Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Weekend Economists Pull Timmy Out of Well (and Throw Him Back In)May 30-June 1, 2014
Yup. That's him. That's the
Timothy Franz Geithner, born August 18, 1961, an American economic policy maker and central banker who served as the 75th United States Secretary of the Treasury, under President Barack Obama, from 2009 to 2013. He was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2003 to 2009. He now serves as president of Warburg Pincus, a Wall Street private equity firm.
Geithner's position included a large role in directing the Federal Government's spending on the crisis, including allocation of $350 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted during the previous administration. At the end of his first year in office, he continued to deal with multiple high visibility issues, including administration efforts to restructure the regulation of the nation's financial system, attempts to spur recovery of both the mortgage market and the automobile industry, demands for protectionism, President Obama's tax changes, and negotiations with foreign governments on approaches to worldwide financial issues...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner
Geithner's position included a large role in directing the Federal Government's spending on the crisis, including allocation of $350 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted during the previous administration. At the end of his first year in office, he continued to deal with multiple high visibility issues, including administration efforts to restructure the regulation of the nation's financial system, attempts to spur recovery of both the mortgage market and the automobile industry, demands for protectionism, President Obama's tax changes, and negotiations with foreign governments on approaches to worldwide financial issues...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner
Timmeh, as he is sometimes referred to, has just written a book about his service to the
My Favorite Sentence Ever From Timothy Geithner By Charles P. Pierce on May 29, 2014
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/timothy-geithner-book-052914
I am plowing through Timothy Geithner's new book, which I believe is titled, I Saved The Fking World, You Ungrateful Curs, or something like that. Anyway, I'm only about a quarter of the way through and I found what I believe is going to be the best sentence in all of the book's 580 pages. It appears on page 111.
Yes, and the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company did not have a good record of identifying fire hazards in advance, either.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/timothy-geithner-book-052914
I am plowing through Timothy Geithner's new book, which I believe is titled, I Saved The Fking World, You Ungrateful Curs, or something like that. Anyway, I'm only about a quarter of the way through and I found what I believe is going to be the best sentence in all of the book's 580 pages. It appears on page 111.
"Central bankers did not have a good record of identifying bubbles in advance, and neither did bank supervisors."
Yes, and the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company did not have a good record of identifying fire hazards in advance, either.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
ANOTHER OF THOSE "FREEZING IN THE DARK" PLANS? I REMEMBER THAT IN REAGAN'S CAMPAIGN...HE WAS DEMENTED ALREADY. BUT THIS....IT'S MORE A WISH THAN A PLAN!
http://www.dw.de/european-commission-proposes-plan-to-cut-foreign-energy-reliance/a-17668869
The European Commission has proposed a plan to cut the EU's reliance on foreign energy, particularly from Russia. The strategy follows Moscow's threats to halt gas supplies to Ukraine, a key transit point for Europe. A report from European Union leaders on Wednesday proposed securing the bloc's energy supplies by promoting internal sources, including renewable and nuclear energy, and shifting away from a "monopoly supplier."
"Improving the internal market will mean that energy prices will be roughly the same for everyone," EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger told reporters in Brussels. He added that for the bloc's natural gas supplies, "we must move away from a monopoly supplier, Russia in this instance."
Europe imports around 40 percent of its gas from Russia, nearly half of which flows through Ukraine. As diplomatic tensions deepen between Kyiv and Moscow, Russia has threatened to cut off its gas supplies unless Ukraine pays up front for deliveries. Russia previously shut down transmission to Ukraine in 2006 and 2009, and EU countries have been hesitant this time around to sanction Moscow for its latest actions, including the annexation of Crimea.
Oettinger stressed, however, that "we are clearly in better standing today than during the 2006 gas crisis or at the beginning of 2009."
OH, YES! CLEARLY!
EU leaders have suggested a "European Energy Union" - a single market with guaranteed supplies and infrastructure that would assure the bloc is not overly reliant on any one country for its energy. Oettinger said European countries should consider increasing renewable energy production and raising "sustainable production of fossil fuels."
"We want strong and stable partnerships with important suppliers but must avoid falling victim to political and commercial blackmail," he said.
The EU must "complete the internal energy market, improve our infrastructure, become more efficient and better exploit our own resources," said Oettinger. "Moreover, we need to accelerate the diversification of external energy suppliers, especially for gas."
Significant foreign reliance
The 28-nation bloc imports more than half of its energy supplies, and that reliance is expected to increase by 27 percent by 2030, said the Commission. In 2012, the EU paid more than 1 billion euros a day for that energy, it added. Europe's main remaining reserves of fossil fuel are shale gas, which would be accessed by the controversial hydraulic fracturing process known as "fracking." Several countries, including France, have all but ruled out that option due to environmental concerns.
The Commission's plan will be submitted to EU leaders at a June 26-27 summit.
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/europe/2014-05/30/content_17553752.htm
...Nearly half of European businesses fear their "golden times" in China are over, amid tougher business conditions in a slowing economy, according to the 2014 European Business in China Business Confidence Survey. It's conducted by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in partnership with Roland Berger Strategy Consultants.
