1) I think it’s safe to say that Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times really stepped into the metaphorical doo-doo yesterday (kind of an appropriate transition from what I posted about here), alleging that Paul Krugman, for one, said something that he did not in fact say about wishing that Obama had nationalized the banks (here).
But Sorkin said something else in his column that I want to focus on briefly also…
And then there are the banks that have settled up with Uncle Sam, like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. We’ve gotten all our money back from them, along with several billion dollars in interest.
I don’t have the ledger in front of me, so it’s possible that Sorkin could be technically correct here. However, to allege that we are now “square” with these corporate bad actors is truly a fairy tale; as Matt Taibbi tells us here about Goldman in particular…
The bottom line is that banks like Goldman have learned absolutely nothing from the global economic meltdown. In fact, they're back conniving and playing speculative long shots in force - only this time with the full financial support of the U.S. government. In the process, they're rapidly re-creating the conditions for another crash, with the same actors once again playing the same crazy games of financial chicken with the same toxic assets as before.
That's why this bonus business isn't merely a matter of getting upset about whether or not Lloyd Blankfein buys himself one tropical island or two on his next birthday. The reality is that the post-bailout era in which Goldman thrived has turned out to be a chaotic frenzy of high-stakes con-artistry, with taxpayers and clients bilked out of billions using a dizzying array of old-school hustles that, but for their ponderous complexity, would have fit well in slick grifter movies like The Sting and Matchstick Men. There's even a term in con-man lingo for what some of the banks are doing right now, with all their cosmetic gestures of scaling back bonuses and giving to charities. In the grifter world, calming down a mark so he doesn't call the cops is known as the "Cool Off."
Taibbi’s stuff is excellently researched and I believe his insight is spot-on, though it’s all depressing in the end when you realize just how little has changed.
2) Also, did you know that anyone who supports an increase in the minimum wage is a “useful (idiot) of charlatans, quacks and racists” ?
Neither did I, until I read the following from Walter E. Williams at clownhall.com…
Overall teenage unemployment stands at a record 25 percent while adult unemployment hovers around 10 percent. Also at a record high is the 50 percent unemployment rate among black teenage males. One might ask why teen unemployment, particularly that among black teens, is so much higher than adult unemployment. The answer is simple. One effect of a minimum wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. Within the category of less-preferred workers are those with low skills. Teens are disproportionately represented among such workers and are therefore more adversely affected by minimum wages. Black teens are disproportionately represented among teens with low skills and therefore share a greater burden of minimum wages.
In response, I give you the following (here)…
Compared to January 2010, some 308,000 more individuals were counted as being employed in the Current Population Survey. Of these, 104,000 (33.8%) were young adults between the ages of 20 and 24 and 64,000 (20.8%) were teens between the ages of 16 and 19.
These figures are especially significant given that the percentage share of young adults within the whole U.S. civilian labor force is just 9.0%, while teens account for just 3.2% of all U.S. workers. Both percentage shares represent a slight increase over the all-time lows recorded in January 2010.
The timing of the improvement for teens and young adults corresponds well with anecdotal data indicating that firms go through a 3-to-6 month adjustment period following a minimum wage increase regarding the primary effects of minimum wage increases upon employment levels. Since teens and young adults represent approximately half of all those who earn the minimum wage, the bottoming out of each age group's percentage representation within the entire U.S. workforce in the six months after the final of the recent series of minimum wage increases was to be expected.
But then again, Williams, being a typical conservative, has a talent for manufacturing umbrage where there is no reason for it to exist, as noted here.
3) This item also slipped by a few days ago from Ron Fournier of the AP, and I meant to get to it before now, but there you are (re: Baby Newton Leroy bashing our Kenyan Marxist president who won’t show us his Hawaiian birth certificate)…
Calling him a terrible president, Gingrich accused Obama of running a "socialist, secularist machine." Speaking of Democrats, he quickly added, "They lie about" the so-called machine.
As is often the case with political hyperbole from the left and right, Gingrich didn't support his accusation.
Uh, excuse me?
This has to do with that bogus Southern Conservative “Leadership” mess that happened over the weekend, Fournier. Somehow I don’t think anyone (with the possible exception of Max Blumenthal) from “the left” was in attendance.
Oh, and proof of that accusation would be nice too.
This, however, is just another instance of Fournier wankery, such as this one also.
4) Finally, Joe Pitts, of all people, wrote the following today (here)…
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes—something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea—a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
As noted here, Pitts voted for the 2001 ruinous Dubya tax cut, and as noted here, he voted for another one in 2003.
And to get an idea of just how ruinous those cuts were (along with the Iraq war), read this.
And this idiot has the gall to try to lecture anyone who will read this mess on sound fiscal management (and by the way, to do something about kicking off Pitts’s retirement from public life, click here).
Oh, and another thing – do you know who else voted for both the ’01 and ’03 tax cuts (I’ll give you a hint; he’s currently running for the U.S. Senate from PA).
This guy, that’s who (and to make sure he doesn’t get a chance to do any more damage, click here).
No comments:
Post a Comment