Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
% 18161836
Second Bank of the United States
%
% 18371862
Free Bank Era
%
% 18461921
Independent Treasury System
%
% 18631913
National Banks
%
% 1913Present
Federal Reserve System
Creation of First and Second Central Bank
The first U.S. institution with central banking
responsibilities was the First Bank of the United States,
chartered by Congress and signed into law by President
George Washington on February 25, 1791 at the urging of
Alexander Hamilton.
This was done despite strong opposition from Thomas
Jeferson and James Madison, among numerous others.
The charter was for twenty years and expired in 1811
under President Madison, because Congress refused to
renew it.[20]
In 1816, however, Madison revived it in the form of the
Second Bank of the United States.
Years later, early renewal of the bank's charter became the
primary issue in the reelection of President Andrew
Jackson. After Jackson, who was opposed to the central
bank, was reelected, he pulled the government's funds out
of the bank.
**is this the name of the lady from the dandelion story,
Biddle????**
Nicholas Biddle, President of the Second Bank of the
United States, responded by contracting the money supply
to pressure Jackson to renew the bank's charter forcing the
country into a recession, which the bank blamed on
Jackson's policies.
Interestingly, Jackson is the only President to completely
pay of the national debt.
The bank's charter was not renewed in 1836. From 1837 to
1862, in the Free Banking Era there was no formal central
bank.
From 1862 to 1913, a system of national banks was
instituted by the 1863 National Banking Act. A series of
bank panics, in 1873, 1893, and 1907, provided strong
demand for the creation of a centralized banking system.
**the central bankers created the runs on the banks and
the ensuing bank crashes, in order to create a need for
their central bank, for their money, without a vessel, could
not become an engine to generate wealth for them: they
needed indebtedness, and that meant making slaves of all
the people of the world **this is a simple logical
conclusion, and the creation was inevitable**this is how
the Free and Noble Savage Human was transformed into
the Slave Tool of the System Machine;;;mostly, life is
better, but when you fall through the cracks and out of the
system, you die from neglect and abuse**
Creation of Third Central Bank
Main article: History of the Federal Reserve System
**The main motivation for the third central banking system
came from the Panic of 1907, which caused renewed
demands for banking and currency reform.[21]
Vacant
01/01/09
More than $44.4 million
10
01/01/09
Nonpersonal time deposits
0
12/27/90
Eurocurrency liabilities
0
12/27/90
As a response to the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal
Reserve now makes interest payments on depository
institutions' required and excess reserve balances. The
payment of interest on excess reserves gives the central
bank greater opportunity to address credit market
conditions while maintaining the federal funds rate close to
the target rate set by the FOMC.[89]
New facilities
In order to address problems related to the subprime
mortgage crisis and United States housing bubble, several
new tools have been created.
The first new tool, called the Term Auction Facility, was
added on December 12, 2007. It was first announced as a
temporary tool[90] but there have been suggestions that
this new tool may remain in place for a prolonged period of
time.[91]
Creation of the second new tool, called the Term Securities
Lending Facility, was announced on March 11, 2008.[92]
The main diference between these two facilities is that the
Term Auction Facility is used to inject cash into the banking
system whereas the Term Securities Lending Facility is
used to inject treasury securities into the banking system.
[93]
Creation of the third tool, called the Primary Dealer Credit
Facility (PDCF), was announced on March 16, 2008.[94]
The PDCF was a fundamental change in Federal Reserve
M1, M2, and M3. In the United States they are defined by
the Federal Reserve as follows:
Measure
Definition
M0
The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the
central bank that can be exchanged for physical currency.
M1
M0 + those portions of M0 held as reserves or vault cash +
the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current"
accounts).
M2
M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, and
small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit
of under $100,000).
M3
M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase
agreements.
The Federal Reserve ceased publishing M3 statistics in
March 2006, explaining that it cost a lot to collect the data
but did not provide significantly useful information.[124]
The other three money supply measures continue to be
provided in detail.
Consumer price index
Further information: Consumer price index
US consumer price index 18002007.
File:U.S. Historical Inflation.svg
Year on year change in the U.S. dollar consumer price
index 19142006. The ability to maintain a low inflation
rate is a long-term measure of the Fed's success.
The consumer price index is used as one measure of the
value of money. It is defined as:
5.20
Treasury Currency Outstanding (Coin)
43.45
Securities Held Outright
2041.71
U.S. Treasury Securities
839.99
Bills
18.42
Notes and Bonds, nominal
772.96
Notes and Bonds, inflation-indexed
42.98
Inflation Compensation
5.61
Federal Agency Debt Securities
149.68
Mortgage-Backed Securities
1051.04
Repurchase Agreements
0
Term Auction Credit
0
Other Loans
47.15
Credit Extended to AIG Inc.
19.20
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility
27.82
Other Credit Extended
0.10
Commercial Paper Funding Facility
0
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II
LLC, and Maiden Lane III LLC
68.58
Preferred Interest in AIG Life-Insurance Subsidiaries
26.06
Net Holdings of TALF LLC
0.62
Float
-1.67
Central Bank Liquidity Swaps
0.06
Other Assets
99.31
Total Assets
2340.44
LIABILITIES:
Currency in Circulation
964.74
Reverse repurchase agreements
57.39
Deposits
244.96
Term Deposits
5.11
U.S. Treasury, general account
34.28
U.S. Treasury, supplementary financing account
199.96
Foreign official
2.52
Service Related
2.40
Other Deposits
0.70
Funds from AIG, held as agent
6.90
Other Liabilities
74.01
Total liabilities
1348.19
CAPITAL (AKA Net Equity)
Capital Paid In
26.71
Surplus
25.91
Other Capital
4.16
Total Capital
56.78
MEMO (of-balance-sheet items)
Marketable securities held in custody for foreign official
and international accounts
3315.70
U.S. Treasury Securities
2583.90
Federal Agency Securities
731.80
Securities lent to dealers
4.79
Overnight
4.79
Term
0
Total combined assets for all 12 Federal Reserve Banks.
Total combined liabilities for all 12 Federal Reserve Banks.
Analyzing the Federal Reserve's balance sheet reveals a
number of facts:
1.
2. **The Fed has over $11 billion in gold, which is a
holdover from the days the government used to back
U.S. Notes and Federal Reserve Notes with gold.
[
citation needed].
3. The value reported here is based on a statutory
valuation of $42 2/9 per fine troy ounce. As of March
2009, the market value of that gold is around $247.8
billion.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Central bank
Core inflation
Consumer Leverage Ratio
Criticism of the Federal Reserve
Discount window
Divorce bill
Economic reports
Executive Order 11110
Federal funds
Federal Reserve 800 billion dollar Consumer Loan and
bond plan
% Federal Reserve Act
% Federal Reserve Police
% Federal Reserve Statistical Release
% Fort Knox Bullion Depository
% Free banking
Gold standard
% Government debt
% Greenspan put
% History of central banking in the United States
% History of Federal Open Market Committee actions
% HR 1207
% Inflation
% Legal Tender Cases
% Monetary policy of the United States
% Money market
% Money supply
% Nonfinancial debt
% Primary dealers
% Primary Dealers Credit Facility
% Repurchase agreement
% Term auction facility
United States dollar
References
Federal Reserve System
'i love to have some art in here. See? I just HATE going to
museums or galleries. when you go to an art gallery you
are simply a tourist looking at the trophy cabinet of a few
billionaires, you know what I mean?'