Of the 552 businesses surveyed, 46 percent said they believe that the "golden age" for multinationals in the country has ended. That's particularly true for large firms with more than 1,000 employees and veteran companies with more than five years in the country. They have started to feel the pinch with 68 percent and 61 percent, respectively, stating that business in China has become more difficult over the past year.
"A Chinese economic slowdown is a game-changer that will fundamentally and necessarily alter corporate business strategies," Jorg Wuttke, president of the chamber, told a press conference on Thursday in Beijing. "With costs rising and regulatory issues continuing, European companies are starting to put expansion plans on hold."
Only 57 percent of companies plan to expand current operations in the world's second-largest economy, down from 86 percent last year. Only one-fifth of companies gave China as their top investment destination compared with one-third two years ago...
AS GLOBALISM REACHES ITS LIMITS OF ABSURDITY
...Nearly half of European businesses fear their "golden times" in China are over, amid tougher business conditions in a slowing economy, according to the 2014 European Business in China Business Confidence Survey. It's conducted by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in partnership with Roland Berger Strategy Consultants.
Of the 552 businesses surveyed, 46 percent said they believe that the "golden age" for multinationals in the country has ended. That's particularly true for large firms with more than 1,000 employees and veteran companies with more than five years in the country. They have started to feel the pinch with 68 percent and 61 percent, respectively, stating that business in China has become more difficult over the past year.
"A Chinese economic slowdown is a game-changer that will fundamentally and necessarily alter corporate business strategies," Jorg Wuttke, president of the chamber, told a press conference on Thursday in Beijing. "With costs rising and regulatory issues continuing, European companies are starting to put expansion plans on hold."
Only 57 percent of companies plan to expand current operations in the world's second-largest economy, down from 86 percent last year. Only one-fifth of companies gave China as their top investment destination compared with one-third two years ago...
AS GLOBALISM REACHES ITS LIMITS OF ABSURDITY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/29/economy-shrank-during-first-quarter-government-data-show/
The U.S. economy shrank for the first time in three years during the first quarter, according to government data released Thursday morning, but many analysts believe the recovery has already regained its mojo.
Businesses depleted their inventories and cut back on investment in the first three months of the year, while harsh winter weather curtailed construction. As a result, the nation’s gross domestic product fell at an annualized rate of 1 percent. The government’s previous estimate had showed the economy essentially flatlining.
The decline highlights the fragility of the nation’s recovery but is not likely to derail it altogether. Several forecasts for the current quarter show the economy growing at a healthy 3 percent annual rate or faster.
DON'T LET THAT COILED SPRING HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT, FELLA....
Consumer spending was particularly robust during the first quarter, jumping 3.1 percent despite the wickedly cold weather. Businesses also ramped up hiring as the temperature began to rise, suggesting stronger growth to come. Other government data released Thursday morning showed the number of people filing for unemployment benefits for the first time fell to 300,000 last week, a better showing than analysts expected. And there are no new major federal spending cuts weighing on the recovery. But those bright spots were overshadowed by a drawdown in business inventories that subtracted 1.62 percentage points from economic growth during the first quarter. State and local governments decreased spending at a rate of 1.8 percent rate. Private and residential investment dropped off, while exports declined and imports rose -- all of which add up to weaker growth. Still, the economic about-face in the first quarter could reflect the lingering damage of the recession. Analysts had predicted that housing would be a critical boost to the economy this year, but improvement in the beleaguered sector seems to have plateaued. The National Association of Realtors reported Thursday that its index of pending home sales inched up 0.4 percent in April, less than analysts had anticipated. Lawrence Yun, the group's chief economist, said future gains will likely be slow and steady.
OR HOUSING COULD NOT COME BACK AT ALL. IF THE BEAN COUNTERS THOUGHT HOUSING WOULD PULL US OUT OF THE DOLDRUMS, THEY WERE WILDLY OPTIMISTIC (OR EXPECTING A LOT OF HEDGE FUNDS AND FOREIGNERS TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING).
The U.S. economy shrank for the first time in three years during the first quarter, according to government data released Thursday morning, but many analysts believe the recovery has already regained its mojo.
Businesses depleted their inventories and cut back on investment in the first three months of the year, while harsh winter weather curtailed construction. As a result, the nation’s gross domestic product fell at an annualized rate of 1 percent. The government’s previous estimate had showed the economy essentially flatlining.
The decline highlights the fragility of the nation’s recovery but is not likely to derail it altogether. Several forecasts for the current quarter show the economy growing at a healthy 3 percent annual rate or faster.
"I think it just frankly coils the spring even tighter for a snapback this quarter," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services. "Boiiiing."
DON'T LET THAT COILED SPRING HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT, FELLA....
