Reich writes: "While attention is focused on Syria, the gambling addiction of Wall Street's biggest banks is more dangerous than ever."
The Lehman Brothers went bankrupt five years ago. What has changed since then? (photo: unknown)
Happy Anniversary Lehman Brothers, We Never Learn
09 September 13
hile attention is focused on Syria, the gambling addiction of Wall Street's biggest banks is more dangerous than ever.
Five years ago this September, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, and the Street hurtled toward the worst financial crisis in eighty years. Yet the biggest Wall Street banks are far larger now than they were then. And the Dodd-Frank rules designed to stop them from betting with the insured deposits of ordinary savers are still on the drawing boards - courtesy of the banks' lobbying prowess. The so-called Volcker Rule has yet to see the light of day.
To be sure, the banks' balance sheets are better than they were five years ago. The banks have raised lots of capital and written off many bad loans. (Their risk-weighted capital ratio is now about 60 percent higher than before the crisis.)
But they're back to too many of their old habits.
Consider JPMorgan Chase, the largest of the bunch. Last year it lost $6.2 billion by betting on credit default swaps tied to corporate debt - and then lied about it. Evidence shows the bank paid bribes to get certain counties to buy the swaps. The Justice Department is investigating the bank over improper energy trading. That follows the news that the anti-bribery unit of the Security and Exchange Commission is looking into whether JPMorgan hired the children of Chinese officials to help win business. The bank has also allegedly committed fraud in collecting credit card debt, used false and misleading means of foreclosing on mortgages, and misled credit-card customers in seeking to sell them identity-theft products. The list goes on.
JPMorgan's most recent quarterly report lists its current legal imbroglios in nine pages of small print, and estimates resolving them all may cost as much as $6.8 billion. That's not much more than a pittance for a company with total assets of $2.4 trillion and shareholder equity of $209 billion.
Which is precisely the point. No company, least of all a giant Wall Street bank, will eschew a chance to make a tidy profit unless the probability of getting caught and prosecuted, multiplied times the amount of any potential penalty, is greater than the expected profits.
Have we learned nothing since September, 2008? Five years ago this month Wall Street almost went under. We bailed it out. Millions of Americans are still suffering the consequences of the Street's excesses. Yet the Street's top guns and fat cats are still treating the economy as their own private casino, and raking in even more than before.
The fact is, the giant Wall Street banks are ungovernable - too big to fail, too big to jail, too big to curtail. They should be split up, and their size capped. There's no need to wait for Congress to do it; the nation's antitrust laws are adequate to the job. There is ample precedent. In 1911 we split up Standard Oil. In 1982 we split up Ma Bell. The Federal Reserve has authority to do it on its own in any event. (Would Larry Summers take such an initiative?)
Legislation is needed, however, to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial banking from casino capitalism. But don't hold your breath.
Happy fifth anniversary, Wall Street.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Actually, most of Hollywood is shorter than they claim, and even many sports stars are as well. There's so much b.s. in the world of physical appearances that it's best to not believe anything you see.
I wonder if he's as tall as Prince...
and HE IS black, so he can say it with authority. Yea! Yea1 Yea! Mr Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. And Yea! Yea! Yea! Ms Dolezal.
When this emerged, I could think of three things that seemed relevant:
1) We all belong to a race, the human race. Is that OK with everyone?
2) Whatever you call yourself--and I seem to look European although I have a bit of Asian (Shawnee Native American) ancestry--every single one of us is descended from African ancestors, and hooray for that. I'm proud of it.
3) Back on the 1940s, decades before Don Johanson dug up Lucy, I used to spend summers in Tennessee with my cousin who is about to turn 84. She was born in Memphis. We both came from the side of the family that claimed Shawnee descent, and it was fun to lie in bed and make up stories about us as Indians, fighting with brave Tecumseh against the mean Americans! That enlarged our imaginations, World War II taught us the names of many nations of the world, and from then on we spent many nights trying to figure out how two little girls (mostly British, Irish and German) could be descended from EVERY LAND IN THE WORLD, and that included being part-African. We told each other it would be terrific to be part-African or part-Australian aborigine, or part-Neandertha l--and likely we are a little bit of everything. Ms Dolezal simply is a young woman who has carried the sweet innocent embrace of humanity into her grownup years. I'm sure I'd really like her!
And... what is with that woman's parents? What kind of parents go to that length to destroy their daughter? Weird!
Human Race they drum beat their RACE CARDS! Why, Even George Wallace could have lead the NAACP in Alabama, after leaving the Klans. After all! It was a racist nazi, associated with "white hate groups" that attempted to assassinate Mr. Wallace, when He was campaigning for the Presidency against Nixon! Look at the "Number" FOXX NUZZ has been doing unto President Obama before he was even elected President over the likes of Palin and McCain!
As someone who completely identified with "Black" culture from the age of 7 on, although I was born into a White family that turned out to have quite a bit of Cherokee ancestry that was denied, I feel a deep kinship with Rachel. There is no way I could ever "pass" for African-America n with my appearance the way that Rachel has, but my heart always felt at home when I was immersed in the African-America n community.
I too wondered why her parents suddenly decided to "out" her. Obviously, they are estranged for some reason and if their behavior is any indication of their respect and love for her, then there isn't much there. I feel for Rachel and the betrayal her parents have foisted on her and her children and husband.
I just wonder when we're all gonna grow up in this country and start loving and celebrating each others wonderful diversity and character.
I may be wrong on this, and it may sound ridiculous, but I had heard somewhere a long time ago that some of the cofounders of the NAACP were white folk. Reference the history section of wikipedia for the NAACP:
http://epicroadtrips.us/2003/summer/nola/nola_offsite/Katrina/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP.html
So why can't a white person head up an NAACP chapter somewhere?
