Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
It was worse: they started BETTING on the default risk of these bundled loans. Credit default Swaps
It was a real estate bubble with a derivate bubble on top. In the U.S. - Let me explain: European banks are not allowed to make such risky loans, the next best thing was to buy them form the U.S. banks.
It was sufficiently opaque that European regulators did not notice (and only the large banks did it - they would not touch them.
In Germany there are many middle sized banks that do boring bank business that serves regular people, and the productive economy, home buyers and companies. They weathered the crisis well and had done nothing wrong (although the economic crisis affected them as well).
The U.S. banks got the bad loans out of the books and could start the next round.
The European banks got confirmations (by the large international rating agencies or the large banks had their own legal departments) that the bundled loans were of good quality.
That gave them plausible deniability, they could play stupid it it would not go well. Of course they KNEW that the quality was not that good. (that is why they might have started the bets = swaps. Or the actors were eager to create new forms of bets and introduced them also with the argument to have them as extra "insurance").
The problem: the original loans were only given out in the U.S. for real estate in the U.S. - that is a small "market" for the deals of so many banks, and the loans were "backed" by inflated prices.
As for selling the loans: there was media hype about the good real estate situation with rising prices. At the same time due to outsourcing and job losses there was no way people could afford to buy homes in a prudent manner. - it solved some problems for the Cheney / Bush admin.
Bush had signed the China agreement, so he could not now declare the American Dream to be dead.
Construction propped up the employment rate, people felt wealthy and were happy to live in their home, the donors (real estate developers) were happy, I am sure politicians got a cut. So no one warned or had an interest to contain the boom.
If a person could not afford the house they could feel they made a smart investment, they would sell it if they could not afford the rates LATER (the contracts were designed to have a few years with low installments and interest rates). The profit from the transaction would be their starting point for their nest egg. - only that such a speculative approach only works for the big guys and not at a scale where the little people can profit.
The appraisers were pressured into delivering sufficiently high estimates - if they did not conform the bank did not contract their services anymore. Some banded together, they published an open later in the New York Times protesting the practice. That should have been a red flag. a prudently working bank doesn't act that way.
The European banks knew the quality was not that good and were looking for someone that would engage in a bet with them. covering the default risk was a wayto pass on the hot potatoe.
So far "passing on" meant the risk (maximal damage) remained the same. If the volume of the bets was only for max. damage amount the bets would not have made things worse - engaged more actors that would suffer from losses. But betting (derivates) had become a huge industry since Bill Clinton had completed the deregulation.
Many liked the new financial "instrument" now they did not bet on pig halves, oil price, who becomes president ... they betted on the default risk of these loan packages.
The problem: since the volume of bets by far exceeded the underlying contracts and values - once the loans started defaulting the sums that had to be paid out were not limited to the maximum damage.
Example:
let's say Deutsche Bank had subprime loans for 100 millions. And they had also the bets for the default risk - then they had to pay fees for the bet - normally they "lost". That cost them some money (not much), the actors on the other side of the deal were happy to pocket the money. But if the loans would default they would "win" the bet big time. So it had the function of an "insurance" the won bet would compensate them for the losses.
The only problem: a lot of actors had those bets going on w/o having skin in the game, w/o an underlying contract (that they wanted to "secure"). So a default of a 100 million bundle could mean that some actors were owed 200, 250, 300, ....480 .... millions.
Once the defaults started they soon did not have that money. the perceived security was none and there was no difference made between speculation to secure a transaction in the real economy and speculation just because. And the banks had many forms of speculation going one, the wins of betting on oil were needed to cover the losses of betting on interest rates. Banks owed each other money.
It was a real estate bubble with a derivate bubble on top. In the U.S.
All other large banks saw what was possible for U.S. banks at the end of the Clinton presidency. So they demanded the same freedom to do whatever they wanted - including NO regulation for the big players regarding derivates. Other countries had their own bubbles and once the U.S. dominos started falling there was more scrutiny for other banks in other countries. And these bubbles popped as well.
Cyprus
Iceland
Austra / Germany (Hypo bank scandal)
Spain (the had their own real estate bubble)
Greece (European banks had lent the Greek state a lot of money).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I agree: a "layered" disclosure does not hurt her credibility. telling a friend 15 years later sth really bad happened when she worked for Biden without giving details, is a way to protect herself. Apart from unwanted publicity, she would either have been ignored, or if the claims were treated seriously she could realistically expect a smear campaign, retaliation ...
