Update from the Heartland
No.382
6.4.09 – 12.4.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.382
6.4.09 – 12.4.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Another independent opinion [373] worthy of your attention:
“Begin discussion on legalizing drugs”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Tuesday, 03.31.09
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/978041.html
-- Please recall the case of former Marine Sergeant Ryan Weemer [329, 353], the man accused as a consequence of a Secret Service employment polygraph examination. A military court-martial jury acquitted Weemer of murder. Unfortunately, Ryan will now bear a burden of stigma for the rest of his life and will be denied opportunities for national service as a consequence. At least he is free.
-- Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia angrily denounced federal prosecutors as he accepted Attorney General Holder’s request to vacate the conviction of former Senator “Ted” Stevens [381]. Prosecutor misconduct may well have (and probably did) let a guilty man free. This is NOT vindication as many of Bad Boy Ted’s supporters have claimed. Personally, I think he is guilty as sin, and probably of far worse than the crimes for which he was convicted, but I must confess, from what I’ve seen, Eric Holder did what had to be done and it was the morally proper thing to do. Unfortunately, a guilty man will not pay for his crimes. Judge Sullivan ordered an investigation into the conduct of the prosecutors, so perhaps other guilty men will pay the price for their transgressions.
I offer my condolences and prayers to our Italian brothers and sisters after the tragic earthquake in the Abruzzo region of the Apennine Mountains, east of Rome. A 6.3 magnitude earthquake is modest by conventional standards, but the destruction to ancient and relatively new buildings is all too familiar. Hopefully, the rescue efforts will yield more survivors. Life will return to normal in time. This too shall pass.
President Obama wow’d ‘em at the G-20 Summit in London. We will need at least a few years to allow historic retrospective to help us understand the importance. However, the pomp & circumstance and public display / pronouncements were up-beat and optimistic. Of course, there was quite a disturbance in the Force when a short video clip appeared to show the President bowing deeply to the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He went on to a NATO summit, made a statement on the abolition of nuclear weapons, and then made his way to Turkey, to apologize for the sometimes arrogance of the country he now leads. Of course, the conservative talking heads leapt on the President’s perceived apology for the conduct of the United States. I am not so quick to condemn the President’s effort to mend fences. I have witnessed and been ashamed of American visitors in many other countries. I can appreciate what the President is trying to do.
In what we may learn to be a heroic confrontation, the SS Maersk Alabama, a U.S.-flagged container ship, was jumped by Somali pirates – the first such incident for an American merchantman since 1804. The crew managed to overcome and capture one of the pirates. They attempted to trade their captive for the ship’s hostage captain. These high seas criminals are clearly not honorable men. The U.S.S. Bainbridge (DDG-96) was dispatched – a highest prudent speed, I imagine – to render assistance. The remaining pirates fled in one of the ship’s enclosed lifeboats, with the captain still held hostage. The Bainbridge dispatched a squad to protect the Alabama as it proceeded to Mombasa, Kenya, while the Navy warship dealt with the pirates. The Navy had been fending off other pirates who had arrived to assist their cornered brethren. President Jefferson had it right in 1801. We have a choice – tolerate the irritating lawlessness of piracy or we can stamp out the vermin. I trust (maybe hope at this stage) that the Navy has clear, proper instructions in dealing with this attack on an American-flag ship. We heard late Sunday that Captain Richard Phillips, 53, of Underhill, Vermont, has been freed, unharmed, and at least three of his four captors were killed in a short, sharp firefight (reportedly near simultaneous shots from snipers, presumably American special operations operatives). I imagine we shall hear more once the situation has settled down.
In a rather bizarre mistake, the Metropolitan Police Service, Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations, Robert “Bob” Quick, 49, was photographed getting out of an automobile at No.10 Downing Street with a bundle of papers in his hand. Unfortunately, on top of that bundle was a secret document with the names of terrorism suspects. As a consequence of that photograph, counter-terrorism units in England executed armed raids across Northwest England, and arrested 11 men, reportedly in the final stages of planning for a major terror attack. The Specialist Operations Branch has responsibility for counter-terrorism, specialist protection and royalty protection. Regrettably, Quick, a career police officer, resigned after the moment’s lapse in judgment, but a good chunk of the bad guys are now in the care of Her Majesty’s Government.
As noted in last week’s Update [381], the State of Iowa Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the case of Varnum v. Brien [SC IA no. 07–1499 (2009)], which struck down a state law limiting civil marriage to one woman and one man. The unanimous, seven-justice opinion was written by Justice Mark S. Cady. While the ruling is not the best crafted judicial pronouncement I’ve read, the message is clear and direct. “Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution,” and “[c]onsequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.” Cady also observed, “[T]he constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand.” Interestingly, that the court went directly at the separation of powers and the will of the people issue in this question, i.e., judicial fiat. The court noted, “We approach the resolution of this case with a keen and respectful understanding of our Iowa Constitution and the vital roles of the three branches of government, as well as the role of the people. It is important for these roles to be identified and expressed.” The constitution (of the State of Iowa as well as the United States of America) belongs to the people. What we see in this issue is the tension between the principles of freedom – presumably to pursue their individual choices for Life, Liberty and Happiness – intended for ALL citizens regardless of the social factors – gender, age, race, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, language, sexual orientation, or disability – versus the will of the People, the common good, general security and welfare. In this issue, we have a majority of American citizens holding the fundamental belief that only adult, strictly heterosexual, opposite gender, strictly monogamous citizens should be allowed to enter into a contractual relationship we commonly call marriage. On the other hand, we have a minority within our society who do not subscribe to heterosexual, opposite gender, monogamous elements of that popular notion, and yet seek the same contractual rights, benefits, privileges and protections of marriage. At its most basic, fundamental level, we have the will of the overwhelming majority of our voting citizenship against the constitutional, equal protection, guarantees for a minority of citizens. Further, as noted by the court in Varnum, the hypocrisy of the traditional family argument remains profound and corrosive. If the willful, so-called “moral, majority” applied the same scrutiny, constraint and criticism to heterosexual marriage as they attempt to apply to homosexual marriages, their argument would be more weighty rather than hollow. Generalizations have caused such destruction, so it is in this debate as in so many other social questions. I believe we can all agree that there are classic, heterosexual, monogamous, opposite-gender couples who are really bad parents – negligent, complacent, uncaring. I respectfully submit to a discerning audience, might the inverse also hold true . . . that homosexual parents might be involved, caring, and nurturing. Should we not be focused on parenting, rather than be distracted by whom someone chooses as a life-partner? I am far more interested in the quality of parenting, the product of good parenting – stable, productive, respectful, contributory adults, who, in turn, raise another generation of productive citizens.
