# Banking on America



## Lester Burnham (Sep 28, 2008)

I suppose the pursuit of better understanding between the sexes is a noble enough effort. At least that is what I like to think. But from time to time something a little more important comes up.

Like the pending economic collapse of America, and perhaps the rest of the world.

As I watched the first of the presidential debates, one thought kept crossing my mind, and it lingers as I write this.

We’re screwed.

Even as $2.8 trillion of market value was erased from global stocks, and America witnessed the largest bank failure in it’s history, we had two politicians ducking questions and playing politics with the problem. Hardly what I would expect from two men who are applying to be the CEO of our country. And especially when America and the world is clamoring for answers and assurances. 

The candidates, who played professional level dodge ball with Lehrer’s soft peddled questions, stood as living testaments to the reality that the only political party that remains in America is the multi-national corporations. The “debate,” if you insist on calling it that, was little more than two whores vying to serve the same pimps. 

Think that is harsh? Let’s take a look at things. Before getting the nomination, Obama was the anti-war candidate. Since putting Clinton out of the picture, he has signed on to the Bush Doctrine. He argues that we don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan and has ramped up the hawkish rhetoric against Iran and Pakistan, even threatening the latter with unilateral military action within their borders.

Of course McCain was on board the whole time, prepared for 100 years of occupation in Iraq and god knows what else as a follow-up.

Neither candidate, nor any other, will tell us the real story. It would not serve American politicians to dwell long on the fact that we have been killing people and undermining governments in the Middle East since the first drop of oil was discovered there. Better for them not to tell us that we created the Taliban by arming and training the Mujahideen against the Soviets and then turning our back on the region when the dirty work was done.

Nor do they want us to ask why we supported both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, or why we installed the Shah in Iran and stood by complacently while he murdered and tortured thousands of his citizens. If too many questions like this are answered, it might start to answer a question Americans have been asking ever since 9/11.

Why do they hate us so much?

Killing innocent people and desecrating religious shrines will engender a lot of bad feelings. Killing a lot of people and desecrating religious shrines for 50 years is near enough to make some people consider flying planes into financial and military targets.

Sorry, but it needed to be said.

And what does all this, you are asking, have to do with current economic woes?

Everything.

Please observe that no matter which side of the democrat-republican line that you stand, that neither of them offer any real policy differences. No matter who you vote for, we will still bail out wall street at the expense of taxpayers. No matter who you vote for, the border with Mexico will remain open. No matter who you vote for, we will keep the rivers of blood in the middle east flowing as long as the oil does the same thing.

All the evidence leads one place. There is an agenda being fulfilled by our government and it is not on behalf of the American people. It is on behalf of the masters they serve behind closed doors and off the cameras. This is no less true with the financial crisis than it is with why the borders are open or why we can‘t keep our military out of the middle east.

The real powers that be, via media ownership and a lot of slick distractions have successfully hoodwinked and brainwashed an entire culture. We have become a nation of ditto heads on one side, moronic followers of Michael Moore on the other. 

We allow them to run the show because we allow them to con us into fighting with each other instead of using our brains. Rather than engage in critical thought, we regurgitate the latest sound bite from Sean Hannity or Al Franken, and assume they have done the thinking for us.

Up till now we have been able to afford such stupidity.

Not any more.

If Americans don’t wake up, and I mean today, then there will be unimaginable hell to pay for our slumber. One of the lessons of 9/11 is that we have a tendency to allow draconian and unconstitutional law to pass in the name of making us feel secure. The patriot act contained unthinkable provisions that flew through congress like a diving falcon. 

In that light, the 750 billion, a woefully inadequate estimate of actual costs, was a piece of cake to walk past Americans. There is no provision in the constitution for the government to take our money and give it to people who have failed at running their businesses. But since 9/11, and before that actually, the constitution is just an aging piece of parchment with which our leaders are wiping their collective butts.

The bail-out might prop up the economy for three or four years. After that, since monetary policies that precipitated the crisis will continue, we will be out of options. The rich, by the way, will be largely unaffected.

When the global depression comes, and come it will, the result will not just be the have’s and have not’s. It will be masters and slaves.

I’ll let you figure out which one you will be.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Sep 29, 2008)

Find somewhere to host a talk show.   Don't try to sell this to anybody.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Sep 29, 2008)

As always Lin, you are 100% correct.  A nice shill piece on Obamas Muslim ties or McCain wearning depends would be much more marketable.

Problem is, I am trying to write about the whores, not be one.


----------



## JoannaMac (Sep 29, 2008)

Lester, I will never agree with your views on women, but what you've said here is pretty much all spot on  

One of the reasons America is so rich is because the US$ is the international currency. Many countries need to sell products (nice and cheap) to the US in exchange for the currency with which they must pay back their loans. This all changes if the dollar is no longer the major currency.

One of the reasons behind the Iraq war which is not so frequently talked about, was that Iraq was doing oil deals in Euros, which undermined the dollar. There are more and more signs that the dollar is on it's way out. For America, whose economy is completely dependent on oil and cheap imports, life will change drastically in the next few years.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Sep 29, 2008)

JoannaMac said:


> Lester, I will never agree with your views on women, but what you've said here is pretty much all spot on
> 
> One of the reasons America is so rich is because the US$ is the international currency. Many countries need to sell products (nice and cheap) to the US in exchange for the currency with which they must pay back their loans. This all changes if the dollar is no longer the major currency.
> 
> One of the reasons behind the Iraq war which is not so frequently talked about, was that Iraq was doing oil deals in Euros, which undermined the dollar. There are more and more signs that the dollar is on it's way out. For America, whose economy is completely dependent on oil and cheap imports, life will change drastically in the next few years.


 
Fair enough then. We disagree on gender politics (as I have no disdain for women), but agree on some rather important issues.

And I think you are right. If Americans think their rights have been diminished recently, just wait. We haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Sep 29, 2008)

What, I'm saying is... there is nothing new or startling here.   It's what's being said all over.  It's not article material:  it's talk radio show stuff.    Almost every single thing you said there I heard on my neighbor's radio when I was in the states this summer.

Also,  it presents no facts, just rant. 

That's what I was talking about.


BTW, did you know the word "pornography" comes from the Greek "writing about whores"?


----------



## Lester Burnham (Sep 29, 2008)

lin said:


> What, I'm saying is... there is nothing new or startling here. It's what's being said all over. It's not article material: it's talk radio show stuff. Almost every single thing you said there I heard on my neighbor's radio when I was in the states this summer.
> 
> Also, it presents no facts, just rant.
> 
> ...


 
I just have to disagree, Lin.  I am certainly not claiming that I am the only one with these views, but the truth is that they are only inching their way into the mainstream as we speak. 98% of what I write is way out of the mainstream.

Most of what is out there is the same polemic crap. Hannity and Colmes, Rush and the rest.  Talk radio is almost all one side of the fence or the other. And there is a whole nation still tuned into it like it is the gospel.  Look at the polls in the presidential race and tell me otherwise.

And it does present facts. Perhaps not just ones you are interested in, but facts just the same.

So in the end, I am not really sure what you are getting at, if anything. 

Thanks for the info on porno's roots. I'll use it.


----------



## A Vaulter's Insanity (Sep 29, 2008)

I agree that neither candidate is really doing anything. But I dont think its because of big corporations. I think its more lack of understanding whats going on or how to fix it. No one knows what the hell theyre doing. 

When people dont know what to think, they rely on the media. When politicians dont know what to think, they dodge questions until the people can tell them what they want. This is whats been going on for atleast the last 8 years. I think if the media were to never have gotten involved, and bush were a better public speaker. People wouldnt hate him. He would actaully be able to get things done, and all his 'failures' wouldnt have been failures cause there would be no democrats up his ass blocking everything. I dont think people really understand how the job of president works (me included). Can anyone until theyve been there? Does it matter how many years youve had in the senate? How many years youve been governor? Can anything really prepare you to be one of the most influential people in the world? The commander and cheif or the most powerful miliitary in the world? The CEO of one of the most wealthy nations in the world? 

Sorry, started to rant. What Im trying to say is: There are no more pure bred geniuses who run for office. Theyre smart enough to realize not to get involved.


----------



## froman (Sep 30, 2008)

Bravo Lester.  I have to say that I agree 100% with this piece.  Although I think your call to action will go largely unheeded.  For a variety of reasons we as Americans have been so completely and utterly manipulated into a state of apathy and misdirection that I think it will take a global depression to snap us back to reality.  (and yes I also believe that it is coming)

It's gonna be a hell of a ride!


----------



## DeVorn (Sep 30, 2008)

It's a common conceit of the intelligent, modern man to assume that there is a nefarious puppeteer behind the seats of power. But that glorious mother-fucker, William Burroughs, put it best:



			
				William Burroughs said:
			
		

> The Leaders of this most insecure of all Worlds are Leaders by accident. Inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand. Calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.



Politicians are not serving a single Lord and Master who's put the blinders on us. They're serving a thousand different Masters--with a thousand different, contradictory agendas. Sometimes it's their constituents, sometimes their bank accounts, sometimes their friends on Wall Street, sometimes their country, sometimes all of these at once. The result is the same we've always seen, repeated ad infinitum throughout human history: Confusion and chaos.

The fact that the bail out didn't pass merely proves you all the more wrong. Or was its failure merely yet another part of the conspiracy?


----------



## Lester Burnham (Sep 30, 2008)

DeVorn said:


> It's a common conceit of the intelligent, modern man to assume that there is a nefarious puppeteer behind the seats of power.
> 
> Politicians are not serving a single Lord and Master who's put the blinders on us. They're serving a thousand different Masters--with a thousand different, contradictory agendas. Sometimes it's their constituents, sometimes their bank accounts, sometimes their friends on Wall Street, sometimes their country, sometimes all of these at once. The result is the same we've always seen, repeated ad infinitum throughout human history: Confusion and chaos.
> 
> The fact that the bail out didn't pass merely proves you all the more wrong. Or was its failure merely yet another part of the conspiracy?


 
I didn't really intend this to turn into a debate. But as I am not getting suggestions to improve the writing, I'll go with the flow.

First, I never suggested a single lord and master.  But the evidence for my case is strong and not so covert.  Anyone who studies history knows that for the last hundred years that big money interests have had more to do with authoring policy and law in America than the voters.

It is not thousands of puppeteers, it's dozens.  Banks, oil, pharm, guns and lawyers are at the top of the list.  It was a small number of these interests that lead us to where we are today, not thousands, and the people were out of the picture until they reacted and put themselves there.

The fact that the bail-out suffered a temporary set back proves only that when exercised, the real power ultimately still lies with the people when they are active and involved.  And especially when they are on to the game.


----------



## JoannaMac (Sep 30, 2008)

Lester Burnham said:


> The fact that the bail-out suffered a temporary set back proves only that when exercised, the real power ultimately still lies with the people when they are active and involved.  And especially when they are on to the game.



Yes, yes, and yes!


----------



## DeVorn (Sep 30, 2008)

Lester Burnham said:
			
		

> First, I never suggested a single lord and master. But the evidence for my case is strong and not so covert. Anyone who studies history knows that for the last hundred years that big money interests have had more to do with authoring policy and law in America than the voters.



The early part of this century was embodied by a disempowerment of corporations (progressive movement + great depression regulation + anti-monopoly laws + rise of unions); it's only with the big booms of the 50s and on (the last *half* century or so) that businesses have reasserted their pre-1900s strength (and more) over government. Most of this return to strength is a result of their presence in the speculative markets, which brings us to the problem we have today.



			
				Lester Burnham said:
			
		

> The fact that the bail-out suffered a temporary set back proves only that when exercised, the real power ultimately still lies with the people when they are active and involved. And especially when they are on to the game.



There's a lot of reasons it failed, but the consensus seems to be that it's against Republican values concerning free market controls (far more Republicans voted against it than Democrats). I don't agree with the Republicans, but this seems a far cry from the 'people' exercising 'real power' over the process. What 'people' are we talking about? How did they convince the Democrats and Republicans who voted against it to do so instead of 'towing the line' to their 'real masters'? Public resistance against this had scarcely any time to mobilize, and even when it did, the worst they could manage was an angry phone call to a congressman's secretary's secretary.

As someone who believes that big business exerts far too much influence in our government today--and as a pseudo-anarchist who's thrilled at the idea of rejecting both candidates as the twits they probably are--I have to say, my main problem with your essay is that you don't seem to have a solid grasp over what's actually going on. Neither do I, but I'm not writing essays about it.

I know enough to understand that a lot of rich people are just as terrified of this situation, if not more--they pay people to explain this economy stuff to them, and what they're being told can be boiled down to the advice given by another hero of mine, the Brain Gremlin from Gremlins 2:

"Well, it's rather brutal here. Right now we are advising all our clients to put everything they've got into canned food and shotguns."


----------



## DeVorn (Sep 30, 2008)

As for the essay itself (excised from content), I think there's a lot of tightening that can go down:



			
				Lester Burnham said:
			
		

> I suppose the pursuit of better understanding between the sexes is a noble enough effort. At least that is what I like to think. But from time to time something a little more important comes up.



This beginning is _weak_. I mean, this beginning is so weak that I'm fighting off the urge to shove it in a locker and call it some names. Cut this out along with the next section--start with "As I watched the first of the presidential debates..." -- that part is a lot stronger, and the "We're screwed" line definitely catches your interest. It's a great opener, and works far better than what you currently have.



			
				Lester Burnham said:
			
		

> America witnessed the largest bank failure in it’s history



Its! Its! It's is only for contractions! Truth be told, I make this mistake constantly too.



			
				Lester Burnham said:
			
		

> And especially when America and the world is clamoring for answers and assurances.



I'd change this to just "And especially when the world is clamoring for answers and assurances", because otherwise it seems you're disconnecting the two (America is part of the world, isn't it?). Plus, it gives the statement a little more bite.



> Think that is harsh?


I'd go with "Think that's harsh?". Faster, reads sharper in the reader's mind. You don't need to maintain a formal voice, considering you just called our two presidential candidates 'whores'.

There's a bit more tightening that can go on here (I have trouble more with the content, though--I think you need to do some heavy reading before you should make the sort of assertions you're making), and I'd be happy to describe it in detail, but I'll hold off in case you're not interested.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Sep 30, 2008)

Devorn,

Just what I was looking for with the crits on the writing, thanks.

As to the historical and perhaps philosophical differences, I just think we come from different perspectives.

I don't see the history of corporations quite in the same way you do, and I'm sure I am more well read on the subject than you might imagine. Labor unions rose, regulation became common practice and corporations became more docile for a time all for the same reason that the politicians are scrambling for their jobs now. People rebelled.

Revolutions seldom occur on full stomachs. When people are hungry, or fear hunger, they tend to sign on easily to uprisings. 

Just as a point of fact, this country has been owned by someone other than the people since 1913. Our currency being removed from the gold standard and the creation of the federal reserve was forwarned by the founding fathers and lamented by the president that allowed it to happen on his watch. Even Franklin proposed that it was submitting to the currency of Englands central bank that more than any other single reason, caused the revolutionary war.

We have become a nation enslaved by debt and the people were willing to tolerate it as long as they could grab a starbucks on the way to the mall. But it is very likely that those days are going to go on hold for a decade or so. The causes for it are not intractable or hard to understand. All we have to do is remove the blinders, follow the money and take appropriate action.


----------



## DeVorn (Oct 1, 2008)

When I said you should read up on this, I should have been more specific--I didn't mean to sound as insulting as I did. I wasn't talking so much about the history of the situation (which I'm always for anyone reading anyway) as I was about the current situation itself. 

I don't think you grasp the fundamentals of what's going on--you're talking about how the rich are going to be largely unaffected (several very rich people are _pissing their pants_ right now), how this is all very easy to sort out (it's probably going to take _years_ to sort it out--a frightful number of economists are saying how no one has any idea what the hell is going to happen, and tracing all this toxic paper back to its source as you suggest is _not_ an easy, cheap, or small task--it will probably take years and a lot of work), and how you're set on assigning blame over solving the problem ("These people and their businesses failed--they shouldn't receive any of our money!"--totally true, but you're ignoring the fact that there may be reason to believe that if those people and their businesses fail, you won't be able to get money out of an ATM tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. And by next year, we'll all be fighting each other in the Thunderdome. So, uh, going "IT'S YOUR FAULT, DIE FUCKERS DIE!" might be morally satisfying, but I don't think that should really be our primary concern).

As I said, I probably don't command an exceptionally superior understanding of the situation than you do, but I'm not writing essays about it--*you* are. If that's what you want to do, I think you owe it to yourself to do research on the subject you're writing about, and make sure you understand exactly what it is you're saying.

Some good starting points are looking into the Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) and the connection between speculative banks and commercial banks; I think that the incestuous marriage between these two entities is at the root of the problem. That, and a belief in a perpetually growing economy--we can constantly borrow more and more from the future, because the future will always be rosy and bright. Oh, and the slow but steady erosion of all the regulations FDR and friends set up after the Great Depression when they realized just how crazy this shit could get.

In the end, what I'm saying is this situation is _far_ more complicated than what you're describing. Reducing it to a 'RICH PEOPLE CONTROL AMERICA WAKE UP SHEEPLE' sort of essay really does a disservice to the sheer enormity of the problem we're facing as a country and as a global economy.