Biden has been an important player under the Bill Clinton admin ! He was a faithful servant of big biz / finance all his political career. Got frequent and friendly media coverage and had built a brand of Joe, folksy friend of the working class. A man with that power and public standing can destroy a life.
I think there is a psychological element of her being conflicted and not telling ALL to that friend (or last year when she backed up the claims of Lucy Flores).
1) people need to know, this man cannot be trusted - while he has a distinguished career and is getting very nice treatment by the media
2) sth bad happened but if I do not talk about the worst part - it is not real. As if talking about it revives it, gives it live. Makes her more of a victim.
I am sure it has been eating at her.
If he did it and then he does the heart string book tour after the death of his son (after leaving the White House), or the honor of being picked as VP, the cutsie reporting on the bromance with Obama - this man failed upwards and had a distinguised career.
Rape is often sensationalized. Even is the alleged perpetrator is not a powerful man now striving for one of the most powerful positions in the world.
Something just struck me:
2019 in a townhall Gabbard responded to a woman whose question was about sexual assault in the military (I seem to remember she was a survivor). Gabbard mentioned in her answer that there are soldiers that have trouble reporting sexual assault. Being viewed as that woman / man in their unit (that reported - which throws a shade at the unit). I think Gabbard was engaged in that work, and that assault victims had contacted her before.
Gabbard might rethink her ill advised endorsement.
5
-
It is good that the allegations gets some more air: IF he really did that brazen assault on her, there is a good chance she is not the only one. maybe other women take a heart and come out NOW.
Of course some might have gone along, in shock, or cooperated willingly to not endanger their career or they seized even a chance to promote it - in which case such swift action would have never gotting him any resistance.
I mean if he had tried to kiss her and backed off as soon as he realizes she is not into it .... but pinning her against the wall in one swift move (I remember she said then he was a strong man) and immediately penetrating her with his finger (while she struggles to process what is happening) - that is some brazen action. By a man who thinks he can do whatever he wants.
To think that she is getting that treatment after MeToo.
I do not know if her claims are true: but they are at least as credible as the story of Dr. Ford. (And in a way the alleged assault of the drunk teenagers is less horrible.
Very drunk, held her pinned her down under his bodyweight tried to take off her clothes which did not work, because she wore a one-piece bathing suit under her clothes. His friend was on top of that heap and then he toppled over, both laughed, and she could escape.
As opposed to:
A sober, mature man actually penetrating her - and at their workplace - is worse. Biden did not follow throught with more (DUH they were in the Capital at a semi public place, what if she started yelling for help). The teenagers were also not hell bent on forcing Blasey Ford, maybe the bathing suit saved all 3 of them: Blasey from rape, and the young men from becoming rapists.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@judydeters407 If a third party gets more than 5 % they get federal funding - a god send for small parties. It ALSO encourages people to vote for them NEXT time when they see the party is "viable". It boosts morale (it is a very thankless and exhausting job to be the little opposition party and to run with little money).
So a respectable, fairly good, promising result would keep them going.
Did I mention that nothing pisses off the Democratic establishment more than the peasants daring to disregard the lesser evilism blackmail ?
both parties and their common donors, but especially the Dems would rather have you vote for Republicans or not vote at all. Don't bother with their professed engagement to "turn out the vote" - not when it would benefit grassroots.
you might miss out on ballot measures if you do not vote. And in R states is is the pretext to kick you off the voter rolls if you miss one or two elections.
Also consider voting for D members of congress, even the shills. A mail telling them that they did not "earn" your vote, they are lucky to get it for your strategic consideration should help to keep them on their toes.
They are still better than the R's (especially if in their state a third party candidate did well in the general, they will smell the coffee they might consider working for the constituents occasionally).
Or imagine in a state the downballot Dems get elected, but many leave the president line blank or vote for the third party candidate. Would be even MORE impressive if a safely blue state is lost because of the third party candidate.
let the DNC and their media howl over the spoiler - and tell them it is going to continue. The Corporate Dems take the progressives for granted, it shows VERY clearly.
Biden (or his handlers) feel very safe when telling the serfs they are not going to get M4A, they tell stupid lies (Italy has single payer - so has Germany, austria, or South Korea, Yes THAT SK that handled the pandemic so well).
