Monday, January 18, 2010

Mistah Potter, he dead.

Robert Samuelson, a relative nonentity who writes for the WaPo, must've called a friend and asked for a quick explanation of banker pay packages. His column is nuts and mostly backwards. It was in the olden days of staid bankers and brokerage houses that the main business and the salutary economic effect of what was not yet called "the finance industry" was the allocation of capital to actual industry. This remains the persistent defense of our bankmasters, but today's instatrade investment culture is not at all about moving capital into new industrial concerns; it's about hedging gazillions of tiny bets and pooling the hay-pennies per trade into massive amounts of wealth. It is parasitic and bubble-drive, purely speculative, and if you think that major banks still exist to finance the nation's industrial infrastructure, you'd do well to ask yourself which banks were solvent and able to lend ready-cash to, say, our automotive giants when they faltered.

36 comments:

Gekkou said...

M. IOZ - you've just summarized what many people have written books to discuss. That was masterful...

Anonymous said...

All hail mighty IOZ, being of light and knowledge! May the world preserve your wisdom and your, ah, blawg for generations to come!

Anonymous said...

nice post. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did you hear that some chinese hacker had busted twitter yesterday again.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

you mean economics... it's just a shell game?

what now shall all the pwoggies do, since they've hitched their Magic Ponies to capitalism and consumerism, pledging to spend and technologically advance our way out of these problems?

AlanSmithee said...

Well, the pwoggies can always fall back on Hope for Change, Mo'Betta Dems and Anybody But Bush during economic crisis. So there, Naderite!

Anonymous said...

Obviously you're not a golfer.

Anonymous said...

Talking to yourself again, Alan?

Anonymous said...

btw IOZ, did you see the blog posts about Sunstein making the rounds?

He wants to hire people to infiltrate chat rooms in order to debunk conspiracies and/or levy a "conspiracy tax"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

This man Sunstein is an abject moron.

Anonymous said...

here's the paragraph from a 2008 paper;

"What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,

what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)

Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind

of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government

might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy

theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in

counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such

parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential

effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions."

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I think Cass Sunstein is a brilliant legal scholar. Who else, or what else, ever could imagine that the First Amdndment's provisions could be so artfully negated while under pretense of protecting those provisions.

In order to protect America from treason, we must pay attention to the citizenry, for the Government itself never can be guilty of treason, by the Lakoff Rule of Framing Tautologies.

This is the word of the Sunstein.

Gridlock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Solar Hero said...

Start a conspiracy to break-up conspiracies. Brilliant

Bass Lunstein said...

The government sure is pretty great, don't you think? I trust it 100%.

See you on the Internet! :0)

Enron said...

"How much should society concentrate on existing wealth as opposed to creating new wealth?" What the fuck is he talking about? She kidnapped herself, man.

IOZ said...

Now I am very busy, as I'm sure you are.

Nullifidian said...

That's why Sunstein is a First Amendment scholar. Anybody can tell you that banning speech violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment, but it takes true expertise to construct an argument explaining why banning speech does not violate the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Where I work at we sell a book of cutout dolls with which you can reenact the Obamas weddin day if you wunt. Some people have bought it so far. We also sells: Obamas puzzles: Obamas action figures: Obamas airforce 1: pens which when you click it Obama says a real speech from it: & more: & in the morning I take the cash to the bank, from the sales. I also throw away the empty boxes in the dumpster

TGGP said...

The automakers were never going to be able to pay back those loans. That banks wouldn't lend them money reflects well on the banks.

Anonymous said...

oh god help tggp. richard waggoner, ceo of gm (not disinterested, to be sure) said there was no need at all to force gm in to bankruptcy. w/the gov't "loaning" $$ by the trillions, gm could have been salvaged for about .03% of what AIG got.

now back to your fantasies, tggp.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I really don't think we can take Waggoner's word on this. GM has a reputation as shitheap of a company, so why shouldn't we assume you're the one fantasizing? There are such things as bad investments, and sometimes salvaging capital via restructuring - like, um, bankruptcy - is better than preserving it within a management structure that accumulated 50 billion in debt it couldn't pay off.

Unfortunately, the bozos at GM who fucked it up didn't have to lose their jobs, because they had the right palms greased.

Inkberrow said...

Nullifidian---

Sunstein's just the man to do what you describe. He's already helped reify the First Amendment's Establishment Clause at the expense of the Free Exercise Clause, so that freedom of religion in the public square for all practical purposes means freedom FROM religion in the public square. He's an outcome-based Originalist.

To his credit, Sunstein has stated that he has no objection to whatever forms of religion consenting adults choose to practice in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they are not out there in the streets, workplaces, and schools shoving their insatiable need for socio-cultural validation down everybody's throats. Just keep the religious materials in a drawer in the bedroom, or better still in the closet....