**'Do you understand?'
**"When you go to an art gallery you are simply a tourist
looking at the trophy cabinet of a few millionaires."
Banksy[69]
**volker says after showing of his tulips tulipomania etc to
juan; lol! he IS a millionaire, and this IS his trophy cabinet'
the way of capitalism is to replace
murder (verb//action//transitive style)
with merchandize (verb//intransitive style)
**the Law of the Jungle remains extant, invisible intangible
Wrathbeast leaves death shards in it's interdimensional
wake**it travels**the Old Ones**
Goldman Sachs Blankfein on Banking: Doing Gods Work
By Matt Phillips
The Times of Londons mammoth 6,900-word piece on
Goldman Sachs over the weekend contains plenty of
fodder for those that see the investment bank as Wall
Streets top dog, as well as those that see it as a creepy,
conspiratorial vampire squid of finance.
But the key quote thats getting attention comes in
Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfeins exchange with
a reporter after a question on whether there should be
limits to compensation:
Is it possible to make too much money?
Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to
be too successful?
Blankfein shoots back.
I dont want people in this firm to think that they have
accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go
government.
[edit]
"Multiplier efect" and interest rates
Main article: Spending multiplier
Two aspects of Keynes' model had implications for policy:
First, there is the "Keynesian multiplier", first developed by
Richard F. Kahn in 1931. Exogenous increases in spending,
such as an increase in government outlays, increases total
spending by a multiple of that increase. A government
could stimulate a great deal of new production with a
modest outlay if:
The people who receive this money then spend most on
consumption goods and save the rest.
This extra spending allows businesses to hire more people
and pay them, which in turn allows a further increase
consumer spending.
This process continues. At each step, the increase in
spending is smaller than in the previous step, so that the
multiplier process tapers of and allows the attainment of
an equilibrium. This story is modified and moderated if we
move beyond a "closed economy" and bring in the role of
taxation: the rise in imports and tax payments at each
step reduces the amount of induced consumer spending
and the size of the multiplier efect.
Second, Keynes re-analyzed the efect of the interest rate
on investment. In the classical model, the supply of funds
(saving) determined the amount of fixed business
investment. That is, since all savings was placed in banks,
and all business investors in need of borrowed funds went
to banks, the amount of savings determined the amount
that was available to invest.
To Keynes, the amount of investment was determined
independently by long-term profit expectations and, to a
are
the IS-LM model of John Hicks and
the Phillips curve;
both of these are rejected by Post-Keynesians.
It was with John Hicks that Keynesian economics produced
a clear model which policy-makers could use to attempt to
understand and control economic activity. This model, the
IS-LM model is nearly as influential as Keynes' original
analysis in determining actual policy and economics
education.
It relates aggregate demand and employment to three
exogenous quantities, i.e., the amount of money in
circulation, the government budget, and the state of
business expectations. This model was very popular with
economists after World War II because it could be
understood in terms of general equilibrium theory. This
encouraged a much more static vision of macroeconomics
than that described above.[citation needed]
**The second main part of a Keynesian policy-maker's
theoretical apparatus was the Phillips curve.
This curve, which was more of an empirical observation
than a theory, indicated that increased employment, and
decreased unemployment, implied increased inflation.
Keynes had only predicted that falling unemployment
would cause a higher price, not a higher inflation rate.
Thus, the economist could use the IS-LM model to predict,
for example, that an increase in the money supply would
raise output and employmentand then use the Phillips
curve to predict an increase in inflation. [citation needed]
Criticism
Monetarist criticism
levels.
6.
7. South Sea Bubble - Another huge speculative bubble.
Greater fool theory
Tulip mania
Tulipomania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tulipomania may refer to:
Tulip mania, a period in the Dutch Golden Age fueled by
tulip cultivation
Tulipomania
Pussy Riot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pussy Riot
Seven members of the band Pussy Riot
Background information
Origin
Moscow, Russia
Genres
Punk rock
Years active
2011present
Labels
None
Website
pussy-riot.livejournal.com
Pussy Riot is a Russian feminist punk-rock band based in
Moscow.
Founded in August 2011, the band stages politically
provocative impromptu performances about Russian
political life in unusual locations, such as on top of a
Church protest
On February 21, 2012, as part of a protest movement
against the re-election of Vladimir Putin, four women from
the group went to the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour of
the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow, masking their
identities, crossing themselves, bowing to the altar and
beginning to perform the song Mother of God, Put Putin
Away. After less than a minute they were escorted outside
the building by guards.[18][19] Film of the performance
was later used to create a video clip for the song.
The growing ties between the church and the state have
been a target of criticism and protest. The Russian
Patriarch, Kirill I of Moscow had openly supported Putin's
candidacy before the presidential election, calling Putin a
miracle from God who had rectified the crooked path of
history.
After the performance in the cathedral, the members of
Pussy Riot said the church is a weapon in a dirty election
campaign and called Putin a man who is as far as can be
from Gods truth.
Pussy Riot said their protest was a political statement, but
prosecutors said the band was trying to incite religious
hatred against the Orthodox Church.[20]
Arrest and prosecution
On March 3, 2012,
**Maria Alyokhina and
**Nadezhda Tolokonnikova
, two alleged members of Pussy Riot, were arrested by the
Russian authorities and accused of hooliganism. Both
women at first denied being members of the group and
started a hunger strike in protest against being held in jail
away from their young children until their case came to
trial in April.[21]
On March 16 another woman, Yekaterina Samutsevitch,
who had earlier been questioned as a witness in the case,
was similarly arrested and charged.[22]
On June 4, the group was formally charged, the indictment
running to 2,800 pages.[23]
On July 4, they were suddenly informed that they would
have to finish preparing their defense by July 9. They
announced a hunger strike in response, saying that two
working days was inadequate time to prepare a trial
defense.[24]
On July 21, the court extended their pre-trial detention by
a further six months.[25]
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova
Yekaterina Samutsevich
Maria Alekhina
The three Pussy Riot members at their trial in Tagansky
District Court
The three detained members of Pussy Riot are recognized
as political prisoners by the Union of Solidarity with
Political Prisoners (SPP).[26] Amnesty International named
them prisoners of conscience due to "the severity of the
response of the Russian authorities".[27]
Speaking at a liturgy in Moscow's Deposition of the Robe
Church on March 21, the Patriarch of Moscow and All
Russia, Kirill I, condemned Pussy Riot's actions as
"blasphemous", saying that the "Devil has laughed at all of
us ... We have no future if we allow mockery in front of
great shrines, and if some see such mockery as a sort of
44.
45.
46.
47.
The Squids[69]
Sting[67]
Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys[52]
Pete Townshend[52]
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Resisting Reason.