On the other hand they knot themselves into pretzels to court the mythical moderate conservatives (I understand - those voters go along with the big donor friendly neoliberal agenda).
But anyway: so far the progressives have always fallen in line when told:
Nice little country you have here, wouldn't it be a shame if Donald Trump happened to it ?
(or Mitt Romney, or Ted Cruz, ...... the Democrats can always rely on the other wing of the one and only big donor party to come up with an even more terrible tweedle dee, tweedle dum)
If you get a shill in congress it is not THAT bad, they can be replaced after 2 years and they are members of a body, so they do not have as much power.
of course if there is a progressive alternative for a Congress and Senate seat - support them unless you think you'll hand the victory to a Republican (and you still care about them not having the majority in congress and Senate. The Republicans are terrible - and Democrats hardly better).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In the Catholic church the "believes" are called "credo" (or credos). In economics and political discussions we have also a lot of thought stopping clichés (I borrowed that term from a speech about cult members and deprograming them). Economics is not a hard science, it belongs to the social studies, that does not mean you can't have insights. But it is a science like all social sciences that are abused for ideological reasons - and even if not there can be disagreement on major issues.
Back in the day the few on the top told the peasants that god had made society that way and that they had to fall in line (and church supported that message). It is much easier to control the masses (they are many more by definition) by propaganda and not by brute force (that costs much more). The goal is that they accept their poverty as INEVITABLE by circumstance even outside of control of the ruling class. It sucks but nothing else is possible. It can't be changed, there is not enough to go around for everyone. Apart from the occasional revolt and even rarer revolution that worked to control the peasants.
The narrative with god doesn't work anymore. Now economics is used to tell the voters how it is impossible to raise taxes on the rich, inconvenience big biz, have a green new deal, or to reject "free" "trade" deals.
As for propaganda
The "nobel prize" for economics isn't one of the original prizes created by Alfred Nobel around 1900 (physics, chemistry, medicine, peace and literature). In the 1970s the Swedish Central bank had an anniversary and they set a LOT of money aside to create this new prize in "memory of Nobel" (the Nobel family does not like it that they take a piggy ride on the brand).
The prize is high (as high as the real prizes) - you must put a lot of money aside so the eternal interest / capital revenue will be enough to pay out the money year after year.
Gee, I wonder who might have had an interest in such a PR gig. Hint: look who got awarded them first in order to prop up their credibility.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In other news: AOC had EXCELLENT fundraising. No wine caves, or USD 2,000 per plate dinners, no dialling for dollars. But: She does not "pay her dues" to the DCCC (someone launched a story how she is a dead beat, even FOX News gave it some air, but AOC handled it beautifully on twitter. It is a norm that Democrats give the DCCC a cut of the money they raise. AOC would "owe them" 250,000 and gave 300,000 - but directly to candidates of her chosing. The DCCC got nothing - and she intends to keep it that way.
And now she started an alternative to the DCCC, that will support progressives ;)
The ploy of Cheri Bustos (current DCCC head) to kneecap progressive candidates may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
These groups including the new PAC of AOC (there are also Justice Democrats which supported her primary, Our Revolution and other groups) create a reliable niche for creative talent (advertising, video producers) and stragists / consultants that would be good (or have potential to develop) but for some reason do not get at the troughs of the DCCC.
The DCCC does not want Democratic incumbents challenged (one example: long time incumbent Joe Crowly in a safely blue seat being challenged by an unknown, young Latina, a nobody in the party). That setup (usually) means a seat for life in safe blue districts.
Being allowed ! to run as candidate in such seats becomes a gift for party loyalists and people well connected to the Big donors of course. Or if the party establishment wants to prop up someone for a future presidential bid - like Hillary Clinton in New York.
It was no coincidence she was ushered into THAT Senate race (she had no connection to New York). The city also has major donors of the party. The otherwise logical successor was kept in the loop as long as the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton were undecided. As soon as that was over the female had to give way to First Lady Hillary Clinton running for a Senate seat that was easy to win for a Corporate Democrat. (The presidency of Bill was not over when Hillary moved to New York).
Protection of incumbents means that they are safe from being punished by their constituents for selling them out (unless some candidate is found for the uphill battle against Big Donor money, colluding Corporate media and the party machine). For the constituents the only other choice would be a worse Republican. Joe Crowley was not Congressman in New York 14th for 19 or 20 years because the constituents liked him so much. Most of the time he did not even have to qualify in a primary, and the Republicans never had a shot in that district.