In the same week as the Varnum ruling, the Vermont legislature voted to override Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing homosexual men and women to marry. The vote came nine years after Vermont was the first in the United States to adopt a civil-union law. Vermont is now the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts, Connecticut, and now Iowa.
Another related opinion:
“Why Gay Marriage Matters – The state should recognize our choice of partner”
by Michael Judge
Wall Street Journal
Published: April 7, 2009, 10:40 AM ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906051568695003.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that the Treasury Department plans to extend the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to certain eligible life insurers. Several life insurers have been burdened lately by capital constraints amid ailing markets. The Government is expected to include life insurance companies that are either bank holding companies or own a thrift banking unit. The Treasury indicates it has about US$130B remaining in TARP funds and may use an unspecified amount in the new application.
-- Seðlabanki Íslands – the Central Bank of Iceland – lowered its key interest rate by 1.5% to 15.5%. The action is the second rate reduction by the bank in less than a month.
-- The Wall Street Journal also reported that the Federal Reserve was divided last month on just how much to ramp up purchases of mortgage and Treasury securities, yet they eventually ponied up more than US$1T for the recovery. The Fed was ultimately swayed into action by the continued faltering economy, and appeared particularly convinced by the steep drop in overseas economies.
-- The Bank of England held its benchmark rate steady at 0.5% and said it would maintain its quantitative easing policy.
-- Another ray of light in these dark times, Wells Fargo projected 1st Quarter net income well above analysts’ expectations, becoming the latest major bank to show positive results, following devastating losses in 2008. Wells Fargo shares surged 23% in pre-market trading on the announcement, and shares of Citigroup, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase also gained.
-- The latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey of professional economists suggests the recession may end in September, though most say it will not end until the second half of 2010, when the economy recovers enough to bring down unemployment.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo charged Jacob Ezra Merkin with civil fraud, alleging he “betrayed hundreds of investors” by funneling US$2.4B of clients’ money into of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Merkin was the non-executive Chairman of GMAC. A general partner of Gabriel Capital LP (a US$5B family of hedge funds), and managed Ascot Partners LP (a hedge fund valued at US$1.8B). According to the complaint, Merkin raised billions from charities, universities and individuals, lied about putting the bulk of it with Madoff, and failed to disclose serious conflicts of interest, induced by collecting over US$470M in fees from Madoff.
Comments and contributions from Update no.381:
“OK, here comes another grammar point. Let’s define ‘war.’
“Merriam-webster.com gives as the first definition of ‘war:’ ‘a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.’ That’s certainly how I think of ‘war’ in the national, military sense. We don’t have that. The only ‘state or nation’ in this one is the United States. Everybody else is some sort of private group.
“Since that is not what we have, keep reading. The same site gives an ‘obsolete’ definition, then an ‘achaic’ one. After that comes the one that apparently applies here: ‘a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end ‘a class war’ ‘a war against disease.’” That leaves the War on Islamic Fascism (or Terror or whatever) as a ‘war on’ rather than a ‘war with.’ World War II was a ‘war with’ Germany, Japan, et al. The Vietnam War was a ‘war with’ North Vietnam. This is a ‘war on,’ more like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. That is, a ‘war’ on a concept, not really a national war. No clear opponent, no measurement for victory or defeat, no consistent military strategy due to our ever-shifting definitions of ‘terror’ and ‘terrorists.’ No necessary end. No limits to targets and no clear limits to the civil rights violations of anyone in the world.
“President Obama does not surprise me by avoiding those terms. He uses words precisely and very well.
“I am a grammarian. I always seek to know the meanings of my words.”
My response:
Your examination of the words is spot on; yet, as should be expected, I shall quibble with the implication that emanates from your grammatical assessment.
Until the last few decades, war has traditionally and historically been between nation-states, yet ‘nation-state’ is a product of the last millennia, perhaps two. Prior to the establishment of territorial boundaries, nations were defined by tribes or groups of individuals, i.e., Samarians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, et cetera. Thus, in the classical sense, war is armed conflict between groups of people. However, we are not in a classical war; there is no nation-state adversary (although I would be inclined to cite the Islamic Republic of Iran in this context); there is no tribe; there is only an ideology. Likewise, as you note, “war with” is not appropriate as there is no entity. “War on” does seem proper to me.
The key factor to my grammatical thinking is “armed,” and “who is the enemy?” Our enemy is an ideology – Islamic fascism intent upon imposition of their values, their rules, their beliefs on all those who do not believe as they do, including the majority of Muslims I might add. Al-Qaeda has close affinity to the Taliban – strict fundamentalists who impose literal Sharia Law on those within their sphere of influence. I do not think we debate “armed.”
We have discussed President Bush’s failure to seek a full & proper declaration of war in this humble forum [220 et al]. That failure is the genesis of a goodly portion of our collective, on-going, debate regarding this war, i.e., since Congress did not explicitly use the phrase “declaration of war,” then we must not be at war. Perhaps so, but it matters not when citizens are dying.
For the sake of argument, allow me to return to the root question. Are we at war? If not, then what is the proper title for the armed conflict in which we find ourselves? If yes, then with whom are we at war? By what phrase shall we refer to this conflict?
Is the President’s parsing words like Bill Clinton did with his infamous “that depends upon what the definition of ‘is,’ is?” Is such parsing a feel-good exercise for us to rationalize a particularly nasty, ugly business?
People are dying on both sides of this conflict. To me, if it looks like war, smells like war, sounds like war, feels like war, well then, maybe it actually is war. If we do not wish to call this armed conflict “war,” and we do not wish to refer to our enemy as “Islamic fascists,” that is OK by me. As I said, we can call it “picnic with Osama,” for I care. I am not so interested in labels as I am in defeating a bunch of fanatics bent upon injury to our citizens and our Allies. Plus, I am fundamentally opposed to anyone (regardless of any combination of the social factors) who seeks to impose their will upon me, my family, my fellow citizens, or any other freedom-loving people. Freedom is freedom; it cannot be parsed.