Present alternative reasoning.
When someone is trying to use reason to get us to do
something, we should respond in one of two ways:
(1) cooperate because the reasoning is sound, or
(2) tactfully explain why we do not think it would be
wise for us to cooperate. In other words, reason can
be resisted with counter-reasoning.
**We may need to call attention to the bigger picture
or the flaw in the logic.
Defend your rights.
Some people become slaves to their desire to be
helpful to others. Being cooperative and a "team
player" is great, but each of us should remember that
we have rights. We shouldn't sacrifice our priorities in
order to help others. We have a right not to help
coworkers who are becoming overly dependent on our
help. We have a right to use our free time to pursue
innovative projects. We have a right to work a
reasonable number of hours. Sometimes we have to
assertively stand up for our rights.
**In pop-psych terms, "people pleasers" need to
develop "boundaries."
Firmly refuse.
Sometimes people are a little overzealous in their
eforts to use reason to influence us. They have ideas
to "sell" to us. And, like
**all good salespeople, those zealots don't give up
when we voice our objections---they try to answer
them.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Exchange
Using Exchange.
Offer favors or incentives.
To overtly influence others with exchange, we must clearly
explain exactly what we have to ofer and what we want to
receive in return.
**Any ambiguity in the ofer or request could cause the
other party to feel cheated later.
**It can also help to emphasize that "it's a one time ofer"
so that the party we're trying to influence won't always
expect us to dangle a carrot in front of them when we want
their help.
Ingratiation.
To influence others using ingratiation, be subtle. Overt
attempts at ingratiating yourself with others often backfire
because people resent being manipulated. You can
ingratiate yourself with others by spontaneously doing
favors for them or giving them gifts. Even friendship and
compliments can be ofered for the purpose of
ingratiation. Colloquial terms for this are "brown nosing"
and "sucking up."
Resisting Exchange.
Resisting Pressure.
Build your power base.
In the famous words of British historian, Lord Acton, "Power
corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Perhaps he
exaggerated, but most of us have been in situations where
people who've had a lot of power over us have treated us
in insensitive and selfish ways. By building our own power
base, we reduce the chances of a powerful person
pressuring us.
See the LeaderLetter on Building Your Power Base.
Defend your rights.
Each of us has a right not to be exploited.
**When someone is intimidating or coercing us, we should
confront him or her,
**clearly explain what they're doing that we perceive to be
intimidating or coercive, and
**state that no one should be treated that way.
Actively resist.
The only way to deal with some people is by fighting back.
By reporting the problem to senior managers or external
parties, we may be able to get some relief from coercion or
intimidation. You may also get some ideas from this web
site on "workplace bullying":
Let's keep the conversation going.
A Good, Clean Joke
Interview with a turkey.
"You're scheduled to be executed in an hour. What's your
"Do you have any final thoughts you'd like to share with
us?"
"Maybe just that I'll be dead soon and the flesh gnawed
from my bones."
"Well, I was thinking of something more upbeat. Can you
tell us, for example, what you're most thankful for this
holiday season?"
"Well, I've got my health. I'm thankful for that."
"Would you do something for me? Would you wish my
readers Happy Thanksgiving in Turkey language?"
"Sure. Gobble gobble."
Using and Resisting Influence
Ingratiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ingratiation, a term coined by social psychologist Edward
E. Jones, is
**a social psychological technique in which
**an individual attempts to become more attractive or
likeable to their target.[1]
This outcome can be achieved by using several methods
such as
other-enhancement,
opinion conformity, and
self presentation/self-promotion.
Other enhancement is a method in which the ingratiator
compliments the target individual.
Opinion conformity occurs when the ingratiator adopts and
validates the attitudes and beliefs of the target individual.
unsure of.
Conformity is
**based on the tenant that
**people like those whose values and beliefs are similar to
their own.
According to Jones, ingratiation in the form of conformity
can
range from simple agreement with expressed opinions to
the most complex forms of behavior imitation and
identification. [1]
Similar to other enhancement,
**conformity is thought to be most efective when there is
a change of opinion.
**When the ingratiator switches from a divergent opinion
to an agreeing one,
**the target assumes the ingratiator values his/her opinion
enough to change,
**in turn strengthening the positive feelings the target has
for the ingratiator.
With this, the target person is likely to be most
appreciative of agreement when he wants to believe that
something is true but is not sure that it is. Jones argues,
therefore, that
**it is be best to start by disagreeing in trivial issue and
**agreeing on issues that the target person needs
affirmation.
Self-presentation is the
explicit presentation or description of ones own
attributes to increase the likelihood of being judged
attractively.[1]
**steve says, 'performing status'
The ingratiator is one who models himself along the lines
**Acquisitive ingratiation
occurs if the target person controls scarce or valuable
resources that the ingratiator hopes to acquire at a
minimum personal cost.
**Protective Ingratiation
is used in order to cultivate favor with the target in
order to proactively prevent or blunt a potential attack.
**Significance ingratiation
occurs when the ingratiator merely seeks the respect
and approval of the target and is not seeking an
explicit reward.
See also
% Charm ofensive
% Love bombing
% Psychological manipulation
% Superficial charm
Ingratiation
Jones, E.E., Ingratiation: A Social-Psychological Analysis,
1965, Chapter 2.
This chapter is on the various types of ways people
attempt to ingratiate themselves to others. The three
major tactics for ingration are
other-enhancement,
opinion conformity, and
self-presentation
(with giving gifts and rendering favors a possible fourth).
Complimentary Other-Enhancement
Basically it means flattery. The person focuses and often
exaggerates the positive side, and ignores the negative
side, with the goal to communicate the idea that the
ingratiator thinks highly of the other person.
This tactic succeeds often because people find it difficult
not to like people who think highly of them.
To succeed (even despite internal dislike of the other
person), the ingratiator must give his compliments
credibility.
**One way is to make sure the reason for the ingratiation
isn't apparent,
**or the future "favor" needed isn't obvious or relevant at
the time of the compliments.
Another tactic is to
the target.
**One can also reveal sensitive personal opinions to
convey the flattery of implied trust and understanding.
The level of status between the ingratiator and target are
important. If the ingratiator is high status, they should
stress humility. If they are lower status, they should stress
their positive values.
Rendering Favors
It is unclear whether performing favors produces attraction
merely implies obligation for reciprocity. However,
performing a favor without any real hope of reciprocity
may be a very successful strategy.
ingratiating strategy
Negotiator Power Authority (Part 1 of 3)
As a negotiator, do you know the diference between
power and authority? Learn how people use their position
to influence and interact with their subordinates
To understand
**negotiations and the relationships (or common ground)
that emanate,
the study of power and its efect must first be fully
understood.
Every interaction and every social relationship, both inside
and outside organizations, entails the usage of power.
**Gibson et al. (1991:329) views power as an easy means
to accomplish things in the manner that you want them
performed. The power of the manager who wants more
financial resources for example, is in his skill to obtain
these resources.
proceed.
