Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • Will Rogers Today

    “Now it’s Pro­hi­bi­tion, we hear a lot about that. Well, that’s noth­ing to com­pare to your neighbor’s chil­dren that are hun­gry. It’s food, it ain’t drink that we are wor­ried about today. Here a few years ago we were so afraid that the poor peo­ple was liable to take a drink that now we’ve fixed so that they can’t even get some­thing to eat. So here we are, in a coun­try with more wheat, and more corn, and more money in the bank, more cot­ton, more every­thing in the world; there’s not a prod­uct that you can name that we haven’t got more of than any other coun­try ever had on the face of the earth, and yet we’ve got peo­ple starv­ing. We’ll hold the dis­tinc­tion of being the only nation in the his­tory of the world that ever went to the poor house in an auto­mo­bile. The potter’s fields are lined with gra­naries full of grain. Now if there ain’t some­thing cock­eyed in an arrange­ment like that then this micro­phone here in front of me is, well, it’s a cus­pi­dor, that’s all. Now I think that per­haps they will arrange it, I think some of our big men will per­haps get some way of fix­ing a dif­fer­ent dis­tri­b­u­tion of things. If they don’t they are cer­tainly not big men and won’t be with us long. Now I say, and have always claimed, that things would pick up in ’32. Thirty-​​two, why ’32? Well, because ’32 is an elec­tion year, see, and the Repub­li­cans always see that every­thing looks good on elec­tion year, see? They give us three good years and one bad one. No, no, three bad ones and one good one. I like to got it wrong. That’s the Democ­rats does the other. They give us three bad years and one good one, but the good one always comes on the year that the vot­ing is, see? Now if they was run­ning this year why they would be all right. But they are one year late. Every­thing will pick up next year and be fine. These peo­ple that you are asked to aid, why they are not ask­ing for char­ity, they are nat­u­rally ask­ing for a job, but if you can’t give them a job why the next best thing you can do is see that they have food and the neces­si­ties of life. You know, there’s not a one of us has any­thing that these peo­ple that are with­out it now haven’t con­tributed to what we’ve got. I don’t sup­pose there is the most unem­ployed or the hun­gri­est man in Amer­ica that hasn’t con­tributed in some way to the wealth of every mil­lion­aire in Amer­ica. It was the big boys them­selves who thought that this finan­cial drunk we were going through was going to last for­ever. They over-​​merged, and over-​​capitalized, and over-​​everything else. That’s the fix that we’re in now.”

    Will-​​Rogers pol­i­tics Depres­sion financial-​​crisis speech

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • America’s debt: Shame on them | The Economist

    “This news­pa­per has a strong dis­like of big gov­ern­ment; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spend­ing cuts. But you can­not get there with­out any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coali­tion gov­ern­ment aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its low­est level for decades: even Ronald Rea­gan raised taxes when he needed to do so. And the closer you look, the more unprin­ci­pled the Repub­li­cans look. Ear­lier this year House Repub­li­cans pro­duced a report not­ing that an 85%-15% split between spend­ing cuts and tax rises was the aver­age for suc­cess­ful fis­cal con­sol­i­da­tions, accord­ing to his­tor­i­cal evi­dence. The White House is offer­ing an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge dis­tance) and a promise that none of the rev­enue increase will come from higher mar­ginal rates, only from elim­i­nat­ing loop­holes. If the Repub­li­cans were real tax reform­ers, they would seize this offer. Both par­ties have in recent months been guilty of fis­cal reck­less­ness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Repub­li­cans. Inde­pen­dent vot­ers should take note.”

    financial-​​crisis Republicanism-​​is-​​no-​​longer-​​conservatism finan­cial­iza­tion Tea-​​Party Civil-​​War deficit

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • code as a weapon | clusterflock

    “it’s an open source weapon”

    computer-​​virus westphalian-​​state-​​woopsie stuxnet cyber­war open-​​warfare
  • Towards a The­ory of Cor­po­rate and Finan­cial Sec­tor Sol­i­dar­ity | Rortybomb