So, until I absorb a better, more descriptive, label, “War on Islamic Fascism” seems to be the most appropriate to me. What do you think is a better descriptive label?
. . . round two:
“This is interesting. You agree with my fact but miss my point. Here’s the point: ‘Our enemy is an ideology – Islamic fascism.’
“My point was not the use of the word ‘war’ per se, but the distinction between two definitions of ‘war.’ The traditional military-political definition of war makes it possible to pinpoint an enemy, to plan a consistent strategy and to define an endpoint—we win or lose, as we did in the World Wars, the War of 1812, Vietnam, etc. This kind of war may be unpopular but it accomplishes something if we win.
“The newer definition of ‘war’ used in ‘war on’ conflicts has none of those features. Your comment states, ‘our enemy is an deology—Islamic Fascism.’ As I attempted to point out, that in itself removes the traits of a traditional war. People have attempted to make war on concepts for millennia, with little to no success. I myself am living proof of this. Judeo-Christian-Islamic militarists have attempted for a very long time to eliminate the ‘enemies’ (their term and concept) of their religions. I am not their enemy, but they see me that way. I am a pagan. St. Patrick announced in the 600’s AD that we had been eliminated from Ireland, but Ireland today is one of the better places to be pagan. Witches (a pagan group) were famously hunted down and killed in Middle-Ages Europe. We are still around. Wars against ideas fail. For recognizably American examples, the War on Poverty has not eliminated poverty; the War on Drugs has wasted massive funding while changing nothing more than the prison population.
“If I thought military action could actually stop violently anti-American actions, I would consider supporting it even at the outrageous price we are paying. I don’t think it’s possible.”
. . . my response to round two:
You are quite right; I missed your point. Thank you for persevering.
Also, I mis-stated my opinion. Our enemy is not an ideology; rather, our enemies are human beings who believe the ideology and are willing to kill themselves to kill other innocent people to further their ideology. Our enemy uses terror to cower their victims; they do not seek freedom; they seek domination and the imposition of Sharia Law, on believers and infidels alike. Our enemy are those men who act upon those beliefs of such things. Six hundred years ago, Christians sought the same objectives, by the same means; they killed those who did not believe as they believed.
The reason I use the term Islamic Fascism lies with the dictatorial aspects of their ideology. If people freely choose to live under Sharia Law and submit to the harsh enforcement of the Taliban, then I am all for it, just as I was for communism, socialism or even the secular fascism of the Nazis, if that was their free choice. But, any ideology that denies free choice to others, rejects tolerance of others who do not wish to believe as they believe, must be opposed. My objection is not the ideology, but rather the projection and imposition of the ideology; thus, our enemy is the bad men who seek that domination.
If fighting violence with violence is not the answer, what is? I confess, I am one of those guys who believe that if they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.
Another comment / contribution:
“Actually, I think that this Administration does get it regarding AQ [al-Qaeda] and Afghanistan. The ‘war on terror’ was a terrible misnomer – former Sec State (and former Chief of Staff) Powell and SecDef Gates have gone on record against the phrase, as have many senior officers. It is misleading and gives misplaced credibility to Muslim radicals. The Administration is aiming to go after AQ, who, after all, are the people who attacked us on 9/11. They are the enemy and we are now (hopefully) going after them.
“Regarding the Minnesota Senate election, Coleman has bigger problems. He appears to be in big trouble in a criminal matter. A couple of civil lawsuits allege (with substantiating evidence) that $75,000 in cash was routed to his wife by Coleman’s main backer, through the insurance firm where she works. The FBI is investigating (the American version of the Brit ‘Scotland Yard is making inquiries’).
“And regarding the President’s comments in Prague (beautiful city, BTW) his proposal is very much in line with the bipartisan approach outlined two years ago by George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“It’s also in line with the vision articulated by Ronald Reagan, who called for the abolishment of ‘all nuclear weapons,’ which he considered to be ‘totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.’
“Their military relevance is being questioned by many military thinkers; our conventional weapons are such now that they aren't needed-or wanted. On the other hand, they are part of the justification for the U.S. Air Force. Listen to what the President said--he noted that this might not (and likely won’t) happen in his lifetime-- but the idea is to make steps in that regard.”
My reply:
I have never liked the term “war on terror.” As they say, one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom-fighter. I think War on Islamic Fascism is the most descriptive label I’ve seen, but that term is not politically correct. I presume from your words, you think we should call this conflict the War with al-Qaeda? What about the Taliban? Would a better label be the War with al-Qaeda and the Taliban? If so, what about the radical fundamentalist mullahs, inciting the faithful to become martyrs, killing innocents for Allah in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, ad infinitum?
I had not heard that about Coleman. If so, he should pay the price for his transgressions. I trust there will be charges and convictions, rather than the public innuendo to ruin reputations like Elliott Spitzer and Ted Stevens.
I am all for idealism. I want to see world peace, no hunger, no disease, and freedom for all who wish to live in freedom. I want a world that does not need police, or the military, or lawyers. It is nice to dream. In fact, the 3rd book of the Anod series (as yet unwritten) offers an idyllic view of future Earth. Yet, until we can thwart the bad men before they harm anyone, or all human beings can respect the choices of others, we will need nuclear weapons. I don’t like it, but they are necessary.
A neglect contribution from Update no.380:
“This is where the different standard comes in. Not in the existence of risk, but in the evaluation. I see those ‘investment advisors’ (not 100% of them, but those in the riskier, more profitable instruments) basically as liars; you seem to think that the customers had a fair chance to understand the risk.
“They were thinking $$$$.
“Taking out the insurance policy was brilliant and is paying off. The company issuing the policy, however, was clearly insane.
“They were thinking they would make money. They did, too.
“That's where my biggest complaint comes in. The job of government is to govern (duh).
“We can only do that if those claims are again made criminal.”
