Third Party & Independents Archives

A Gilded Age Redux

Looking for markers that might reflect on our current state of the nation it might be useful to review the era in our history around the time of ‘the gilded age’. Roughly delimited by the end of the civil war and the beginning of WWI, the nation plunged headlong into what was to become the ‘industrial revolution’.

Some historians believe the gilded age got its start from war profiteering but there were a number of players and events that provided fuel for the revolution.
Gold was discovered in California ten years before the end of the civil war and a mining bonanza spread through Nevada and other western territories. Industry began to grow and a wave of immigrants came in to provide the necessary labor. A transatlantic cable was laid, John Rockefeller began development of the oil industry. Railroad mileage rose from 35'000 miles in 1865 to over 163'000 in 1890, almost a fivefold increase. Some railroad barons moved into banking and finance. J. P. Morgan's bank was influential in creating United States Steel, General Electric, International Harvester and the Titanic. It was the railroad barons, in 1886, that managed to push 'corporate personhood' into law through the 14th amendment.

Flush with huge profits, especially from railroads and oil, these robber barons began buying up, and investing in a range of public utilities, telecommunications, street railways an gas or electricity suppliers.

Names such as Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Peabody were stamped on much of the wealth created. Neither the railroads, nor industry or banking were invented in the period between 1865 and 1914, generally accepted as the time limits of what was called the Gilded Age. The new element which drove the concentration of wealth was consolidation in search of economies of scale and the strive for monopoly.
Presidents who served during the gilded age were seemingly nondescript, perhaps so chosen as a desire to keep the fragile peace following the civil war. Citizens paid more attention to gov't/politics during the post civil war period than at any time in history of the U.S.

Following the 'Reckless Decade' or the 'Gay Nineties' of the 1890's the Progressive era, an offshoot of the 'Populist Party', came to the forefront. Progressives believed that the government needed to take a strong, proactive role in the economy by regulating big business, immigration, urban growth and to remove the tentacles of the 'special interests' like railroads and trusts from gov't.

The era began to close with the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, the beginning of WWI in April, 1917 and the stock market crash of 1929. But, the end of Gilded Age was brought about in large measure by the introduction of income and estate tax system. Income tax slowed the rate of growth for wealth and estate taxes did much to prevent wealth perpetuation through the founding families.

Mark Twain wrote a novel about 'the gilded age' and the story is still being writ large across the American stage. Some names are the same, others added, but the name of the game has remained unchanged, an interplay between corporations and government for the purpose of creating wealth.
IMO, we are living in a Gilded Age redux and likely on track for a similar outcome. Let's review some corollaries between the era of the Gilded Age and the Regan era of "greed is good'.

Gilded Age: wealthy businessmen such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, and others who needed to use the political process for their own ends tended to "purchase" political support rather than getting directly involved.
Greed is Good: through Corpocracy, corporate welfare facilitated by the courts, and campaign finance law the wealthy elite are well represented in gov't. Legal means are sufficient in this era.

Gilded Age: the Senate, whose seats were often auctioned off to the highest bidder, was known as a "rich man's club," where political favors were traded like horses-."

Greed is Good: Blagovich is the closest example I can recall.

Gilded Age: approximately 15 million immigrants arrived between 1890-1920, providing cheap labor and low wages. California farmers paid Mexican and Mexican American workers significantly less than white American workers. By the 1920s, at least three quarters of California's 200,000 farm workers were Mexican or Mexican American
Greed is Good: as of 2006, the United States accept(ed) more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1] Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.

Gilded Age: The Sherman Anti-Trust law was passed in 1890. Roosevelt approved the Glass-Steagall Banking Reform Act and began deficit spending. In 1937 he backed off on deficit spending as the Keynesian theory wasn't having the desired effect.

Greed is Good: Hart-Scoss-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act (1976) made it easier for regulators to investigate mergers for antitrust violations, but few mergers were blocked during the merger boom of the 1980s, Anti-Trust law has been on the back burner for the entire era. Glas Steagall Act gutted/repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

Gilded Age: by 1929 more than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.

Greed is Good: Approximately 42.5% of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.

Gilded Age: peaking in 1930, 1% of the wealthiest owned 42.5% of the wealth. The figure had fallen to 20% by 1980.