The DCCC cannot legally block challengers, but they can withhold money from them.
The DCCC implemented the rule (some time after the win of AOC) that a company or person that works for a challenger of a Democratic incumbent will be blacklisted, they will NOT be getting any DCCC funded campaign contracts. Or contracts of candidates that are running with the nod and help of the DCCC.
Most of the money spent by campaigns does not come from the DCCC - but the DCCC still excerts a lot of control how it is spent. For instance a certain percentage must be spent on TV ads in local races (so contracts for associated companies and a way to bribe media). Or they give candidates at the state level a list of consultants / strategists and they have to work with one of them. (That is a way to shove over contracts to loyalists, and to punish contractors that do not toe the line - even if they would be excellent professionally).
AOC's fundraising improved at the end of her primary race (thanks to the platform she got with the help of independent media - and of course the work on the ground startd to pay of, but I think she got money from out of state thanks to outlets like TYT, Humanist Report ....)
So she could afford an ad that went viral on the internet. Very well made (from a marketing standpoint) - I do not think she had the help of a company that is the darling of the DCCC.
Not all of the consultants, strategists and video producers, PR companies that are cozy with the DCCC are that good (see the tone deaf, badly run Clinton campaign) - so AOC setting up a source of funding for outsider candidates using outsider professional talent could really backfire on the DCCC.
At the moment the rule of the DCCC puts grassroots campaigns (that the party establishment does not like even if theyt challenge a Republican) at a disadvantage. Some strategists / consultants ARE good and their help would be needed for inexperienced campaigns. (Cyntha Nixon had a problem to find staff when she challenged Cuomo in the gubernatorial primary, the well established contractors did not dare to offend the party / Cuomo machine in New York).
But the grassroots supporting groups coordinate and there will be a STEEP learning curve - for candiates, campaigns and potential contractors alike. The DCCC might wish they had never unwittingly left that genie out of the bottle.
The Dems saw a Blue Wave coming in Nov. 2006 (and I think Wallstreet had an inkling the bubble would burst soon). So the DCCC headed then by Rahm Emanuel stacked the races with "conservative" or Wallstreet Democrats. They were showered with money. Blue-collar oriented candidates were neglected, IF they still prevailled against the Corporate friendly types the DCCC abandoned them in the GE (it is the Big Donor party with 2 wings, better to have a Republican winning than a progressive Democrat).
Ain't the two-party duopoly great ? (Interviewer: "Mr. Nader, does the U.S. need three parties ? "Ralph Nader": No. But two would be great".)
The voters had it with the Cheney / Bush admin and the midterms 2006 went very well for Democrats. (and the Wallstreet types in Congress proved their value for the donors a few years later). The voters found out these "Democrats" were useless so they lost their seats quickly (1000 seats lost on all levels under Obama), but these candidates could hope to move on to more lucrative jobs provided by the Big Donors. So no harm done (to them) when they lost to Republicans.
Of course having solid majorities is a problematic for the Democrats, when they have the White House, Congress and Senate (supermajority in California. Or: 2009, 60 filibuster proof days in spring 2010, then they could have passed anything - but they passed ACA).
With solid majorities the Dems would be running out of excuses why they cannot pass bills that would help the regular people (but these measures normally recude the profits of the Big Donors. The only exception is things like gun control, abortion, LGBT rigths, identity politics (racism or white supremacy is a form of that).
BOTH fractions of the Big Donor party use these issues to differentiate themselves, whatever the position is - it does not cost the Big Donors anything. And the hop is to rile up the base with these issues only and to get them to the ballot.
A good display of "bipartisanship" letting the Republicans "participate" (who in turn will STILL not vote for the healthcare reform) and dragging things out can take care of the problem of having too much power so they could change things.
Corporate Democrats and Republicans have the SAME donors: certainly industries, often even the same companies and individuals. Keeping the Big Donors happy and the money flowing is even more important than winning elections:
the big donors (and the party "leadership") will arrange for cushy jobs for ex politicians (at least the hot shots - all the more incentive for the smaller fish to fall in line and cozy up with the party establishment - so they too have the backup that they would get a golden parachute, will have their campaigns financed, and no one will shower a primary challenger with money).
4
-
4