brainiac conspiracy

It's Only Called "Stealing"

When the little people do it.

it's unfortunate that the people whop govern us don't seem to realize how complicit they've been in fostering our culture of kleptocracy. No, they're not all grifters---though plenty of them are---but by their apathy and disinterest, they've enabled our corporate sector to morph into a network of organized crime syndicates. Just as we didn't break the power of the Mob until we started sending real-life mobsters to prison for their offenses, so to it will be with our latter-day mob bosses. Just a thought.

---Baron V

Got an Easy Answer For That

Obviously, yes!

In the shutdown era, Democrats have had a more moderate image nationwide than the tea-party-burdened GOP. But that image may be at risk if liberal Democrats set the pace for the party. We could see them rally around a progressive leader---Warren, de Blasio or some yet-to-emerge candidate---who speaks their language of economic populism. If the agenda of this new New Left drives Democrats’ choices, it might weaken the ideological and demographic coalition that has led the party to victory in four of the past six national elections.

Because proposing to raise taxes on rich people to pay for infrastructure and health care, or suggesting that we break up the banks and throw their executives in jail, are both bad, horrible, very terrible things because heaven forbid our government should actually give voters the things they actually want. We must never have liberal/leftist government because "populism", a view that is only held by the wealthy and by people who live in the greater D.C. metro area. The rest of us? We don't exist.

---Baron V

Centrists

It's really rather unfair to claim, "They don't care about jobs" because, well, they care deeply about jobs. They just don't want their taxes raised to help pay for government programs that would create actual jobs for people because most of our centrists are wealthy and influential persons. Sure, they agree that joblessness is a terrible thing that exacts frightful social costs. They just think it's someone else's responsibility to do something about it. This is why the centrists' economic policy positions are so closely aligned with conservatives' economic policy positions: Because the underlying motives of each camp, i.e., selfishness and greed, are virtually identical. The centrists have a bit more of a social conscience, but not enough to make a difference in terms of real-world policy outcomes.

---Baron V

Looked Good on Paper

On the surface, there was an elemental logic to it: Flood the financial markets with needed liquidity by making trillions of dollars in asset purchases, which would provide plenty of capital for job creators to lend at low interest rates, which consumers could then borrow to buy stuff, which would increase aggregate demand to the point where job creators would start hiring people to make the stuff that consumers wanted. Unemployment comes down, profits go up, tax revenues get raised, problem solved. It didn't work, of course, because (1) the job creators decided to keep the money for themselves, and (2) policymakers had no idea at the time how bad the recession really was---and still is! They---and we---would have been a lot better off if they'd given the money to our elected leaders to provide jobs to all the people who needed one, but our elected leaders weren't terribly interested in creating make-work programs---unless they involved spying on people. This pretty much sums up the era we live in.

---Baron V

What Our Leaders Saved

It's not only that they stole thousands of homes that didn't belong to them, forged documents to establish title when they didn't have it, looted our pensions and 401(k)s of billions of dollars to make stupid derivatives bets, lied to their investors to offload crap securities, manipulated the price of money and commodities, or went running to the taxpayers when all their innovations went south. It's that none of these things---like the cratering of the global economy---would ever have happened if it weren't for the fact that, well, they just weren't terribly good at their jobs. And they still aren't.

---Baron V

Not Much Difference Between Them Anymore

Because of what they learned from Morning in America™:

There is some anger at the betrayal of the Democratic-Labour axis. Stan Greenberg, the American political consultant who worked for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now Ed Miliband, says: "It's strange simultaneously to work for an organisation working to advance Obama's agenda, and go work for a party that supports Tea Party austerity and closed doors to immigrants---the opposite of what you supported in the US election. I presumed that people get involved in politics because they believe in things, and they have a project."