My response:
Re; “investment advisors.” I won’t go so far to call them “liars.” They are salesmen, not particularly different from any salesman. They will shade the truth to present their product in the best light possible. Semper caveat emptor.
They were indeed making mountains of money off of imaginary, nay fictitious, assets.
And, taking out insurance policies on fictitious assets. Insanity indeed. Cassano was one of the world-class criminals, who took away US$300M, so he got away with the idiocy (so far). But, I hope everyone noticed . . . it is AIG that is in trouble. Other large insurance companies were apparently not seduced. AIG was insane and deserves what will eventually come to them.
The financial scam artists were allowed free rein – no regulation – no law to make their nefarious work illegal – well, unless they print & distribute false claims, but those bastards are very clever liars. Yes, we need the proper level of regulation. Then again, there are regulations and regulators today, but some banks cheat; some banks no longer exist, not because of the regulators but because of their foolish greed. I want Wall Street class stealing to be illegal and the perpetrators subject to being some big guy’s prison yard love-buddy . . . repeatedly.
. . . round two:
“They differ from other sales people in two key ways. One is the enormous amounts of money involved in their transactions; the other, the difficulty of understanding the products offered. Blowing that off with ‘caveat emptor’ is precisely the attitude that brought the entire world’s economy to the current situation.
“That supports the argument for re-regulation.
“Given volume of money and the sheer ridiculousness of the policies, I’m surprised that no regulations had ever been put in place.
“We may hope that AIG will eventually get what it deserves. We may not assume that; history varies on this type of offensive behavior.
“Certainly, some of the banks cheat. That again supports re-regulation with enforcement muscle. I hope the days of ‘voluntary regulation’ (oxymoron) are over.
“I would almost bet that those stealing millions of dollars will always risk lesser punishments than those stealing hundreds or thousands. That's history.
Re: This too shall pass.
“That's the only statement that has proved true in all situations throughout history.”
. . . my round two response:
Whoa now! I am not blowing off anything. I am as angry as you are. As with political criticism of politician & presidents, with moral criticism of clerics & moral projectionists, with all of it, I seek balance. I have not, am not, and will never rationalize the unchecked greed and paucity of moral conduct of so many of the Wall Street investment bankers, mortgage brokers, hedge fund operators, derivative traders, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I have invested our precious family assets in various sectors, tried to diversify intelligently. The rate of return (before the recession) was modest (not great, not bad). I felt no temptation to seek 15% ROI claimed by Bernie Madoff. I have not invested in one of Bob Stanford’s grand development projects. I have not signed up to a 125% mortgage on a house with a value inflated five times over true value. There are bad people on Wall Street. There are also good people. We can vilify the greed of Wall Street. I just do not want us to ignore the foolish greed of individual citizens who were seduced by the Siren’s song of making gobs of money by flipping a house in a couple of years (after all, they had friends who had done it), or invested all their assets with a guy who promised rates of return 2-3 times the prevailing market return. Let us not forget the root cause.
As I have written, I am very much in favor of regulation, just as I am in favor of laws for public conduct. I am also concerned about over-reaction, going too far, as we did with intelligence regulation in 1978. We clearly need regulation of market sectors that have been devoid of rules, laws. I trust that will change for the good.
There are more than a few folks who truly believe an absolute free market will regulate itself. And, they are correct. Of course it will. My query to such folks: at what cost? Is it OK for me to make millions & billions as I destroy thousands of lives?
True! There are no guarantees, but I suspect AIG will not exist as it was in 2-5 years. I do not assume so; I just expect so.
Yes, banks do cheat, and many have gone out of business. However, banks are more regulated than mortgage companies or investment banking, which is why the USG pulled the surviving investment banks into the banking regulation arena.
I hope you are wrong about the greedy bastards getting lesser punishment.
. . . round three:
“Certainly a wide variety of people work on Wall Street. Re-regulation will have no negative effects on those who perform with honesty and integrity.
“The ‘root cause’ is that money becomes available to corporations whose existence depends upon making money by whatever means is available. The companies and their employees realistically cannot be held responsible for regulating themselves. I’ll say it again: the sole purpose of corporations is to make money. Not to guard the customers' interests, not to benefit the market as a whole, not anything other than to make money. They naturally take advantage of those who do not have extensive backgrounds in finance. As you point out, many of the customers had friends who had flipped the houses or received the returns as promised. How would a nurse, an engineer or a musician know without extensive research that those were not ordinary market conditions? Those who make money by their expertise must be regulated and held accountable for their use or abuse of that expertise.
“That's my point. I have met people who are, in a correct political sense, anarchists. They tend to believe in that ‘free’ market as fervently as some others believe in the Second Coming. If every individual were equal in expertise and resources, they would probably be right. They are wrong. We may all be equal in moral worth, but General Motors and any number of other corporations can overwhelm almost any individual's resources at will; so much for the concept of free choice. Regulation is necessary to protect the weak from the strong. In recent U.S. history that has been turned on its head; regulation has protected corporations and the very wealthy from the rest of us.
“I wish I were wrong about that, but history still predicts the future better than any other tool I know. The history is that people who steal millions face lesser penalties than people who steal hundreds.”
. . . my response to round three:
The problem is, over-regulation can very well have a negative effect on people who perform with honesty and integrity – takes away the profit motive, risk & reward. The challenge will be finding the proper balance.
The market has no mercy. The business of most, if not all, corporations is to make money for their shareholders. They do not have other obligations. The law establishes a set of rules for the safety of customers and employees, for ethical conduct in the marketplace, for the environment. If a business does not make money for its shareholders within the law, then it goes out of business, period. Without the law, anarchy exists in the marketplace, just as it would in society, and the profit motive, as the objective of business, is a very powerful force. Yes, absolutely, there must be accountability; if a business harms anyone (customer, employee, neighbor), then penitence – their debt to the society they have offended. Making money is not a sin. Making a profit is important and good. My concern is collateral damage.
Likewise, I know a few marketplace anarchists as well. While they are friends, I do not ascribe to a true free market, no more than I do lawlessness on Main Street.
I believe we are in agreement regarding the necessity of marketplace regulation.
