2008-04-13
fiscal irresponsibility
Fiscal disconnects or economic treason? It never ceases to amaze me that people in power [note I make a distinction between "leaders" and the powerful] don't seem to understand the cause and effect relationships between the following: corporations were individuals. That act of class-conscious hubris still allows for financial gang bosses [read: investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, insurance execs and stock brokerage poobahs] to run roughshod over the rest of the world's citizenry, walk away from irresponsible and sometimes irreparably damaging effects on individuals around the planet.
In effect, these 21st century brigands, while entrusted with managing the wealth of the world's citizenry, acted as if it was their own, stolen the bulk of it to hide away in pirate banks in places like the Cayman Islands.
If we truly had a global democratic society, we could maybe successfully try them for committing the crime of economic treason, together with the titled "leadership" of the nations around the world.
As it is, we instead will likely have to sacrifice so these thieves can continue to live comfortably off the booty they have amassed, while we - in countries around the globe - repay the debts they have piled up in our names through onerous taxations, fees, tariffs and simply doing without.
One final comment: Lest you lull yourself into a rabid anti-Republican complacency about who caused all this mess, [at least the sub-prime mortgage scandal] keep topmost in your mind that it was none other than former president Bill Clinton, that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933. After the catastrophic crash of 1929,
This observation, incidentally, was made by none other than the United States Supreme Court in 1971, as part of a decision rendered in Investment Co. Inst. v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617. Plenty of blame to go around during the future Economic Treason Trials.
Fiscal disconnects or economic treason? It never ceases to amaze me that people in power [note I make a distinction between "leaders" and the powerful] don't seem to understand the cause and effect relationships between the following:1- Corporate executive pay. You know what this is. It's when theA curious artifact of jurisprudential history is that, during the last Robber Baron era [the late 1800s early 20th century] the US Supreme Court allowed for corporations to be treated as ifcorporate warlords skim the coffers and enrich themselves more per hour [after taxes] than most people make in an entire year [before taxes]. Yet there seems no rational tie-in between good performance and percentage of take for the execs or - in some cases - former execs [e.g Merrill Lynch's Stanley O'Neal, Countrywide Financial's Angelo Mozilo, Citigroup's CEO Charles Prince, Exxon-Mobil's Lee Raymond or GE Corporation's Jack Welch] - to name but a few.
2- The financial travails caused by irresponsible lending practices of corporate entities - from the panic at Bear Stearns, to downturns at Merrill Lynch, to moves at Swiss bank giant UBS [where the CEO Marcel Ospel was forced to resign];
3- Massive mortgage foreclosures by millions of ordinary borrowers with incomes of $75,000 [usd] or less that are tied to usurious interest payment hikes
corporations were individuals. That act of class-conscious hubris still allows for financial gang bosses [read: investment bankers, hedge-fund managers, insurance execs and stock brokerage poobahs] to run roughshod over the rest of the world's citizenry, walk away from irresponsible and sometimes irreparably damaging effects on individuals around the planet.In effect, these 21st century brigands, while entrusted with managing the wealth of the world's citizenry, acted as if it was their own, stolen the bulk of it to hide away in pirate banks in places like the Cayman Islands.
If we truly had a global democratic society, we could maybe successfully try them for committing the crime of economic treason, together with the titled "leadership" of the nations around the world.
As it is, we instead will likely have to sacrifice so these thieves can continue to live comfortably off the booty they have amassed, while we - in countries around the globe - repay the debts they have piled up in our names through onerous taxations, fees, tariffs and simply doing without.
One final comment: Lest you lull yourself into a rabid anti-Republican complacency about who caused all this mess, [at least the sub-prime mortgage scandal] keep topmost in your mind that it was none other than former president Bill Clinton, that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933. After the catastrophic crash of 1929,
"... Congress was concerned that commercial banks in general and member banks of the Federal Reserve System in particular had both aggravated and been damaged by stock market decline partly because of their direct and indirect involvement in the trading and ownership of speculative securities.
The legislative history of the Glass-Steagall Act shows that Congress also had in mind and repeatedly focused on the more subtle hazards that arise when a commercial bank goes beyond the business of acting as fiduciary or managing agent and enters the investment banking business either directly or by establishing an affiliate to hold and sell particular investments."
This observation, incidentally, was made by none other than the United States Supreme Court in 1971, as part of a decision rendered in Investment Co. Inst. v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617. Plenty of blame to go around during the future Economic Treason Trials.
THANKS TO: the Progressive Historians for their detail about the Clinton White House's activism on behalf of the corporate gamblers in the 1990s.
Labels: 1933, bad investments, corporate excess, corporate malfesance, economic treason, executive pay, foreclosures, Glass-Steagall Act, hedge funds
¶ 13:23
