"You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."
Charles Ferguson, director of the film "Inside Job," has been saying the same thing over and over again since his film came out: Not a single prosecution related to the financial crisis of 2008. Now, Matt Taibbi (the quote above is from his new article in Rolling Stone) is beating the drum as well. I'm hoping it gets louder.
Taibi's piece is nothing short of brilliant. I'm certain that many of you (the same many of you who hilariously accuse me of falling in to the genetic fallacy trap) won't go and read it so here is an excerpt which sums it up well.
"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."
I put down my notebook. "Just that?"
"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."
If you are curious as to the particulars, read on and you will discover the massive amount of fraud that has gone on for years with a limp noodled government which has either been bought off, is lazy, or is afraid to do anything for fear of being accused of overreach.
Sit back and think about it for a moment. None of these guys have gone to jail. None. Worse, they still have all of their money and are doing everything in their power to convince America that it should stay that way. They've certainly been successful with far too many of my readership.
See, it's not that I want more government power. I want the government to do their fucking job and they can't do it with a bunch of pathological adolescents running around bitching about statism. They have a whole other set of systemic problems to deal with and this just makes it worse. This would be one of the main reasons I am so monumentally frustrated.
The moment Blankfein or Cassano or Fuld goes to pound me in the ass prison for six months that's when we'll see Tea Party groups and Koch backed organizations go to work. The government will be painted as the enemy and nothing will get done. No one will go to jail. Adding insult to injury is the propaganda that they peddle to your average citizen. "Someday, you will eventually make money like me if we join together to stop the government." What a colossal load of bull shit. This needless worship makes me sick to my stomach.
With gas and food prices on the rise, what's left of the middle class is being squeezed out of every last nickel they have. You want to know how corporations are fucking you over? The entire system is set up that way. The people that own oil and food companies know that these are goods that have inelastic demand. Even if the prices go up, people will still buy them in the short run. They may become more elastic in the long run and some behavior may be adjusted but how likely is that considering there are no real substitutes for food and gas. These are but two examples. Throw in prescription drugs and watch your average wallet become empty quickly.
In so many ways, your average consumer is trapped. This, in turn, traps our economy from coming out of the hole and into recovery. The middle class is the engine that drives this economy, not these assholes who have gotten away with fraud. That's why I'm joining the drum circle on prison time for guys like Blankfein, Fuld and Cassano. Put these fuckers in jail. Yesterday.
Our economy simply can't take it anymore.
33 comments:
Food? Big food corporations are fucking you over?
What's the profit margin Farmer Ted gets? Or the transport, cannery, warehouse or store? Do you know?
Pick a food - milk, cheese, beef, pork, canned vegetables - and run through the process from production to retail sale and show us the one place in there that the man is fucking us over.
But you don't know the number do you Mark? You can't even give us a generalized number to show how the big bad food corp is fucking us over. You have absolutely no idea how they are fucking us over. But you sure are sure they are, aren't you?
...government which has either been bought off, is lazy, or is afraid to do anything for fear of being accused of overreach.
Those are three very different things, and the corrections are as different as the problem.
Corruption should be rooted out and the culpable tried, convicted and imprisoned. Laziness is a little tougher, since there don't tend to be standards of performance and you have to satisfy civil service rules.
That leaves over-reach. Is it over-reach for the govt to decide how much wheat a farmer can grow on his own land? Is it over-reach to say that you can't grow your own marijuana because that could have an effect on the interstate trafficking thereof? According to SCotUS, those are legitimate exercises of federal power.
Now some people seem to think that the Securities Act of 1934 created a special category of investor that was the only ones with access to super-profitable investment opportunities. That ordinary folks would be excluded from those (due to the high risk) was a bug and not a feature (as was the intent of the legislation).
Some people also believe they have been personally fucked over by some rich person just because they lost money on an investment. I personally believe such people shouldn't be allowed to control their own money, procreate, or speak such idiotic things - but hey, it is a free country, right?
Such a child, juris. Doesn't it bother you that your hard earned money is lining the pockets of oil execs simply so they can maintain profit? The next time you go to the grocery and plunk down the extra cash think about how you really don't have a choice in buying food for pete's sake. Face it, man (sounding like Bones McCoy) you are being forced to pay more money for things for no good reason.
>Such a child, juris.
From you? Heh.
Such a stereotypically unthinking lefty rant. (Mark found some new words with which to sound smart: elastic and inelastic! Woo!) Gas is high! Food is high! There can be no explanation for this phenomenon other than some fatcat(s), somewhere, that are fucking people over.
Q:How do those fatcats control the market such that they can arbitrarily set prices as you seem to be claiming Mark?
A: You're just trying to win the argument.
Q:Similarly, do food companies have a monopoly such that they can control prices? As food has far more variety than gas, won't people just shift to lower cost foodstuffs if they feel pressure?
A: Here's where you get me to dance to your tune, right? I'm not falling for that.
Q:Can the rise in gas prices not be explained by the rising price of oil, which in turn is driven by steadily eroding supply, and (hopefully temporary) instability in the middle east? Also, might the rising price of oil also be at least partly responsible for the rising cost of food, since most food requires at least some petroleum products to produce, if not in growing then in transport?
A: I've had enough of your wordsmithing.
I thought I'd save Mark some time and give his usual answers to questions from people that don't share his priors.
Any bets on whether Mark actually provides more than I have? ;)
You are so fucking right, Mark! It is fucking unbelievable that President Bush hasn't put these motherfuckers in jail!
Impeach Bush now!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cx77K8e3WE&feature=youtu.be
Check out these Teabagging scumbags assaulting a Democratic Senator who voted for common-sense gun laws.
The rising price in both cases, Hap, is dictated purely by profit. In a perfect world, this is how it should be. But we don't live in a perfect world. That's what always has cracked me up about Economics classes. Every paragraph starts off with "In a perfect world" or "Assuming all else is equal." What planet do these guys live on? Oh, that's right...they are all on serving on the boards of Goldman Sachs and the like so let's make sure that Anderson Wilson maintains his 3rd vacation home.
My point is that prices will rise at the whim of those people who really don't want to give up their hefty salaries. The pain, if you will, is passed on to us because they know these goods are inelastic at least in the short term. We can clip coupons and look for deals all we want but people need milk and in my neck of the woods it's now gone up 50 percent in price.
Certainly, instability in the Middle East has to do with the rising cost of gas. But guess what? We could have been on the path to rid ourselves of this a long time ago if we didn't have a country full of asshats who have a pathological distrust of new energy. Another example of how winning the argument (climate change is a hoax) is more important than anything...even making money!
Just of curiosity *juris, Haplo9, Guard Duck, Anonymous* is Mark ever correct about anything?
He is dead-on correct about this:
"We could have been on the path to rid ourselves of this a long time ago if we didn't have a country full of asshats who have a pathological distrust of new energy."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50417_Page2.html
I'm waiting for the adolescent tauting combined with 8 year old temper tantrums to begin forthwith after Mark's perfectly logical and grounded in fact comment.
Ah, yes, Obama as Carter...sort of new hit yet with a classic feel. LMFAO. Anyone with even the smallest understanding of history knows that 1979 and 2011 are about as different as Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi.
But you have brought up an interesting point about the next election...one which I will address tomorrow...gladly. And, hey, it's also from Politico!
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell
>Just of curiosity *juris, Haplo9, Guard Duck, Anonymous* is Mark ever correct about anything?
Yes, actually, when Mark talks about things he has experience in, like education, I'm often (but not always) inclined to agree with him. It's when he steps outside his expertise that he very often moves into 'voodoo and howling at the moon' territory.
That's what always has cracked me up about Economics classes.
Here, let me explain what you missed. There is perfect competition - a theoretical construct that no one (but the voice in your head) says exists in the real world but serves as a useful abstraction. Then there is actual competition, of varying degrees, that better reflects what happens in the real world - just not as neatly explained or modeled as perfect competition. Then, beyond a poorly or minimally competitive market you get into truly dysfunctional markets: oligopolies and monopolies - which are rare in the real world, and typically only sustained where there is substantial collusion between political power (i.e. the state) and economic actors (favored corporations). If you've got a case of a natural monopoly please say so, and you can probably pick up a Nobel Prize while you're at it.
Now Apple just released a new product, more expensive (and presumably more functional) than its predecessor. According to your view of economics, Jobs & Apple are ripping people off by raising the price. Are you really going to stand by that argument?
To Haplo9: Yes, but he IS an instructor in social studies which means history, political science, civics, economics, and sociology. Probably even psychology as well if he is in education. Your voodoo and howling at the moon claim seems to apply to things that tick you off or ideas that you don't agree with. From my vantage point, he's trying to get you to think. He's even said this exact thing.
jocasta - I have an undergrad degree in Econ, and trust me, M never made it through even one semester of it. I've also read more history than the average person and I love a good discussion about it - but some people think it is all about winning an argument.
As for his grasp of federalism and constitutional republicanism (govt not party) - well, that is so lacking as to be shocking in someone claiming to be a teacher.
>My point is that prices will rise at the whim of those people who really don't want to give up their hefty salaries.
You are simply repeating your rant without explaining how your reasoning might even begin to resemble reality. What mechanism do "those people" use to raise prices? I mean, dear god, does it really have to be explained to you that corporate executives, even those in oil companies, do not possess absolute power, nor monopoly power?
Or, are you merely expecting that when the cost of the inputs for a company rise (oil, for example) they should just take a loss on what they produce in order to satisfy your twisted sense of morality?
Corporate executives don't possess absolute power? Perhaps you could give us a few examples of how they don't get their way. In your letter to God, why don't you have him explain to you how the world currently works. Perhaps the glow from their holiness is interfering with your vision.
Hap, if their input prices go up then they raise their prices accordingly to maintain their excessive salaries. They pass the cost on to us. Do you think that the salaries of many CEOs are excessive? I think they are and the boards are honestly powerless to stop them...if they wanted to...many don't.
There has been an enormous transfer of wealth that has gone on in this country for the last 30 years. The wealthiest people in this country control more money than they ever have. They are taxed at an incredibly low rate. These are simple facts. When people have this much money, they can manipulate whatever they want. Prices are just one small part of it.
The sad truth here is that your brain can only understand what I am saying because you have a predisposed belief to think that all liberals are Marxists. In fact, I am anti-plutocratic capitalist. Why you can't see what is going on is incredibly perplexing to me. Maybe it is the glow of which sasquatch speaks. Or maybe it's the new and terribly warped definition of capitalism.
Perhaps you could give us a few examples of how they don't get their way.
Oh small-brained, large-footed forest creature - why don't you elaborate on how you've been fucked over - personally. C'mon big fella, you must have at least one anecdote in ya.
Even better - tell me how Jobs is pounding your ass, without your consent that is.
The wealthiest people in this country control more money than they ever have. They are taxed at an incredibly low rate.
In 1979, the top 10% of income earners were paying just over half of all federal income tax. Today they pay nearly 70%. Those are facts - unlike anything you said in your screed. How is that taxation "at an incredibly low rate" - and even if it is, how much more would you have them pay: 90%? 95%? 100%?
So, you think the new Apple pricing is ONLY about giving Jobs and other senior execs more money, right? C'mon M, that is what you believe, isn't it?
After all, you're still convinced that some rich person got your $40K, aren't you?
Ok Mark,
So what you are saying is the can of chili I buy at the store is over priced because the head of Hormel has not reduced Hormel's profit margin in order to maintain his executive pay?
All right, I'll play along. Pick your favorite devil CEO who is raping us in the non-elastic food market. Find out what his salary is. Figure out how many units of food that corporation sells every year. Then figure out what the cost of those food units would be if you returned the CEO's pay back into the food.
It's your rant so show your math.
But I'll throw out some quick numbers to show how off base you are.
Del Monte foods sold 3.4 billion cans of food in 1999. That's a long time ago, but the only number I could find quickly. Lets run with it even though the number is likely much higher now.
I have no idea how much the CEO of Del Monte makes. Lets pick a random and rather ridiculous number, like say $10 million a year.
I you divide that 10 million dollars by 3.4 billion cans you get 0.0029.
That means if Del Monte's CEO woke up one day and said "hey, I'm going to forgo my salary this year and reduce this company's prices accordingly" then you and I would be the recipient of the savings adding up to a whopping $0.003. That's less than 1/3 of a penny. Gosh, that's like a whole actual cash value of three unused coupons.