Greed is Good: in 1980 a steep increase in wealth of the wealthiest 1% began, rising to the highest percentage, 42.5% in 2011.

Gilded Age: jobless rate reached 25% in 1933.

Greed is Good: jobless rate is 9.1% but 16-19% if including those that have stopped looking for work.

Gilded Age: in 1941 the federal national debt per person was $5,674.

Greed is Good: in July, 2011, the federal national debt per person is $46,474, or, 8.4 times more than it was near the end of the Great Depression.

Gilded Age: from 1932 to 1929 GNP had fallen by 31%.

Greed is Good: The total $57 Trillion nation-wide debt is about 400% times larger than GDP.

Gilded Age: lost jobs were there to be reclaimed following the Great D.
Greed is Good: lost jobs went overseas and won't be returning giving us the term 'jobless recovery'. Jobs recovered will be far less substantial in wages and benefits. Where once we had 350k computer related jobs we now have 150k.
Gilded Age: the failure of the US economy was brought about solely by national interests.

Greed is Good: the failing US economy is entwined with all the major economies around the world, by design. As the PIIGS go, so goes the US.


Excerpt from this url: In 1929, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold. Now it's backed by nothing more than your faith. In 1929, credit cards and home equity loans didn't exist, and people of that era avoided debt like the plague. Today personal debt levels are near all-time highs. Iconic companies like General Motors and Lehman Brothers survived the depression without government help or bankruptcy relief, but that didn't happen this time around.
In 1929 we didn't face terrorist threats and weren't worried about a porous border allowing an influx of millions of illegal aliens. The high price of oil, oppressive regulatory environment, $40 billion monthly trade imbalance, bloated federal bureaucracy, ballooning state deficits, severely underfunded pensions, crippling tax burden and crumbling infrastructure weren't issues then either. They are now. End excerpt.

The quest for globalisation has sailed our ship of state into some rocky waters. The plan, if there is a plan, is that there will be a period of disruption as developed and developing countries reach a balance or equilibrium in economies. Noteworthy that we haven't seen any new law or policy to change course so, we aren't there yet. The Senate passed a bill recommending chastising China for currency manipulation but, that's about it. Hopefully, some people are assigned to watch out for the rocks.

People are quite anxious, as seen in the 'Occupy Wall Street' protests. There is a rising interest in a 3rd party but would take several years to project real political clout. We could arrive at depression when you awake in the morning. Perhaps we are there and just don't realize it.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at October 7, 2011 9:59 AM
Comments
Comment #330158

Roy great post. It seems we have forgotten the lessons learned by our fore fathers.

Gilded Age: the Senate, whose seats were often auctioned off to the highest bidder, was known as a “rich man’s club,” where political favors were traded like horses-.”

There are some Glenn Beck types today who actually favor getting rid of the 17th amendment to the Constitution, which served to correct the graft and corruption in the Senate.

Gilded Age: The Sherman Anti-Trust law was passed in 1890. Roosevelt approved the Glass-Steagall Banking Reform Act and began deficit spending. In 1937 he backed off on deficit spending as the Keynesian theory wasn’t having the desired effect.

Roy, two things here, one the gilded age was over and had been for some time by the ‘30’s. The effects were still being felt with the ‘29 crash and the great depression secondly the deficit spending was having an effect by ‘36. When they backed off of the deficit spending the country fell back into a recession. To say it wasn’t working doesn’t seem to add up here.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 7, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #330190

Thanks j2t2. I tended to spread the era of Gilded Age somewhat to make the observations about what happened to cause the crash and also to include some reactions to the crash. To me, the period starting with 1886 and Corporate Personhood to near the end of WWII is a great great history lesson. Covers the worst of humanity to some of the finest, IMO. It so reflects the era beginning with the 1980’s to present, ‘greed is good’ but the end chapter is yet to play out.

I was never a student re Keynesian theory but my inner workings tell me that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. In other words, there is a right way and a wrong do most anything. Sometimes you can muddle thru with the wrong way. But, the right way should of been to bust up the monopolies with anti-trust and there would have been no gilded age or gay 90’s to begin with. The trouble starts when some entity becomes ‘too big to fail’. Should never be allowed to happen. That said, Roosevelt used stimulus spending and it probably had some positive effect and then along came WWII which kicked off real economic activity.