**In some instances, they may be advised to refuse to
proceed until the other party shows by their behaviour,
that the authority is in place.
**When a small base of legitimate authority is established,
a skillful negotiator can increase it.
Coercive Power and Reward Power Tactic (Part 2 of 3)
Do you understand the diferent types of power that can
ofer rewards, obedience or be used as a threat? Learn the
fundamentals of the reward power and coercive power
tactics.
In the preceding article we examined Parity in Power,
(Parity in Power Part I of III) and situated the five diferent
types of Interpersonal Power that are at play. We examined
Legitimate Power in considerable detail.
In this portion, we will proceed to examine the next two
kinds of Interpersonal Power - Reward Power and Coercive
Power.
- Legitimate power- Reward power- Coercive power- Expert
power-Referent power
Reward power
Reward Power can be gained from one's capacity to
reward compliance.
**Reward power is used to support legitimate power.
When someone is rewarded or might receive a potential
reward such as through recognition, a good job
assignment, a pay rise, or additional resources to complete
a job, the employee may respond in kind by carrying
through with orders, requests and directions, according to
Gibson et al. (1991:331).
Rewards often comprises financial remuneration. They can
On the other hand, we are also aware that they will be less
likely or carry out actions if they dislike us.
"Individuals seeking to increase others' liking of them can
convince these persons that they share basic values or are
similar in other ways. "
The most common tactic of ingratiation in negotiation is to
complement the abilities of the people whom you wish to
influence. This tactic, frequently referred to as
**"other enhancement"
often entails the use of flattery - the exaggerated praise of
others. Such a tactic usually succeeds because people
tend to like the flatterer who is praising them.
It is common that the use of reward power seems to be
very efective, particularly in the longer term.
Reward power is occasionally combined with coercive
power, although the two diferent forms of power can be
subject to semantic confusion.
It is important to understand coercive power before
comparing it with and measuring it against reward power.
Coercive Power
**Coercive power is the opposite of reward power.
It is the ability of the power holder to remove something
from a person or to punish them for not conforming with a
request.
For example:
Coercive power could take the form of a threatened strike
action by a labour union;
the threat of preventing promotion or transfer of a
subordinate for poor performance;
it could be a threat of litigation;
it could be at threat of non-payment;
it could be the threat to go public; and
photos are now on the world wide web because they are so
very stylish.
Step 5. Watch the tweets and mentions roll in.
3. The quick and easy infographic
I know were all sick to the back teeth of infographics
but they do still work if done well and it really is amazing
how easy it is to find the information you need to build
one,
especially around popular events such as Halloween.
Tip: A go-to source for stats (USA only): National Retail
Federation. Its a goldmine.
All you need to do is get a freelance designer for a couple
of hours to add a few pictures of carefully sliced up
pumpkins and some witches hats, there you have it. Your
very own infographic in no time at all, with freely available
data.
**steve says, an example of a person with a skill being
used as a tool, the designer, and tools get paid little
**steve says, this is a great example of misplaced hard
work;;; do not work hard at being a tool, for that gives your
fruit to others, but instead WORK HARD AT GIVING
YOURSELF OPTIONS, like networking, relationships
between businesses, and niches and loopholes which are
pockets of profit
4. The ofer-free-stuf-for-one-day campaign
This is the most recent example of a great brand building
campaign, and it got me a free burrito for lunch so I have
certainly been mollified more than enough to include it in
this write-up.
Benitos Hat, a Mexican burrito restaurant, spent the day
ofering free burrito drops to offices in its local area who
got the most members of staf to tweet a request for one
reward,
targets and
security
make it a winner for me.
It has also been picked up by a number of big blogs
including Mashable and Travolution.
tactics
5 social tactics
5 Negotiating Tips to Uncover Hidden Agendas
Hidden agendas are the personal, private goals and
objectives that impact how we publicly negotiate.
Everyone has these agendas. Very likely your hidden
agenda will be far diferent than the other person's or even
those of co-negotiators.
**Hidden agendas are the meat and potatoes of good
leaders/managers.
**steve says, notice dumbledoor had a hidden agenda!
**Good leaders have a sense of mission, a purpose that
garners the respect of others.
**Negotiators who can demonstrate these same leadership
traits will garner the same respect. Just as leaders can
impact the outcome of meetings so too can efective
negotiator-leaders impact the outcome of a negotiation.
**Every participant in a negotiation has a personal agenda.
Those agendas are hidden unless they are shared with the
group and
**most people don't openly share personal agendas.
**If they did, there would be little mystery or drama in life
or our personal interaction.
So how do you uncover another's hidden agenda?
By being a good detective:
But Dodd-Frank was neither an FDR-style, paradigmshifting reform, nor a historic assault on free enterprise.
What it was, ultimately, was a cop-out, a Band-Aid on a
severed artery.
**If it marks the end of anything at all, it represents the
end of the best opportunity we had to do something real
about the criminal hijacking of America's financial-services
industry.
During the yearlong legislative battle that forged this bill,
Congress took a long, hard look at the shape of the
modern American economy and then decided that it
didn't have the stones to wipe out our country's one dependably thriving profit center: theft.
It's not that there's nothing good in the bill. In fact, there
are many good things in it, even some historic things. Sen.
Bernie Sanders and others won a fight to allow Congress to
audit the Fed's books for the first time ever. A new
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to
protect against predatory lending and other abuses.
New lending standards will be employed in the mortgage
industry; no more meth addicts buying mansions with
credit cards. And in perhaps the biggest win of all, there
will be new rules forcing some varieties of
**derivatives the arcane instruments that
**Warren Bufett called
**"financial weapons of mass destruction"
to be traded and cleared on open exchanges, pushing
what had been a completely opaque market into the light
of day for the first time.
All of this is great, but taken together, these reforms fail to
address even a tenth of the real problem.
Worse: They fail to even define what the real problem is.
Over a long year of feverish lobbying and brutally intense
backroom negotiations, a group of D.C. insiders fought
pretty good."
But that very fact that the Merkley-Levin amendment had
such momentum is ultimately what did it in. "What killed
us," says Merkley, "was that it was looking pretty good."
What happened next was a prime example of the basic con
of congressional politics. Throughout the debate over
finance reform, Democrats had sold the public on the idea
that it was the Republicans who were killing progressive
initiatives. In reality, Republican and Democratic leaders
were working together with industry insiders and deeppocketed lobbyists to prevent rogue members like Merkley
and Levin from efecting real change. In public, the parties
stage a show of bitter bipartisan stalemate. But when the
cameras are of, they fuck like crazed weasels in heat.
With Merkley-Levin looking like a good bet to pass, the
Republicans pulled a dual-suicide maneuver. Brownback
withdrew his auto-dealer exemption, which instantly killed
the ban on prop trading. What Merkley and Levin didn't
know was that Brownback had worked out an agreement
with the Democratic leadership to surreptitiously restore
his auto-dealer exemption later on, when the final bill was
reconciled with the House version. In other words,
Democratic leaders had teamed up with Republicans
behind closed doors to double-cross Merkley and Levin.