Perhaps you are correct about history and wealthy people paying lesser punishment for greater crimes. Perhaps so. We, the People, can and should always strive to improve the system. We do, indeed, have a long way to go.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Another independent opinion [373] worthy of your attention:
“Begin discussion on legalizing drugs”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Tuesday, 03.31.09
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/978041.html
-- Please recall the case of former Marine Sergeant Ryan Weemer [329, 353], the man accused as a consequence of a Secret Service employment polygraph examination. A military court-martial jury acquitted Weemer of murder. Unfortunately, Ryan will now bear a burden of stigma for the rest of his life and will be denied opportunities for national service as a consequence. At least he is free.
-- Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia angrily denounced federal prosecutors as he accepted Attorney General Holder’s request to vacate the conviction of former Senator “Ted” Stevens [381]. Prosecutor misconduct may well have (and probably did) let a guilty man free. This is NOT vindication as many of Bad Boy Ted’s supporters have claimed. Personally, I think he is guilty as sin, and probably of far worse than the crimes for which he was convicted, but I must confess, from what I’ve seen, Eric Holder did what had to be done and it was the morally proper thing to do. Unfortunately, a guilty man will not pay for his crimes. Judge Sullivan ordered an investigation into the conduct of the prosecutors, so perhaps other guilty men will pay the price for their transgressions.
I offer my condolences and prayers to our Italian brothers and sisters after the tragic earthquake in the Abruzzo region of the Apennine Mountains, east of Rome. A 6.3 magnitude earthquake is modest by conventional standards, but the destruction to ancient and relatively new buildings is all too familiar. Hopefully, the rescue efforts will yield more survivors. Life will return to normal in time. This too shall pass.
President Obama wow’d ‘em at the G-20 Summit in London. We will need at least a few years to allow historic retrospective to help us understand the importance. However, the pomp & circumstance and public display / pronouncements were up-beat and optimistic. Of course, there was quite a disturbance in the Force when a short video clip appeared to show the President bowing deeply to the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He went on to a NATO summit, made a statement on the abolition of nuclear weapons, and then made his way to Turkey, to apologize for the sometimes arrogance of the country he now leads. Of course, the conservative talking heads leapt on the President’s perceived apology for the conduct of the United States. I am not so quick to condemn the President’s effort to mend fences. I have witnessed and been ashamed of American visitors in many other countries. I can appreciate what the President is trying to do.
In what we may learn to be a heroic confrontation, the SS Maersk Alabama, a U.S.-flagged container ship, was jumped by Somali pirates – the first such incident for an American merchantman since 1804. The crew managed to overcome and capture one of the pirates. They attempted to trade their captive for the ship’s hostage captain. These high seas criminals are clearly not honorable men. The U.S.S. Bainbridge (DDG-96) was dispatched – a highest prudent speed, I imagine – to render assistance. The remaining pirates fled in one of the ship’s enclosed lifeboats, with the captain still held hostage. The Bainbridge dispatched a squad to protect the Alabama as it proceeded to Mombasa, Kenya, while the Navy warship dealt with the pirates. The Navy had been fending off other pirates who had arrived to assist their cornered brethren. President Jefferson had it right in 1801. We have a choice – tolerate the irritating lawlessness of piracy or we can stamp out the vermin. I trust (maybe hope at this stage) that the Navy has clear, proper instructions in dealing with this attack on an American-flag ship. We heard late Sunday that Captain Richard Phillips, 53, of Underhill, Vermont, has been freed, unharmed, and at least three of his four captors were killed in a short, sharp firefight (reportedly near simultaneous shots from snipers, presumably American special operations operatives). I imagine we shall hear more once the situation has settled down.
In a rather bizarre mistake, the Metropolitan Police Service, Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations, Robert “Bob” Quick, 49, was photographed getting out of an automobile at No.10 Downing Street with a bundle of papers in his hand. Unfortunately, on top of that bundle was a secret document with the names of terrorism suspects. As a consequence of that photograph, counter-terrorism units in England executed armed raids across Northwest England, and arrested 11 men, reportedly in the final stages of planning for a major terror attack. The Specialist Operations Branch has responsibility for counter-terrorism, specialist protection and royalty protection. Regrettably, Quick, a career police officer, resigned after the moment’s lapse in judgment, but a good chunk of the bad guys are now in the care of Her Majesty’s Government.
As noted in last week’s Update [381], the State of Iowa Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the case of Varnum v. Brien [SC IA no. 07–1499 (2009)], which struck down a state law limiting civil marriage to one woman and one man. The unanimous, seven-justice opinion was written by Justice Mark S. Cady. While the ruling is not the best crafted judicial pronouncement I’ve read, the message is clear and direct. “Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution,” and “[c]onsequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.” Cady also observed, “[T]he constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand.” Interestingly, that the court went directly at the separation of powers and the will of the people issue in this question, i.e., judicial fiat. The court noted, “We approach the resolution of this case with a keen and respectful understanding of our Iowa Constitution and the vital roles of the three branches of government, as well as the role of the people. It is important for these roles to be identified and expressed.” The constitution (of the State of Iowa as well as the United States of America) belongs to the people. What we see in this issue is the tension between the principles of freedom – presumably to pursue their individual choices for Life, Liberty and Happiness – intended for ALL citizens regardless of the social factors – gender, age, race, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, language, sexual orientation, or disability – versus the will of the People, the common good, general security and welfare. In this issue, we have a majority of American citizens holding the fundamental belief that only adult, strictly heterosexual, opposite gender, strictly monogamous citizens should be allowed to enter into a contractual relationship we commonly call marriage. On the other hand, we have a minority within our society who do not subscribe to heterosexual, opposite gender, monogamous elements of that popular notion, and yet seek the same contractual rights, benefits, privileges and protections of marriage. At its most basic, fundamental level, we have the will of the overwhelming majority of our voting citizenship against the constitutional, equal protection, guarantees for a minority of citizens. Further, as noted by the court in Varnum, the hypocrisy of the traditional family argument remains profound and corrosive. If the willful, so-called “moral, majority” applied the same scrutiny, constraint and criticism to heterosexual marriage as they attempt to apply to homosexual marriages, their argument would be more weighty rather than hollow. Generalizations have caused such destruction, so it is in this debate as in so many other social questions. I believe we can all agree that there are classic, heterosexual, monogamous, opposite-gender couples who are really bad parents – negligent, complacent, uncaring. I respectfully submit to a discerning audience, might the inverse also hold true . . . that homosexual parents might be involved, caring, and nurturing. Should we not be focused on parenting, rather than be distracted by whom someone chooses as a life-partner? I am far more interested in the quality of parenting, the product of good parenting – stable, productive, respectful, contributory adults, who, in turn, raise another generation of productive citizens.