The difference between then and now is that in the 40’s it didn’t matter what kind of monetary policy you threw out there. The lost jobs didn’t go anywhere and with WWII both men and women were maxed out in working at something. They couldn’t fail, impossible.

Today is different. Lost jobs went overseas. They aren’t coming back. The Corpocracy knew that, yet they threw money at the system as if WWIII was just around the corner to kickstart things again. I agree, that you can put lipstick on the pig so long as you keep throwing money at the problem. If we dumped another 20T at the problem I’m sure things would look better until the last $T was expended. Things are different, way different,even as I point to the similarities between then and today. No mfctring, import based economy, house prices and middle class wages on the decline, all that tautology stuff - - -

Amazing thing is that the Corpocracy is so wrapped up pursuing globalisation. They are determined to ride this pig to the very end, wherever that takes us. I’ve not seen one move by the Corpocracy toward changing course. Nothing from the Bush admin and nothing from the current. There is a Senate bill afloat that would chastise China for currency manipulation but that will never see the light of day. China IS globalisation and we shalt not tinker with that - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 7, 2011 9:37 PM
Comment #330191

“In 1929, credit cards and home equity loans didn’t exist, and people of that era avoided debt like the plague. Today personal debt levels are near all-time highs.”

Roy,

The implication from that link is that private sector debt was not a problem in 1929 and is today. That is completely untrue. Private sector debt exploded in the 20s to over 250% of GDP. It was an unprecedented increase. The ratio of private to public sector debt approximated 7.4 times private to public sector debt. Currently and in the run up to this economic collapse, private sector debt again exploded to levels not seen since prior to the Great Depression, reaching approximately 350% of GDP. The ratio of private to public sector debt went to about 7.6 times private to public sector debt, a figure eerily reminiscent of the Great Depression.

The elephant in the room is the private sector debt and the ability to manage that debt without complete collapse of the US or the world’s economy. Our economy, thus far, has been kept alive due to a greater and much more rapid government response to the defaulting private sector debt.

While many are concerned about the government increase in deficit spending, they should be more concerned about the ability of the private sector to manage its balance sheet repair. It is a far greater problem.


Posted by: Rich at October 7, 2011 10:01 PM
Comment #330193

http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/private-sector-debt/

Agree Rich, the above url relates that the PIIGS troubles are with private debt as well. And, the ‘toxic assets’ are still to be dealt with.

If one really dwells on our economic plight it looks hopeless, ‘untenable’. And, as I replied to j2t2, the Corpocracy has taken no action, that I can discern, to try and put the economy on a different tack. Maybe something will surface after the ECB/EU settles the Greece loan thing. And Greece - Italy - Spain??? Too scary to even blog about, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 7, 2011 11:09 PM
Comment #330197

In the 20’s people borrowed money to speculate in stocks, thinking the bubble would never burst!

Posted by: j2t2 at October 8, 2011 9:07 AM
Comment #330202


Roy, some thoughts on the government spending during the Great Depression.

Do you think that powerful forces aligned against public spending could have helped to thwart it’s effectiveness?

We see a situation today where corporations aren’t interested in producing jobs in America no matter how much the government tries to stimulate the economy. As far as many of their owners are concerned, the government should just try to stimulate consumers spending rhetorically, eliminate corporate taxes and forget about the jobs so our job market can be made more reflective of the current trends in mega business.

Do you think the dust bowl contributed to making it harder to defeat the depression?

Do you lend any credence to the possibility of government spending preventing as many as a million people from starving to death, being evicted from their homes; the hope given to millions that someone, anyone, the government, cared about their plight when it was obvious to all that the wealthy sitting on their wealth cared little for what happened to them? IMO, the Progressive legislation and the New Deal were Americas alternative to socialist revolution. They saved capitalism by regulating it and making it more responsive to the needs of all rather than an elite few. The war may wax and wain in intensity but is is a continuous war.

I think it is easy for people who did not experience that situation to say they should have just tuffed it out, especially those who think they have the economic means to tuff it out.