Consumer spending was particularly robust during the first quarter, jumping 3.1 percent despite the wickedly cold weather. Businesses also ramped up hiring as the temperature began to rise, suggesting stronger growth to come. Other government data released Thursday morning showed the number of people filing for unemployment benefits for the first time fell to 300,000 last week, a better showing than analysts expected. And there are no new major federal spending cuts weighing on the recovery. But those bright spots were overshadowed by a drawdown in business inventories that subtracted 1.62 percentage points from economic growth during the first quarter. State and local governments decreased spending at a rate of 1.8 percent rate. Private and residential investment dropped off, while exports declined and imports rose -- all of which add up to weaker growth. Still, the economic about-face in the first quarter could reflect the lingering damage of the recession. Analysts had predicted that housing would be a critical boost to the economy this year, but improvement in the beleaguered sector seems to have plateaued. The National Association of Realtors reported Thursday that its index of pending home sales inched up 0.4 percent in April, less than analysts had anticipated. Lawrence Yun, the group's chief economist, said future gains will likely be slow and steady.
OR HOUSING COULD NOT COME BACK AT ALL. IF THE BEAN COUNTERS THOUGHT HOUSING WOULD PULL US OUT OF THE DOLDRUMS, THEY WERE WILDLY OPTIMISTIC (OR EXPECTING A LOT OF HEDGE FUNDS AND FOREIGNERS TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING).
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/05/29/3442519/us-labor-rights-rankings/
Wisconsin’s crackdown on state worker rights in 2011 drew massive protests but was ultimately successful.
he United States ranks in the bottom half of the world when it comes to labor rights, according to a new global comparison from an international labor coalition that represents 176 million workers from 161 different nations.
The U.S. scores a four on the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) five-point scale, joining countries like Bahrain, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Thailand where the ITUC finds “systematic violations” of worker rights. Category one countries do the best job of protecting workers’ rights, and category five countries do the worst. (Countries where open violent conflict leaves workers completely adrift score a five or higher.) The categorization is based on a 97-point evaluation of the state of labor rights in various countries. The criteria range from fundamental civil liberties, like the ability to strike or to protest labor conditions without being murdered, to collective bargaining rights, the right to strike, and the free exercise of union rights.
The ITUC distinguished between “violations in law,” meaning legislative failures to protect workers, and “violations in practice,” meaning actual actions against workers. ITUC analysts sifted through reports of rights violations in a database that was created over 30 years ago and scored each country.
This is the state of labor rights around the world:
Wisconsin’s crackdown on state worker rights in 2011 drew massive protests but was ultimately successful.
he United States ranks in the bottom half of the world when it comes to labor rights, according to a new global comparison from an international labor coalition that represents 176 million workers from 161 different nations.
The U.S. scores a four on the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) five-point scale, joining countries like Bahrain, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Thailand where the ITUC finds “systematic violations” of worker rights. Category one countries do the best job of protecting workers’ rights, and category five countries do the worst. (Countries where open violent conflict leaves workers completely adrift score a five or higher.) The categorization is based on a 97-point evaluation of the state of labor rights in various countries. The criteria range from fundamental civil liberties, like the ability to strike or to protest labor conditions without being murdered, to collective bargaining rights, the right to strike, and the free exercise of union rights.
The ITUC distinguished between “violations in law,” meaning legislative failures to protect workers, and “violations in practice,” meaning actual actions against workers. ITUC analysts sifted through reports of rights violations in a database that was created over 30 years ago and scored each country.
This is the state of labor rights around the world:
http://dailybail.com/home/tim-geithners-magical-mystery-tour-of-tarp-propaganda-has-li.html
How many times does Geithner lie in his latest op-ed. Tim is thinking 5.
---
By Dr. Pitchfork
In "5 Myths About TARP," Tim Geithner joins Steve Rattner and Herb Allison in the parade of Washington insiders who have gone out of their way to tout the great success of TARP, calling it the "most effective government program in recent memory." If you think the Timmy doth protest too much, methinks you're exactly right.
Geithner starts by rehearsing the same, tiresome narrative we've heard a thousand times:
Then Geithner proceeds to debunk some "myths" about TARP.
Myth 1. TARP cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Well, TARP did cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This isn't a myth. $700B were authorized by the legislation. Nearly $400B were appropriated and disbursed. And according to the latest figures from the U.S. Treasury (that would be the little outfit where the author, Tim Geithner, hangs his hat every day) roughly half of that amount, about $200B, remains outstanding. And the costs of TARP are a "myth"? Apparently Geithner thinks we should give him a cookie just because some of the money might be paid back -- in the future. Don't be fooled by headline numbers saying TARP may cost "only $30B," because those numbers are based on wildly optimistic projections of what Treasury's ownership of AIG, GM and C will be worth.
And how did the banks pay back TARP? First, we got rid of mark-to-market accounting, changing their balance sheets overnight, and then the banks have been borrowing from the Fed at ZERO and earning the spread on Treasuries or anything else they wanted to put the money in. The effect of this process is a transfer of wealth from savers (who depend on bank CD's) and pension funds (who are often required to invest in government bonds) to the same banks that took money through TARP. This cost amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars each of the last two years. And TARP had negligible costs?