In the same week as the Varnum ruling, the Vermont legislature voted to override Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing homosexual men and women to marry. The vote came nine years after Vermont was the first in the United States to adopt a civil-union law. Vermont is now the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts, Connecticut, and now Iowa.
Another related opinion:
“Why Gay Marriage Matters – The state should recognize our choice of partner”
by Michael Judge
Wall Street Journal
Published: April 7, 2009, 10:40 AM ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906051568695003.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that the Treasury Department plans to extend the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to certain eligible life insurers. Several life insurers have been burdened lately by capital constraints amid ailing markets. The Government is expected to include life insurance companies that are either bank holding companies or own a thrift banking unit. The Treasury indicates it has about US$130B remaining in TARP funds and may use an unspecified amount in the new application.
-- Seðlabanki Íslands – the Central Bank of Iceland – lowered its key interest rate by 1.5% to 15.5%. The action is the second rate reduction by the bank in less than a month.
-- The Wall Street Journal also reported that the Federal Reserve was divided last month on just how much to ramp up purchases of mortgage and Treasury securities, yet they eventually ponied up more than US$1T for the recovery. The Fed was ultimately swayed into action by the continued faltering economy, and appeared particularly convinced by the steep drop in overseas economies.
-- The Bank of England held its benchmark rate steady at 0.5% and said it would maintain its quantitative easing policy.
-- Another ray of light in these dark times, Wells Fargo projected 1st Quarter net income well above analysts’ expectations, becoming the latest major bank to show positive results, following devastating losses in 2008. Wells Fargo shares surged 23% in pre-market trading on the announcement, and shares of Citigroup, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase also gained.
-- The latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey of professional economists suggests the recession may end in September, though most say it will not end until the second half of 2010, when the economy recovers enough to bring down unemployment.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo charged Jacob Ezra Merkin with civil fraud, alleging he “betrayed hundreds of investors” by funneling US$2.4B of clients’ money into of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Merkin was the non-executive Chairman of GMAC. A general partner of Gabriel Capital LP (a US$5B family of hedge funds), and managed Ascot Partners LP (a hedge fund valued at US$1.8B). According to the complaint, Merkin raised billions from charities, universities and individuals, lied about putting the bulk of it with Madoff, and failed to disclose serious conflicts of interest, induced by collecting over US$470M in fees from Madoff.
Comments and contributions from Update no.381:
“OK, here comes another grammar point. Let’s define ‘war.’
“Merriam-webster.com gives as the first definition of ‘war:’ ‘a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.’ That’s certainly how I think of ‘war’ in the national, military sense. We don’t have that. The only ‘state or nation’ in this one is the United States. Everybody else is some sort of private group.
“Since that is not what we have, keep reading. The same site gives an ‘obsolete’ definition, then an ‘achaic’ one. After that comes the one that apparently applies here: ‘a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end ‘a class war’ ‘a war against disease.’” That leaves the War on Islamic Fascism (or Terror or whatever) as a ‘war on’ rather than a ‘war with.’ World War II was a ‘war with’ Germany, Japan, et al. The Vietnam War was a ‘war with’ North Vietnam. This is a ‘war on,’ more like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. That is, a ‘war’ on a concept, not really a national war. No clear opponent, no measurement for victory or defeat, no consistent military strategy due to our ever-shifting definitions of ‘terror’ and ‘terrorists.’ No necessary end. No limits to targets and no clear limits to the civil rights violations of anyone in the world.
“President Obama does not surprise me by avoiding those terms. He uses words precisely and very well.
“I am a grammarian. I always seek to know the meanings of my words.”
My response:
Your examination of the words is spot on; yet, as should be expected, I shall quibble with the implication that emanates from your grammatical assessment.
Until the last few decades, war has traditionally and historically been between nation-states, yet ‘nation-state’ is a product of the last millennia, perhaps two. Prior to the establishment of territorial boundaries, nations were defined by tribes or groups of individuals, i.e., Samarians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, et cetera. Thus, in the classical sense, war is armed conflict between groups of people. However, we are not in a classical war; there is no nation-state adversary (although I would be inclined to cite the Islamic Republic of Iran in this context); there is no tribe; there is only an ideology. Likewise, as you note, “war with” is not appropriate as there is no entity. “War on” does seem proper to me.
The key factor to my grammatical thinking is “armed,” and “who is the enemy?” Our enemy is an ideology – Islamic fascism intent upon imposition of their values, their rules, their beliefs on all those who do not believe as they do, including the majority of Muslims I might add. Al-Qaeda has close affinity to the Taliban – strict fundamentalists who impose literal Sharia Law on those within their sphere of influence. I do not think we debate “armed.”
We have discussed President Bush’s failure to seek a full & proper declaration of war in this humble forum [220 et al]. That failure is the genesis of a goodly portion of our collective, on-going, debate regarding this war, i.e., since Congress did not explicitly use the phrase “declaration of war,” then we must not be at war. Perhaps so, but it matters not when citizens are dying.
For the sake of argument, allow me to return to the root question. Are we at war? If not, then what is the proper title for the armed conflict in which we find ourselves? If yes, then with whom are we at war? By what phrase shall we refer to this conflict?
Is the President’s parsing words like Bill Clinton did with his infamous “that depends upon what the definition of ‘is,’ is?” Is such parsing a feel-good exercise for us to rationalize a particularly nasty, ugly business?
People are dying on both sides of this conflict. To me, if it looks like war, smells like war, sounds like war, feels like war, well then, maybe it actually is war. If we do not wish to call this armed conflict “war,” and we do not wish to refer to our enemy as “Islamic fascists,” that is OK by me. As I said, we can call it “picnic with Osama,” for I care. I am not so interested in labels as I am in defeating a bunch of fanatics bent upon injury to our citizens and our Allies. Plus, I am fundamentally opposed to anyone (regardless of any combination of the social factors) who seeks to impose their will upon me, my family, my fellow citizens, or any other freedom-loving people. Freedom is freedom; it cannot be parsed.
