
How is it possible that such an institution as Goldman Sachs is able to make a quarterly profit of $2.7 billion in a recession ? Why is it that we have had such a blinding plethora of takeovers -- Countrywide, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Wachovia, on and on -- by banking monoliths such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo etc., while all true and honest free-market economists are sensibly screaming at the top of their lungs that America must avoid creating even bigger too-big-to-fall institutions, then what exactly has the US government been promoting here ? On the one hand, Obama hotly blows fervently that he will regulate the financial markets and institutions properly (which is what everyone wants to hear), but on the other, his very actions betray grand, contradictory and anomalous lies. And with those free-market Debt Stooge Infixers -- Summers, Geithner and Bernanke -- those very people so insidiously involved in past de-regulation policies that have helped to cause this crisis -- what do you think ?
In a recent televised defense of his new Health Care Bill, a package that will probably cost trillions, year in year out when implemented, President Obama astonishingly stated that the creation of a new health care system would radically help to reduce the current horrific US debt deficit !! And people actually believe this classic drivel ?!! What new-born Keynesian tripe is this? Plainly, spending trillions and trillions to implement a new system of health care right now, within a dangerous US economic period and with a squeaky weak dollar is completely insane. Why aren't the US government completely focused on just the economic problems now -- by far the biggest problem, instead kicking the can even further down the road with expensive distractions? I'm not against a new health care bill, but now is surely the wrong time to implement such a costly plan.
In my search to find exacting answers as to why, according to history, democracies always, always, eventually seem to fail their people, I've stumbled across an article that seems to cover much rocky ground regarding democracy's persistent and dirty inadequacies. It certainly hits the button and explains many of these self-destructive democratic aspects fairly candidly. This article, like it or not, is also completely apolitical, not favouring the Democrats or Republicans, neither favouring the Liberals, Socialists, Progressives, Libertarians, Independents, Communists or Nazis. So let's be very clear here, the article below is simply about the US democratic process within government and nothing else. For a more extensive article and more proof, try reading the original background article -- "The Great American Bubble Machine" -- by Matt Taibbi.
From The Market Oracle Author: Darryl R. Schoon
"…organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy" - Matt Taibbi
In Rolling Stone Magazine, Matt Taibbi wrote what would never be read in The New York Times, The Financial Times, Fortune, Barrons and certainly not in the Washington Post.
"…If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain -- an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. "- Matt Taibbi, Goldman Sachs: The Great American Bubble Machine, Rolling Stone Magazine, July 2, 2009, issue 1082-83
Those
at the center of power are often reticent to criticize others feeding at the same trough. It is left to those on the fringe, in this instance Rolling Stone Magazine, a reviewer of popular music, to state the ugly truth about what is happening at the center—that bank-holding company, née investment bank Goldman Sachs, engineered America’s serial bubbles in stocks, housing and commodities; and, has now profited immensely from both the bubbles and America’s subsequent collapse.
That bankers at Goldman Sachs will receive record bonuses the same year millions of Americans will lose their homes and their jobs is not by coincidence. Matt Taibbi’s article explains why and how this is so. In the game of last man standing called Western democratic capitalism the winner is clearly Goldman Sachs.
DEMOCRACY’S BIRTH WAS AN IMPROBABLE EVENT IT’S DEATH LESS SO
Taibbi’s statement, “organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy”, gives the understanding how America, once the greatest economic power in the world, lost its extraordinary productivity, wealth, and power in only a few decades.
The lofty intent of those who founded the US has today been effectively subverted. Democracy no longer serves the role intended by America’s founding fathers. Today, democracy serves instead the special interests that control America through a highly compromised, manipulated and mis-named “democratic process”.
Control of the democratic process is not difficult. It is done with money, money given to politicians who raise campaign funds by selling out those they are elected to serve. This is not only true for most Republicans and Democrats. It is true for most nations.
In this process, voters are temporarily satisfied when “their” candidate wins. In truth, “their” candidate was never theirs in the first place, already having been brokered and bought by powerful interest groups who have much to gain by their candidate’s ability to get elected.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER THE TWO-PARTY DANCE OF DISASTER
Instead of helping to solve society’s problems, the democratic process has been diverted by powerful and well-organized special interest groups. This diversion is accomplished by exploiting the conservative and liberal tendencies of the electorate, a diversion that enables special interests to maintain control no matter what party wins.
By exacerbating the natural tensions existing within society, special interests use politicians and the media to control the political dialogue, emphasizing issues that divide and inflame the electorate thereby diverting attention away from the destabilizing, dangerous and self-serving aims of special interests.
After every election, either conservatives or liberals will feel that victory has been achieved, their ideological opponents temporarily vanquished, their political ends accomplished; but nothing could be further from the truth as both conservatives and liberals have been duped in the process, a process best described as political pornography—as the aftermath is always somehow unfulfilling, no matter how exciting the initial attraction and foreplay.
In the end, very little gets solved, problems persist and proliferate, and the electorate becomes increasingly disillusioned—that is, until a new candidate is found by the special interests to again raise the hopes of both conservatives and liberals that this time it will be different.