    “Spec­u­la­tion: There’s a cri­tique of the reg­u­la­tors and key deci­sion mak­ers dur­ing the cri­sis that invokes cul­tural cap­i­tal and the idea that reg­u­la­tors are social­ized with Wall Street in a way that it is dif­fi­cult for them to exer­cise any type of power over them, to see their inter­ests in con­flict. I won­der if the same is true for the cor­po­rate sec­tor. As the firm goes global, and as the white-​​collar work­force is bro­ken by com­put­er­i­za­tion and glob­al­iza­tion, more and more elite cor­po­rate posi­tions will be filled by those leav­ing Wall Street. (Has this already hap­pened? Data/​Studies?) If so, you’ll see an even more lucra­tive revolv­ing door between cor­po­rate elites and finan­cial elites. As such, any nat­ural checks to finan­cial sec­tor power com­ing from the cor­po­rate mar­ket space is less likely to happen.”

    its-​​the-​​unnatural-​​checks-​​that-​​will-​​be-​​interesting bank­ing financial-​​crisis public-​​policy reg­u­la­tion cor­po­ratism finan­cialza­tion social-​​networks cultural-​​assumptions
  • The Fed Bails Out the Banks…Again — Credit Slips

    “The les­son here is that if we want seri­ous reg­u­la­tion of banks, we can’t trust it to be done by bank reg­u­la­tors. We’ve seen the Fed and the OCC time and time again bend over back­wards to let the banks out of statu­tory require­ments. We’ve seen this with inac­tion (HOEPA regs), with aggres­sive pre­emp­tion (and OCC is back to its old tricks…). And this isn’t just in the realm of con­sumer finance. This is also in the safety and sound­ness area. I’m not talk­ing about stretched inter­pre­ta­tions of sec­tion 13(3) of the Fed­eral Reserve Act. I’m talk­ing about affil­i­ate trans­ac­tion rules and Prompt Cor­rec­tive Action, cor­ner­stones of the safety-​​and-​​soundness regime. Saule Omarova has a great paper that shows how the Fed granted affil­i­ate trans­ac­tion waivers like a drunken sailor dur­ing the finan­cial cri­sis.  Those were rules that went back to 1932–33 as part of Glass-​​Steagal.   And remem­ber Prompt Cor­rec­tive Action? That was a response to all of the Fed­eral Home Loan Bank Board’s screw ups dur­ing the S&L cri­sis (Who you say? There’s a rea­son the FHLBB doesn’t exist any more…). PCA is clear of a bunch of trip­wires as you can get. The whole point was to make sure that the bank reg­u­la­tors reg­u­lated, not cod­dled. But Bernanke announced that he was sus­pend­ing PCA for the banks dur­ing the finan­cial cri­sis. Only after the stress tests cleared the big banks did PCA get applied to the small banks, and with a ven­gance. What a sorry state of the world we live in where the bank reg­u­la­tors are the last peo­ple we can trust to actu­ally reg­u­late the banks. ”

    bankers-​​should-​​start-​​avoiding-​​lampposts-​​right-​​about-​​now public-​​policy leg­is­la­tion financial-​​crisis bank­ing cor­po­ratism
  • Rents ver­sus Prof­its in the Finan­cial Reform Bat­tle and Post-​​Industrial Econ­omy | Rortybomb

    “Much of the mod­ern­iza­tion that Marx tri­umphed was a vic­tory of profit-​​makers over rent-​​holders. What Hardt argues is that, as the econ­omy becomes more and more about infor­ma­tion, the cru­cial ends of cap­i­tal hold­ers is to take things that could belong to the com­mons and instead appro­pri­ate them as prop­erty rights and sell them off. The implies a pri­or­i­ti­za­tion of rent-​​holders over profit-​​makers in terms of power over the econ­omy (also imply­ing a regres­sion back from the future that Marx thought would come after profit-​​makers – take that Hegelian Marx­ism!). If we look at some of the major eco­nomic bat­tles tak­ing place, they are over patents, how the risks and rewards of large, sys­tem­i­cally impor­tant public-​​utility style finan­cial insti­tu­tions are dis­trib­uted and who gets to con­trol the resid­ual over the del­e­gated ends of the gov­ern­ment with the mad rush for the pri­va­ti­za­tion of gov­ern­ment resources and respon­si­bil­i­ties. These are all, in some way, about rents. And the bat­tle over these will deter­mine a lot about who gains in the future of the econ­omy. As such, they are the only place where the finan­cial sec­tor and the real econ­omy fight it out.”

    financial-​​crisis bankers-​​should-​​start-​​avoiding-​​lampposts-​​right-​​about-​​now intellectual-​​property rent-​​seeking

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links: