Friday, October 15, 2010

The Biggest Fraud in Human History


According to L. Randall Wray, the blossoming mortgage and foreclosure crisis represents the Biggest Fraud in Human History.

That's saying something. But given the nature of the beast, it's probably quite true. Much of the real estate bubble was based on fraud, perpetrated by almost all the players, deliberately engineered to produce enormous profits at the top of the pyramid, not so much as you slid down toward the bottom, but still, even there, an illusion of profit could be manufactured or maintained for as long as housing prices kept going UP.

Drill deeper, though, and we find that the whole structure of capitalist economies is built on fraud, complicity, conquest, exploitation, theft, and sleight of hand. That's what it is and has always been. Don't like it? Move to Russia! As they used to say. Only you won't escape there any more. If anything, it's worse there than it is here.

The deregulation of the banks and the financial "industry", combined with the pretense of an "Ownership Society" caused this situation. Unraveling it is going to take some heavy lifting, but I think it can be done. The outlines of a solution have been clear enough for years now. The avoidance of a solution has characterized the entire Recessionary Period. We can assume the avoidance is due to the fact that the predators are still making out like the bandits they are, and they have no intention of setting their ravening aside for the Greater Good. They won't do it. Don't ask them.

What should be done is simple: 1) Nationalize the banks; 2) Prosecute criminal fraud; 3) Provide substantial and sustained debt relief to households until the recessionary pressure is relieved.

None of that, of course, is being done. Consequently the Endless Recession continues; the banksters and fraudsters continue to prosper; the People suffer and pay for it.

And of course the TeaBagging segment of the People like it that way.

James K. Galbraith has suggested approximately the same solution I've been yelling about for years. He doesn't do it quite as straightforwardly since he's an economist, but he gets to approximately the same place nonetheless.

  • Nationalize the banks
  • Prosecute criminal fraud
  • Provide substantial debt relief to households.


As long as there's a banker's grandson in the White House, unfortunately, and as long as the banksters rule the roost in Congress, regardless of which major party is nominally in power, none of that will be done.

But it is interesting to see all the hankie wringing over the little problem of "documents not in order" that is causing the supposed freeze on foreclosures which apparently is as fraudulent as any other aspect of this whole miserable mess. But then, that's been true every time a "foreclosure freeze" has been announced. It's true of all the myriad work-out programs, too. The whole system is fraudulent, top to bottom, inside out.

9 comments:

  1. We can't rely on empty suit Obama to do anything about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boy, isn't that the truth! It's as if he can't even imagine doing anything about it.

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Che Pasa, I'm sorry for bring UT business over here - and you are so welcome to delete this comment, but I'm personally concerned in this matter:

    Tthe question of Julian's honesty is of vital concern to those who are embedded within corrupt and dangerous systems.

    Quite simply, the service he is offering is badly needed. As I understand your position, you are worried that he is being used or is in cahoots with those systems he is supposedly needling with a thousand little rays of illumination? Are you envisioning a "let a thousand flowers bloom" type scenario in which those that contribute material or speak out through this site may be targets for later harvesting?

    Surely the very thought of the convoluted mazes of potential doubled and tripled motives of those who offer venues or help will freeze many who might otherwise speak out or try to break free.

    You know, many do-gooders do have a self-dramatizing streak (fingers pointing back at me here even as I type.) Moral and intellectual vanity are quite often part of the pull of risking yourself for ideals (or even for people you care deeply for) and I've seen that some of the most effective activists can be hams, performing with varying levels of skill and subtlety both for their fellow crusaders, followers and/or the cameras. Motives are always mixed.

    Just because part of Julian may enjoy the Show biz-ness circle of the spotlight and his role as hero to us who "need to know" does not mean he in cahoots.

    Yes, I can't tell you how much I mistrust my own desperation to think that Wikileaks may offer a model for how to challenge power non-violently. But just because we want to believe in some avenue for free exchange of information from within the power structures that are taking over our lives does not mean that the creative solution being offered here is a mirage.

    Have you presented any solid evidence or substantive grounds for Julian's potential double-dealing or any examples of exposure or endangerment of contributors to the Wikileaks site because of Assange and company's actions or inactions, Che Pasa?

    If so, I apologize, but if you are presenting suspicions based only on your assessment of a personality as enacted for media circus, I'm worried that spreading such doubts may only help strengthen a meme all too advantageous to our corporate and executive power-grabbers. And fear-mongering leaves those who truly have reason to fear hanging all the more alone as they cast about for ways to share what they know, or to subvert structures they feel trapped by, or to directly help those they see suffering because of organizations they are afraid to leave - sometimes because of threats to those they care for dearly.

    There are people who CAN'T wait for all this to shake out, who are trying to intervene or to escape or to shake-up heartless systems and organizations even as we type - they and/or the people they are seeing suffer need help now.

    I'm so half-educated, Che Pasa. I would't have the knowledge or techno-savvy to even know how to use that Wikileaks website from my own computer and know that I was contributing safely at this point.

    But if we undermine the very real sources of such help based only on suspicions and personality assessments rather than solid evidence, then we are damaging our own chances for resistance and information sharing vital to our common concerns.

    Helen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Che Pasa, I'm sorry for bring UT business over here - and you are so welcome to delete this comment, but I'm deeply personally concerned with this matter:

    The question of Assange's honesty is of vital concern to those who are embedded within corrupt and dangerous systems.

    The service he is offering is badly needed. As I understand your position, you are worried that he is being used or is in cahoots with those systems he is supposedly needling with a thousand little rays of illumination? Are you envisioning a "let a thousand flowers bloom" type scenario in which those that contribute material or speak out through this site may be targets for later harvesting?

    Surely the very thought of the convoluted mazes of potential doubled and tripled motives of those who offer venues or help will freeze many who might otherwise speak out or try to break free.

    You know, many do-gooders do have a self-dramatizing streak (fingers pointing back at me here even as I type.) Moral and intellectual vanity are quite often part of the pull of risking yourself for ideals (or even for people you care deeply for) and I've seen that some of the most effective activists can be hams, performing with varying levels of skill and subtlety both for their fellow crusaders, followers and/or the cameras. Motives are always mixed.

    Just because part of Julian may enjoy the Show bizzness circle of the spotlight and his role as hero to those who "need to know," or to share information as public service, does not mean he in cahoots.

    Have you presented any solid evidence or substantive grounds for Julian's potential double-dealing or any examples of exposure or endangerment of contributors to the Wikileaks site because of Assange and company's actions or inactions, Che Pasa?

    If so, I apologize, but if you are presenting suspicions based only on your assessment of a personality as enacted for media circus, I'm worried that spreading such doubts may only help strengthen a meme all too advantageous to our corporate and executive power-grabbers. And fear-mongering leaves those who truly have reason to fear hanging all the more alone as they cast about for ways to share what they know, or to subvert structures they feel trapped by, or to directly help those they see suffering because of organizations they are afraid to leave - sometimes because of threats to those they care for dearly.

    There are people who CAN'T wait for all this to shake out, who are trying to intervene or to escape or to shake-up heartless systems and organizations even as I type - they and/or the people they are seeing suffer need help now.

    I'm so half-educated, Che Pasa. I would't have the knowledge or techno-savvy to even know how to use that Wikileaks website from my own computer and know that I was contributing safely at this point.

    But if we undermine the very real sources of such help based only on suspicions and personality assessments rather than solid evidence, then we are damaging our own chances for resistance and information sharing vital to our common concerns.

    Helen

    ReplyDelete
  5. Che Pasa, I'm sorry for bring UT business over here - and you are so welcome to delete this comment, but I'm deeply personally concerned with this matter:

    The question of Assange's honesty is of vital concern to those who are embedded within corrupt and dangerous systems.

    The service he is offering is badly needed. As I understand your position, you are worried that he is being used or is in cahoots with those systems he is supposedly needling with a thousand little rays of illumination? Are you envisioning a "let a thousand flowers bloom" type scenario in which those that contribute material or speak out through this site may be targets for later harvesting?

    Surely the very thought of the convoluted mazes of potential doubled and tripled motives of those who offer venues or help will freeze many who might otherwise speak out or try to break free.

    You know, many do-gooders do have a self-dramatizing streak (fingers pointing back at me here even as I type.) Moral and intellectual vanity are quite often part of the pull of risking yourself for ideals (or even for people you care deeply for) and I've seen that some of the most effective activists can be hams, performing with varying levels of skill and subtlety both for their fellow crusaders, followers and/or the cameras. Motives are always mixed.

    Just because part of Julian may enjoy the Show bizzness circle of the spotlight and his role as hero to those who "need to know," or to share information as public service, does not mean he in cahoots.

    Have you presented any solid evidence or substantive grounds for Julian's potential double-dealing or any examples of exposure or endangerment of contributors to the Wikileaks site because of Assange and company's actions or inactions, Che Pasa?

    If so, I apologize, but if you are presenting suspicions based only on your assessment of a personality as enacted for media circus, I'm worried that spreading such doubts may only help strengthen a meme all too advantageous to our corporate and executive power-grabbers. And fear-mongering leaves those who truly have reason to fear hanging all the more alone as they cast about for ways to share what they know, or to subvert structures they feel trapped by, or to directly help those they see suffering because of organizations they are afraid to leave - sometimes because of threats to those they care for dearly.

    But if we undermine the very real sources of such help based only on suspicions and personality assessments rather than solid evidence, then we are damaging our own chances for resistance and information sharing vital to our common concerns.

    Thanks for considering these concerns.

    Helen

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ché,


    Very good wrap-up of the crisis and its likely continuity.

    Our choices are pretty sad.

    1. The center-right Dems, who have their bread buttered by the financial elite, but still believe in the social safety net to some degree.

    2. The hard-right GOP, who have their bread buttered by the financial elite, but don't believe in the social safety net and want to gut it.

    The left looks like it's in total duck and cover mode right now, resigned to a defensive war to protect programs and laws (the Civil Rights Act seems suddenly vulnerable) that we once thought were beyond attack. It's now necessary to go back and defend 20th century advances, which makes it nearly impossible to push for 21st century egalitarian gains, and we need those now more than ever. IMO, the 20th century left us short.

    Which is the plan, of course. Rust never sleeps. Neither does the right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Helen,

    I did respond to your questions (sort of) over at Glenn's Place (which I haven't been to this morning, so may have missed your take). At any rate, there are some questioning posts here about WikiLeaks which you may find interesting: http://chewhatyoucallyourpasa.blogspot.com/search?q=wikileaks

    I think in one of them I suggested WikiLeaks might be a "honeypot," intended to lure out and enable the snatching up of elements disloyal to the Imperial Security State. This seemed fairly obvious, say, in the Bradley Manning incident, though exactly how it worked it murky, what with Adrian's...ahem... condition and all.

    But I don't know any more about WikiLeaks than what I see and read, and it just doesn't sit right with me. Those who see it as a Godsend are not going to see it the way I do, and I've honestly tried to probe why so many on the "left" see it and Julian as such a boon, whereas I'm very suspicious of it all.

    If I had access to the kinds of secrets Julian solicits, I would not go that avenue to get them into the public domain. Period. The seriousness of what one is doing -- or trying to do -- would simply be compromised by all the Flash and Show Business that surrounds Julian and his super-double-secret perambulations.

    Perhaps my skepticism is ultimately driven by my own former careers in both the Show Business (for more than 20 years) and the Federal Government (for more than 10 years.) You gain a fairly intimate understanding of how the two are intertwined, out of the necessity and convenience of both.

    Or maybe it's some other trait of mine...

    The Government has erected so many walls and barricades against the People that it believes it can operate entirely apart from their interests, needs, and desires. We the People have not found any effective ways through those barricades, not yet. I'd like to think that the WikiLeaks model was one way to do it, but so far, I don't see the evidence.

    But we'll keep trying!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cu-hool,

    The really sad thing for me is that what passes for "Progressivism" these days is little more than reaction to Rightist gains and a holding action against the worst of the Predator Class.

    There used to be a Future.

    ReplyDelete