Posted by: jlw at October 8, 2011 5:11 PM
Comment #330215

Jlw, I don’t know history well enough to enlighten anyone on Keynesian theory and as to how well it worked in this or that situation. I tend to operate from what I perceive is right or wrong based on information at hand.

Sure, it seems logical that if powerful interests interfered with stimulus spending during the Great D that would likely impede or limit the desired effect. Same goes for the dust bowl.

Keynes aside, I believe that gov’t has a role to play in hard times. When people fall below the poverty level then gov’t should step in and provide reasonable support.
But, THEN I believe gov’t should take action to revive the economy. There is an ad going around now about the ‘F’ word – famine. Making the statement that famine is man made. That may be correct to a small degree, a greedy dictator, etc, but in this country hard times are brought on by artificial entities such as corporations, mortgage industry, banking and financial institutions IN BED WITH THE GOVT and using gov’t as a proxy to have their way with the people.

Yes, the gov’t has a responsibility to help out in hard times and they also have the responsibility to REGULATE COMMERCE so hard times don’t happen, which they failed to do in the Gilded Age and failed to do during the 08 recession and are failing to do as we poke on our keyboards. I give gov’t a ‘P’ for ‘pass’ on helping folks that need help. I give them and ‘F’ for failing to regulate commerce and a ‘FF’ for climbing into the marriage bed of Corpocracy.

Gilded Age: throw Anti-trust law out the door and merge them up to monopolies and conglomerates.
Greed is Good: throw Anti-trust law out the door and merge them up to monopolies and conglomerates and fund their relocation to foreign shores.

There are people protesting all around the country as we speak looking for justice, some action, any action, as a reaction to the ‘famine’ brought on the people by artificial entities.

We can only hope that those protesting come to realize where the real problem lies – with corporate personhood law. We have the best gov’t money can buy for one reason – corporate personhood law.

I totally agree that corporations aren’t interested in producing jobs in the US. Creating jobs is not on the list of things to do for any sane corporation. The goal of the corporation is to maximize profit – period. In order to do that much of heavy industry moved overseas to escape EPA and similar regs and for the cheapest labor. Others relocated for close proximity to new customers but moreso for proximity with the local gov’t to enable Corpocracy and corporate welfare. With few or no rules – a Gilded Age Redux. Then there is mechanized production lines and robots that have replaced many a worker.

Jobs are gone, ain’t coming back. A corporation would only consider returning stateside if their profit level could be retained or improved, say, through gov’t incentive or corporate welfare. Wasn’t enough to hold Solyndra up. Remaining stateside corporations are generally, paper pushers – financial, mortgage, insurance, health, intellectual property, are doing fine, making payroll and will likely remain, or keep a leg in this country.

Just business people making decisions about how to manage. But, what is wrong is that the US taxpayer is subsidizing business through corporate welfare and the tax code. Businesses finance the cost of political campaigns and lobby for perks such as the Solyndra deal. They lobby to put the risk of doing business on the US taxpayer, such as the Solyndra deal. In a nutshell, there is too much money influence in gov’t/politics and the culprit is the artificial entity – corporation.

Were it not for the ‘money influence’ we might see gov’t begin to take actions to alleviate the recession: implement a flat income tax, implement a VAT for trade, implement anti-trust law, stop corporate welfare, limit corporate incentives to R&D and only in the interest of national security, gain control of our borders and stop immigration for economic purposes.

Unfortunately, we won’t see any of this, jlw. The Corpocracy is hell bent on pursuing globalisation. Your heating fuel bill will be delivered to you on a card of fixed size with a certain number of fields for information. That bill will be exactly like every other bill sent to every other person on earth and will likely be printed in English. Until that happens, jlw, we just need to sit tight and wait until US wages reach an equilibrium with wages around the world.

IMO, the only way out is through a new 3rd party with a diff pol att. A party with THE agenda of abolishing corporate personhood and implementing REAL campaign finance reform. In so doing we will have removed the money influence from gov’t/politics and be free to implement reform that can extract us from recession/depression.

Rule by Corpocracy – are you on board, jlw.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 8, 2011 8:57 PM
Comment #330236


Roy, I am on board for a government, business, labor coalition that is most mutually beneficial to the nation as a whole. A sports team with a well diversified group of players with a team attitude will beat a team of individualistic superstar prima donnas.

