Almost funny, isn't it?
After you read about how much money the Clintons took from Wall Street financiers that you really don't need to think too hard about how dumb they must view the American voter.
The Deutsche Bank low was reached today.
Insolvency. Commodity prices crashing (just like 2008). Yield chasers funding crashing frackers.
Bank of Italy runs out of credit (no longer able to pay debts or make loans).
And so many toxic assets still festering, flowing/trickling down over us all.
Yes, they were never magically disappeared (as the 2008 Recovery Program was sold as guaranteeing that permanently low interest rates for banks with no strings would mysteriously do). No matter the desperate (and despicable) financial manipulations.
Rotten derivatives transferred between balance sheets (but never dealt with/written off/owned up to).
Bogus asset-backed securities. Low and now negative interest rates as a savior has failed to stop the insolvency drift. (But it certainly enriched the bankers and their owners.)
Deutsche Bank is now worse off than JPMorgan Chase - and you know what a nightmare that has been before the forgivenesses, right? (75 trillion on derivatives book).
The Deutsche Bank all-time low occurring today is lower than 2008's (when they demanded the first bailouts).
Don't miss Max and Stacy raising their eyebrows at bail-ins and today's charts (even more than usual).
They go cuckoo for CoCo bonds (the latest way to mask insolvency). No - not in a good way.
Hybrid capital? (Foie gras!)
Dead bank walking!
Lots of dark laughter at obvious, perpetual fools!
In self defense.
(Hint: Head for the ramparts or the hills?)
Posted on February 13, 2016
We discuss what Uncle Fester might say about the fact that the bad, toxic, complicated and hybrid debts, having been allowed to fester and rot for the past five years, are now rising from the dead to shrink the economy. In the second half, Max continues his conversation with Ellen Brown, author of Web of Debt, about bail-ins being more dangerous than ISIS, the war on cash and which nations’ financial system might hold an example for others.
Wall Street On Parade has the details:
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens
February 12, 2016
I graduated from UNC and was a big fan of Coach Smith's integrity.
No kidding. "Integrity" was the first adjective any of my friends or I thought of when the Dean's name came up in conversation. He was an outstanding coach and a university icon who made one feel great pride in the UNC sports system as a place that never suffered the scandals that befell so many other pay-for-play college sports teams.
When news of the scandal broke, and that it had been going on since the 90's, most of the people I know discounted it as an event that would not possibly have been allowed to happen when Coach Smith was at the helm. The mystery of how it must have is now ripe for solving.
Joe Nocera of the "New York Times" visited Chapel Hill to do some research and find out why this scandal has been continuing for over 20 years.
I can't wait for them to clear up the corruption and get back to Smith's level of moral heft in Carolina ball.
And then there’s the N.C.A.A. Last summer, the association issued a lengthy notice of allegations, which included the dreaded “loss of institutional control.” Days before the deadline for North Carolina to respond, the university told the N.C.A.A. that it had found evidence of additional wrongdoing. The N.C.A.A. is said to be preparing a new set of allegations, which it has yet to deliver. Serious sanctions seem inevitable. Several members of the women’s basketball team have transferred, including its leading scorer, Allisha Gray. “It has hurt recruiting,” acknowledged Bubba Cunningham, the athletic director, who took the post just before the paper-class scandal broke and has spent much of his tenure involved in the reform effort.
What does Dean Smith have to do with any of this? Nothing — and everything. Although Smith retired in 1997, four years after the paper classes began, rare is the person in North Carolina who thinks he knew about them, or that he would have looked the other way if he had. Smith was widely admired for his integrity and for the way he cared about his players, taking an interest in them as human beings, not just as basketball players, and pushing them to graduate and better their lives. Smith coined the phrase “The Carolina Way.” It stood for the idea that the University of North Carolina was a place where athletic excellence and academic excellence could exist side by side — and where the former did not necessarily corrupt the latter.
The paper-class scandal has shattered that illusion. On the one hand, younger alumni and current students view the scandal as “more an irritant than a source of shame,” Dylan Howlett, a former sportswriter for The "Daily Tar Heel," told me. It also wasn’t all that big a shock. “Our generation grew up in a celebrity-oriented sports culture where winning trumps all,” he said. There is also a substantial percentage of the faculty that believes the problems revealed by Willingham’s whistle-blowing — which they deeply resent — have been adequately dealt with by the Folt administration. They just want the whole thing to go away.