But Greenberg says Messina may be part of a different generation of political consultants: "In the '80s there was an ideological cross-fertilisation between the Clinton and Blair advisers. People like Philip Gould and James Carville---we had a common project on both sides of the Atlantic, trying to reform our parties and to modernise them. We shared the experience of the end of the cold war and working to bring democracy to new parties, and we were free traders believing in the opening up of markets in new countries. Most of the Clinton and Blair people were pro-trade, so it was all driven by big politics and economics."

In other words, it's all about the gravy. And if the corporate boys are ladling out bigger portions of it than the unions and the hippies are, you go with the corporate boys. Principles, after all, are for suckers.

---Baron V

It's Their World

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 V

Got an Easy Answer For That

Because a generation of people with MBAs were taught to run their businesses for the benefit of shareholders, not customers or workers; and once the dividend checks were mailed out, they were entitled to keep the rest of the money.

This helps to explain why the principle of "entitlement reform" only applies to the poor, sick and elderly.

Also too, policy. Whatever happened to that Employee Free Choice Act?

---Baron V

President Christie

For reasons your humble blogger cannot fathom, a great many people in our Washington media corps are heads-over-heels in love with the prospect of this belligerent lummox in the White House. Maybe it's because he doesn't believe that Baby Jesus baptized dinosaurs, or because he once said some nice things about President Obama, or because he's demonstrated the requisite toughness with unions. And yes, he'd surely be preferable to President Ryan or President Rubio, but it's hard to shake off the notion that a Christie presidency would be anything other than an absolute fucking nightmare:

During the summer of 2011, as speculation intensified that he would be a candidate for president, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was summoned to a private club in Manhattan by the founder of Home Depot, Kenneth G. Langone.

The governor expected that Mr. Langone and a few other friends would urge him to run. He was startled by what he found instead, he recalled to the author of a book due out next month.

Sixty people, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and prominent business executives, sat facing a small table with a phone on it. The phone allowed David Koch, the industrialist and conservative billionaire, and John J. Mack, the former chairman of Morgan Stanley, to call in and encourage his candidacy.

After Mr. Langone announced that the group would raise as much money as Mr. Christie would need, Mr. Kissinger picked up his cane and made his way to the front of the room [...]

“Your country needs you,” Mr. Kissinger declared, and the room erupted in applause.

Like I said before, kids, it's all about damage control until 2017.

---Baron V

Epiphany Time

It probably strikes you as common sense, but it surely must come as a revelation to our political leadership class that people can't spend money if they haven't got money to spend. How to fix? Dunno for sure, but I suppose we could try giving them som more money to spend instead of taking more money away from them.

---Baron V

Random Thought

Democratic institutions are nice things to have because, among other things, societies where individual citizens are equally empowered tend to be societies that share power---and its material blessings---most equitably. Unfortunately, that fact can interfere with the ability of our job creators to leverage social inequality to generate dividends for shareholders, and this is why people can't really be trusted with the levers of democracy. Just so we're clear on this.

---Baron V

Today's Worst Person

It's early in the day, but he's deserving of the dishonor:

Academies and free schools should become profit-making businesses using hedge funds and venture capitalists to raise money, according to private plans being drawn up by the Education Secretary, Michael Gove.

Because there is absolutely nothing, but nothing, that can't be monetized to generate dividends for shareholders and losses for taxpayers. Also too, academic achievement.

We really are governed by perverts. Have things always been this way?

---Baron V

More Worst Persons Freedom-Lovers

The UC Board of Regents:

Records show that wealthy investors and influential businessmen with close ties to UCLA and one of the UC Regents — Alan C. Mendelson — are financially invested in companies that currently license university-owned patents under exclusive financial arrangements. Mendelson, who also is a trustee for the UC Berkeley Foundation and has investments of his own in businesses that profit from university-produced research, was one of the main backers of the Newco proposal and cast a vote in favor of it.

The Newco program also could benefit companies like the ones Mendelson and his network of friends and investors own and work for. Many of the UC Regents are also close friends of investors who want greater access to university inventions under more favorable terms, and who want the university to subsidize early-stage business expenses and take financial risks by investing in technology startups.