Anonymous said...

"has no objection to whatever forms of religion consenting adults choose to practice in the privacy of their own homes"

As Ecclesiastes say.

This trick has been tried by Maximinus in 311. IIRC freedom of ASSOCIATION remains a basic human rights.

The Christians

Inkberrow said...

Anon @ 11:36---

Good point. I should have said, and say now, "in the privacy of their own homes AND churches".

Anonymous said...

And another thing,

GM got 20 bills while AIG got 200 bills. That's about 10%.

And 10% dumped into an actual hole (GM) may be significantly MORE expensive than taking 100% funny money taken from one point of the super-leveraged financial pyramid and put in a different layer of the pyramid.

Anonymous said...

"Sunstein's just the man to do what you describe. He's already helped reify the First Amendment's Establishment Clause at the expense of the Free Exercise Clause, so that freedom of religion in the public square for all practical purposes means freedom FROM religion in the public square. He's an outcome-based Originalist."

I missed his appointment to the Supreme Court. I guess I need to watch more news.

Inkberrow said...

Anon @ 10:42---

You should indeed pay more attention. There's this class of folks, which includes Sunstein, known as "leading Consitutional scholars". Apparently they are rather influential in setting the jurisprudential table....

Nullifidian said...

Inkberrow,

Excellent! You may just be the person to explain to me how religion is being driven from the "public square" when there are religious programs on every Sunday on the networks (the airwaves are considered legally part of the public sphere, which is how the FCC can ostensibly regulate networks in the public interest).

After which, you might also get around to explaining why churches can rent city-owned and operated community centers or school auditoriums, why public schools can have explicitly theistic and sectarian clubs (e.g. Campus Life or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes), or why they can hold specific theistic and sectarian events at schools (e.g. See You At the Pole prayer groups).

Speaking of schools, you might then explain why my high school English teacher was allowed to assign religious writings in a public high school. We read extracts from the Bhagavad-Gita, the Qur'an, the Dhammapada (as well as Hesse's Siddhartha), the Book of Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, one gospel of our choice (I chose Luke), and selections from Twain's Letters from the Earth. Plus, in this year, we also read selections from Dante and Milton.

Religion made a reappearance in 11th grade American lit class discussions when we read The Crucible, Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and other such works.

It made a re-reappearance in 12th grade when we covered such works as The Brothers Karamazov and Hamlet. I'm sure you get the picture. This is not even to mention the number of public universities and colleges that have Religious Studies departments.

Lastly, you might get around to explaining to me why my taxes go, in part, to pay for chaplains for the U.S. military as well as for legislative bodies at both the state and federal level.

If you think this degree of religion in the public square is insufficient, then you might also want to tell me why I should be made to endure more just so that you can feel the warm glow of sectarian hegemony. How far should it go? Should we reintroduce religious tests for office? Mandatory school prayer and Bible readings? Bar atheists from testifying in court, and so leave them unable to file criminal complaints or confront their accusers? Should we bar them from juries? Should we strip the franchise from atheists?

All these things were not unheard of when religion was granted a bigger slice of the public sphere, so you'll forgive me if I'm not exactly pining for those days to return.

Inkberrow said...

Nullifidian---

The only weakness in your otherwise excellent mini-essay is that it is not on point. The issue is not "Was religion in America influential? Is it still?", but what constitutes an impermissible "establishment" of religion, and what are the penumbras of free exercise. I've already described the current vector of First Amendment cases on this question, and Sunstein's own place in that. Meanwhile, the size of religion's Slice of Public Sphere Pie is not a function of utilitarian debate.

Nullifidian said...

The issue is not "Was religion in America influential? Is it still?"

Which is not the question I was asking. If I were asking such a question, that could be easily answered by pointing out the number of churches in the United States. However, the existence of churches does not necessarily represent government entanglement in religion like Sunday religious programs, public facilities employed by church groups, and public schools that have sectarian clubs, rent their facilities (again) to religious groups, or teach religious texts in English classes.

Therefore, I was asking if the existing degree of government entanglement in religion was insufficient, and why I and others should be subjected to more government-backed intrusions of religion in my daily life. Maybe you should go over and read the post again and run your fingers over the words if necessary.

You strike me as being equivalent to the bully who complains that the other fellow's nose is a messy imposition on his 'right' to freely swing his fists.

Before the United States grew into its status as a secular democratic republic, we had atheists who were stripped of the franchise, denied the right to testify in court (and hence to sue, bring charges, or defend themselves in criminal cases), were denied employment by the state simply due to their lack of religious faith, and who were subjected to concerted Christian indoctrination through mandatory Bible readings and school prayers.

