Skip to content


December 18, 2014


We saw in Part I that the oligarchy’s propaganda campaign against Senator Warren’s political future has accelerated now that they have succeeded in having a law passed at our expense which guarantees them capital to invest and a backstop for their crapshoots when they throw snake eyes. More slander and libel will be coming as her message continues to resonate across America. She has already been called a liberal and a populist (as though those labels are demeaning to anyone but to those of the radical right); next it will be socialist, and if that doesn’t get it, there is always “communist” available for the penultimate putdown, and if her message to America continues to resonate irrespective of such defamatory labelings, there is always the ultimate coup de grace epithet of communist whore which could be applied in order to speed the end of her political life. Unfortunately, she cannot successfully sue for defamation of character as a “public person” under ruling case law (the Sullivan v. N.Y. Times rule). Too bad – I would love to represent her pro bono.

It is noteworthy that neither Fox News nor the Post discussed the issues she is bringing to the public table, instead contenting themselves with defamatory slurs and slander, and there’s a reason why. These vicious peddlers of defamation want to control the agenda and frame the issues to suit their own  ends, so they write and talk about the messenger instead of the message. The issues are corporate welfare for banks, wage and wealth inequality, trade and bankruptcy and tax atrocities, not what her political views or other personal characteristics may be, which are immaterial to the real issues in dire need of solution. The propagandists, as usual, are using defamation to divert our attention from the real issues, some of which are in desperate need of solution due to chronic congressional inaction for the past six years when Obamacare and government shutdowns were the only games in town.

I will start paying attention to these purveyors of non-issues when they start taking stands on the real issues, starting with why it is sound (?) policy to hand over corporate welfare to Wall Street banks whose larders are already overflowing with money while millions of American children are living in poverty, when we have bright kids who can’t afford higher education, why we have ample funding for money changers and paper shufflers on Wall Street but none for our children’s future. Those are or should be real issues and my overall political views, like those of Senator Warren, are immaterial to their solution.

Nevertheless, what’s done is done. The president has signed the bill and Wall Street is now officially first in the welfare line. It is useless to continue negative chirping in re a potentially devastating rider to a so-called “spending bill” when the rider’s inclusion in the law is now a fait accompli. It’s over, so now what?

Here’s what.  It is not too early to start planning on how to neuter the effects of this rider. As I have blogged before, I think we must keep an eagle regulatory eye on the banks’ trading in derivatives going forward and do whatever we can do (e.g., require greater reserves against loss) to lessen the potential for disaster if the banks start to run up losses in such accounts, all with the longer term goal of reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, which would repeal the language of such rider and protect us in the future from the explosive potential for economic disaster which I have described in my last few blogs on this topic.

Speaking of a fait accompli, Glass-Steagall had been on the books since 1933 up until Clinton signed its repeal shortly before leaving office. It never should have been repealed, but it was. Clinton signed the repealing legislation on the advice of Bob Rubin and Al Greenspan, both products of the Wall Street oligarchy in their private capacities, suspicious advice in itself. I have blogged on several occasions that this is the biggest mistake Clinton made while in office, and Clinton recently admitted that he never should have signed off on its repeal. Like the rest of us, he has seen how his fateful signature unleashed Wall Street crapshooters to play with the peoples’ money and the near calamity its absence brought about when such under-regulated welfare recipients’ greed and risk-taking very nearly brought down the global economy, including ours, a calamity from which we have still not recovered. We remain in the grip of wage and wealth inequality as well as an underperforming economy which is underperforming to the tune of trillions of dollars per year, resulting unemployment, lost revenues to government etc.

The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is the answer to the issue under discussion, but with the Congress in Republican hands for the next two years, it’s reinstatement is highly unlikely given that party’s penchant for protection of its campaign contributions from the oligarchy (though, regretfully, that exercise is becoming increasingly bipartisan). A reinstatement of Glass Steagall does not mean that every word of that act should be reinstated; things have changed in the some 80 years since its original enactment in 1933. It is enough that reinstatement legislation end the use of insured public funds for Wall Street’s investments by requiring that such bankers trade on their own account with a wall between banking and trading desks. Such a reenactment (or its substantial facsimile) will repeal the language of such rider and protect us in the future from the potential disaster to which we are now again legally exposed.

Finally, as for Senator Warren’s political views and her private life as a Harvard law professor and the world’s foremost expert on bankruptcy, I have a few simple questions for Fox, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and others who are wasting good trees and air time with their diversionary slander of her private life and energetic attempts to protect the peoples’ money from the Wall Street rat hole, two of which are illustrative. They are in words of the street as follows: (1) “What’s that got to do with the price of eggs?” (2) “and your point is?”    GERALD    E

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: