Day: May 3, 2010

Rally Around Goldman

Daily Agitator

I, like just about everyone, about had enough of those that come to the defense of Goldman-Sachs….from the arrogance the management to the consequences of their actions to their bloated bonuses……but there are those that are rallying to the defense of Goldman……

From Bloomberg’s Business Week:

Former President Bill Clinton said he’s skeptical that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. broke the law, while adding that the U.S. government’s lawsuit against the firm underscores the growth of financial transactions with “no underlying merit.”

What would you expect one of the architects of financial dereg to say?  Thanx to Clinton and his buds in the Democratic Leadership Council that Glass-Steagall was swept away opening this financial casino to the speculators and the thieves.  And I would venture to say that Goldman has some cash in the Clinton Foundation.

He is not the only one that has come to the side of Goldman….the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, has come to the aid of Goldman, saying that there was nothing illegal in what the company had done and that the case by the SEC has no merit…..but what would you expect a guy that had $5 billion tied up in the company to say?

The recent news is that the SEC had a civil investigation into Goldman and its dealings in the dark markets and now according to a Newser report:

Looks like Goldman Sachs might have some company. Federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into some of Morgan Stanley’s mortgage derivative deals, the Wall Street Journal reports. Morgan Stanley created several mortgage-backed CDOs that it then bet against. Some it marketed itself, while others were sold by Citigroup and UBS. Investigators are trying to determine whether Morgan properly disclosed its role in the deals.

The investigation grew out of the SEC’s massive civil fraud investigation, and is still in its preliminary stages. The civil fraud charges against Goldman Sachs grew out of the same SEC investigation, and Goldman is also under criminal investigation. Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman says the Justice Department hasn’t contacted them about the probe. “We have looked into the situation in some detail,” he added.

There is always more when talking about the banksters (banks + gangsters)……

Goldman Sachs made money on trading every single day last quarter, but anybody following its advice wasn’t so lucky. Seven of Goldman’s nine “recommended top trades for 2010” have been money-losing duds, Bloomberg reports, with the worst of them dropping as much as 14%. “This says that Goldman’s guys are only human,” says one investment executive. “No one is always right.” So how is Goldman making so much money if it’s so wrong? Goldman’s COO says that it makes most of the money by capturing bid-offer spreads when it acts as intermediaries for its clients, and that proprietary trading accounts for only a small part of its earnings.

Do you now see where you are getting screwed?  They bet on you losing money….the money that they tell you is a good investment….DO YOU GET IT NOW?

For once ..PAY ATTENTION!………the banks are gambling with YOUR money….they get to keep all the profits and saddle YOU with the losses…..do I need to say this again?  Has it sunk into your brain yet?

It will be worth watching this play out…..will Goldman get what is coming to them, that matter will all the banksters get what is coming to them  or will they skate…My money is on the skate….

IF YOU LIVE ON MAIN STREET THEN YOU ARE SO SCREWED!

Why Is “Liberal” A Dirty Word?

Inkwell Institute

Subject:  Governance/Liberalism/Political Theory

Paper #16

When DID “Liberal” become a dirty word?  As far as I can tell it began back in the 80’s and it kept morphing through the 90’s and until today when it is a vile attack on a person who may have an opposing view of government than a conserv.  No longer is there any toleration for opposing ideology, instead it is to attack and demonize.  I am sure that in the past that opposites did mumbling insults…but it was just that a mumble and in the end they could still be civil to each other and respect each others ideology….those day are gone!  Now it is easier to throw insults than to have a substantive debate or exchange…this is so sad on so many levels….the most important it spits in the face of the Founders….and secondly, it is so much crap!

Modern liberalism was become a dirty word to most conservatives, especially those on the extreme Right that spend their time demonizing their fellow Americans to gain some minor political advantage…and then you have those who try to reduce ideas to catch phrases and simplistic mind games, instead of having a realistic exchange of ideas……personally, I think that they are the most useless of individuals and definitely un-American, to use one of the INSULTS the pea brains throw around.  Yes, I have NO use for these demented little pricks.

With my anger out of the way….let us look at modern liberalism…..

Modern Liberalism is basically defined by a set of beliefs.  These being individuality, positive freedom, social liberalism and economic management  Individuality means that the individual is promoted to refine their intellect, their skills and knowledge, and their sensibilities.  Positive Freedom is the ability to develop and attain individuality through the realization of his/her potential and achieve personal fulfillment.  The state cannot force people to act in a good way, but it can provide the conditions for reasonable moral decisions.  Now, social liberalism……where the government or state seeks to help society overcome poverty, disease and ignorance.  In the 20th century governments sought to achieve national efficiency, a healthier work force and stronger standing armies.  Finally there is economic management…..the modern liberal does NOT believe in a self-regulating market or laissez faire capitalism.  They believe that unregulated   capitalism  will bring about low investment, and social fragmentation or a complete breakdown.

In conclusion, the modern liberal embraces the tenants of social liberalism, personal growth, enabling state, managed economy, social responsibility, the welfare state and the desire to eliminate poverty.

This is a stark polar opposite of the conservative, which will be described in my next lesson…

Go Team! Beat State!

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Philosophy

Paper #13

The State…now here is where the philosophers are separated from the common folk….what is meant by the State?  Probably the most popular definition is the political body that controls an area and its people….and the use of the word denotes a certain way of a political community…the workings of a “state” can either be feared or embraced depending on the particular concept of what it is and what it does…..in other words the “political authority”……..

We have classical definitions all the major players in the development of the science of political philosophy have attempted to define just what the Hell constitutes a “State”…Aristotle, for instance, saw it as a rule distinctive from that of the household……Locke saw it as a political community and an extension of the family……then there was Hobbes who toyed with the idea of religion in a political sense (a post for a later date)……but no matter who you side with in the debate on what a state is…there are a wealth of definitions….

In a more modern vein…the state can be defined by one’s political leanings….for instance the major political systems view the state in different terms….as illustrated by Robt. Heywood in his book, “Political Ideologies”…..

Liberals–state is a neutral arbiter among the competing interests and groups within a society.  A vital referee for social order.  Classical liberals sees the state as a necessary evil and extol the virtues of a minimal  or nightwatchman state.  Modern liberals see the state as a positive roll in widening freedom and promoting equal opportunities.

Conservatives–link state with the need to provide authority and discipline and to protect if from chaos and disorder, hence the belief in a strong state.  Traditional conservs are pragmatic and look for a balance between state and civil society.  Neoliberals have called for a “roll back” in the state as it threatens economic prosperity and is driven by bureaucratic self-interest.

Socialists–because there are so many factions there is a wealth of contrasting views….i.e. Marxists stress the link between state and class struggle, seeing it in either as an instrument of class rule or as a way to improve the plight of the working class.  Other socialists like the social democrats regard the state as an embodiment of the common good and thus approve of interventionism.

But the biggest question that is usually asked is……Is the State necessary?   Well, is it?

UpDate:  I apologize to the loyal readers for this incomplete post.  I was in the middle of it when a terrible t/storm came up and had to get off the ‘puter and now the train of thought is gone….and I cannot think of where I was going with it.  SORRY!