Because what could possibly go wrong?

I guess that people such as your humble blogger are suckers for believing that any of our leading civic institutions still perform any legitimate civic functions anymore, and that their only real-world purposes at this stage of the empire's decline are risk mitigation and capital formation on behalf of America's job creators. It seems like an awfully cynical thing to say, but we live in cynical times, so there's that.

---Baron V

Also Too, More Reality

Yes, marriage equality and climate change and reproductive rights are all important issues---as the last couple of days have reminded us! But also, freedom:

Steven and Joan Bailey say they're two-time victims of a broken foreclosure system.

In 2010, they lost their North Carolina home to a foreclosure they say shouldn't have happened because they were seeking a loan modification at the time. This year, they eagerly awaited their check from a big bank settlement engineered by the government to compensate millions of borrowers for past foreclosure abuses. They expected at least $6,000 or even the maximum---$125,000.

Their check arrived in April---for $800. Less than a month's rent on their apartment.

It's getting increasingly difficult to figure out how your humble blogger---or anyone else---can possibly give the current administration a passing grade once its term of office has expired. This problem has been festering for years, next to nothing has been done to rectify it, and it's one of the biggest reasons the economy remains so sluggish despite the recovery in equities, low interest rates and so forth. And yes, I know GOP obstruction and 60 votes, etc., but a great deal of this fiasco could have been resolved---and still could!---by executive action. (If the President has the power to assassinate people, why wouldn't he have the power to break up a banking cartel? Isn't that why we have antitrust laws on the books?) But first, the administration has to acknowledge the severity of the problem. And for whatever reason, they still haven't done that. So, not a passing grade.

---Baron V

What Our Leaders Saved . . .

The global meritocracy:

Anglo itself was within days of complete meltdown---and in the years ahead would eat up €30bn of taxpayer money. Mr Bowe speaks about how the State had been asked for €7bn to bail out Anglo---but Anglo's negotiators knew all along this was not enough to save the bank.

The plan was that once the State began the flow of money, it would be unable to stop.

Mr Bowe is asked by Mr Fitzgerald how they had come up with the figure of €7bn. He laughs as he is taped saying: "Just, as Drummer (then-CEO David Drumm) would say, 'picked it out of my arse'."

---Baron V

Free-Market Competition

Going out on a limb and guessing these best practices aren't limited to the confines of Perfidious Albion:

Some of Britain’s most respected industries routinely employ criminals to hack, blag and steal personal information on business rivals and members of the public, according to a secret report leaked to The Independent.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) knew six years ago that law firms, telecoms giants and insurance were hiring private investigators to break the law and further their commercial interests, the report reveals, yet the agency did next to nothing to disrupt the unlawful trade.

It is understood that one of the key hackers mentioned in the confidential Soca report admitted that 80 per cent of his client list was taken up by law firms, wealthy individuals and insurance companies. Only 20 per cent was attributed to the media, which was investigated by the Leveson Inquiry after widespread public revulsion following the phone-hacking scandal.

I guess if I were the parent of college-age children, I'd probably be insisting that they major in computer sciences if they expected the old man to foot the bill. Why not? We live in an era where theft-by-laptop is standard operating procedure in government, in banking, in law, in business and in media. If we can't derail this outlaw regime, I suppose the next best thing we can do is to hop on the gravy train and cash in on the grift. Yes, I know that's a cynical and defeatist attitude to take, but absent armed revolt, what other choice do we have? Elections don't seem to matter much anymore, and we can't rely on market forces to decide winners and losers because most of the markets are rigged. But regardless, it doesn't bode well for the future of liberal democracy when the marketable job skills that it rewards most richly are the same ones that work to rob it of its legitimacy.