Besides, like we've said before, all the talk about getting the TARP paid back is a red herring. If someone breaks into your house, tears the place up, and then sticks a gun to your head demanding $700B, you don't thank him when he pays you back. Because a) you had a gun stuck in your face, and b) your house is still a freakin' mess.
Myth 2. TARP was a gift to Wall St. that did nothing for Main St.
This is Geithner's attempt to construct a straw man (TARP "did nothing"
and then blow him down. Was TARP a gift to Wall St.? Yes. What did TARP do for Main St.? Not much. Geithner's claim here is that TARP helped stop a financial panic that would have hurt the rest of the economy. First of all, contrary to popular belief, TARP wasn't actually very helpful in the crisis and may have accelerated it. The actions that truly helped in the crisis period are discussed here: http://dailybail.com/home/play-tarp-nonsense-whack-a-mole-with-former-auto-czar-steve.html But we were never faced with a choice between TARP and doing nothing while the world burned. This false choice between TARP or nothing is repeated almost every single time a TARP apologist opens his or her mouth. Don't let them get away with it. Repeat: there was NEVER a choice between doing TARP and doing nothing.
But Main St. did get something out of the deal. Delinquent borrowers were able to apply for HAMP. HAMP allowed banks to give borrowers false hope for a few months while they continued to pay their mortgages out of their life savings. Banks and servicers also collected some nice fees for letting borrowers sign up for the program -- on a temporary basis. Real nice. See here and here.(LINKS AT OP) Main St. thanks you, Mr. Secretary!
Myth 3. TARP left our financial system weak.
Timmy doesn't even try on this one. Makes some claim about how government ownership of Fannie, Freddie and AIG, together with Bank of America's purchase of Merrill, makes the system stronger. What? Oh, and then there were the non-stress tests. Big whoop. Question: If the financial system is so strong and stable, then why is the Obama administration still so afraid of ruffling its feathers? And why are they terrified of honest accounting? Well?.... (Cue crickets.)
Myth 4. TARP left the banking system more concentrated and more vulnerable to a crisis.
Geithner admits that this one isn't a myth at all. So that's 4 Myths, but who's counting? Still, it's OK that our banks are bigger than they were before the crisis, Geithner says, because Europe's banks are even more concentrated (and everyone knows they're not at risk of a crisis). But it's also OK to have Too Bigger To Fail banks because now we have this wonderful thing called the Dodd-Frank Act. And it has "a clear prohibition on taxpayer-funded bailouts." Meh. Sorry if I'm underwhelmed by a "clear prohibition." Because as one wag points out, "We wipe our asses with the Constitution these days, in case you haven't noticed." Moreover, most of those credit default swaps that made them so afraid in 2008 are still out there. There is ZERO chance that the resolution authority is actually put into use.
Myth 5. TARP was part of Obama's strategy to take more control over the economy.
Anyone who thinks that Obama has "control" over Wall St. is out of his tree. In any case, Geithner helpfully points out here, that not only did Democrats like Obama fall to their knees in 2008 and fellate the TBTF banks, but so did Bush and a bunch of Republicans. Glad you see it our way, Timmy.
--
The bottom line on TARP is that almost no one has been held accountable. And almost everyone, even those most responsible, have kept their jobs, been promoted, been awarded huge bonuses, or have ridden off into the sunset with millions in ill-gotten gains. That includes Tim Geithner. He was president of the NY Fed from 2003-2008 and oversaw the crisis from start to finish. Because of the failures of people like Geithner, our entire monetary and fiscal order has been re-arranged to serve the interests of a few at the very top of the pyramid. Because of the actions (and inactions) of people like Geithner, the middle class has borne most of the risk associated with TARP and all the other bailout programs. And much of that risk is still with us, whether in terms of our currency, the national debt, or social and political unrest.
The message of the bailouts, like Geithner's message to us, is clear. The guys at the top get served first, at our expense. We are expected to be grateful that people like Geithner have bailed them out. And the buck stops nowhere.
How many times does Geithner lie in his latest op-ed. Tim is thinking 5.
---
By Dr. Pitchfork
In "5 Myths About TARP," Tim Geithner joins Steve Rattner and Herb Allison in the parade of Washington insiders who have gone out of their way to tout the great success of TARP, calling it the "most effective government program in recent memory." If you think the Timmy doth protest too much, methinks you're exactly right.
Geithner starts by rehearsing the same, tiresome narrative we've heard a thousand times:
TARP was essential to averting a second Great Depression, stabilizing a collapsing financial system, protecting the savings of Americans and restoring the flow of credit that is the oxygen of the economy. And it helped achieve all that at a lower cost than anyone expected.
Then Geithner proceeds to debunk some "myths" about TARP.
Myth 1. TARP cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Well, TARP did cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This isn't a myth. $700B were authorized by the legislation. Nearly $400B were appropriated and disbursed. And according to the latest figures from the U.S. Treasury (that would be the little outfit where the author, Tim Geithner, hangs his hat every day) roughly half of that amount, about $200B, remains outstanding. And the costs of TARP are a "myth"? Apparently Geithner thinks we should give him a cookie just because some of the money might be paid back -- in the future. Don't be fooled by headline numbers saying TARP may cost "only $30B," because those numbers are based on wildly optimistic projections of what Treasury's ownership of AIG, GM and C will be worth.
And how did the banks pay back TARP? First, we got rid of mark-to-market accounting, changing their balance sheets overnight, and then the banks have been borrowing from the Fed at ZERO and earning the spread on Treasuries or anything else they wanted to put the money in. The effect of this process is a transfer of wealth from savers (who depend on bank CD's) and pension funds (who are often required to invest in government bonds) to the same banks that took money through TARP. This cost amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars each of the last two years. And TARP had negligible costs?
Besides, like we've said before, all the talk about getting the TARP paid back is a red herring. If someone breaks into your house, tears the place up, and then sticks a gun to your head demanding $700B, you don't thank him when he pays you back. Because a) you had a gun stuck in your face, and b) your house is still a freakin' mess.
Myth 2. TARP was a gift to Wall St. that did nothing for Main St.
This is Geithner's attempt to construct a straw man (TARP "did nothing"
and then blow him down. Was TARP a gift to Wall St.? Yes. What did TARP do for Main St.? Not much. Geithner's claim here is that TARP helped stop a financial panic that would have hurt the rest of the economy. First of all, contrary to popular belief, TARP wasn't actually very helpful in the crisis and may have accelerated it. The actions that truly helped in the crisis period are discussed here: http://dailybail.com/home/play-tarp-nonsense-whack-a-mole-with-former-auto-czar-steve.html But we were never faced with a choice between TARP and doing nothing while the world burned. This false choice between TARP or nothing is repeated almost every single time a TARP apologist opens his or her mouth. Don't let them get away with it. Repeat: there was NEVER a choice between doing TARP and doing nothing.
But Main St. did get something out of the deal. Delinquent borrowers were able to apply for HAMP. HAMP allowed banks to give borrowers false hope for a few months while they continued to pay their mortgages out of their life savings. Banks and servicers also collected some nice fees for letting borrowers sign up for the program -- on a temporary basis. Real nice. See here and here.(LINKS AT OP) Main St. thanks you, Mr. Secretary!
Myth 3. TARP left our financial system weak.
Timmy doesn't even try on this one. Makes some claim about how government ownership of Fannie, Freddie and AIG, together with Bank of America's purchase of Merrill, makes the system stronger. What? Oh, and then there were the non-stress tests. Big whoop. Question: If the financial system is so strong and stable, then why is the Obama administration still so afraid of ruffling its feathers? And why are they terrified of honest accounting? Well?.... (Cue crickets.)
Myth 4. TARP left the banking system more concentrated and more vulnerable to a crisis.
Geithner admits that this one isn't a myth at all. So that's 4 Myths, but who's counting? Still, it's OK that our banks are bigger than they were before the crisis, Geithner says, because Europe's banks are even more concentrated (and everyone knows they're not at risk of a crisis). But it's also OK to have Too Bigger To Fail banks because now we have this wonderful thing called the Dodd-Frank Act. And it has "a clear prohibition on taxpayer-funded bailouts." Meh. Sorry if I'm underwhelmed by a "clear prohibition." Because as one wag points out, "We wipe our asses with the Constitution these days, in case you haven't noticed." Moreover, most of those credit default swaps that made them so afraid in 2008 are still out there. There is ZERO chance that the resolution authority is actually put into use.
Myth 5. TARP was part of Obama's strategy to take more control over the economy.
Anyone who thinks that Obama has "control" over Wall St. is out of his tree. In any case, Geithner helpfully points out here, that not only did Democrats like Obama fall to their knees in 2008 and fellate the TBTF banks, but so did Bush and a bunch of Republicans. Glad you see it our way, Timmy.
--
The bottom line on TARP is that almost no one has been held accountable. And almost everyone, even those most responsible, have kept their jobs, been promoted, been awarded huge bonuses, or have ridden off into the sunset with millions in ill-gotten gains. That includes Tim Geithner. He was president of the NY Fed from 2003-2008 and oversaw the crisis from start to finish. Because of the failures of people like Geithner, our entire monetary and fiscal order has been re-arranged to serve the interests of a few at the very top of the pyramid. Because of the actions (and inactions) of people like Geithner, the middle class has borne most of the risk associated with TARP and all the other bailout programs. And much of that risk is still with us, whether in terms of our currency, the national debt, or social and political unrest.
The message of the bailouts, like Geithner's message to us, is clear. The guys at the top get served first, at our expense. We are expected to be grateful that people like Geithner have bailed them out. And the buck stops nowhere.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180058/activist-academic-candidate-zephyr-teachout-bids-governor-new-york
Zephyr Teachout, with her roots in the insurgent Howard Dean presidential campaign, ties to the Occupy movement and history of spirited activism of democracy issues, reflects the inside-outside sensibility of many progressives who have maintained a frustrated relationship with the Democratic Party.
She’s worked inside the party, developing groundbreaking online strategies for Dean’s 2004 campaign, yet she has been outspoken in her criticism of Democrats who fail to uphold progressive values. Just two weeks ago, after Federal Communications Commission chair Tom Wheeler advanced a proposal that would undermine net neutrality, Teachout wrote a Politico piece headlined “Obama Should Fire His FCC Chair.”
And Teachout has been at odds with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, pressuring the business-friendly Democrat to use his political muscle to reform campaign finance laws and reduce the influence of corporate cash on elections and government. Cuomo has disappointed plenty of progressives in New York, not just on the campaign finance issue but on everything from fracking to education policy. And now there is a prospect that Teachout will offer them an alternative on the ballot line of the state’s Working Families Party.
“It feels like Cuomo is part of this broken system, and he is not going to fix it,” she says. “Voters in New York want a real choice, and right now, with just [Republican Rob] Astorino and Cuomo—they seem to just be fighting about who can give more tax breaks to the billionaires.”
The tech-savvy academic, who teaches law at Fordham University, is up with a website on which she declares, “I’m running because New Yorkers need an economy and democracy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.” She’s identifying herself as the “Working Families Democrat for Governor.”
Zephyr Teachout, with her roots in the insurgent Howard Dean presidential campaign, ties to the Occupy movement and history of spirited activism of democracy issues, reflects the inside-outside sensibility of many progressives who have maintained a frustrated relationship with the Democratic Party.
She’s worked inside the party, developing groundbreaking online strategies for Dean’s 2004 campaign, yet she has been outspoken in her criticism of Democrats who fail to uphold progressive values. Just two weeks ago, after Federal Communications Commission chair Tom Wheeler advanced a proposal that would undermine net neutrality, Teachout wrote a Politico piece headlined “Obama Should Fire His FCC Chair.”
And Teachout has been at odds with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, pressuring the business-friendly Democrat to use his political muscle to reform campaign finance laws and reduce the influence of corporate cash on elections and government. Cuomo has disappointed plenty of progressives in New York, not just on the campaign finance issue but on everything from fracking to education policy. And now there is a prospect that Teachout will offer them an alternative on the ballot line of the state’s Working Families Party.
“It feels like Cuomo is part of this broken system, and he is not going to fix it,” she says. “Voters in New York want a real choice, and right now, with just [Republican Rob] Astorino and Cuomo—they seem to just be fighting about who can give more tax breaks to the billionaires.”
The tech-savvy academic, who teaches law at Fordham University, is up with a website on which she declares, “I’m running because New Yorkers need an economy and democracy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.” She’s identifying herself as the “Working Families Democrat for Governor.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/29/peasant-revolt/
The Guardian has a fascinating article about how the Masters of the Universe are starting to realize that screwing 99% of the Earth’s population will lead to a populist uprising. In other words, the peasants are about to revolt and the aristocracy is getting worried.
So will they amend their ways? Will they put a check on their enormous greed? Will they stop rigging the system and stealing millions billions trillions from the people that do all the work?
Hellllllll no!
By “nuanced”, of course, they mean “shovel copious amounts of bullshit.” Because if there’s one thing the rich despise more than anything else, it’s a well-informed populace capable of rationally discussing the issue of income inequality and corporate greed.
But the sentence really sums up the 1%’s resistance to government regulation is the one in bold above: “We will be led down a policy path of increased regulation and greater state control of institutions, businesses and the people at the heart of them, which will fatally cripple the very system that has been responsible for economic prosperity.” This is absolutely correct! Increased government control would fatally cripple that system. What the 1% neglects to mention is that the economic prosperity they’re so protective of only exists for them. More specifically, it only exists for them at the expense of everyone else.
Under the old system of tighter regulations and higher taxes, the rich still got richer but so did the people that provided the labor. Banks still made money but they couldn’t rob people blind or risk the entire economy. The 1% got rid of that system because they just weren’t getting richer fast enough. The current system lets them destroy the economy and still accumulate mass amounts of wealth in the process. What’s not to love about that? If you’re already rich, that is...
MORE--MUST READ
The Guardian has a fascinating article about how the Masters of the Universe are starting to realize that screwing 99% of the Earth’s population will lead to a populist uprising. In other words, the peasants are about to revolt and the aristocracy is getting worried.
So will they amend their ways? Will they put a check on their enormous greed? Will they stop rigging the system and stealing millions billions trillions from the people that do all the work?
Hellllllll no!
Far from acknowledging the predatory and unequalising impact of neoliberal capitalism, the document shows that the inclusive capitalism project is concerned with PR to promote “a more nuanced view of society,” without which “there is a risk that… we will be led down a policy path of increased regulation and greater state control of institutions, businesses and the people at the heart of them, which will fatally cripple the very system that has been responsible for economic prosperity.”