(PS: My Dad was arrested and tried under the Smith Act as Un American for advocating equal rights for blacks.)
PS: I'm a Medievalist. If you really were born in the 1040s, WE NEED TO TALK. (Just joshing. That's an easy typo to make.)
And, yes, I saw my typo when I clicked on this am and immediately changed it. Thanks for all the clever comments.
I may have begun to look old, but not THAT old.
We have all lived as every race and gender possibility. To hate another on such a basis is to hate ourselves.
Elvis Presley hung out with the black kids while growing up, learned their music, which is obvious in his own musical style. He too, like Rachel, was a wide-eyed innocent. Wide eyes take in a lot more of the real world than the closed or narrow eyes of bigots do.
I think the point is that she really didn't feel like she was lying. Emotionally she felt that she was black. Growing up with four black brothers it's not hard to see how that could happen. Her bond to her brothers was much stronger than to her parents apparently. And since scientifically there is no such thing as race, who's to say she was wrong?
It is wonderful reading the universally progressive responses to Kareem's typically insightful and prophetic observations on the stupidity and subjugation inherent in the eternal politics of division.
Watching the FAUX GNUS and other panderers trying to make hay out of ragweed has me scratching my head ... "what is the 'issue' here?" Do we all have to carry multidimensiona l identity cards restricting our involvement with one another as humans?
The refusal to recognize the many great civilizations world wide and their contributions to the human endeavor makes us poorer.
I, alas, am piggy-pink, and in this era of global scorching and UV cancers (which I've had), that makes my kind an endangered species. My mom was swarthy tan, being English, Shawnee & Rhineland (black-haired) German, but I got my dad's Scots Irish. You'd better believe that in Florida piggy-pink is NOT a worthwhile color of skin. I'm now getting skin cancers because of bad sunburns at an early age.
And, yet, how many of us who are really pale white people try to get tan and pay to lie in machines to turn us brown?
I have followed Rachel's story from the first article reporting the outing by her parents. Rachel identifies as black, was married to a black man, and had done a lot of good in her community. I do not think her intentions were to deceive. She resigned her position from NAACP, lost her position at the university, and has had her life turned upside down. I think what her parents did was cruel. Why did they wait so long to do it?
Now, I don't ever go out in the sun without SPF Zillion reapplied every minute and a half, and... God only knows how many "black" relatives I really have.
The point is that many-- if not most-- of the population in America is not as "white" (or as "black") as they think they are or might appear to be. If anybody had the standing to make an incredibly great big deal out of this thing, it was the NAACP, and they didn't. It's nobody else's business. Oh, and ancestry.com is like crack. If you start getting into it, you may never escape again. ;)
However, I differ dramatically from KAJ in that I think she did the right thing by resigning. Whatever her motivations might have been for getting herself into this mess in the first place, she was representing herself to be something she was not. There's no sense in mincing words. She was lying.
I don't think for a moment she's a bad person, but I don't like phonies, either. She pretended to be something she's not and she got busted, and now she's being forced to take responsibility for her deception. That's as it should be.
Now that the truth is known, she should go back to the NAACP with her head held high as a white woman who cares deeply about the plight of black people, run on her record, and let the membership decide if she's worthy of continuing.
Let her honestly stand for election, nomination, or whatever other process is used within the organization to appoint leaders. If the membership agrees that she should continue I would heartily congratulate her and the NAACP.
I absolutely do not think she should slink into obscurity with her tail between her legs, but I wholeheartedly believe she did the right thing by stepping down. It's time to let the NAACP decide if they want her back. If her record is as good as is stated, she should have a very good chance of being returned to her former position.
But - but - if I were a black woman, let alone a black man, who was not black by choice, and who had to suffer the slings and arrows, bullets and beatings, that blacks in America are prey to, I would not think that Rachel Dolezal should be as black as she wants to be.
For decades, American blacks who could pass as white often did so, at the cost of cutting themselves off from friends and family who did not look white, and at the cost of constant fear that they would be outed, by accident or on purpose. Rachel Dolezal made no such sacrifice.
Why shouldn't she - why couldn't she - have worked for the NAACP without claiming to be black? Marginalized people need mainstream allies. Gays need straight allies, Jews, and Muslims (!), need Christian allies, blacks need white allies.
Race may be a social construct, but it is a very strong one, and heartily though we may wish it away, it's here, and it packs a punch. Sometimes a literal punch. Let's not lie to ourselves.
one thing that i have learned over my years, is that if someone pronounces their own name, any way they choose, it is a matter of personal respect, talking to them, that i do the same
for me it is a simple matter of etiquette, and respect for another human person
Her claim certainly brings up what it means to be black in 21st-century America.
However, it's not so simple. Voluntary self-identifica tion isn't everything.
If biology and ancestry count, she's not black. If growing up the victim of racism due to her skin color counts, she's not black. How much do those factors count?
Her self-identifyin g as black is a choice. It is not as deep as the the involuntary, gut-level (brain-level?) attraction that gays and lesbians have to members of the same gender, nor trans-gender peoples' -feeling- that they're a member of the opposite gender, despite their body's anatomy.
At the same time, her identifying as black is deeper than religious identity, which (as an adult, despite one's upbringing as a child) is a voluntary choice. American society (unlike others) recognizes one's choice to identify as a member of any religion or no religion, and to convert from one religion to another.
Race may be socially constructed, but do we want it to be as voluntarily chosen as a religion? Or to exaggerate slightly, as easily changed as a pair of clothes? A personal choice independent of biology, history, or one's society?
Perhaps, in a color-blind future. Not now.
I assume you wrote the most ignorantly obnoxious, racist comment you could possibly come up with because you'd like to see if you can get a rise out of actual human beings, who share basic human traits that you, yourself, can only dream of.