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS
The ability of special interest groups to dominate democracies is surprising only because democracies are relatively new; notwithstanding the Greek city-states and the earliest reports of democracy in ancient India—and my parody of an earlier imagined attempt, http://www.drschoon.com/articles/DemocracyInTheMadhouse.pdf .
Special interest groups far predate the modern democratic state. According to American economist, Mancur Olsen (1932-1988), author of The Rise And Decline Of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, And Social Rigidities, 1982, Yale University Press, special interest groups arise in all nations and it is their presence and power that ultimately destroys the nations they dominate.
Mancur Olsen’s theory, the Logic Of Collective Action, posits the longer a nation is stable, the more likely special interest groups will rise and dominate that nation’s affairs and economy, making that nation less efficient and less productive and by so doing contribute to its ultimate downfall.
In a paper at Cornell University, Chia-chen Chou sheds light on Olsen’s Logic of Collective Action as follows:
Special interest organizations and collisions (distributional coalitions) reduce efficiency and make political life more divisive. Distributional coalitions struggle to maximize their own self-interests, that is, share of the national income rather than finding ways of increasing this income.
Thus, special interest groups attempting to get a bigger slice of the pie will lead to decreased societal production…The underlying logic of collective action and its implications provide a general explanation for the economic growth and decline of states. The longer the period of stable government, the more special interest groups will form to rob the economy.
Olsen’s Logic of Collective Action explains the increasing divisiveness of American politics, Wall Street’s successful robbery of America’s wealth, and the military-industrial complex’s role in America’s demise as a world power; and now that these issues have been resolved, the question remains, what’s next?
GOLDMAN SACHS THE KING PIMP OF WALL STREET
Goldman Sachs is today the pre-eminent paper player in today’s paper markets, the king pimp of capitalism, Wall Street’s equivalent of Harlem’s fabled players of the past who lived opulently off the considerable labors of female prostitutes.
But the pimps on Wall Street have done Harlem’s pimps one better. Goldman Sachs and their fellow pimps benefit not just from the labor of women but from the labor of men as well.
When Wall Street pimps take their cut of America’s money, they’re not alone. Without the US government, the pimps of Wall Street couldn’t do you like they do. There are two hands in your pockets—and they’re not yours.
Click here to share this article via email!
Click here to share this article via facebook!
Click here to share this article on Twitter!
Click here to share this article on Reddit!
Click here to share this article on Digg!
Click here to share this article on MySpace!
















25 Comments
Annonymous
Incredible article...
I read a book recently that explained why the lower and middle classes are so predisposed to just "going along" with the status quo.
For most of history, humanity has been divided into a two-tiered heirarchy where the elite pay others to prepare food for them, to build shelter for them, and to protect them against agressions and uprisings. The impoverished classes had to work much harder to maintain their wellbeing and they had no real line of defense against violence within their communities.
They had to be their own protectors. For generation after generation, parents had to drill their children into submitting to Parental Rules, because their "world" was very dangerous to live in. *Too often, disobedient children would wind up as DEAD children*. So these children in turn grew up with the same values - obey any authority figure who has your best interest in mind.
I think the elite have always been in a position to observe the lower classes (watching us from their Ivory Towers, so to speak) Sometimes I think they understand us and know us better than we know ourselves.
If you think about it - The 20th Century has seen an unprecedented level of education and autonomy within the section of the population that was traditionally suppressed. I think people are now starting to "wake up" and realize that we must participate at every level of government in order to "own" our government again. Democracy only works for those who participate in it and so far, the powerful elite have been the only ones really participating.
In science, we are told that an "elegant" solution is one that offers the most simple explanation for the widest variety of phenomena.
Somehow, intuitively, I feel that government should work the same way. The higher up you go, the more complicated the issues get - and the more BROAD and SIMPLE and ELEGANT the legislation should be. Much of why government is so slow right now is that, SO MANY of the issues being debated in Washington don't actually belong to that LEVEL of government. When it comes down to issues like gay marriage and abortion that really only affect the INDIVIDUALS involved more than they affect large groups, that indicates that those issues ought to be discussed at the LOWER levels of government (community and district). But this kind of participation is more demanding to the citizenry and when most of our time is being eating up working at a full time job, and even a second job, and in trying to take care of our families, it leaves us with little time for anything else.
And one final note: wages gone up 1% in almost 40 years while profits have gone through the roof in the same amount of time - WHY?
Jason Rines
Yes. Government should always focus on conceptual level thinking. Governments typically start out this way and the Matt Taibbi article fills in the blanks on special interests.
'And one final note: wages gone up 1% in almost 40 years while profits have gone through the roof in the same amount of time - WHY?'
Would you like me to answer or was this a redunant question? I have a great document that explains the last 40 years if you would like me to email it to you.
Jason Rines
Jason Rines
Dan Born on the 4th of J
Organized greed simply has to ripple to include us all where opportunity is concerned. The rounding out of structuture will wean out the greed factor. Impossible you say ? Not when you step back and realize that greed is a relative concept which is structural in its nature. The problem is not the greed. The problem is the structural imbalance, something we can actually influence and correct.
slowsmile
therooster...I think we are talking about human behaviour here, from which all greed arises. I fail to see how a 'rounding of the structure' will fix this. And what structure are you referring to?