What's clear is that this was caused not by some sinister conspiracy of the uber-rich intent on making slaves out of us all--but a bunch of short sighted assholes with a lot of capital and very few moral qualms. Those very same short sighted assholes are very, very nervous right now, and we should be too--because their short-sightedness may have repurcussions that extend far beyond _their_ imaginary money.


----------



## LeonBasin (Oct 3, 2008)

Interesting view point. Like others mentioned start a radio show or a blog.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Oct 6, 2008)

If it were really that interesting, a radio show would be out of the question.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Oct 6, 2008)

DeVorn said:


> When I said you should read up on this, I should have been more specific--I didn't mean to sound as insulting as I did. I wasn't talking so much about the history of the situation (which I'm always for anyone reading anyway) as I was about the current situation itself.
> 
> I don't think you grasp the fundamentals of what's going on--you're talking about how the rich are going to be largely unaffected (several very rich people are _pissing their pants_ right now), how this is all very easy to sort out (it's probably going to take _years_ to sort it out--a frightful number of economists are saying how no one has any idea what the hell is going to happen, and tracing all this toxic paper back to its source as you suggest is _not_ an easy, cheap, or small task--it will probably take years and a lot of work), and how you're set on assigning blame over solving the problem ("These people and their businesses failed--they shouldn't receive any of our money!"--totally true, but you're ignoring the fact that there may be reason to believe that if those people and their businesses fail, you won't be able to get money out of an ATM tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. And by next year, we'll all be fighting each other in the Thunderdome. So, uh, going "IT'S YOUR FAULT, DIE FUCKERS DIE!" might be morally satisfying, but I don't think that should really be our primary concern).
> 
> ...


 
I'll say this and let you have the last word, with thanks for the crits.  You don't think I grasp the fundamentals, and I don't think you grasp the realities.

Glass-Steagall is getting tossed around on blogs a lot right now, but it is a red herring if you consider the ultimate reality that the currency only has value in the human imagination to begin with. 

Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not following you.  The rich really do run things.  But you can't define rich in loose terms and get the picture.  The rich motherfuckers that supposedly ran WAMU into ground were bought out by JP Morgan.  In 1907 the original Morgan orchestrated the run on banks and consolidated a great deal of power and money in the process by scavanging the carcasses of the crppled institutions left in the wake (all rich themselves but not as connected and powerful as Morgan).

My arguement is not simply to deny a bailout (moot as hell anyway) but is indeed WAKE THE FUCK UP SHEEPLE.  (just as moot since those in comas don't need to wake up, they need to come to).

The trick, amigo, is not in the fine point analysis of the mechanics of the downfall.  The media will put more spin on that than three hours of Fox News fair and balanced bullshit. The trick is simply in observing where the money and power goes in the aftermath.  Those quasi-rich guys pissing in their pants right now are just as much sheeple as the rest of the world.


----------



## John Stillwater (Nov 11, 2008)

DeVorn: "What's clear is that this was caused not by some sinister conspiracy of the uber-rich intent on making slaves out of us all..." 

I truly hope you don't honestly believe that. If you do, please study political history. I'm not trying to be condescending here, I'm pleading. Governments in every country on the planet have historically gone to incredible lengths to decieve their people, and the US is hardly an exception. 

Dig up the financial history of the Rothschilds, DuPonts, J.P. Morgan and Salmon P. Chase. Research it, study it, and see where all the dots connect. 

In the meantime, here's an analogy upon which to contemplate.

Someone gives you a puzzle, with all the pieces turned so that the picture side is down, away from you, and you can't see it. Unless you can turn those pieces over, you'll never see all the hundreds or thousands of little pictures on the other side. And if you can't see those...you can never complete the puzzle, and see the big picture.

I've been turning those pieces over for at least fifteen years, and it looks to me like Mr. Burnham has been busy at it as well. Once those pieces start fitting together (not being forced together, but fitting together), then the big picture begins to take form.

Truth is much stranger than fiction, indeed. 

John.


----------



## Pain (Dec 14, 2008)

Ignoring the politics, as an essay it lacks something. I've heard everything there before, of course, with the same issue, and the issue I have with a lot of essays.

You want to convince me what you are saying, but you provide no facts, only rhetoric. The world is full of rhetoric, and there are certainly a lot of essays that share this trait, but rhetoric doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree, and alienates those who don't. If that was your target, then you are in good shape.


----------