But there is another, smaller group of faculty members, along with a large number of older alumni, people who were around during the Dean Smith era, who harbor a tremendous feeling of betrayal, a deep hurt that Smith’s Carolina Way devolved into a fraud. Let’s be honest: There are many big-time sports colleges where athletes are given a pass academically — and nobody cares. But Tar Heels fans always believed that North Carolina was better than that. Discovering that it wasn’t has hit them hard.
“Dean Smith was a great man,” said Jonathan Yardley, the longtime book critic for "The Washington Post." A 1961 graduate, Yardley received a distinguished alumni award in 1989. (He retired from "The Post" at the end of 2015.) “It’s pretty obvious now that he was an anomaly.”
Yardley continued: “Chapel Hill always basked in a reputation for being a place where big-time athletics was more or less in its proper place.” Decrying the school’s huge athletic complex — it is planning to build an indoor practice facility for the football team that is likely to cost around $25 million — he said, “It’s not the place I knew.” He now roots for the Tar Heels to lose.
Rudi Colloredo-Mansfeld, the chair of the anthropology department, also a Carolina graduate, told me that the sense of personal loss many people feel is so profound that they have difficulty even talking about it.
He cited several instances in which alumni or professors, speaking in a public forum, veered into the scandal — and then just stopped talking, unable to articulate what they felt. “It’s as if there is no place to take the conversation,” he said. Some professors come to him now, wondering what they are supposed to do when athletes miss classes because of their travel requirements.
How do they accommodate athletes while maintaining appropriate academic standards? “I have concerns for the welfare of the athletes,” Colloredo-Mansfeld said — that is, finding a way to ensure they receive a real education despite the demands on their time, and the fact that more than a few are unprepared for college-level work.
“Sports are the lifeblood of our relationships,” he added. “Our family relationships and our relationships on our campus. By harming sports, it is not as much fun to talk to your father about the football team.
Colloredo-Mansfeld told me that for all the reforms instituted by the administration, it has been unwilling to address the larger, tougher questions surrounding the relationship between academics and athletics. And he’s hardly the only one who feels that way.
“We entice these players to entertain the public and enrich their coaches by performing a vast amount of arduous, dangerous and unpaid work, with the opportunity for free education and the distant chance to ‘go pro’ as their only compensation,” Harry Watson, a history professor, has written. “Then we set up conditions which make the ‘education’ either meaningless or nearly unattainable. To me, this situation is fundamentally immoral.”
Jay M. Smith, who teaches European history — and last year wrote Cheated, a book about the scandal, with Willingham — has led a small group of faculty members seeking reforms that would address these larger issues. Every resolution he and his group have proposed has been shot down by the faculty council.
He, too, has been dismayed that the paper-class scandal has not led to a national conversation about how the needs of athletic departments corrupt academics — and how athletes can be better served by the institutions of higher learning they attend. “I naïvely believed that if enough attention were paid to the corruption, it would lead people to call for a change to the system,” he said. Instead, the system is treating the scandal at North Carolina as a one-off. As it always does.
“I knew Dean Smith quite well,” Kenneth S. Broun, a retired dean of the law school, told me in an email. “Dean would carefully advise his players who had an interest in professional or graduate school. He would frequently refer them to me (and to other friends around campus) for counseling as to what they needed to do to be able to make it outside the world of basketball.” He added, “Dean was an unusual guy, but it can be done.”
Starting that national conversation might be the best way to honor Dean Smith’s legacy.
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Which dirty word shocks the American populace?
Actually, not so much as you might think:
Rather than undermine his campaign, Bernie Sanders has made a virtue of the label ‘socialist’ and is riding a wave of opposition to economic inequality that began with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
Bernie Sanders proud proclamation of himself as a ‘socialist’ is a daring gambit in a country where it has been a dirty word for half a century. Critics of the 74-year-old junior senator from Vermont expected him to fade quickly from the limelight, but Sanders has surprised everyone – not least himself – in garnering huge support for his left-wing campaign in the Democrat Party presidential candidates. A few weeks ago, Sanders surpassed 2.3 million donations, breaking the Democrat record held by Barack Obama.