When the agreement was announced one day before the
Senate vote, Merkley couldn't even make sense of what he
was hearing. "You're sitting there trying to understand
what kind of deal has been struck," he says. "You know
there's something there, but you're not really sure."
Merkley almost objected to the deal, but unable to grasp
that he had been sold out by his own party's leadership, he
hesitated a fatal mistake. The deal to reinstate
Brownback went through, and Merkley's amendment to
rein in Wall Street died.
That might have been the end of the Volcker rule but
soon after, Merkley and Levin made the most of their one
last chance. According to Merkley, he and Levin convinced
Rep. Barney Frank, who was overseeing the House bill, to
reintroduce the amendment in conference talks. The
squeezing AIG from two sides were the "Swoop and Squat"
that ultimately crashed the firm. "It put the company into a
liquidity crisis," says Eric Dinallo, who was intimately
involved in the AIG bailout as head of the New York State
Insurance Department.
It was a brilliant move. When a company like AIG is about
to die, it isn't supposed to hand over big hunks of assets to
a single creditor like Goldman; it's supposed to equitably
distribute whatever assets it has left among all its
creditors. Had AIG gone bankrupt, Goldman would have
likely lost much of the $5.9 billion that it pocketed as
collateral. "Any bankruptcy court that saw those collateral
payments would have declined that transaction as a
fraudulent conveyance," says Barry Ritholtz, the author of
Bailout Nation. Instead, Goldman and the other
counterparties got their money out in advance putting a
torch to what was left of AIG. Fans of the movie Goodfellas
will recall Henry Hill and Tommy DeVito taking the same
approach to the Bamboo Lounge nightclub they'd been
gouging. Roll the Ray Liotta narration: "Finally, when
there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck . .
. you bust the joint out. You light a match."
And why not? After all, according to the terms of the
bailout deal struck when AIG was taken over by the state
in September 2008, Goldman was paid 100 cents on the
dollar on an additional $12.9 billion it was owed by AIG
again, money it almost certainly would not have seen a
fraction of had AIG proceeded to a normal bankruptcy.
Along with the collateral it pocketed, that's $19 billion in
pure cash that Goldman would not have "earned" without
massive state intervention. How's that $13.4 billion in
2009 profits looking now? And that doesn't even include
the direct bailouts of Goldman Sachs and other big banks,
which began in earnest after the collapse of AIG.
CON #2 THE DOLLAR STORE
In the usual "DollarStore" or "Big Store" scam
popularized in movies like The Sting a huge cast of con
artists is hired to create a whole fake environment into
new at poker and says, 'Let me see your cards,' then starts
giving him advice," Masters says. "He looks at the hand,
and the guy has bad cards, and he's like, 'Bluf me, come
on! If it were me, I'd bet everything!' That's what it's like.
It's like they're looking at your cards as they give you
advice."
In more ways than one can count, the economy in the
bailout era turned into a "Big Mitt," the con man's name
for a rigged poker game. Everybody was indeed looking at
everyone else's cards, in many cases with state sanction.
Only taxpayers and clients were left out of the loop.
At the same time the Fed and the Treasury were making
massive, earthshaking moves like quantitative easing and
TARP, they were also consulting regularly with private
advisory boards that include every major player on Wall
Street. The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee has a
J.P. Morgan executive as its chairman and a Goldman
executive as its vice chairman, while the board advising
the Fed includes bankers from Capital One and Bank of
New York Mellon. That means that, in addition to getting
great gobs of free money, the banks were also getting
clear signals about when they were getting that money,
making it possible to position themselves to make the
appropriate investments.
One of the best examples of the banks blatantly gambling,
and winning, on government moves was the Public-Private
Investment Program, or PPIP. In this bizarre scheme cooked
up by goofball-geek Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the
government loaned money to hedge funds and other
private investors to buy up the absolutely most toxic
horseshit on the market the same kind of high-risk,
high-yield mortgages that were most responsible for
triggering the financial chain reaction in the fall of 2008.
These satanic deals were the basic currency of the bubble:
Jobless dope fiends bought houses with no money down,
and the big banks wrapped those mortgages into
securities and then sold them of to pensions and other
suckers as investment-grade deals. The whole point of the
PPIP was to get private investors to relieve the banks of
In the end, though, all this bribery and graft was just the
table-setter for the real disaster. In taking all those bribes
and signing on to all those swaps, the commissioners in
Jeferson County had basically started the clock on a
financial time bomb that, sooner or later, had to explode.
By continually refinancing to keep the county in its giant
McMansion, the commission had managed to push into the
future that inevitable day when the real bill would arrive in
the mail. But that's where the mortgage analogy ends
because in one key area, a swap deal difers from a home
mortgage. Imagine a mortgage that you have to keep on
paying even after you sell your house. That's basically how
a swap deal works. And Jeferson County had done 23 of
them. At one point, they had more outstanding swaps than
New York City.
Judgment Day was coming just like it was for the
Delaware River Port Authority, the Pennsylvania school
system, the cities of Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Los
Angeles, the states of Connecticut and Mississippi, the city
of Milan and nearly 500 other municipalities in Italy, the
country of Greece, and God knows who else. All of these
places are now reeling under the weight of similarly
elaborate and ill-advised swaps and if what happened in
Jeferson County is any guide, hoo boy. Because when the
shit hit the fan in Birmingham, it really hit the fan.
For Jeferson County, the deal blew up in early 2008, when
a dizzying array of penalties and other fine-print poison
worked into the swap contracts started to kick in. The
trouble began with the housing crash, which took down the
insurance companies that had underwritten the county's
bonds. That rendered the county's insurance worthless,
triggering clauses in its swap contracts that required it to
pay of more than $800 million of its debt in only four
years, rather than 40. That, in turn, scared of private
lenders, who were no longer interested in bidding on the
county's bonds. The banks were forced to make up the
diference a service for which they charged enormous
penalties. It was as if the county had missed a payment on
its credit card and woke up the next morning to find its
annual percentage rate jacked up to a million percent.
Between 2008 and 2009, the annual payment on Jeferson
County's debt jumped from $53 million to a whopping
$636 million.
It gets worse. Remember the swap deal that Jeferson
County did with JP Morgan, how the variable rates it got
from the bank were supposed to match those it owed its
bondholders? Well, they didn't. Most of the payments the
county was receiving from JP Morgan were based on one
set of interest rates (the London Interbank Exchange Rate),
while the payments it owed to its bondholders followed a
diferent set of rates (a municipal-bond index). Jeferson
County was suddenly getting far less from JP Morgan, and
owing tons more to bondholders. In other words, the bank
and Bill Blount made tens of millions of dollars selling
deals to local politicians that were not only completely
defective, but blew the entire county to smithereens.