I to believe the government should help people when the fall below the poverty line, but the rub is that, with the exception of teenagers who are not bearing the full brunt of providing for themselves, millions of Americans earn a wage that is below the poverty line. As a result, millions are eligible for government assistance, creating animosity which the right wing propagandists take full advantage of by scapegoating the poor rather than addressing the injustice.

If a third party advocating for a national coalition of mutual benefit for all comes down the pike, I will certainly lend my support to it. Till then, I will support the Wall Street protests. I am preparing to make signs to start a Protest Wall Street affiliation in my rural village.

Posted by: jlw at October 9, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #330251

jlw, 7 banks hold 80% of deposits. Rather than forcing the taxpayers to bail out these banks under the premise of ‘too big to fail’ why not bust them up under anti-trust. For some 400M people is it not better to have 200-300 big banks in action?

Why is there no regulation to prevent monopoly, nip it in the bud soon as it happens, etc?

You can bet when the Rep’s take over in 12 they will start to relieve the big banks of their toxic assets. They will use inflation to eat the cost of debt up over a decade and most likely go back to stimulus spending, running the debt much higher.

Whatever action the Rep’s take, just like the Dem’s, they will put the entire risk on the taxpayer leaving business completely untouched.

Before we can even think of a national coalition for mututal benefit or any REAL type of reform we need to abolish corporate personhood and implement real campaign finance remove and in so doing remove the money influence from politics/gov’t. That can only be done thru a 3rd party wit - - - -

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 9, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #330254

http://murrayrothbard.com/Bush_and_the_Recession.html

Down with Keynesian - up with Anti-Trust!!

Comical but, sad to see the right attack the protesters just as the left attacked the Tea Party.

There is a centrist, populist alternative - Republic Sentry Party.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 9, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #330256

“Rather than forcing the taxpayers to bail out these banks under the premise of ‘too big to fail’ why not bust them up under anti-trust.”

The problem is that they have not violated any anti-trust laws. There is no evidence of illegal price fixing or other action that would be a violation of the anti-trust laws. Just being big doesn’t mean that they have violated any law.

The easiest way to have gotten rid of the TBTF banks was to have simply let them go bankrupt. Rightly or wrongly, regulators felt that there was no mechanism to accomplish an orderly bankruptcy without disrupting basic national banking functions (payment system, etc.). One of the focuses of the financial reform act was to provide for a mechanism in the future for the orderly liquidation of a large banking enterprise.

The other alternative is to simply legislate the maximum size of a banking entity. Perhaps, more importantly is to reinstate the firewall of Glass-Steagall. Good luck with those proposals with the amount of money pouring into both parties from the financial sector.

Posted by: Rich at October 9, 2011 9:54 PM
Comment #330274

Rich, there should be regulations designed to take the sting out of bankrupting any large entity.

The goal should be to never let a business acquire ‘too big to fail’ status. Regulations should be in place that triggers anti-trust when a business reaches a certain dollar amount in assets. The limit might be different for different kinds of businesses. Another trigger might be when a corporation/conglomerate owns/controls a certain number of companies or subs. I recall that Tyco owned more than 600 companies at one time.

Regulations should be in place to trigger on $$ and scope, as monopoly can be established either way.

It’s been merger mania beginning with Regan and, I agree, we are going to see anti-trust used going forward.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 10, 2011 10:05 AM
Comment #330276

“The goal should be to never let a business acquire ‘too big to fail’ status.”

Roy,

Agree. This seems to be one of those problems that everybody agrees upon but nobody has a solution. The very concept is an admission that something is very wrong with the regulatory system.

One of the major arguments raised in defense of the large TBTF institutions is that they are indispensable in attracting massive capital investment into the US and only at their size can US financial firms compete effectively in the world markets. In other words, we need our giants slugging it out for a lion’s share of the financial markets even if they are fatally flawed giants. So, the compromise is to build some sort of safety net under them in the event they fail again.


Posted by: Rich at October 10, 2011 12:24 PM
Comment #330279


Rich, is deceiving investors a criminal offence? If so, the banks are guilty and they are being sued because of it.

IMO, we should definitely examine the role that these mega banks are supposed to have in the global economy. The Europeans, other countries and the U.S. are experiencing significant economic stress because these banks were good at attracting foreign investments. Attracting foreign investments to build roads and factories is preferable to attracting foreign derivatives buyers.

Posted by: jlw at October 10, 2011 1:00 PM
Comment #330286

Rich, would China prefer to have a loan thru a single TBTF institution or would they rather spread the risk by dealing with several lenders?
This ‘indispensible’ BS is just that, BS.
The TBTF’s arent’ waiting around. They will seek to merge and conglomerate with other intl players, a GE-Siemens for example, in trying to make it seem more impossible to bust them up. The longer we wait the more difficult it will become.
It would not be hard at all for regulators to determine when a monopoly stops innovating and competing. Another good trigger – if you start buying up you competition rather than innovating you are a good candidate for anti-trust.
For example, we should have 40-60 telecoms instead of four. Gov’t should regulate to stress seamless service nation wide but give room for innovation and competition in telecom related products/services. Nationwide service is a ‘communal’ thing, national security, effects the majority, etc. No reason there can’t be regulations to support such. Gov’t surveys/lays the pipeline and the different gas/oil companies use it. Electric grid, same.
Otherwise- - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 10, 2011 3:53 PM
Comment #330304

“…would China prefer to have a loan thru a single TBTF institution or would they rather spread the risk by dealing with several lenders?”

Roy, I don’t disagree with you. I was simply pointing out the main argument for the TBTF banks. It simply comes down to big is better. I do think, however, that much of the mania to save the TBTF banks and their investors has a lot to do with the need for capital inflow into the US. Nobody seems willing to make a sovereign fund take a haircut on an investment in the US.

Posted by: Rich at October 10, 2011 10:02 PM
Comment #330314

Bulldogs of art and oakley sunglasses cheap with a smooth edge of attitude for your active lifestyle.Engineered for who understand that style is something you define for yourself oakley sunglasses. So if you need its opinion,the highest quality cheap oakley sunglasses is the best for you! cheap oakley sunglasses continue to make their mark on with discount oakley sunglasses legend grows with each new design of sunglasses and each new world-class athlete who sees the top of his game behind the lenses of our sport sunglasses.100% protection against UV and harmful blue light.welcome to our oakley sunglasses outlet store.find your like at oakley sunglasses discount store.

Posted by: oakley sunglasses outlet at October 10, 2011 10:13 PM
Comment #330377

Oakley? Say, if you ain’t using a fictitious name then you are part of Luxottica, the Italian eyeware monopoly. Yeah, I remember, the company that used the ‘Pincer Monopoly’ to roll up a bunch of US eyeware companies and parlay that into a takeover over Oakley in June 2007. Well, I don’t buy no s..t from a monopoly unless I don’t know what I’m doing.

Yeah, soon as Regan, Greed is Good, axed anti-trust law Luxottica set about to monopoly up, buying LensCrafters in 95, Ray-Ban in 99, Sunglass Hut chain of nineteen hundred stores in 2001. In 2004 you picked up Cole National of Pearle Vision and the optical depts. at Sears, Target and JCPenney. Also running the optical depts. at Macy’s and other Federated stores. Picked up Oakley, Bright Eyes and Sunglass Icon in 2007for a cool $2.1B, eventually spreading through Europe, Australia, and China.

Reminds one of the time back in 2006 when the gov’t approved Whirlpool’s plan to buy out Maytag giving mgmt a 75% share of washer/dryer sales in the US. Jim Cramer said the deal should never have been approved. He noted that if “there was ever any doubt in your mind that we have a gov’t of, by , and for the corporations, if you thought for a second that we weren’t right back to the Gilded Age, if you had the least ounce of faith in our regulators to do the right thing, you’ve gotta believe Cramer now.”

With all those ‘company’ names a sucker consumer might think he has choice through competition but the fruits of his labor is going to the same fat cat monopoly/conglomerate CEO.

Press on protesters, press on!!

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 10, 2011 11:25 PM
Comment #330467

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff146.html

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/6/0/dodd_admits_to_role_in_aig_loophole/

http://battlefieldamerica.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/corruption-9-out-of-10-are-democrats/

http://corruptiondatabase.com/wiki/index.php?title=Barney_Frank

The Washington Post has an article on the ‘Volcker Rule’ today. (gist) The rule is supposed to prevent big banks from trading for their benefit rather than on behalf of customers. It would forbid banks from owning hedge funds and private-equity funds and prohibit them from making certain kinds of trade for their profit. Regulators hope to have it in place by July 21, 2012.

A ‘council of regulators’ released new details on how it plans to determine which large, non-bank financial firms should be subject to heightened regulation. Firms deemed ‘systemically important’ would face more scrutiny and would have to prepare detailed plans on how their businesses could be wound down in an orderly manner without wreaking havoc on the economy. End gist.

Can you imagine what a piece of swiss cheese this and the financial regulation bill must be with these two at the helm? TBTF’s will remain just that and the taxpayer remains at risk for their actions. Doubtful the incumbent President will be out of office before we are ‘bailing’ out more financials.

Why not anti-trust the TBTF’s before they have a chance to get into trouble again? Use anti-trust and their ‘detailed plan’ to take them apart gently. Would help competition and create jobs and limit the risk to the taxpayer/consumer.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 12, 2011 8:24 PM
Comment #330569

Roy here is an interesting read for you on the origins of corporate personhood.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/corporate-citizenship-corporate-personhood-paris-commune_n_1005244.html

Posted by: j2t2 at October 15, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #330571

Thanks for that link, j2t2. New information for me and a good tie in to the Santa Clara Blues. Its good to know that other people recognize this era as similar to the Gilded Age. I’m going before the county board next month to propose a resolution on abolishing corporate personhood and can use some info from this link.

I’ve got great hopes for Reclaim Democracy and Move To Amend in bringing strong suit to bear on corporate personhood law.

While I am hopeful I will continue to push for a 3rd party wit … . I think we will still need to fight fire with fire for a while, even if CP is defeated. We will need 3rd party folks sitting in the seats of authority in the House and Senate in significant number.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 15, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment #330662

I saw a similar debate to this on http://UnitedIssues.com - interesting that the same arguments were said here.

Posted by: Jeff Jon at October 18, 2011 1:13 PM
Comment #330706

Just finished reading The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Pretty terrifying. It’s so easy for people to forget what lack of regulation leads to.

Posted by: Cara at October 18, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #330732

Oh this is the gilded age alright. Note this chart released by the IMF.

Corpratism and greed are just as rampant in the welfare generation as they are in the white collar banksters. You are deluding yourself if you think the debt on that chart is from “hard-working Americans who are just trying to provide for their family.”

I am so sick of everyone walking around with their Goddamn hand out. That idea permeates our spoiled-rotten society from the able bodied guy who bombs his interviews and knowingly admits he’s just doing them so he can stay on unemployment (in my office last week) all the way up to the banksters that gamble with our money and then turn around and stick their hand out to whatever politician happens to be in office.

It’s soul cancer, and we’re hopelessly doomed so long as people think their livelihood is someone else’s responsibility.

Adrienne said Herman Cain was done because he had the audacity to say “If you’re broke and haven’t found a job in two years… guess what - IT’S YOUR FAULT!” Look how disconnected from reality Herman Cain is, telling people to take responsibility for themselves… the nerve of that guy.

I believe there are a massive amount of people who actually DO think the vast majority of social welfare programs need to stop, and that so long as you are able-bodied, your own destiny and livelihood in this nation ARE YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY.

Herman Cain 2012.

And if you’re a liberal who doesn’t like Herman Cain, we all know it’s just because he’s 100% black and you don’t like 100% black people - you bigots.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at October 19, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #330743

“And if you’re a liberal who doesn’t like Herman Cain, we all know it’s just because he’s 100% black and you don’t like 100% black people - you bigots.”

Posted by: Yukon Jake at October 19, 2011 2:53 PM

I agree Yukon Jake.

But what other response can you expect from a socialist like Adreinne? She was raised up in a public school system that refuses to teach personal responsibility.

Posted by: Jeremiah at October 19, 2011 7:25 PM
Comment #381179

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 3:55 AM
Post a comment