Although he trailed Hillary Clinton by 25 points in a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
“To have a person not shying away from the label ‘socialist’ to be up there contending for President is so remarkable that you have to stand up and cheer, or there is something wrong with you,” said Professor Richard D. Wolff, who teaches economics at New York University and broadcasts to 50 radio stations in the US.
Wolff added “In the US the word ‘socialist’ carries overtones of being ‘beyond the pale’ and raises questions of whether you are a Soviet agent. Even in educated circles, if I say anything positive about socialism – even something namby pamby such as ‘you know, the socialists aren’t wrong about everything’ – the conversation comes to a halt as if you have just dropped your pants. We’re talking about a society that has been traumatised by these things for half a century.”
Rather than undermining his campaign, however, Sanders’ acceptance of the label ‘socialist’ is central to his appeal. “It has given him a reputation for being courageous and honest because any American politician would have to be a complete lunatic to call himself a socialist otherwise,” said Professor Wolff.
Sanders’ apparent political ingenuousness has caused the media to underestimate him. They assumed wrongly that he was no threat and would quickly fade from view. However, Sanders possesses an acute understanding of the political game honed over decades during his rise from obscurity in Vermont to become the first independent in Congress in 40 years, and then a candidate for the US Presidency.
“Sanders realised early on that honesty was his best strategy. If he had started looking, smelling or tasting like a male version of Mrs Clinton, he would have vanished without trace and become the Democratic equivalent of Ben Carson, or Jed Bush, who has more money than God, but was swimming against a huge current that drowned him,” said Professor Wolff.
However, Sanders is also a man whose time has come. If it were not for the 2011 "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which used powerful slogans about the dominance of “the 1%” to raise awareness of economic inequality, Sanders would have remained in relative obscurity. "Occupy Wall Street" began on September 17, 2011 in New York, and spread to more than 100 cities in the US and 1,500 cities globally.
Many of the protesters who cut their teeth in the Occupy encampments are now running grassroots campaigns for Sanders. For example, Stan Williams, a prominent "Occupy Wall Street" activist, is co-organiser of African Americans for Bernie.
“Occupy Wall Street" deserves a lot more respect from thinking people. It was a precedent-breaking liberation as the first modern left-wing movement that did not shy away from economics. It made it possible for Sanders, and others, to advance leftist criticisms without being afraid of forcing economic issues into everyone’s face,” said Professor Wolff.
He went on to say “My own radio career has exploded as a result. I started out on one station in New York and now I’m on 50 stations nationwide. I’ve done nothing to solicit it. Stations came to me because listeners were demanding a critical perspective on economics.”
For a socialist economist, it is a liberating sensation after years of being considered irrelevant. For two decades after Bill Clinton’s accommodation with big business, a declining number on the left were open to criticisms of the prevailing economic orthodoxy.
“The left became lost in the kind of leftism in which Karl Marx became more and more irrelevant and the "New York Times" became more and more relevant. The definition of ‘left’ was being concerned about ethnic minorities, or gender discrimination. It was the kind of socialism that was trying to be socially acceptable because everything to do with economics is set aside. What you get is a sanitised version of socialism.”
The growing awareness of inequality is behind the openness to socialist points of view. Even as Barack Obama’s Democrats boasted of recovery from the 2008 economic crisis, most of the spoils went to the top tier. Emmanuel Saez, at the University of California, Berkeley, analysed average inflation-adjusted income per family for the first years of the economic recovery between 2009 and 2012. He found that, although average income climbed 6%, the top 1% saw a 31.4% rise – 95% of the total gain – whereas the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%.
“The newspapers have been full of recovery stories, but the vast majority have had no share in it. This creates psychic distress. They are telling these people, ‘you are a three-time loser. You lost in the crash, you lost because you weren’t bailed out after the crash and you lost because now you can’t climb your way onto the recovery process. You are done. Just go and slink away’,” said Professor Wolff.Read the whole essay here.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
We don't mind the gays and lesbians.
But don't be bringing no one from North Wales around here!
Yes, you guessed it.
And I loved that movie!