Thus it seems precisely on point to ask that if you wish to roll back First Amendment case law, which of the above impositions you'd like to force on atheists as well as non-Christians (and occasionally other sects of Christians like Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others).

If you don't think that we should deny atheists the right to vote, sit on juries, appear in court, have government jobs, or force them to listen to mandatory Bible readings and prayer, then what is your objection to the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence? And how is complaining about the concept of freedom from religion that far from saying that everyone is free to have your religion?

Also, you have not adequately explained how Cass Sunstein has a place in this discussion, considering that most of the major Establishment Clause cases were decided when Sunstein was in short pants or not yet born (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943; Engel v. Vitale, 1962; Murray v. Curlett and Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963; Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968).

Indeed, the recent thrust of Supreme Court cases on the subject of the Establishment Clause has tended to roll back previous rulings. The height of secularism in Establishment Clause case law came during the Warren and Burger courts, and like all other civil rights issues since then has been whittled away by the Rehnquist and Roberts courts.

Inkberrow said...

Nullifidian---

I am not a bully. The other kids here pick on ME all the time, not the other way around. Sometimes they call me a f***er!

You put your bookends around the sway of Sunstein, Tribe and other prominent progressive scholars and Con Law text editors and authors---after the Warren court's broadsides against impermissible "establishment", and before the recent (minor) "rollbacks" you note. Sunstein isn't a titan, but he isn't chopped liver either, especially considering his longstanding influence with Obama. His generation has sought, for the most part successfully, to normalize the Warren and Burger courts' conceptions of religion in the public square.

Most of the resultant displays of mental gymnastics since Engel and Schempp, depicting various traditional religion observances, however transitory or denuded of groupthink pressures, as sinister, coercive mental predation, all in service of a pious cultural-Marxist hyper-secularism, would make even Jefferson roll over in his grave. On the plus side, it is true that Free Exercise retains its originalist vitality where Wicca and Islam are concerned.

Nullifidian said...

Obviously any further discussion here is hopeless since you refuse to answer direct questions, preferring to sidestep them through a combination of willful obtuseness and glittering generalities.

But nice job with the "cultural-Marxist hyper-secularism" line. It's not often that I'm put in mind of a combination of Norman Vincent Peale and Joe McCarthy when talking to people on the internet. If Sunstein represents any form of Marxism for you, then I would have to suggest that you have never read or understood Marx.

Inkberrow said...

Nullifidian---

We were talking at cross purposes all along. I was unaware you were possessed of plenary authority to determine the impermissible Establishment of Obtuseness as well as the proper limits upon the Free Exercise of Glittering Generalities. Moreover, I'm now unclear how any discussion of Marx proceeds without your personal imprimatur.

Nullifidian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nullifidian said...

Ah, when it comes to the subject of obtuseness, I must bow to your lifelong experience and expertise in the subject. Nor would I ever dream of limiting your use of glittering generalities. After all, if you didn't have them, you'd have nothing to say at all.

Also, since I don't want you struggling with uncertainty, let me inform you that "cultural Marxism" has a very specific meaning that does not equate to "things I don't like and want to damn by a red-baiting association with communism".

Cultural Marxism is a school of thought that seeks to analyze culture through critical theory. The purpose is to analyze culture as the product of a particular society, history, and ethos, to analyze the impact of works of culture on audiences and social life, and in relation to their production.

Unless Sunstein has been collaborating with Gramsci behind everyone's backs or picking Chinatown to pieces for its references to control of capital, then your use of the phrase "cultural Marxist" reads as a mere McCarthyite smear of Sunstein by absurdly linking him to communism.

Not only is that laughable on its face, you've also picked the wrong person to try your red-baiting tactics on.

Inkberrow said...

Nullifidian---

I don't think I did "pick the wrong person", because you appear to be yet another one of that legion of pious bores who conflate "red-baiting" with "Left-mentioning", and "McCarthyism" with opposition to Marxist cultural and political theory and a Marxist conception of history.

"Cultural marxists" since Marcuse have sought to bring about from within schools and social institutions what those stupid, pesky proles were unwilling to bring about politically. Not "communism", per se, but secular materialism and a common understanding that capitalism, Judeo-Christianity, nationalism, and the traditional nuclear family were among the socio-cultural pathogens impeding mankind's inevitable progress to true equality and social justice. Frequently the names are changed to protect the guilty, per Norman Thomas' assessment of the American nature.

Nullifidian said...

Inkberrow,

You have a delightful sense of the absurd, like an early Steve Martin, but I think that your choice of material may be too highbrow for a regular stand-up comedy routine.