The project is thus designed “to influence political and business opinion” and to target public opinion through a “media campaign that seeks to engage major outlets.”
The project is thus designed “to influence political and business opinion” and to target public opinion through a “media campaign that seeks to engage major outlets.”
By “nuanced”, of course, they mean “shovel copious amounts of bullshit.” Because if there’s one thing the rich despise more than anything else, it’s a well-informed populace capable of rationally discussing the issue of income inequality and corporate greed.
But the sentence really sums up the 1%’s resistance to government regulation is the one in bold above: “We will be led down a policy path of increased regulation and greater state control of institutions, businesses and the people at the heart of them, which will fatally cripple the very system that has been responsible for economic prosperity.” This is absolutely correct! Increased government control would fatally cripple that system. What the 1% neglects to mention is that the economic prosperity they’re so protective of only exists for them. More specifically, it only exists for them at the expense of everyone else.
Under the old system of tighter regulations and higher taxes, the rich still got richer but so did the people that provided the labor. Banks still made money but they couldn’t rob people blind or risk the entire economy. The 1% got rid of that system because they just weren’t getting richer fast enough. The current system lets them destroy the economy and still accumulate mass amounts of wealth in the process. What’s not to love about that? If you’re already rich, that is...
MORE--MUST READ
TIMMY DID IT HIS WAY...HE QUIT!
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/14/fiscal-cliff-geithner/
?w=340&h=255
Isn't that ...... gross?
I hate to say it, but the US does it, too.
By investing $1 million in creating a new U.S. business that employs ten workers, you may qualify for a U.S. green card....EB-5 Investor Visa: Who Qualifies?
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/eb-5-investor-who-qualifies.html
Like many countries, the U.S. provides a means of entry for wealthy people who will pump money into its economy. (See the Immigration and Nationality Act, at I.N.A. § 203(b)(5),8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5).) This is known as the employment Fifth Preference or EB-5 immigrant visa (which allows permanent residence immediately upon entry to the U.S.). However, applicants for a U.S. green card based on investment must not only invest between $500,000 and $1million in a U.S. business, they must take an active role in that business (though they don’t need to control it).
Green cards for investors are limited in number, to 10,000 per year. Of these, 3,000 are reserved for investors in rural areas or areas of high unemployment. If more than 10,000 people were to apply per year, you would be placed on a waiting list based on your Priority Date (the day you filed the first portion of your application).
But don’t worry yet: This 10,000 limit has never been reached. What’s more, only principal applicants are counted toward the 10,000 limit. Accompanying relatives are not. Therefore, many more than 10,000 people per year can be admitted with EB-5 green cards.
Get a lawyer for this visa! If you can afford an investment-based green card, you can afford the services of a high-quality immigration lawyer. The EB-5 category is one of the most difficult categories under which to establish eligibility, and absolutely the most expensive. It is well worth paying for legal advice before taking any significant steps toward applying for this visa. If you try the application once on your own and fail, you may damage your chances of success in the future. What’s more, because you are expected to make the investment first, and apply for the green card later, you could waste a lot of money.
Pluses and Minuses of an EB-5 Green Card
Here are some of the advantages and limitations to an investment-based green card:
USCIS rejects many more applications than it accepts in this category. That is partly because the eligibility requirements are narrow, and partly because of the category’s history of fraud and misuse. Some lawyers counsel their clients to use their wealth to fit themselves into another category with a greater chance of success. For example, by investing in a company outside the United States that has a U.S. affiliate, the person might qualify to immigrate as a transferring executive or manager (priority worker, in category EB-1).
As long as you have money to invest and can demonstrate that you are in the process of investing it in a for-profit business, you yourself do not need to have any particular business training or experience. Nor does the law restrict entry to applicants from certain countries, although the immigration authorities are more suspicious when dealing with applicants from countries that have exhibited a pattern of fraudulent applications.
You can choose to invest your money in a business anywhere in the U.S., so long as you maintain your investment for at least three years and are actively engaged with the company you invest in.
After approximately the first three years, you can work for another company or not work at all.
You must actually live in the United States -- you may not use the green card only for work and travel purposes.
Your spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 can get green cards as accompanying relatives.
Your green card will initially be only conditional -- that is, it will expire in two years, after which you will need to apply to renew it and make it permanent.
As with all green cards, yours can be taken away if you misuse it. For example, you live outside the U.S. for too long, commit a crime, or even fail to advise the immigration authorities of your change of address, you may become deportable. However, if you keep your green card for five years and live in the U.S. continuously during that time (counting your two years as a conditional resident), you can apply for U.S. citizenship.
Are You Eligible for a Green Card Through Investment?
Green cards through investment are available to someone who invests a minimum of $1 million in creating a new U.S. business or restructuring or expanding one that already exists.
Where you got the money in the first place does not matter. Gifts and inheritances, for example, are fine. The key is that you obtained the money lawfully.