>Hap, if their input prices go up then they raise their prices accordingly to maintain their excessive salaries.
What GuardDuck said is what I was going to get to. But dear god. Work the scenario through in your head. If a company were to take a loss when the cost of their inputs rose, just so that moronic lefties like yourself could feel all warm and fuzzy, that just might have some negative consequences. You know, like lost jobs in the company that now loses money, and not just executive jobs. A tanking stock price, which might, you know, hurt people that are invested in the company like your mom.
>From my vantage point, he's trying to get you to think. He's even said this exact thing.
I'm sure he thinks he is. However, from my vantage point, he is a stereotypical pseudo intellectual that has somehow convinced himself that utterly ridiculous explanations for how the world works are, like, totally plausible, man.
>The sad truth here is that your brain can only understand what I am saying because you have a predisposed belief to think that all liberals are Marxists. In fact, I am anti-plutocratic capitalist.
Translation: "my utterly unsupported, nonsensical claims are brilliant because I say so. That you question this brilliance clearly means that the problem is with you. It is not possible that my head is up my ass."
>Corporate executives don't possess absolute power?
No. The proposition is utterly absurd. I can't actually believe you are serious. Would you say it is common for an executive to wield their absolute power to simply kill people and take control of their possessions? You should really follow this brilliant thought through though. What happens when two executives with absolute power are at odds with each other? Do the employees of their companies engage in hand to hand combat or something? To think all this violence that would likely accompany people possessing absolute power - I must have missed it. OR!!! There is a conspiracy of SILENCE in the MEDIA!!
Corporate executives don't possess absolute power?
Oh wow, I missed that little gem.
The statement by Haplo9 was "What mechanism do "those people" use to raise prices? ...corporate executives, even those in oil companies, do not possess absolute power, nor monopoly power?"
So the absolute power/monopoly power statement was regarding pricing. Not hiring/firing, advertising, company logo's or vacation time. Pricing.
I suppose a CEO could decide to price his company's goods at anything the whim took him. But lets do a little mental exercise on that.
Let's say the CEO of Stupid Food Corp wakes up one day and decides he needs a second yacht and doubles the prices on all his products.
Do you know what happens?
I walk into local grocery store for some canned green beans. I look on the shelf and see the Stupid Food Corp green beans at a price of $2.00. On the shelf next to it is green beans from Smart Food Corp whose CEO is not a friggin idiot, who didn't double prices and is therefore available at a price of $1.00. I buy the Smart Food Corp green beans at the cheaper price.
Everyone else does the same, because they aren't friggin idiots either.
Sales at Stupid Food Corp drop, revenues fall, and the board and shareholders fire the CEO. Nobody will hire him because he has proven to be a friggin idiot and he has to sell his yacht. He gets a job as a mid-level manager at a processing plant that won't let him touch the financials and his wife leaves him.
Now, was that an exercise in absolute power or absolute stupidity? The market is the master and she is a harsh mistress.
tell me how Jobs is pounding your ass, without your consent that is.
Well, juris, being that you are the economics expert, I think you would know that the goods that Jobs provides would be considered luxury items and have a more elastic demand. That means the burden is on Jobs, not me.
Now, with food and oil, which is more elastic and which is less elastic-demand or supply? Remember, the burden will fall on the side with less elasticity.
Guard Duck, one of the chief food suppliers in my neck of the woods is Supervalu. They have recently laid off scores of employees (many of whom I know), farmed jobs off to India, raised their price of food so stores pay more which means we pay more, and their CEO, Craig Hekert, has around 2 million in total compensation with a 5 million stock deal over 4 years.
How has he done?
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Will-more-of-Craig-Herkert-lead-to-more-of-the-same-for-SUPERVALU--52191.html
Regarding the issue of power, I think this speaks to the disconnect between us. Who has more power right now--the US government or our nation's CEOs? I say the latter and it's very clear that they do.
And what are you arguing now Mark?
Supervalue:
The company, despite being profitable, is facing financial problems due to a weak economy, tight margins, falling revenue and asset values.
On January 11, 2011, SuperValu has reported a loss of $202 million for the quarter, and revenue also fell 6% to $8.67 billion.
Stock prices fell 12 percent to $7.52 per share.
Wal-Mart's newly arrived grocery competition to these stores also affects SuperValu, Inc
SuperValu is selling its Shop 'n Save stores in the Pittsburgh market as a result of being unable to compete with Wal-Mart and fast-growing local chain Giant Eagle.
Herkert’s plan has been to cut expenses to provide some headroom so that he can cut prices and then grow sales.
SUPERVALU’s problems started long before Craig Herkert became CEO.
From that I gather SuperValu is having problems competing with more efficient, lower priced alternatives. That means the shoppers are buying from those lower priced alternatives. That means SuperValu is failing by not having the lower prices. Hence - competition works.
I also gather from the link you posted that SuperValu's CEO is not living up to expectations and the board is due to give him the boot. Just like they did to the two previous CEO's who underperformed. Just like my little theoretical story proclaimed to be the result of such idiocy.
As to what you said, SuperValu:
recently laid off scores of employees
Yeah, so? That's what company's do when they need to cut costs.
farmed jobs off to India
See above.
raised their price of food so stores pay more which means we pay more
Directly contradicted by the information provided in your link. If the prices have increased it isn't because SuperValu is trying to get more profits - they are already losing money due to high shelf prices and therefore low sales volume.
their CEO, Craig Hekert, has around 2 million in total compensation with a 5 million stock deal over 4 years
And he will be out of a job shortly if he doesn't perform. The board hired a sharpshooter and paid appropriately for him. He isn't turning out as planned and that is their mistake. Not unlike scores of first round draft picks that don't live up to their hype. If he did live up to expectations and turned the company around then he would have been worth every penny of that and more.
But of course you don't really seem to grok the details. What you really care about is his $2 million dollar salary and $5 million stock deal. That $7 million total is just 1.2% of SuperValu's net income. It is just 0.016% of SuperValu's gross income. If he gave his entire $7 million to every one of SuperValu's 192,000 employees equally they would get a very nice Christmas bonus of $36.46.
You keep wanting to focus on how much other people make. Why do you care? It's not like that $7 million appreciably impacts, well anything, it's just a drop in the bucket.
While you post that other people want to drag everyone down to their level, you are the one actually making the posts out of jealousy. 'Craig Herkert makes too much money!' Let me quote you:
Ah, I see. Since...Mark doesn't have the same benefits, why should anyone else? Everyone, I guess, should be as miserable as him regardless of how hard they have worked to get to where they are today.
The board hired a sharpshooter and paid appropriately for him.
Why do you care? It's not like that $7 million appreciably impacts, well anything, it's just a drop in the bucket.
Because of this mentality. A sharp shooter...good grief. As long as our nation continues to worship these guys like they are Jesus Christ, it's just going to keep getting worse. The reason why I care is you can't run an economy like this. I have a real problem with the fact that we essentially have a plutocracy now. Don't you?
I have no problem with CEOs making money or owners reaping profits. That's what capitalism is all about. But making 500 times your average worker? That's destructive. Or getting as much as Herkert did while the company was failing and employees losing their jobs. I have a friend who is CEO of a shoe company here in town. When things started to dive for them last year, he stopped taking salary. He was paid one dollar for 2009 and one dollar for 2010. Now the company is doing a bit better and they didn't have to lay anyone off. Granted they have less employees than SuperValu but are still a mid size company. Now that's the kind of thing I'd like to see more of but we don't because the overall mentality is akin to the mafia for pete's sake.
Everyone else does the same, because they aren't friggin idiots either.
Normally I'd agree, but some of the locals here make me hesitate about the everyone part. I honestly have to believe they would put the butthurt look on their face and buy the more expensive one.
As long as our nation continues to worship these guys like they are Jesus Christ,
Wow, did he really say he worships him just like Jesus Christ? I don't worship Christ or CEOs - where does that put me in your binary brain? How is it you can prove my point about limited repertoires so quickly and so convincingly?
"I have no problem with CEOs making money or owners reaping profits."
Too funny. Yes you do. Everything you have ever written here on this rediculous blog says that you do. Christ my man, be honest with yourself at least.
A woman who can't forgive should never have more than a nodding acquaintance with a man.
Post a Comment