Step 1: Buy politicians, threaten global doom. Step 2: Profit!
By Thoreau
Greenwald notes that yet another Goldman Sachs executive has been given a post of great power in DC, as the New Boss continues the bipartisan policy of “Whatever Wall Street wants, Wall Street gets.” As I recall, last year a Goldman executives said “Look, the guys in my industry completely messed things up, and if you don’t give us a trillion dollars RIGHT now, it will be MASSIVE GLOBAL DOOM!!!!! You don’t want MASSIVE GLOBAL DOOM, do you? Then give us a trillion dollars RIGHT NOW.” They then got their trillion dollars. Our unemployment rate is still miserable, but they are enjoying record profits and getting more jobs guarding the henhouse.
This is one of those things where the libertarian critique of the state meshes perfectly with the lefty critique of corporate power, because they are one and the same.
Comment by J sub D —
October 16, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
But he wasn’t a registered lobbyist, so it’s not like a revolving door or anything.
Adam Storch is magnanimously giving up all of his Wall Street perks to devote himself full time to public service. Implying that he will favor his former golf buddies and business associates in his new position as COO of SEC enforcement borders on libel. Our president wouldn’t stand for it if he even thought about self enrichment or favortism.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
October 16, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Isn’t this what they said about old Joe Kennedy? He cracked the whip pretty well back in the day.
Comment by Taktix® —
October 16, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Left wingers who screech about BigBusiness have zero credibility, since it’s their BigGovernment that created and continues to maintain the monopoly of BigBusiness…
Comment by Seward —
October 16, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Taktix,
Much of the New Deal regulatory policy was predicated on the notion that the Great Depression was in part caused by too much competition; thus what was needed was very large firms in any industry regulated by a very large state in combination with large unions. So modern liberalism can and often has gone hand in hand with the development of oligopolies. Most of the very large firms either openly embraced this from the start or came around to the idea after a time. We can call this corporatism.
Now how much of this strain of modern liberalism still exists in the Democratic party I cannot say, but I think it clearly does remain. To be entirely fair, I also think it has a significant influence on the Republicans as well.
Comment by Seward —
October 16, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Happily the “too much competition” story is something that most economists have basically abandoned, but it was something that a lot of economists bought into during the Progressive Era and the Great Depression and that reinforced FDR’s as well as a lot of industry’s notion that there were just too many players out there driving down prices, etc.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 16, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
JsubD-
Yeah, I’m just glad that we didn’t get a Republican administration, then Goldman Sachs executives would be everywhere in the government.
Comment by nj —
October 16, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Sadly, not enough Gabriel kolko’s out there.
Comment by J sub D —
October 16, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Thoreau,
Just once I’d like to here a president say the truth about his appointments. Something like this -
Hell yes, I’m hiring industry insiders. They have the relevant knowledge, they have personal relationships with the industry leaders and can make the best decision because of their access to information.
AND
Certainly this appointee and his cronies are going to personally profit from the institutional knowledge and governmental contacts he amasses while employed as the Widget Undersecretary in the Department of Doodads.
But instead we get empty platitudes about the most ethical administration in history (which one was that?) or, most recently, “no lobbyists” (completely ignored 24 hours after it was proclaimed). C’mon, a corporate executive, a flag officer, the head of a non-profit, a religious leader, et al ARE lobbyists.
But if you stand up and bald face lie to the country about how this time it’s gonna be different, all of the fan-boys will swear that this time it really will be.
I just wish politicians would start talking to the populace like they are adults rather than like they are rubes and marks.
Of course I’ve been wishing for a passionate weekend with Tina Turner for decades and that hasn’t come to fruitiion.
.
.
.
Yet.
Comment by Jennifer —
October 16, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Proof yet again that 1960s secret agent and sci-fi movies had it totally wrong: to bribe world leaders into giving you huge sums of money and power you don’t need secret volcano bases and weapons satellites and sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads when sucking up to the government’s much, much easier.
Obama is a bigger disappointment every day, which is scary when you consider he’s still only been in office less than a year.
Comment by Aresen —
October 16, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Campaign donor money talks. What else is new?
I just saw a report that here in Canada we have one of the worst internet delivery systems in the OECD. The report blames is squarely on the regulatory old boy network protecting the established telecom operators who, not coincidentally, are big contributors to the Liberal and Conservative parties.
But, of course, “regulation protects consumers.”
Comment by Seward —
October 16, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
J sub D,
Given the short attention span and general level of ignorance of the populace I think it would either (a) fall on deaf ears or (b) be electorally damaging. Politicians basically have to blather on about a lot of what amounts to wishful thinking in order to get any sort of wiggle room. This is why politicians make claims that on their face make no sense whatsoever; all the talk about finding savings in cutting waste, fraud and abuse that every politician uses for every government program (including the now deceased Ronald Reagan) is a pretty good example because when the rubber meets the road there is a heck of a lot of disagreement as to what those terms mean and what they should apply to. Which is why there is really very little “waste, fraud and abuse” that can be cut. Everyone does a good job of making sure their ox isn’t gored.
Anyway, I’m with Bryan Caplan, most of the people in the U.S. basically get the government they want, though at the margins there is room for maneuver.
Comment by Tesla Lives Again —
October 17, 2009 @ 8:30 am
Lately, I’ve lost the will to correct people when they assume I’m a lefty (I used to lean Democratic). Clearly they are the lesser of two evils that have the most political power: the enemy of my enemy is my friend blah blah etc. For me, the main benefit of being perceived as a lefty is not having to explain why I think people have the right to smoke that stuff ‘their holding for a friend.’
It’s a shame we don’t have any actual far left people with power – they have ideas worth seriously thinking about like… parking tickets that are proportional to the offender’s income. My twist: proportional to the offender’s income + inversely proportional to offender’s intelligence. That would be awesome!!