The required dollar amount of the investment may be reduced to $500,000 under certain circumstances, described in, “When $500,000 Is Enough to Get an Investment-Based Green Card (EB-5).“
USCIS also has the authority to require a greater amount of investment than $1million. This may occur when the investor chooses to locate the business in an area that’s doing well economically, with low unemployment. At present, USCIS policy is to not raise dollar investment requirements on this basis.
The business in which you invest must employ at least ten full-time workers (not counting independent contractors), produce a service or product, and benefit the U.S. economy. Full-time employment is defined as requiring at least 35 hours of service per week.
The investor, his or her spouse, and any children may not be counted among the ten employees. Other family members may be counted, however. The ten workers do not necessarily have to be U.S. citizens, but they must have more than a temporary (nonimmigrant) U.S. visa. Green card holders and any other foreign nationals who have the legal right to indefinitely live and work in the U.S. can all be counted toward the required ten.
It’s also important to realize that you won’t be able to send the money, sit back, and await your green card. The investor must be actively engaged in the company, either in a managerial or a policy-forming role. (See the Code of Federal Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(5).) Passive investments, such as land speculation, do not ordinarily qualify you for a green card in this category—except under a temporary program described in “When $500,000 Is Enough to Get an Investment-Based Green Card (EB-5)”.
The investment must be made in a new commercial enterprise. You can either create an original business, buy a business that was established after November 29, 1990, or buy a business and restructure or reorganize it so that a new business entity is formed.
There are two exceptions to the rule that the investment must be in a “new” commercial enterprise. The first exception is that you can buy an existing business and expand it. You would need to increase either the number of employees or the net worth of the business by at least 40%. You would also need to make the full required investment ($1 million or $500,000 depending on location) and you would still need to show that your investment created at least ten full-time jobs for U.S. workers.
The second exception to the “new” commercial enterprise rule is that you can buy a troubled business and save it from going under. To do this, you would need to show that the business has been around for at least two years and has had an annual loss of 20% of the company’s net worth at some point over the 24 months leading up to the purchase. You must still invest the full required amount, but you are not required to show that you created ten jobs. Instead, you would need to show that for two years from the date of purchase, you employed at least as many people as were employed at the time of the investment.
Rich Chinese overwhelm U.S. visa program
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/25/news/economy/china-us-immigrant-visa/
A dramatic surge in interest from wealthy Chinese is threatening to overwhelm a U.S. program offering investors green cards in exchange for cash.
The number of applicants is now so great that the government might run out of permits.
Any foreigner willing to commit at least $500,000 and create 10 jobs in America can apply for an investor immigrant visa -- also known as an EB-5. The demand from mainland Chinese eager to move abroad has already led the U.S. government to warn the program could hit a wall as early as this summer. Chinese nationals account for more than 80% of visas issued, compared to just 13% a decade ago, according to government data compiled by CNNMoney. That translates to nearly 6,900 visas for Chinese nationals last year, a massive bump up from 2004, when only 16 visas were granted to Chinese.
"The program has literally taken off to the point that in China, the minute anybody hears I'm an immigration lawyer, the first thing they say is, 'Can we get an EB-5 visa?' " said Bernard Wolfsdorf, founder of the Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group.
"There is a panic being created in China about the demand getting so big that there is going to be a visa waiting line," he said.
(Related story: Invest $1 million, try for a U.S. green card)
The EB-5 program is limited to 10,000 visas per year, a number that includes visas granted to an investor's spouse and children. At the moment, there are 7,000 applications pending, said David Hirson, a partner at immigration law firm Fragomen. If just half are approved -- and each investor moved with two family members -- the program would easily surpass its annual limit.
Immigration lawyers said that even more applications have been made since Canada ended a similar program last month that was also popular with Chinese.
For rich Chinese, opportunities in America are attractive. A green card offers a way to send their children to college, escape heavy pollution and enjoy an improved quality of life, said Kate Kalmykov, an attorney with Greenberg Taurig. Plus, the EB-5 program is relatively cheap.
"The cost is very reasonable in relation to other countries," Hirson said. Australia, for example, requires a $4.5 million investment -- nine times the minimum required in the U.S.
(Related story: Europe's golden visas lure rich Chinese)
The comparatively low cost makes the program a viable option for increasing numbers of Chinese -- especially as household wealth in the country booms. China now boasts more than one million millionaires, according to a study by Hurun Report, an organization that tracks wealth in China. The program's popularity has even spurred a cottage industry of investment consultants, immigration specialists and specialized relocation agents that cater specifically to the Chinese, Hirson said. Supporters say immigrant investors have provided an important alternative source of financing, benefiting projects from Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards real estate development to a North Dakota factory that makes biodegradable food containers.
(Related story: Where rich Chinese want to live)
But there are plenty of critics, too. Some argue that the program is a way for the global elite to buy U.S. citizenship. Others say the scheme has too much red tape, and believe parts of it are mismanaged to the point of fraud.
Long visa waits or not, there are no signs of interest waning in China.
"The U.S. remains the most attractive country for them, because of its freedoms and its ability to cater for individual needs, including the Chinese culture," Hirson said. "It's a very comfortable transition physically."