So, until I absorb a better, more descriptive, label, “War on Islamic Fascism” seems to be the most appropriate to me. What do you think is a better descriptive label?
. . . round two:
“This is interesting. You agree with my fact but miss my point. Here’s the point: ‘Our enemy is an ideology – Islamic fascism.’
“My point was not the use of the word ‘war’ per se, but the distinction between two definitions of ‘war.’ The traditional military-political definition of war makes it possible to pinpoint an enemy, to plan a consistent strategy and to define an endpoint—we win or lose, as we did in the World Wars, the War of 1812, Vietnam, etc. This kind of war may be unpopular but it accomplishes something if we win.
“The newer definition of ‘war’ used in ‘war on’ conflicts has none of those features. Your comment states, ‘our enemy is an deology—Islamic Fascism.’ As I attempted to point out, that in itself removes the traits of a traditional war. People have attempted to make war on concepts for millennia, with little to no success. I myself am living proof of this. Judeo-Christian-Islamic militarists have attempted for a very long time to eliminate the ‘enemies’ (their term and concept) of their religions. I am not their enemy, but they see me that way. I am a pagan. St. Patrick announced in the 600’s AD that we had been eliminated from Ireland, but Ireland today is one of the better places to be pagan. Witches (a pagan group) were famously hunted down and killed in Middle-Ages Europe. We are still around. Wars against ideas fail. For recognizably American examples, the War on Poverty has not eliminated poverty; the War on Drugs has wasted massive funding while changing nothing more than the prison population.
“If I thought military action could actually stop violently anti-American actions, I would consider supporting it even at the outrageous price we are paying. I don’t think it’s possible.”
. . . my response to round two:
You are quite right; I missed your point. Thank you for persevering.
Also, I mis-stated my opinion. Our enemy is not an ideology; rather, our enemies are human beings who believe the ideology and are willing to kill themselves to kill other innocent people to further their ideology. Our enemy uses terror to cower their victims; they do not seek freedom; they seek domination and the imposition of Sharia Law, on believers and infidels alike. Our enemy are those men who act upon those beliefs of such things. Six hundred years ago, Christians sought the same objectives, by the same means; they killed those who did not believe as they believed.
The reason I use the term Islamic Fascism lies with the dictatorial aspects of their ideology. If people freely choose to live under Sharia Law and submit to the harsh enforcement of the Taliban, then I am all for it, just as I was for communism, socialism or even the secular fascism of the Nazis, if that was their free choice. But, any ideology that denies free choice to others, rejects tolerance of others who do not wish to believe as they believe, must be opposed. My objection is not the ideology, but rather the projection and imposition of the ideology; thus, our enemy is the bad men who seek that domination.
If fighting violence with violence is not the answer, what is? I confess, I am one of those guys who believe that if they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.
Another comment / contribution:
“Actually, I think that this Administration does get it regarding AQ [al-Qaeda] and Afghanistan. The ‘war on terror’ was a terrible misnomer – former Sec State (and former Chief of Staff) Powell and SecDef Gates have gone on record against the phrase, as have many senior officers. It is misleading and gives misplaced credibility to Muslim radicals. The Administration is aiming to go after AQ, who, after all, are the people who attacked us on 9/11. They are the enemy and we are now (hopefully) going after them.
“Regarding the Minnesota Senate election, Coleman has bigger problems. He appears to be in big trouble in a criminal matter. A couple of civil lawsuits allege (with substantiating evidence) that $75,000 in cash was routed to his wife by Coleman’s main backer, through the insurance firm where she works. The FBI is investigating (the American version of the Brit ‘Scotland Yard is making inquiries’).
“And regarding the President’s comments in Prague (beautiful city, BTW) his proposal is very much in line with the bipartisan approach outlined two years ago by George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“It’s also in line with the vision articulated by Ronald Reagan, who called for the abolishment of ‘all nuclear weapons,’ which he considered to be ‘totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.’
“Their military relevance is being questioned by many military thinkers; our conventional weapons are such now that they aren't needed-or wanted. On the other hand, they are part of the justification for the U.S. Air Force. Listen to what the President said--he noted that this might not (and likely won’t) happen in his lifetime-- but the idea is to make steps in that regard.”
My reply:
I have never liked the term “war on terror.” As they say, one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom-fighter. I think War on Islamic Fascism is the most descriptive label I’ve seen, but that term is not politically correct. I presume from your words, you think we should call this conflict the War with al-Qaeda? What about the Taliban? Would a better label be the War with al-Qaeda and the Taliban? If so, what about the radical fundamentalist mullahs, inciting the faithful to become martyrs, killing innocents for Allah in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, ad infinitum?
I had not heard that about Coleman. If so, he should pay the price for his transgressions. I trust there will be charges and convictions, rather than the public innuendo to ruin reputations like Elliott Spitzer and Ted Stevens.
I am all for idealism. I want to see world peace, no hunger, no disease, and freedom for all who wish to live in freedom. I want a world that does not need police, or the military, or lawyers. It is nice to dream. In fact, the 3rd book of the Anod series (as yet unwritten) offers an idyllic view of future Earth. Yet, until we can thwart the bad men before they harm anyone, or all human beings can respect the choices of others, we will need nuclear weapons. I don’t like it, but they are necessary.
A neglect contribution from Update no.380:
“This is where the different standard comes in. Not in the existence of risk, but in the evaluation. I see those ‘investment advisors’ (not 100% of them, but those in the riskier, more profitable instruments) basically as liars; you seem to think that the customers had a fair chance to understand the risk.
“They were thinking $$$$.
“Taking out the insurance policy was brilliant and is paying off. The company issuing the policy, however, was clearly insane.
“They were thinking they would make money. They did, too.
“That's where my biggest complaint comes in. The job of government is to govern (duh).
“We can only do that if those claims are again made criminal.”
My response:
Re; “investment advisors.” I won’t go so far to call them “liars.” They are salesmen, not particularly different from any salesman. They will shade the truth to present their product in the best light possible. Semper caveat emptor.
