Skip to content

Latest reading

Monday, March 3, 2014

Every morning I check my RSS feeds. This morning I was struck by the fact that two unrelated posts sort of fed into one another.

The first was a story about hedge funds that are looking to get a retroactive get out of jail free card from the SEC for blatantly violating rules requiring them to register as broker-dealers in order to collect the massive fees they impose for losing other people's money.

The Bloomberg story acknowledges that the billions in fees collected by the PE industry over decades appear to have been illegal, noting that an SEC official “…signaled in a speech last year that transaction fees the private-equity industry had been taking for decades may have been improper because the firms weren’t registered as broker-dealers.” This official, the chief counsel of the Division of Trading and Markets, now appears to have been thrown under the bus, as his colleagues scramble to find a way to accommodate their PE overlords. Bloomberg makes no bones about the reason for the about-face, titling an entire section of the article “Powerful and Successful Lobby.”

The article quotes industry mouthpieces making the usual intelligence-insulting arguments, including the claim that registering as broker-dealers would be too expensive and that the broker-dealer regime would provide no additional investor protections beyond the status quo, where PE firms are already registered as investment advisers. This latter claim is outright false. Customers who have been harmed by the bad acts of broker-dealers have much stronger rights than investment adviser clients because broker-dealer clients can sue to recover for investment losses. Similarly-situated customers of investment advisers can only seek recovery of fees paid to the adviser, but not recovery of investment losses.

via Naked Capitalism

So here's an example of the top .01% buying its way out of criminal liability and, potentially, into a position to siphon more money out of the economy without, of course, doing anything of value for the economy or society.

Next up was Dean Baker's latest, in which he takes on Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, who tell us that we should stop being jealous of our betters and just suck it up while they impoverish us.

Brooks tells us that people who are unhappy about the enormous upward redistribution of the last three decades are guilty of the sin of envy. Let's try an alternative hypothesis, large segments of the public are angry because the wealthy are rigging the rules so that an ever larger share of the pie gets redistributed to their pockets.

via Beat the Press

Also see Krugman, who makes the same point.

Loop back to the Naked Capitalism post: a perfect example of what Baker is talking about. How many people in the bottom 99.9 get to retroactively legalize criminal behavior and keep their ill gotten gains to boot?

Filed in Corporate Crime, Inequality | | Comments (0)

An outrageous suggestion

Sunday, March 2, 2014

The usual Congressional suspects are beating the drums of war regarding the Ukraine. I have an absolutely absurd suggestion, which I nonetheless advance in all seriousness.

Were I Obama, I would point out that Article I, Section 8 of an obscure document called the United States Constitution vests the power to declare war in the United States Congress. You laugh, but it's true-look it up. So my suggestion is that Obama should tell Huckleberry and his cohorts that if they want him to start a war with Russia, they should exercise their Congressional authority to make him do it.

In other contexts this is called “calling their bluff”. It's easy enough to urge action in a situation where no conceivable action could be successful (at least no military action), when you know that you will never be blamed for the outcome. (After all, Huckleberry has not suffered for drumbeating Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran–have I missed any?) But if Congress demands a war, then it takes reponsibility for getting us into what will no doubt be a morass. Huckleberry and his cohorts can ride the crest of the non-existent wave of public sentiment for war with Russia. I'd give the chances for that war resolution passing Congress at exactly zero.

Filed in Empire, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

CPAC reverses itself: Atheists banished

Friday, February 28, 2014

A few days ago I noted that CPAC was allowing the American Atheists to have a booth at its upcoming convention, but not GOProud, a group of Gay Republicans. (That term should be an oxymoron, but oddly enough, it's not). l expressed some reservations about whether the Atheists had indeed gotten a booth, it being so hard to believe that the whackos running CPAC would do such a thing.

Well, my reluctance to believe my usually very reliable source was somewhat justified. The Atheists were given a booth, but CPAC giveth, and CPAC taketh away:

Yesterday, CPAC organizers announced that they had changed their mind about inviting American Atheists to set up a booth at this year's conference, which will be held March 6-8 at National Harbor. The group's president said he was “really disappointed, but … not at all surprised” by the reverse of their fortunes. “We were going to CPAC specifically to combat the notion that one must be Christian in order to be conservative. We wanted to bring that to the forefront.”

via The Fix

Actually, I very much doubt that these particular atheists are all that conservative, but be that as it may. I don't claim to be a Christian, but I know what Christ is purported to have preached, and I absolutely agree that you don't have to be a Christian to be a conservative. In fact, you can't be a Christian and a conservative in this country at this time. There is only one thing one must be to be a conservative: a hypocrite.

But, as an afterthought, I would really urge the CPACers to reconsider. After all, shouldn't atheists be most likely to not only be conservative but act like conservatives? Christians, after all, are (supposedly) under an injunction to do good to their fellow man (putting predestination aside for the moment) They are constrained in their selfishness by their fear of what comes after; the “undiscovered country ” of which Hamlet spoke. Atheists are under no such constraint, and by the logic of conservative thought, they should be totally self interested and and act that way, there being no heaven unto which they might aspire. And isn't that what the prophet Ayn teaches? Why surely it is easier for an atheist to get into the kingdom of Rand than either a camel or a (real) Christian.

Filed in Crazies | | Comments (1)

CPAC makes its priorities clear

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

A few days ago they reported at Kos that a bunch of gay Republicans were absolutely delighted that they were going to be allowed to attend the next CPAC conference.

The dispute with GOProud dates back to 2011, when a number of socially conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council, objected to the group's involvement and declined to participate. Insults were traded between GOProud leaders and ACU board members, culminating in the group's exclusion.

Two former GOProud summer interns, Ross Hemminger and Matt Bechstein, took over last summer and sought to repair the bitterly frayed relationship. Under a compromise reached last week, they will attend the March 6-8 gathering as guests, without sponsorship or a booth. GOProud sees the lower-profile role as an important first step. (Emphasis mine)

via Daily Kos

Well, that seems fair. Well, really it doesn’t, but in the alternate reality that is Republican thought (an oxymoron, I know) it passes for fairness.

But, if this is true, doesn't it send just a tiny message about where conservatives put gays in the scheme of things:

David Silverman, Amanda Knief, and Dave Muscato are going to be at an American Atheists booth at CPAC, that radical Conservative Political Action Committee meeting all the wingnuts attend.

It’s a cunning trick. If they survive, they know we’re all going to have another reason to attend the convention in Salt Lake City — so that we can take them to a bar and ply them with beverages and get them to tell us all the stories.

via Pharyngula

That's right. If this is true, then the modern day right wing is willing to give a booth to a bunch of godless atheists who are neither conservative nor Republican, but not to self professed Republican conservatives who happen to be gay. There is a lesson to be learned here, but my guess is that Ross and Matt will not learn it. None so blind as those who will not see.

Filed in Crazies | | Comments (0)

Capitalism at work

Monday, February 24, 2014

Now this is how it’s supposed to work. Plucky young entrepreneur finds a need and fills it.

Filed in American Life | | Comments (0)

They really should get their story straight

Monday, February 24, 2014







The New York Times expressed some reservations about the Comcast-Times Warner deal, which in any sane country would be illegal, and probably is, though no one will do anything about it. Among other things, the Times worried that Comcast might make use of its market position to extract money from services such as Netflix, destroying net neutrality in the bargain. But in a letter in today's Times, industry shill Chad Gutstein says not to worry:

Your concern that Comcast as an Internet provider will discriminate against unaffiliated content companies like Netflix now that the Federal Communications Commission’s “net neutrality” rules have been overturned is also misplaced. Comcast agreed to a version of those rules during federal review of its acquisition of NBC Universal and now stands as the only Internet service provider that must adhere to them — something the merger review could actually extend.

via New York Times

That was this morning. Today we learn that Comcast and Netflix have struck a deal. Netflix will pay extra to get its content streamed more quickly by Comcast. Well, there goes net neutrality. You can quibble about legal technicalities, but if this stands, that's the end of the open internet. The truly infuriating thing about this is that Netflix did it not because they necessarily wanted to one up the competition, but because Comcast's service sucks so bad that they needed to do something to satisfy their own customers, for you see, in this country we pay more and get less when in comes to internet speeds.

Netflix certainly has plenty of incentive to pony up. Comcast falls near the bottom of Netflix’s rankings for which ISPs deliver the best streaming experience to its subscribers, and less than a week ago, Netflix groused that streaming performance for its service on major ISP networks was getting worse.

via Techhive

One reason for the shitty service may be (why do I say "may") the lack of real regulation in this country. Why improve service when you can simply milk a monopoly? And why not take advantage of that monopoly to favor the big guys who can pay over the small guys who can't? The big guys don't really mind; in the end they just pass the costs along.

There's nothing new under the sun. Once again I'm reminded of Doris Kearns Goodwin's Bully Pulpit, in which she describes the long and bitter fight to regulate the railways, who did exactly the same thing Comcast is doing today. The railroads made deals similar to the Netflix/Comcast deal with the big guys and charged prohibitive rates to their small competitors (if they were willing to transport their stuff at all). It helped that the same guys who controlled the railroads often controlled the companies whose products were being shipped, just as Comcast controls some content providers. It only stopped when the Federal government stepped in and imposed "railway neutrality", if I might coin a term. In a measure of how far we've come, while Roosevelt and Taft managed to get that reform through a recalcitrant Congress, it is impossible to even conceive of our Congress doing anything to protect us from the new monopolists.


Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

The greatest grifter of them all

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

It's been a while since the subject of grifting has come up on this blog, but the practice is still alive and well out there. And truly I say unto you, this may be the greatest grift of them all. Ken Ham, who just lost a science vs. creationism debate to Bill Nye, is building a new amusement park to compete with his already failing Creation Museum. This one will feature a full scale replica of Noah's Ark and a petting zoo, though apparently no attempt will be made to cram “two of every kind into the ark”. But this is a grift on a massive scale, for it requires a “boatload (or is that busload?) of faith to get by” Ham is trying to raise 55.5 million dollars for his fantasy park, and who knows how much of that money will find its way into his pockets. But to do it, he has to issue bonds, and to issue bonds, you have to make disclosures about risk, meaning you have to tell people the truth, more or less:

Underneath all of this Biblical interpretation, though, buying Ham’s Ark Encounter bonds is a high-risk proposition. The offering lists 39 potential risks to investors, including the possibility that animals in the petting zoo could contract infectious diseases, potential lawsuits by civil liberties and animal rights activists, and the fact that the bond relies almost completely on a competent, good-faith effort by Answers in Genesis. Ultimately, the park “may never achieve positive cash flow,” which the documents note could lead to a default on the bonds.

Most alarmingly, the bonds are not rated by a ratings agency—an indication that they are extremely risky. AiG has no obligation to pay the bonds, which means that the park will have to be up and running before investors see any returns. And if the project collapses, bond buyers risk losing their entire investment. 

via Motherboard

So, it's out there for anyone to see that this is a scam, but Ham is counting on the beliefs he shares with his marks that people can't evolve (and that their not likely to read the prospectus). Most of all, he's counting on good old religious and political bigotry, “to which he has never yet appealed in vain” to pull him through.

Basically, Ham is hawking Creationist junk bonds—a fact that he has tried to mask with fire-and-brimstone evangelism and apocalyptic warnings about the “immense spiritual battle” for America. In a fundraising letter sent last month, Ham suggested that the project is being sabotaged by secularists and asked believers to “step out in faith” to support the project.

And step out they will, at least some of them. Whether he can soak another 29.5 million, the amount he needs to actually build the thing (does he really care about that) is another matter, but whether he reaches his goal or not, the amount he has raised so far is a tribute to the grifter profession.

And we non-crazies can take comfort from the fact that every dime he grifts is one less dime available for more nefarious and more effective political purposes. Bless you, grifters, bless you all.

Filed in Grifters | | Comments (0)

They really will never learn

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

I've made it clear that I'm not excited about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. It's not at all clear the country can survive four to eight years of rule by Wall Street. Since, when all is said and done, the Street owns both parties, it might even be better for the country if a Republican won in 2016, so he (it won't be a she) can take the blame for the next crash. assuming it doesn't happen on Obama's watch.

Getting back to my point, (and I am getting there), I also believe Hillary is beatable, simply because there is a great chance that many people will feel that on the larger issues such as inequality, Wall Street kowtowing, etc.; she is no better than the alternative and they just might not vote.

All that being said, I'm a realist, and I personally will hold my nose and vote for her if vote I must. So assuming it is my possible fate to check her name on my ballot, it is good to see that the Republicans have apparently settled on an anti-Hillary strategy certain to blow up in their faces: attacking Bill Clinton and the “Clinton” brand; you know, that guy who got blow jobs in the White House.

This strategy is bound to fail for a couple of very good reasons. Living in a self created bubble as they do, Republicans are incapable of realizing that most people (justifiably or not, see repeal of Glass-Steagall) have good memories of the Clinton years. He is not perceived as a monster; if anything, he is the last president that presided over a sustained period of peace and prosperity (faux prosperity in some respects, but few people know that). Asking people if they want four more years of Clintons may not be such a good idea; given the alternatives, most people will say yes. There's another reason this won't work. The Republicans have taken their shots at the Clintons, and missed every time. The country as a whole has been inoculated against anti-Clinton rants. Those who are going to believe them are already convinced; everyone else merely shuts them out. It's a case of the party that cried wolf, over and over and over again. No one listens anymore. They got nowhere with Lewinsky; nowhere with Whitewater, nowhere with Benghazi. But just as they will never believe that people are signing up for Obamacare, they will never believe that people aren't outraged at the Clintons. They have bought into their own narrative, and are incapable of seeing that no one else has. It's one of HIllary's strenghs, actually. If someone new came along, the Republicans could define that person; but Hillary is proof against that.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Billionaires at play.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Great read.

Filed in Inequality | | Comments (0)

More red state/blue state

Sunday, February 16, 2014

This is getting somewhat addictive. Yet another red state/blue state comparisons, with ever more predictable results. This, however, is what you might call the ur-text of these comparisons, the divergence among us from which all the others flow. Here, you see a map showing the geographical concentration of the percentage of people in the country who have a ninth grade education or less.

20140216-191136.jpg

Now, I was reluctant to print this picture, as I was unable to get to the underlying data, but I am doing to for two reasons. First, it is totally consistent with what one would expect. Second, the basic data is confirmed by no less an authority but Fox News, right here. Once again, New England places several (three) states in the top five.

Now, the fact is that, from the point of view of Southern politicans generally, and Republicans in particular, their poor performance is a feature and not a bug. It is only be keeping people uneducated, and therefore more susceptible to the classic arguments they've used to control rural whites, primarily racism (“you've got more than the whites, don't complain”), now spiced with homphobia. We in the North must therefore not be complacent. There is a concerted effort, in which our own governor is a participant, to eviscerate public education and hand it over to the corporations. As it is in their interest to keep the masses ignorant, we can look forwards to an educational system that increasingly teaches vocational skills (after all, we are going to need more domestic servants) at the expense of critical thinking, which means that someday, we may very well see these maps turn a uniform color.

Filed in Red States/Blue States | | Comments (0)