Friday, December 12, 2014

Simon Johnson — Citigroup Will Be Broken Up

Simon Johnson quotes Elizabeth Warren:
“A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt was America’s trustbuster. He went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trusts deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatened the very foundations of our democratic system.”
Citigroup is not the only TBTF that needs to be whittled down to size to rebalance political power in the US. Chase, Goldman, etc. also have to be addressed in the same breath.

Then there is the military-industrial complex and other trusts like energy and pharma. The clandestine agencies that have operational arms and agendas in addition to intelligence-gathering arms also need to be addressed. 

All of these have political power that constitutes a shadow government that drives oligarchic "democracy" in which voters are presented with a pre-selected slate of nominees chosen by the oligarchy based on the ability to raise funds from them as the chief donors. Then the public is supposed to believe that the recipients of this largesse are not influenced by it, especially when they need it for their next election and most of lawmakers time between elections is devoted to fundraising.

Baseline Scenario 

7 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"Then the public is supposed to believe that the recipients of this largesse are not influenced by it..."

So Sheldon Adelson going to Wash, DC and appealing to the pols to whom he made a contribution to keep internet gambling illegal prevents Congress from adequately funding TANF how???????

What are we saying here Tom? That Congress is distracted by the time they have to spend with an Adelson so much that they dont have the "time" to fund TANF?

???????

What is the process by which these self interested people who seek out political accommodation in Wash DC act to prevent Congress from addressing the socio-economic problems we can see?

What do they do? Go in there and say: "Hey, I want internet gambling to remain outlawed, AND... while your at it... fuck the needy families! Ha! Ha! Ha!!!.."

????????

This does NOT happen.

Ryan Harris said...

Interestingly no mention of the source of the all the destruction: academic--industrial-complex. After the destruction that finance and economics brought on the nation, one would think we would have at least questioned whether we should be providing financial aid to students of these subjects and other types of public financial support to the universities that promote the ideas. Why aren't we looking at people with these backgrounds and asking if it makes sense to have them in government? It seems like flawed economics has captured most government agencies and precious few have been prosecuted for their crimes or fired for negligence. The federal reserve is completely staffed by academic economists that produce fascinating papers, complex ideas and the most interesting models taught by academic institutions but they neither predict nor explain even the most basic policies that would drive basic economic stability and growth in the public interest. You can tick off through all the departments in government and the most consistent pattern is that there is a revolving door policy into and out of academia.

It is hard to find a government agency that hasn't been captured by academics to serve narrow ideals and interests of academics rather than public purpose. Every NASA space exploration program has been hijacked by academics to only serve narrow academic science interests instead of broader public or human interests. The USDA and The Dept of Energy are both notorious for ideological missions based on shoddy academic work.

An abundance of irrational, out of touch policies promoted by academics suggests that there is a need place barriers. Maybe there should be a requirement of several years of private sector service after leaving academia before an academic can go to work in the federal government. If we made a mass effort to purge academics and replace them with leaders from industry, civic and community organizations that actually have experience with real human beings and experience solving real rather than imagined problems, we might actually have a chance fix the economy, fix labor markets, fix finance.

Ryan Harris said...

The comment above was intentionally sacarstic because it is absurd to assume that one group of people should be blocked access to government because they assume an important role.

Academics are the most connected, the most pivotal group in government, yet no one would suggest that they should be removed. Why shouldn't industry or business leaders be a part of government and drive policy as much as the next guy? Their motives and ideals are certainly as narrow and flawed as anyone but they can't possibly any worse than hiring a fresh Phd that has spent their entire life in an academic environment. Both will bring baggage and hurt the public in many ways. But our system of government is designed to be unresponsive to motivated individuals without completely ignoring them.

Tom Hickey said...

So Sheldon Adelson going to Wash, DC and appealing to the pols to whom he made a contribution to keep internet gambling illegal prevents Congress from adequately funding TANF how???????

Actually, the amount of $ that donor give to politicans directly is limited in that this is traceable. The donate through front organization that can conceal the donors through "privacy" laws. These non-profits then generate the propaganda that serves the group and class interests of the donors. Some are very broad in their advocacy of neoliberalism in general, such as the Chamber of Commerce, which represents corporatism generally. Others are more tightly targeted to specific interests.

But politicians do solicit contributions from individuals and it is a running joke among the wealthy about how inexpensive it is to buy influence. This is not only that the national level but also at the state and local levels. The influence is why out of proportion to the sums involved individually.

But add it all up and it's hundreds of billions given the ongoing funding of think tanks, lobbyists, political operatives, consultants etc. I would say that Fox News in the US can be seen as primarily a political operation, founded and run as such. Other media are not obvious about it, but the control and funding it there just the same.

Matt Franko said...

Well Tom, who is the interest that is going there and telling the govt to stop addressing the socio-economic problems/issues that we can see?

These people/orgs are the ones that should attract our ire and they are out there...

But a moron like Adelson trying to gain leverage in support of his gaming interests has nothing to do with this... in fact, if Adelson wasnt a moron, he would probably be advocating with us as incomes would be increased that could be gambled away into his coffers...

FD: if by some miracle I can ever win one of these $bazillion mega lotteries, the next day I am heading to Washington DC with a truckful of "money"...

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

Academics are the most connected, the most pivotal group in government, yet no one would suggest that they should be removed.

Have you been reading what I have been saying?

Using academic economists in policy formulation has been an unmitigated disaster. They are so clueless or partisan as to be dangerous.

Tom Hickey said...

Well Tom, who is the interest that is going there and telling the govt to stop addressing the socio-economic problems/issues that we can see?

I would say that there are three factions operative in the US.

The first is neoliberal faction that dominates the Establishment and controls both the GOP and Democratic Party. It occupies the right and center-right. This is where the money and power lies.

The second is the far-right view of economic liberalism espoused by Libertarians that is gaining ascendancy politically. There is considerable money being directed to this faction, which accounts for its rise.

The third is the social democratic wing represented by Progressives, which is very much in the minority, but it is a vocal minority now led by Liz Warren. This is the center-left. Not much money are power a this point.

The fourth is the radical faction that is now isolated from power and influence and can be disregarded for the most part in formal politics although it operates through political activism at the grass roots level. This is the Left. No money or power other than people power and some noteworthy public intellectuals.