Comment by Spidergrackle —
October 17, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Step 3 is profit, damn it all! Step 2 is “???”! Quote ye not the South Park if ye cannot do it right.
It’s like misquoting The Holy Grail: if’n yer gonna be a dork, be a dork correctly.
BTW, I really like the automatic comment preview: has this blog always done that? Never noticed it. Wish other blogs would do it.
Comment by Sanka —
October 17, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
This is a disingenuous statement. A lefty critique of corporate power?
Robert Rubin is the architect of the modern Goldman Sachs. Plus his proteges Summers and Geithner, have been entrenched in Democratic political power circles for years. They are going strong in the current administration, which seems hell-bent on bending over backwards to accomodate the Wall Street crowd—a characteristic which is falsely attributed to the Republican party. Obviously.
Comment by justinslot —
October 17, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I wouldn’t confuse Democratic power circles with leftists, Sanka.
Related: Simon Johnson depresses me.
Comment by Nell —
October 17, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Spidergrackle, you’re missing the joke in the title, which is the same as the point of the post: There is no disconnect between the steps; it’s clear how step 1 leads to ‘Profit!’.
It’s an allusion to and play on the underpants gnomes business plan, not a quote.
Comment by dhex —
October 17, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
“My twist: proportional to the offender’s income + inversely proportional to offender’s intelligence. That would be awesome!!”
awesome in a bankrupty kind of way for the lotto ticket crowd and for very wealthy dot com savants.
i’ve never heard anyone suggest that parking tickets should be proportionate to income. i’m no fan of cars (they should be at least 40x harder to get than guns) or drivers for that matter, but that seems like a real weird tack to get up on.
then again, i live somewhere that double-parking is more or less a constant, day and night. it would be fun to rent a clunker (i.e. cash for a cash for clunkers clunker) and mount an old iron fence on the passenger side and just roll out for a few hours fucking up everyone’s day.
Comment by Seward —
October 17, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Nell,
Well, unlike the underpants gnomes, they don’t need a step two to get to step three.
Comment by Tesla Lives Again —
October 18, 2009 @ 5:24 am
dhex -
Wealthy dot com types are successful because they’re intelligent. The lotto, at least in CA, is a state-run tax on people a) with poor critical thinking skills b) low IQ scores. Why shouldn’t the unintelligent people that gave us things like Bush, the governator, Prop. 8, etc. be punished for their crimes against intellectual progress?
I think the proportional ticket idea has merit because it only really punishes the people that deserve it, like: stupid hotel heiress(s), rich-genuinely unintelligent people and professional athletes.
Comment by Jennifer —
October 18, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
I’d prefer doing away with all fines and tickets; i.e., anything that gives government a financial incentive to punish people. But since that will never happen, I’d definitely go for the proportionate-income idea, because the flat rate system we have now disproportionately hurts the poor.
A couple months ago I was able to talk my way out of a speeding ticket; had I received one, I would’ve paid around $100. For me that would be an annoyance, nothing more. Yet for a poor family, that $100 might very well mean they can’t buy groceries this week, or can’t turn on the heat even though the outdoor temperature is around 45 degrees today.
Comment by Tesla Lives Again —
October 18, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
I would too. But realistically, will that ever happen? Pragmatism – the new compromise.
Comment by Seward —
October 18, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Tesla Lives Again,
Don’t some of the Scandinavian countries practice that? I seem to remember a story from five or six years where one of the executives for a large Sewdish or Norwegian firm (maybe even one of the phone companies) was fined a large wad of cash because his earnings were so high. The ticket might have been in the six figure range even.
Comment by dhex —
October 19, 2009 @ 12:41 am
“I think the proportional ticket idea has merit because it only really punishes the people that deserve it”
one of the reasons minarchism holds appeal for me is the realization that everyone’s inner sadist can’t really be trusted with those paramilitary outfits and tasers they give meter maids these days. too much whimsy.
anyway, i know some smart folk who like to gamble. i don’t get the appeal myself, but for whatever reason a tiny sliver of maybe is one strong-ass carrot.
Comment by Aresen —
October 19, 2009 @ 12:59 am
I realize that a fixed fine can weigh more heavily on a poor person than a wealthy person, but I strongly disagree with the notion of “proportional ticket”:
First, and foremost, because it means that your justice is based on a punitive model rather than a restorative or compensatory model. Presumably, by speeding, a person has inflicted a degree of risk on others. A fine should be aimed at restoring the cost of that risk.
Second, with a “proportionate” model, the fines become nothing more than a reflection of the whims and prejudices of the judge (or other functionary). Far better that the law have known consequences than one that is completely subjective in its treatment of offenders.
…
The high five figure fine for speeding that was referred to above was levied in Finland and the driver was the president or founder (I forget which) of Nokia.
Comment by derek —
October 19, 2009 @ 6:29 am
Not proportional to income, proportional to wealth. Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income.
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
October 19, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
Obama is a bigger disappointment every day, which is scary when you consider he’s still only been in office less than a year.
This video is still the most honest political statement ever. Lest we think we haven’t been here before.
Dan Aykroyd as Jimmy Carter.
http://www.veoh.com/collection/NBC-Saturday-Night-Live/watch/v2411047q4d8mwTm
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
October 19, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Quote ye not the South Park if ye cannot do it right.
It’s like misquoting The Holy Grail: if’n yer gonna be a dork, be a dork correctly.
Amen, brother Dork
Comment by J sub D —
October 19, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
The answer for equitable punishment lies in this simple fact – Everybody, rich and poor, healthy and sick, well connected or obscure has an equal 24 hours in a day.
Bring back the stocks.