And here's the kicker. Last year, when Jeferson County,
staggered by the weight of its penalties, was unable to
make its swap payments to JP Morgan, the bank canceled
the deal. That triggered one-time "termination fees" of
yes, you read this right $647 million. That was money
the county would owe no matter what happened with the
rest of its debt, even if bondholders decided to forgive and
forget every dime the county had borrowed. It was like the
herpes simplex of loans debt that does not go away,
ever, for as long as you live. On a sewer project that was
originally supposed to cost $250 million, the county now
owed a total of $1.28 billion just in interest and fees on the
debt. Imagine paying $250,000 a year on a car you
purchased for $50,000, and that's roughly where Jeferson
County stood at the end of last year.
Last November, the SEC charged JP Morgan with fraud and
canceled the $647 million in termination fees. The bank
agreed to pay a $25 million fine and fork over $50 million
to assist displaced workers in Jeferson County. So far, the
county has managed to avoid bankruptcy, but the sewer
fiasco had downgraded its credit rating, triggering
nonexistent company.
There are other types of grift and outright theft in the file.
As is typical in many foreclosure cases, Cooper is being
charged by the bank for numerous attempts to serve her
with papers. But a booming industry has grown up around
fraudulent process servers; companies will claim they
made dozens of attempts to serve homeowners, when in
fact they made just one or none at all. Who's going to
check? The process servers cover up the crime using the
same tactic as the lenders, saying they lost the original
summons. From 2000 to 2006, there was a total of 1,031
"affidavits of lost summons" here in Duval County; in the
past two years, by contrast, more than 4,000 have been
filed.
Cooper's file contains a total of $371 in fees for process
service, including one charge of $55 for an attempt to
serve process on an "unknown tenant." But Cooper's house
is owner-occupied she doesn't even have a tenant, she
tells me with a shrug. If Mark Kessler had had his shit
together in court today, Cooper would not only be out on
the street, she'd be paying for that attempt to serve
papers to her nonexistent tenant.
Cooper's case perfectly summarizes what the foreclosure
crisis is all about. Her original loan was made by Wachovia,
a bank that blew itself up in 2008 speculating in the
mortgage market. It was then transferred to Wells Fargo, a
megabank that was handed some $50 billion in public
assistance to help it acquire the corpse of Wachovia. And
who else benefited from that $50 billion in bailout money?
Billionaire Warren Bufett and his Berkshire Hathaway fund,
which happens to be a major shareholder in Wells Fargo. It
was Bufett's vice chairman, Charles Munger, who recently
told America that it should "thank God" that the
government bailed out banks like the one he invests in,
while people who have fallen on hard times that is,
homeowners like Shawnetta Cooper should "suck it in
and cope."
Look: It's undeniable that many of the people facing
explicit advantage."
Once the bailouts were in place, Goldman went right back
to business as usual, dreaming up impossibly convoluted
schemes to pick the American carcass clean of its loose
capital. One of its first moves in the post-bailout era was to
quietly push forward the calendar it uses to report its
earnings, essentially wiping December 2008 with its
$1.3 billion in pretax losses of the books. At the same
time, the bank announced a highly suspicious $1.8 billion
profit for the first quarter of 2009 which apparently
included a large chunk of money funneled to it by
taxpayers via the AIG bailout. "They cooked those first
quarter results six ways from Sunday," says one hedge
fund manager. "They hid the losses in the orphan month
and called the bailout money profit."
Two more numbers stand out from that stunning firstquarter turnaround. The bank paid out an astonishing $4.7
billion in bonuses and compensation in the first three
months of this year, an 18 percent increase over the first
quarter of 2008. It also raised $5 billion by issuing new
shares almost immediately after releasing its first quarter
results. Taken together, the numbers show that Goldman
essentially borrowed a $5 billion salary payout for its
executives in the middle of the global economic crisis it
helped cause, using half-baked accounting to reel in
investors, just months after receiving billions in a taxpayer
bailout.
Even more amazing, Goldman did it all right before the
government announced the results of its new "stress test"
for banks seeking to repay TARP money suggesting that
Goldman knew exactly what was coming. The government
was trying to carefully orchestrate the repayments in an
efort to prevent further trouble at banks that couldn't pay
back the money right away. But Goldman blew of those
concerns, brazenly flaunting its insider status. "They
seemed to know everything that they needed to do before
the stress test came out, unlike everyone else, who had to
wait until after," says Michael Hecht, a managing director
of JMP Securities. "The government came out and said, 'To
something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the
other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to
2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that
behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system
with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing
nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been
rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and
government guarantees while the actual victims in this
mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.
It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now
routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a
kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes
through what America has gone through lately, when a
people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the
past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're
no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that
you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight,
because like an amputee, you can still sort of feel things
that are no longer there.
But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this
world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others
get a note from the principal excusing them from
homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in
a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on
gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted
anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay.
And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know
where it's all going.
On the surface, the failure-to-disclose rap being leveled at
Goldman feels like a niggling technicality, the Wall Street
equivalent of a tax-evasion charge against Al Capone. The
bank will try and who knows might even succeed in
defending itself in a court of law against these charges.
But in the court of public opinion it was doomed the instant
the SEC decided to put this ghastly black comedy of a
fraud case on the street for everyone to see. Just as
Pittsburgh Steeler Ben Roethlisberger will never recover
from the image of him (allegedly) waving his dick at a
In the year since and this, to me, is the main lesson from
the SEC case against Goldman the public has quickly
come to accept that when it comes to the once-great
institutions of modern Wall Street, literally no deal that
makes money is too low to be contemplated.
The nearly identical case involving a Merrill Lynch
mortgage deal called Norma now making its way through
the courts is just one example. There is more fraud out
there, and everyone knows it: front-running, manipulation
of the commodities markets, trading ahead of interest-rate
moves, hidden losses, Enron-esque accounting, Ponzi
schemes in the precious-metals markets, you name it. We
gave these people nearly a trillion bailout dollars, and no
one knows what service they actually provide beyond
fraud, gross self-indulgence and the occasional
transparently insincere public apology.
The Goldman case emerges as a symbol of all this
brokenness, of a climate in which all financial actors are
now supposed to expect to be burned and cheated, even
by their own bankers, as a matter of course. (As part of its
defense, Goldman pointed out that IKB is a "sophisticated
CDO market participant" translation: too fucking bad for
them if they trusted us.) It would be nice to think that the
SEC suit is aimed at this twisted worldview as much as at
the actual ofense. Some observers believe the case
against Goldman was timed to pressure Wall Street into
acquiescing to Sen. Chris Dodd's loophole-ridden financialreform bill, which probably won't do much to prevent cases
like the Abacus fiasco. Or maybe it's just pure politics
Democrats dropping the proverbial horse's head in
Goldman's bed to get their fig-leaf financial-reform efort
passed in time for the midterm elections.
Whatever the long-range motives, the immediate efect of
the lawsuit is to put Wall Street's crazy fraud ethos on trial
in the court of public opinion. For now, at the end of the
first quarter, Goldman and most of the other big banks are
still winning that case. But the second quarter might be a
diferent story.
They achieve this using the same playbook over and over
again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions
itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling
investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast
sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the
aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite
the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank
throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust,
leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving,
they begin the entire process over again, riding in to
rescue us all by lending us back our own money at
interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a
bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased.