They were indeed making mountains of money off of imaginary, nay fictitious, assets.
And, taking out insurance policies on fictitious assets. Insanity indeed. Cassano was one of the world-class criminals, who took away US$300M, so he got away with the idiocy (so far). But, I hope everyone noticed . . . it is AIG that is in trouble. Other large insurance companies were apparently not seduced. AIG was insane and deserves what will eventually come to them.
The financial scam artists were allowed free rein – no regulation – no law to make their nefarious work illegal – well, unless they print & distribute false claims, but those bastards are very clever liars. Yes, we need the proper level of regulation. Then again, there are regulations and regulators today, but some banks cheat; some banks no longer exist, not because of the regulators but because of their foolish greed. I want Wall Street class stealing to be illegal and the perpetrators subject to being some big guy’s prison yard love-buddy . . . repeatedly.
. . . round two:
“They differ from other sales people in two key ways. One is the enormous amounts of money involved in their transactions; the other, the difficulty of understanding the products offered. Blowing that off with ‘caveat emptor’ is precisely the attitude that brought the entire world’s economy to the current situation.
“That supports the argument for re-regulation.
“Given volume of money and the sheer ridiculousness of the policies, I’m surprised that no regulations had ever been put in place.
“We may hope that AIG will eventually get what it deserves. We may not assume that; history varies on this type of offensive behavior.
“Certainly, some of the banks cheat. That again supports re-regulation with enforcement muscle. I hope the days of ‘voluntary regulation’ (oxymoron) are over.
“I would almost bet that those stealing millions of dollars will always risk lesser punishments than those stealing hundreds or thousands. That's history.
Re: This too shall pass.
“That's the only statement that has proved true in all situations throughout history.”
. . . my round two response:
Whoa now! I am not blowing off anything. I am as angry as you are. As with political criticism of politician & presidents, with moral criticism of clerics & moral projectionists, with all of it, I seek balance. I have not, am not, and will never rationalize the unchecked greed and paucity of moral conduct of so many of the Wall Street investment bankers, mortgage brokers, hedge fund operators, derivative traders, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I have invested our precious family assets in various sectors, tried to diversify intelligently. The rate of return (before the recession) was modest (not great, not bad). I felt no temptation to seek 15% ROI claimed by Bernie Madoff. I have not invested in one of Bob Stanford’s grand development projects. I have not signed up to a 125% mortgage on a house with a value inflated five times over true value. There are bad people on Wall Street. There are also good people. We can vilify the greed of Wall Street. I just do not want us to ignore the foolish greed of individual citizens who were seduced by the Siren’s song of making gobs of money by flipping a house in a couple of years (after all, they had friends who had done it), or invested all their assets with a guy who promised rates of return 2-3 times the prevailing market return. Let us not forget the root cause.
As I have written, I am very much in favor of regulation, just as I am in favor of laws for public conduct. I am also concerned about over-reaction, going too far, as we did with intelligence regulation in 1978. We clearly need regulation of market sectors that have been devoid of rules, laws. I trust that will change for the good.
There are more than a few folks who truly believe an absolute free market will regulate itself. And, they are correct. Of course it will. My query to such folks: at what cost? Is it OK for me to make millions & billions as I destroy thousands of lives?
True! There are no guarantees, but I suspect AIG will not exist as it was in 2-5 years. I do not assume so; I just expect so.
Yes, banks do cheat, and many have gone out of business. However, banks are more regulated than mortgage companies or investment banking, which is why the USG pulled the surviving investment banks into the banking regulation arena.
I hope you are wrong about the greedy bastards getting lesser punishment.
. . . round three:
“Certainly a wide variety of people work on Wall Street. Re-regulation will have no negative effects on those who perform with honesty and integrity.
“The ‘root cause’ is that money becomes available to corporations whose existence depends upon making money by whatever means is available. The companies and their employees realistically cannot be held responsible for regulating themselves. I’ll say it again: the sole purpose of corporations is to make money. Not to guard the customers' interests, not to benefit the market as a whole, not anything other than to make money. They naturally take advantage of those who do not have extensive backgrounds in finance. As you point out, many of the customers had friends who had flipped the houses or received the returns as promised. How would a nurse, an engineer or a musician know without extensive research that those were not ordinary market conditions? Those who make money by their expertise must be regulated and held accountable for their use or abuse of that expertise.
“That's my point. I have met people who are, in a correct political sense, anarchists. They tend to believe in that ‘free’ market as fervently as some others believe in the Second Coming. If every individual were equal in expertise and resources, they would probably be right. They are wrong. We may all be equal in moral worth, but General Motors and any number of other corporations can overwhelm almost any individual's resources at will; so much for the concept of free choice. Regulation is necessary to protect the weak from the strong. In recent U.S. history that has been turned on its head; regulation has protected corporations and the very wealthy from the rest of us.
“I wish I were wrong about that, but history still predicts the future better than any other tool I know. The history is that people who steal millions face lesser penalties than people who steal hundreds.”
. . . my response to round three:
The problem is, over-regulation can very well have a negative effect on people who perform with honesty and integrity – takes away the profit motive, risk & reward. The challenge will be finding the proper balance.
The market has no mercy. The business of most, if not all, corporations is to make money for their shareholders. They do not have other obligations. The law establishes a set of rules for the safety of customers and employees, for ethical conduct in the marketplace, for the environment. If a business does not make money for its shareholders within the law, then it goes out of business, period. Without the law, anarchy exists in the marketplace, just as it would in society, and the profit motive, as the objective of business, is a very powerful force. Yes, absolutely, there must be accountability; if a business harms anyone (customer, employee, neighbor), then penitence – their debt to the society they have offended. Making money is not a sin. Making a profit is important and good. My concern is collateral damage.
Likewise, I know a few marketplace anarchists as well. While they are friends, I do not ascribe to a true free market, no more than I do lawlessness on Main Street.
I believe we are in agreement regarding the necessity of marketplace regulation.
Perhaps you are correct about history and wealthy people paying lesser punishment for greater crimes. Perhaps so. We, the People, can and should always strive to improve the system. We do, indeed, have a long way to go.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment