oriented Meliorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Apparently, he's going out the same way he came in:
"We didn't have $500 billion or three-quarters of a trillion dollars to provide principal reduction to the American homeowner, and doing so would have been a very inefficient way to help the economy, and really unfair in many ways," Geithner told the WSJ. "We also didn't have the legal power to compel."
Jesus, where to begin.
Maybe he didn't have the money, but he didn't need to provide the mortgage relief---his banker squash buddies did, and such relief could have been insisted upon as a condition for the banks' receiving additional tranches of TARP money. But that wasn't pursued; in fact, it wasn't even discussed. Further relief could have been provided via mortgage cramdown legislation, allowing bankruptcy judges the flexibility to dictate settlements to lenders. That was discussed, but again wasn't pursued. Even further relief could have been provided via a competently run refinancing and/or principal-writedown regime that didn't require FHA approval and which didn't let the banks decide for themselves which loans they wanted to refinance. That, too, was not pursued. Finally, the stress tests could have been conducted fairly and transparently, which likely would have necessitated the dismantling of Citigroup, Bank of America, and possibly another crime syndicate or two, then handing over the keys to the FDIC to write down all that bad paper, restructure what was left of the banks, and sell off their remaining profitable assets. And yes, this was not pursued either.
What was done, of course, was a costly and inefficient multi-year exercise in runaway foaming which proceeded along these rough allegorical lines: drunk driver crashes speeding car into casino, destroys countless lives, walks away with speeding ticket, crashes another speeding car into another casino, destroys countless more lives, gets another speeding ticket, rinse, repeat. I used to think there couldn't be a worse Treasury Secretary than Hank Paulson, but at least he grasped the urgency of the situation when the markets were imploding; and as an ex-Goldman guy, he could be forgiven for having drunk the Kool-Aid of endless upward housing valuation. And at least he acted decisively, though in hindsight one can question his judgment. But as we now know, Geithner was one of the few Fed governors who saw a lot of the trouble brewing before it happened. So what's been his excuse for doing nothing of substance for the last four years but buying more time for the banks to heal themselves? Whatever . . . it's just that this "innocent bystander" alibi is so patently offensive, it's amazing he even has the chutzpah to try to pawn it off.
---Baron VPosted at 05:05 PM in Corporate Personhood, Galtian Overlords, Market-Oriented Meliorism, Serious Persons | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Riffing off the previous, perhaps there's a simpler, more banal reason why our financial regulators seem so passive when confronted by widespread criminality in the markets they're supposed to be overseeing---because, well, being tougher on the industry would imperil their future career viability:
Julie Williams, the former longtime No. 2 at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is joining Promontory Financial Group.---Baron VThe move will reunite Williams, who worked at the OCC for 19 years, with Eugene Ludwig, the comptroller of the currency from 1993 to 1998 and the founder of Promontory [...]
After her departure was announced, it was an open secret that most law firms with a financial services policy practice were seeking to hire Williams. Her knowledge of the inner workings of the OCC, where she served as acting comptroller twice during her tenure, and the inter-agency process make her a valuable asset.
Posted at 07:12 AM in Burdensome Regulations, Galtian Overlords, New Improved Burkeans, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Looks like we'll never notice any changing of the guard. Because there isn't going to be one?
Lew declared at the 2010 Senate hearing that he didn't think financial deregulation led to the financial crisis, saying the real problem was banks taking too many risks with bizarre derivatives."I don't believe that deregulation was the proximate cause," he said, adding, "I would defer to others who are more expert about the industry to try and parse it better than that."
And maybe the reason why they were taking too many risks with bizarre derivatives was because . . . nobody was regulating the trades or the instruments? I mean, if children playing with matches set your house on fire, you take away the matches, and if the Masters of The Universe are trading exotic pieces of paper that have already set the economy on fire and which they still have no idea how to value, you might want to consider, well, taking away their play money. Crazy thought, I know, when what they really need is a tax cut.
---Baron VPosted at 05:09 PM in Galtian Overlords, Get Out of Jail Free!, Grecian Formulas, New Improved Burkeans | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Okay, it wasn't such a good deed in the first place:
Fresh from paying back a $182 billion bailout, the American International Group Inc. has been running a nationwide advertising campaign with the tagline “Thank you America.”Behind the scenes, the restored insurance company is weighing whether to tell the government agencies that rescued it during the financial crisis: thanks, but you cheated our shareholders.
The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show.
Why anyone would trust these people to insure anything is beyond my comprehension, but it also underlines the folly of preserving a hyper-financialized system of corrupt corporate capital that's run by people who invent clever new instruments they can trade to each other but who have no idea how to value them, which leads them to purposely lie to their investors and the government: In other words, a facile, dishonest boobocracy that sees no other purpose to commerce but to extract wealth from other enterprises in exchange for hot air. Whether the rubes are policyholders or taxpayers, it matters not: just grab the money and cover your bets. Maybe the next time they bankrupt the casino, we simply let these people fail?
---Baron VPosted at 07:37 AM in Burdensome Regulations, Corporate Personhood, Galtian Overlords, Market-Oriented Meliorism, Shared Sacrifice | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Whether Kenyan or Teabilly, we can all agree that government should discourage their proliferation as much as possible, that while a generous social safety net is needed to provide relief for the elderly and infirm, the Republic is best served when government rewards the dynamic market forces of creativity, industry and foresight at the expense of laziness, sloth and bad judgment. The freedom to succeed, after all, also implies freedom to fail! Because otherwise, you end up with a nation of welfare moochers who drain the Republic of much-needed resources and who eventually consider themselves "entitled" to things they haven't honestly earned. I guess the point at which both sides diverge in the discussion is over whether to limit the definition of "welfare sponges" to a bunch of shiftless blah people spending their government handouts on Kool Milds and Olde English 800, or whether we should apply a more universal, all-encompassing benchmark.
---Baron VPosted at 09:56 AM in America's Job Creators, Galtian Overlords, New Improved Burkeans, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Because we can never reward failure often enough:
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew remains the leading contender for the Treasury job, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss the private talks.Because Lew’s experience in financial markets is thin, Obama may seek to name a Wall Street executive as deputy Treasury secretary, the people said.
While Lew, 57, worked as a managing director for Citigroup from July 2006 until the end of 2008, he’s spent most of his career in government.
So we're going to promote a guy who worked as a director for Citi when the company was crashing the housing market and hustling the government for bailout money, and another guy who's maybe-sorta just like him, only with more experience in market-crashing and bailout-hustling. That's a hell of a policy sea change, brother.
I've got another idea: why don't we just implode the Treasury Building in Washington, and relocate all the employees to some sparkling new digs? We might as well, considering that's where our economic policy is being formulated these days. As an alternative---and I realize this is a totally unserious proposal---perhaps the President would consider appointing a Treasury secretary who has no experience in the financial markets but who is a credentialed economist who understands how markets operate, and who also has a greater interest in seeing that existing banking and securities laws are being enforced than in foaming runways for a bunch of failed businessmen. We call these people "public servants" for a reason, so how about appointing people who genuinely want to, like, serve the public?
---Baron VPosted at 11:51 AM in Corporate Personhood, Galtian Overlords, Grecian Formulas, New Improved Burkeans | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
If it's a new year, it must be time to give the arsonists a book of matches, a can of gas, and another pile of our money to set on fire:
Two weeks ago . . . the SEC blessed a controversial fund designed by J.P. Morgan Chase that, for the first time, will let investors buy shares backed by physical, warehoused copper, to use as a form of investment.The change may seem arcane. But long-time participants in the copper market say the effects will be immediate: Manufacturers looking to make productive use of copper will find themselves competing with speculators backed by some of the richest banks and funds in the world, raising prices for many consumer products. The long-term result may be even more disturbing: The SEC's ruling all but invites bankers to increase speculation in other, even more essential goods, like grain and oil.
In practical terms, the SEC handed traders at J.P. Morgan control over 20 to 30 percent of the copper available for immediate delivery from the London Metals Exchange---the commercial market where companies that use copper go to procure last-minute supplies.
I'd expect this abusive and corrupt behavior from an SEC stocked with Teabilly political appointees, but we are now entering the fifth year of Team Democrat's control of the executive branch. The SEC has been an unmitigated disaster from Day 1 of the administration, and its sense of urgency to do anything to reform the agency has been about the same as its sense of urgency to do anything to prevent the recurrence of financial crimes: That is, they're more concerned with foaming some runways than ensuring us that the Masters of the Universe---you know, the same ones who've already plundered the citizenry for trillions of dollars in equity---don't consign us all eventually to living in mud-hut shantytowns. You'd have thought the administration might've had a change of heart about this state of affairs after the last election, but I guess when it comes to financial regulation, elections don't matter much anymore, now, do they. I suppose as a consequence that we could all complain to little avail, or perhaps as an alternative we could practice some conversational Spanish.
---Baron VPosted at 03:07 PM in America's Job Creators, Galtian Overlords, New Improved Burkeans, Wealth Creation Strategies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It's a strange world we live in when one of our leading corporate persons is informed by a legal oversight authority that it needs to obey the law just like real persons do, and this verdict is considered the exception to the rule. But that's kind of world we live in, apparently.
---Baron VPosted at 08:26 AM in Activist Judges, Corporate Personhood, Galtian Overlords, Looters and Moochers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Who says our leaders aren't capable of forging them?
Banking regulators are close to a $10 billion settlement with 14 banks that would end the government's efforts to hold lenders responsible for foreclosure abuses like faulty paperwork and excessive fees that may have led to evictions, according to people with knowledge of the discussions [...]The proposed settlement would also halt a separate sweeping review of more than four million loan files that the comptroller's office and the Federal Reserve required the banks undertake as part of a consent order in April 2011.
Under the terms of the order, the 14 banks had to hire independent consultants to pore through the loan records to determine whether the banks illegally charged fees, forced homeowners to take out costly insurance or miscalculated loan payment amounts. Consultants initially estimated that each loan would take about eight hours, at a cost of up to $250 an hour, to go through.
Of course they didn't hire any consultants that were genuinely independent because that would have run the risk of exposing serial criminality, hence prosecution, hence prison. So they offered up a settlement before the government wised up and started threatening to invoke federal RICO statutes.
Meanwhile, no grand bargains.
---Baron VPosted at 11:27 AM in Corporate Personhood, Galtian Overlords, Hayekian Modesty, Shared Sacrifice | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
In which Prof. DeLong is perplexed at our nation's outrage deficit:
There are lots of lessons to be drawn from the first age of globalization for the second. There are lots of lessons to be drawn from the high school-ization of America for the college-ization of America and for education elsewhere in the world. There are lots and lots of lessons to be drawn from the Great Depression for today.But the political economy of Gilded Ages? Why the first Gilded age produces a Populist and a Progressive reaction and the second, so far, does not? There I throw up my hands and say that my economic historian training betrays me. I have no clue as to what is going on here.
Not an economic historian here, but I am guessing it is a confluence of factors:
1. We do have a social safety net now, however inadequate, which keeps millions of people (particularly seniors) out of poverty.
2. The unemployment level, while bad, is clearly not as bad as those of previous Panics/Depressions
(7.7 today < 25 in 1932).
3. Historically higher levels of homeownership are an effective buffer against homelessness/destitution.
4. Much smaller percentage of population engaged in agrarian enterprise, hence not "wedded to the land," hence a populace with greater social mobility. This is crucial as wealth has concentrated steadily in major metropolitan areas, so greater mobility affords greater opportunity to literally "follow the money" in search of gainful employment.
5. Also, a smaller agrarian workforce is less prone to seasonal employment/unemployment swings.
6. The political party that has historically provided safe haven for Progressive populist (farmer-labor) reformers has been partially captured by the forces of industry-capital.
7. The American public, arguably, is more effectively propagandized against populist reform measures by a corporate-media communications complex than at any time in our history. Granted, most 19th- and early 20th-century urban newspapers were rabid right-wing house organs, but their reach (pretty much limited to the core and inner-ring suburbs) was far smaller in scope, and their ability to impact public opinion much smaller. And prior to the 1930s, there was no radio to speak of, or TV to use as an additional propaganda tool. A cotton farmer in 1920s Arkansas, for instance, may never have read the warnings of the editors of the New York World that Bolsheviks and Wobblies were threatening his livelihood; in a simpler cash-and-carry economy, he knew from experience, and from the experiences of his neighbors, that bankers and commodities traders were his biggest threats. Today's Arkansas cotton farmer need only switch on his AM radio (in the hinterlands, still the only reliable radio signal absent satellite) and hear nothing all day but economic falsehoods and fabrications from Rush, Levin, Hannity et al. In the evening, he need only switch on CNN or ABC to hear Wolf and Cokie remind him that the reactionary rant he's listened to all day is simply one among many equally valid and competing opinions for policymakers to consider when crafting legislation. The net impact of this has been that millions of voters---particularly in rural areas---who would normally have been the most receptive to populist political appeals in the past have been scared/cajoled/persuaded/deceived into believing that redistributionist economic policies that are in their own best interests are, in fact, subversive if not downright traitorous.
So, summing up: The social safety net has helped. Unemployment is nowhere near as bad as it has been, or could be. Fewer workers stuck on the farm. A more educated workforce has more assets (real estate) to use as a hedge against destitution, as well as greater social mobility to leverage in search of employment. The former political refuge of populism (i.e., Team Democrat) has morphed into a corporatist advocacy group with a liberal social conscience. And a cable/radio media-industrial complex that most people rely on for their news and information has done the job its corporate sponsors have paid it to do, keeping Americans functionally ignorant of the principles of economics, and frightening them into opposing any attempts to alter the political status quo. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that for Progressive-style populism to ever take root again in this country, the economy will need to hit its absolute rock bottom, with 30-percent unemployment, many millions more Americans living in homeless squatters' camps, food riots in major cities, etc. And even then, I'd be inclined to wager that Francisco Franco wins out in the end over Fightin' Bob LaFollette. At least, that's how I see it as long as the old white guys are running the Republic.
---Baron VPosted at 11:09 AM in Galtian Overlords, Young Bucks With T-Bones | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)