They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since
the 1920s and now they're preparing to do it again,
creating what may be the biggest and most audacious
bubble yet.
If you want to understand how we got into this financial
crisis, you have to first understand where all the money
went and in order to understand that, you need to
understand what Goldman has already gotten away with. It
is a history exactly five bubbles long including last
year's strange and seemingly inexplicable spike in the
price of oil. There were a lot of losers in each of those
bubbles, and in the bailout that followed. But Goldman
wasn't one of them.
BUBBLE #1 The Great Depression
Goldman wasn't always a too-big-to-fail Wall Street
behemoth, the ruthless face of kill-or-be-killed capitalism
on steroids just almost always. The bank was actually
founded in 1869 by a German immigrant named Marcus
Goldman, who built it up with his son-in-law Samuel Sachs.
They were pioneers in the use of commercial paper, which
is just a fancy way of saying they made money lending out
short-term IOUs to smalltime vendors in downtown
Manhattan.
You can probably guess the basic plotline of Goldman's
hot IPO shares was not a harmless corporate perk," thenattorney general Eliot Spitzer said at the time. "Instead, it
was an integral part of a fraudulent scheme to win new
investment-banking business."
Such practices conspired to turn the Internet bubble into
one of the greatest financial disasters in world history:
Some $5 trillion of wealth was wiped out on the NASDAQ
alone. But the real problem wasn't the money that was lost
by shareholders, it was the money gained by investment
bankers, who received hefty bonuses for tampering with
the market. Instead of teaching Wall Street a lesson that
bubbles always deflate, the Internet years demonstrated
to bankers that in the age of freely flowing capital and
publicly owned financial companies, bubbles are incredibly
easy to inflate, and individual bonuses are actually bigger
when the mania and the irrationality are greater.
Nowhere was this truer than at Goldman. Between 1999
and 2002, the firm paid out $28.5 billion in compensation
and benefits an average of roughly $350,000 a year per
employee. Those numbers are important because the key
legacy of the Internet boom is that the economy is now
driven in large part by the pursuit of the enormous salaries
and bonuses that such bubbles make possible. Goldman's
mantra of "long-term greedy" vanished into thin air as the
game became about getting your check before the melon
hit the pavement.
The market was no longer a rationally managed place to
grow real, profitable businesses: It was a huge ocean of
Someone Else's Money where bankers hauled in vast sums
through whatever means necessary and tried to convert
that money into bonuses and payouts as quickly as
possible. If you laddered and spun 50 Internet IPOs that
went bust within a year, so what? By the time the
Securities and Exchange Commission got around to fining
your firm $110 million, the yacht you bought with your IPO
bonuses was already six years old. Besides, you were
probably out of Goldman by then, running the U.S.
Treasury or maybe the state of New Jersey. (One of the
truly comic moments in the history of America's recent
News:
Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley
analyzed a persons rank in society (measured by wealth,
occupational prestige and education) and found that those
who were richer were more likely to cheat, lie and break
the law than those who were poorer.
We found that it is much more prevalent for people in the
higher ranks of society to see greed and self-interest as
good pursuits, said Paul Pif, lead author of the study and
a doctoral candidate at Berkeley. This resonates with a lot
of current events these days.
In the first of two studies, researchers found that those
who drove more expensive cars (an admittedly
questionable indicator of economic worth) were more likely
to cut of other cars and pedestrians at a busy San
Francisco four-way intersection than those who drove
older, less-expensive vehicles.In other experiments,
wealthier study participants were more likely to admit they
would behave unethically in a variety of situations and lie
during negotiations. In another, researchers found
wealthier people were more likely to cheat in an online
game to win a $50 prize.
Greed is a robust determinant of unethical behavior,
according to the study.
This has some pretty clear implications, said Pif.
Inequality is very much on Americans minds, and the
potential efects of severe inequality on individual levels of
behavior are major.
Large sums of money may give people greater feelings of
entitlement, causing those people to be the most averse to
wealth distribution, Pif continued. Poorer people may be
less likely to cheat, because they are more dependent on
their community at large, he said. In other words, they
dont want to rock the boat.
Interesting. A right-winger would throw it back at you that
poorer neighborhoods are where the majority of crimes are
committed, but police are seldom brought in on matters of
white collar crimes, are they? Stats compiling the actual
damages of both types of crimes would be telling, but it
hit hard by the economic crisis; while the assets of the rich
are primarily financial products, and thus prone to
continuous fluctuations. In light of this, it might be best to
set bands based on average data, and then revise them
every few years to take account of long term trends. But
for reference, the median American household's wealth is
presently around $120,000 (having declined 35% over the
crisis), suggesting a cut-of of $3.5 million. (For context,
$5.5 million is the present entry point to America's richest
0.1%.) On the other side of the Atlantic, the slightly less
unequal UK apparently has a median wealth of 200,000
(pdf), suggesting a rather more generous wealth allowance
of 6 million.
Then, when anyone in our society lands in the category of
the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a
cheesy TV gameshow, "Congratulations, you won the
economy game! Well done." And then we should ofer
them a choice: give it up (hold a potlatch, give it to
Oxfam, their favourite art musuem foundation, or
whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our
society forever, leaving their citizenship at the door on
their way out. Since the rich are, um, rich, they have all
the means they need to make a new life for themselves
elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into
citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So
I'm sure they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to
visit family and friends a few days a year - there's no need
to be vindictive.
There are obviously many difficulties in making my
proposal a reality (and I'm sure readers will point them
out). Leave aside for the moment the technical problems,
like how to properly incorporate income; how to assess the
real value of volatile financial assets; whether individuals
or households are the right units of analysis; or how to
beat the lawyers who have already done so much for the
tax efficiency of the rich. If it could be made to work, what
would happen?
Obviously there would be a mass outpouring of wealth,
bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson
made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His
current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now
and pay their taxes years from now.
In 2007, Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers
should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses
and other compensation for their labors, which is 35
percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable
incomenot even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12
years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
The Republicans and a key Democrat, Sen. Charles
Schumer of New York, fought to keep the tax rate on
hedge-fund managers at 15 percent, arguing that the
profits from hedge funds should be considered capital
gains, not ordinary income, which got a lot of attention in
the news.
What the news media missed is that hedge-fund managers
dont even pay 15 percent. At least, not currently. So long
as they leave their money, known as carried interest, in
the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay
taxes when they cash out, which could be decades from
now for younger managers. How do these hedge-fund
managers get money in the meantime? By borrowing
against the carried interest, often at absurdly low rates
currently about 2 percent.
Lots of other people live tax-free, too. I have Donald
Trumps tax records for four years early in his career. He
paid no taxes for two of those years. Big real-estate
investors enjoy tax-free living under a 1993 law President
Clinton signed. It lets professional real-estate investors
use paper losses like depreciation on their buildings
against any cash income, even if they end up with
negative incomes like Trump.
Frank and Jamie McCourt, who own the Los Angeles
Dodgers, have not paid any income taxes since at least
2004, their divorce case revealed. Yet they spent $45
million one year alone. How? They just borrowed against
Dodger ticket revenue and other assets. To the IRS, they
reported that 115 out of the 500 large firms listed on the
Standard & Poor's index owed a total tax rate of less than
20 percent -- substantially lower than the 35 percent
federal rate for corporations. And 39 of those firms paid
less than 10 percent.
Some firms -- like General Electric -- owed nothing in
federal corporate taxes in 2010, despite racking up over
$14.2 billion in profits, more than a third of which were
generated in the U.S. Obama said in his State of the Union
speech that the loophole-riddled system must change, but
Leonhardt concluded in Feburary that that wouldn't be
easy. "[A]ny system that creates as many winners as this
one wont be changed easily," he wrote. Progressives and
labor activists will seek to push the issue forward on April
18 at "Make Them Pay" events targeting millionaires and
large corporations across the country.
Boeing, by the way, has been the recipient of substantial
public largesse, from a City of Chicago tax increment
financing grant to the billions it receives in federal
contracts.
boeing pays 4 one half percent tax
The Corporation (film)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Corporation is a 2003 Canadian documentary film
critical of the modern-day corporation, considering it as a
class of person (as in US law it is understood to be) and
evaluating its behaviour towards society and the world at
large as a psychologist might evaluate an ordinary person.
Directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. Written by
Joel Bakan.
Contents [hide]
1 Narrator
("Mikela Mikael")
2 Noam
Chomsky
3 Others
4 See Also
[edit]
Narrator ("Mikela Mikael")
51. 150 years ago, the business corporation was a
relatively insignificant institution. Today, it is allpervasive. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the
Communist Party in other times and places, the
corporation is today's dominant institution. This
documentary examines the nature, evolution, impacts,
and possible futures of the modern business
corporation. Initially given a narrow legal mandate,
what has allowed today's corporation to achieve such
extraordinary power and influence over our lives? We
begin our inquiry as scandals threaten to trigger a
wide debate about the lack of public control over big
corporations.
51. Through the voices of CEOs, whistle blowers, brokers,
gurus and spies, insiders and outsiders, we present the
corporation as a paradox, an institution that creates
great wealth, but causes enormous, and often hidden
harms.
% To determine the kind of personality that drives the
corporation to behave like an externalising machine,
we can analyse it like a psychiatrist would a patient.
We can even formulate a diagnosis, on the basis of
typical case histories of harm it has inflicted on others
selected from a universe of corporate activity.
% Having acquired the legal rights and protections of a
person, the question arises - what kind of person is the
corporation?
[edit]
Noam Chomsky
% The dominant role of corporations in our lives is
essentially a product of roughly the past century.
Corporations were originally associations of people
who were chartered by a state to perform some
particular function. Like a group of people want to
28.
The Corporation
Proving yet again the rich arent like the rest of us, the
Harper government has moved quickly to clear the way for
disgraced former newspaper owner Conrad Black to return
to Canada as early as Friday.
If all goes well for Black, he will be released Friday morning
from a U.S. prison in Miami, grab a ride to the airport to
board a plane and arrive in Toronto in time for dinner.
Not bad, eh, for a foreigner who renounced his Canadian
citizenship more than a decade ago, who has repeatedly
dissed our country, who has been convicted in an
American court of serious criminal ofences, who has
served more than three years behind bars and who has
shown no sign either of remorse or of having been
rehabilitated.
Doesnt seem right, does it?
Indeed, theres a strong stench wafting up from this
surprise decision by the federal government to give
speedy approval to Blacks application for a one-year
temporary-resident permit, which was okayed in midMarch.
Thats because Black, a still-wealthy man with strong ties
to powerful conservative politicians and business leaders,
clearly had his permit fast-tracked in Ottawa, while
your shoulders!
% The richest 400 households can aford to give a
$10,000 bonus to every single worker in the entire
country. What would a hardworking person like you do
with that extra money?
% The richest 400 can aford to buy a new car for every
family in the United States. Meanwhile, many of us
must ignore the flashing check engine light.
% The richest 400 can pay for 3 years worth of gas for
every driver in the country.
% The richest 400 households can aford to triple the
number of teachers in the United States, then give
every single one a $30,000 raise. Teachers are being
laid of everywhere, their salaries are being cut, and
they are sufering. Teacher-to-student ratios in schools
are abysmal. But what can we do about it when so
much wealth is in the pockets of so few families?
% The richest 400 families alone could replace 70% of all
money lost in the Great Recession, for everyone! How
much money did you, your parents, or grandparents
lose in the Great Recession of 2008? 30%, 50% of your
portfolio? Not only do the rich still have enough money
to fund their wildest dreams, but they can also fund
your retirements.
As you can see, the wealthiest families in the U.S. are
doing just fine. And with this money has come a great deal
of political influence, often in the form of tax breaks and
tax loopholes. Their influence on policy has made it easy
for the rich to stay rich [and get richer].
And until this winner-take-all economy changes, it will
remain nearly impossible for us regular folks to get ahead,
no matter how hard we work.
The 400 wealthiest families in the U
corporation, and the rich-negative personality traits
"...this time it's like the Gilded Age on steroids"
54.
55.
Age and This OneWe should mark 1886 for its singular gift
to the robber barons. This was the year in which the
Supreme Court declared, in Santa Clara County, that
corporations are persons under the meaning of the 14th
Amendment. As David Korten writes of this very peculiar
decision:In the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern
Pacific Railroad Company, the US Supreme Court decided
that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the
legal rights and protections the Constitutions afords to
any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of
corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Courts taking it
upon itself to rewrite the Constitution. Far more
remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate
personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of
corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision
without argument. According to the official case record,
Supreme Court Justice Morrison Waite simply pronounced
at the outset that The court does not wish to hear
argument on the question whether the provision in the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids
a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are all of opinion that it does.The irony of the Courts
fully enfranchising private corporations at the very same
time that it was systematically disenfranchising the actual
persons the 14th Amendment was designed to help
African Americanshas not been lost on historians. Three
years earlier, in 1883, the Court had invalidated the Civil
Rights Act of 1875; ten years later in Plessy v. Ferguson, it
would formally validate the infamous separate but equal
doctrine.What makes that Gilded Age dramatically
diferent from our own, however, is that in 1886 there were
powerful social movements pushing back against the
plutocrats. The American Federation of Labor was founded
in 1886, joining the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW),
the Knights of Labor, the Socialist Labor Party and an array
of other worker-based movements demanding industrial
and political democracy. The brutal police massacre that
took place in Chicagos Haymarket Square that same year
***juan has a hot dog AFTER leaving the meeting and the
obelisk building
'hard boiled'
**vadim says
colin wilson, criminal history of the world
(He might have added that he is also one of the few
creatures who has no instinctive revulsion against
cannibalism -dogs, for example, cannot be persuaded to
eat dog meat.)
Koestlers explanation is that the human brain is an
evolutionary blunder. It consists of three brains, one on top
of the other:
the reptile brain
, the mammalian brain and
, on top of these, the human neo-cortex.