Greed belongs solely to the human race where money and power are concerned and has nothing whatsoever to do with the ethereal structural imbalances to which you refer. Greed is simply the cause. And greed for money and power has been with us since the dawn of crime. Because greed is a human trait, a behavioural trait if you like. Opportunity in the markets, or within economic policy may be driven by greed as the democratic process so aptly illustrates, again and again.
Since greed and power both so widely permeate big business and democratic politics in the form of cronyism, how would you get rid of it? What structure would you put in place to prevent or dissolve it? And how is this possible anyway, when the very political institutions we are talking about are riddled with the intention and attainment of money and power through greed? How can greed within the democratic process be fixed by the very democratic process that has allowed it to breed and multiply within in the first place?
Jason Rines
I believe Rooster may be talking about an evolved banking system and interconnectedness meaning more representation and far less government meaning less opportunity for greed. Such a world will be better but here is my take: No utopia on earth until mankind has perfected genetic engineering. At the rate we are going because of greed, that will take hundreds more years.
slowsmile
therooster...Greed is driven by opportunity as much as by anything else and there is a very fine line between greed, opportunity and ambition. You say that the cure is structural and further imply that the change is happening now. If we take the Health Care bill as an example, that bill is a complete failure -- to the extent that the Health sector has even been a keen supporter of Obama's bill. They support the bill because it has already been bought by the Health Care sector -- see my article "President Obama Cares" -- for the reasons. There will be no public option, no affordable or competitive health care. Why? Because the greed and support of the health sector shareholders must be fed at all costs. The same democratic farce will happen to the Financial Regulations Bill -- that will also be bought by Wall Street, ending with no significant changes or regulation. And Ron Paul's Bill to audit the FED will be either diluted to nothing or fail for some convenient reason. But the truth is that greed always wins within the democratic process, plain for all to see even now.
I'm saying here that the very political process -- the democratic process -- is bent and infested with cronyist greed and avarice, so how can you change this situation if the political people who are actually capable of creating this change(structural or otherwise) are also deeply involved in the rot of the democratic process? You have to first start with honest politicians. Therefore this fault isn't about structure, this is about people.
Your view would have to depend on whether you actually trust the democratic process to do the tight thing for the will of the people. Quite plainly, this democratic process has been taken over and now functions for the benefit those of who can pay the most. So the democratic process has simply been bought and subjugated by Big Business so that their power has grown incredibly strong. And this is not what the forefathers of the Constitution ever intended.
Dan Born on the 4th of J
SlowSmile....
Why do you assume that I make reference to the health care bill ? I don't support it and it's another perfect example of intervention that has been perverted on top of other interventions. A tangled web.
The processes that you define and align with the association of greed are all coincidental with the very hierarchical structure that you questioned me about in a recent and previous post. The power structure simply focuses power to an apex of consolidation. The structure is out of balance with the supply side of the equation "enjoying" the imbalance. Our objective is to achieve a power balance. It's part of our "restoration".
There is no democracy in the current structure. They can call it what they want. I call it representative democracy. True democracy would be participatory, directly, on at least the legislative level. That would require a structural change but before any structural changes can be made in the political model, they must be manifested in the model of primacy, the economic model. The economic model is the "model of models" where other secular models follow the example. If there is no proper distribution of power in the economic model, forget about acquiring more equally distributed power in the political model.
If you want political change, forget about finding the solutions within the political model. It's a follower of the economic model. That's the way the script is written. True power is found in economics which is why the money issue is so central. Forget honest politicians. Honest people are rarely attracted to politics and if they are, they are easily corrupted. Furthermore, if you put perfect people into a corrupt system, you still have a corrupt system. Again, this goes back to structure. I would suggest that you stop attempting to pour new wine (new applications) into an old wineskin (infrastructure). It will not work. The structure needs to morph in order to contain the new applications. An example of this would be P.C. networks in order to use the application of real-time gold backed digital currency. Why do you suppose that gold was "back burnered" (as money) back in the 1970's when gold's dollar price was set free ? The answer is logistical in nature and was only solved with digitization. There was no efficient way to split the gold weight and transfer the wealth easily. That was always gold's problem. It was the distribution issues, not the gold, itself. Most gold bugs don't even get this point. They have classical ideas on gold that include the fixed peg such as what we saw in Bretton Woods. I once had this blind spot myself. They don't take economic law to the point of real-time valuations and distribution capabilities.
You can fully expect to see competitive digital gold business models evolve to integrate members and provide opportunity while also reducing risk by placing marketing costs into the area of costs of sale or costs of transactions. The ability to attract consumers in the 21st century is no longer about product, quality, service & price. It also incorporates providing opportunity in the fight over winning over the consumer. Corporate marketing wants the consumer. Consumers now want a piece of the action and are willing to be productive to earn it. This is what I mean by consumer capitalism via integration into supply chains, something that is fairly new because of the information age. We restructure in the market because that's the easiest place to attain power. The power morphs to other secular models.
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous
Annonymous