---Baron V

We Build Prisons For a Reason

Or we used to, at least: Primarily, to protect society from dangerous predators and to deter others from behaving in a predatory manner. But since our prison industry is now just another profit-driven enterprise that bases its business model on bulk incarcerations, our lawmakers place a higher priority on keeping the prison pipeline flowing with additional revenue-drivers (i.e., poor brown drug offenders) than on preventing society's most dangerous predators from, you know, preying on people.

Future historians will surely wonder why guillotines had not been erected in every public square by now.

---Baron V

A Celebration of Freedom

Mentioned this in passing yesterday, but it certainly bears repeating that those of us in the developed world enjoy a great many more freedoms than other people do: As an example, the freedom to work at any trade we choose. No central planning for us! This assumes, of course, that we can actually find work in our chosen trade, because if we can't, we have the freedom to be unemployed. Not to mention the freedom to be deliberately impoverished as a matter of policy by our own governments:

An additional 900,000 people were plunged into poverty during the first year of the coalition government, including 300,000 more children, according to official figures.

Charities pointed out that the entire increase in children counted as in poverty in 2011-12 came from working households. Children living below the poverty line were now twice as likely to come from working families than those without employment.

The situation is likely to get worse, say charities, because the statistics covered the period before a range of austerity measures and welfare cuts---including the bedroom tax and the abolition of council tax benefit---were introduced.

---Baron V

Today's Worst Person

Don't know how this person escaped my attention up to now because he sure is a piece of work:

Legalizing the trade in ivory and other elephant products would provide additional resources. In essence, elephants need to be treated like cattle. Their owners---or the equivalent, such as villagers living near elephants---need to benefit from the animals’ preservation. Noted Bulte and van Kooten: “When trade is allowed, the characteristics of elephant stocks as an asset are obviously different, because living elephants represent a growing and valuable source of future ivory. Hence, in the long run, trade in ivory may well promote elephant conservation.”

This is a textbook example of everything that is truly heinous about glibertarianism: First, the idea that there's no intrinsic value to anything on the planet unless it can be monetized, then privatized; second, the idea that the only way you can get people to behave in an ethical manner is to essentially bribe them, with money or land or elephants or whatnot; and third, that unless a law induces 100-percent compliance, then the law is useless and should be done away with, and forget about why the law was ever enacted in the first place. There's just no concept of The Commons with these people, which is richly ironic considering that they make their homes and earn their fortunes in a place called the United States. Then again, when you labor in the service of some of the most awful people our Republic has ever produced, guess it's not such a stretch to suppose you'll advocate some genuinely awful policies.

As an aside, it never seems to dawn on these brilliant scholars that if elephants could be successfully "harvested" like cattle, the chances are good that there would be thriving elephant ranches all over sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that there aren't should speak for itself---but then again, acknowledging reality deprives you of the opportunity to advance a contrarian argument.

(Via.)

---Baron V

Today's Worst Persons

Ed Balls and Ed Milliband:

Balls told the shadow cabinet "we cannot plan now on the basis that our inheritance in 2015 will be better than currently forecast", adding that this would require further deep departmental cuts in spending.

Balls was also setting out a series of likely cuts to government spending, including the abolition of police commissioners, means-testing the winter fuel allowance and freezing the building of further free schools [...]

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, will take Balls's message a step further on Thursday by proposing a cap on welfare spending not linked to the economic cycle.

Intuitive---isn't it?---that the party that names itself after labour thinks that the commonwealth will be better served for having rather less of it.

Guess we shouldn't feel so isolated and alone anymore since, obviously, we're not the only democratic nation on the planet that is no longer permitted to have liberal governance. Even though liberal governance would, in fact, solve a great many of their/our problems. Like us, they could also mint a coin, print more money, and offer every citizen a job anytime they wanted, and like us, they have apparently decided that punishing the poor---and now the kiddies, too!---is the right honorable thing to do. Whether they are greedy or stupid will be for historians to decide, but in the meantime this should remind us, yet again, that our current global economic malaise is not occurring by accident but as a matter of public policy.

---Baron V