Get RS Mobile
RSS
It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.
Normally one would have to be in the grip of a narcissistic psychosis to think that a columnist for the New York Times has written an article for your personal benefit. But after his latest article in the Times, in which he compares the “populism” of people who “blame Goldman Sachs” with exactly the sort of racist elitism I ripped him for last week, I think David Brooks might be trying to talk to me.
I think that’s at least part of what’s going on in his latest column, which is odd. If I were in his position, I probably would have punched me in the nose for the shot I took at him last week, but the response of David Brooks to being called out as a racist weenie is to write a passionate defense of the rich, one that includes the admonition that while blaming the wealthy is easy and feels fun, truly wise men should “tolerate the excesses of traders.”
I don’t want to get into the position of fixating on one guy for personal reasons. Obviously I’ve done too much of that with Brooks already, and I absolutely promise to give that part of it a rest for a good long while after this.
But leaving aside any discussion of Brooks the human being, this latest column of his is something that has to be discussed. The propagandistic argument he makes about the dangers of “populism” is spelled out here as clearly as you’ll ever see it expressed in print, and this exact thing is a key reason why so much of the corruption that went on on Wall Street in the past few decades was allowed to spread unchecked.
That’s because this argument is tacitly accepted by almost everyone in our business, and most particularly is internalized in the thinking of most newspaper editors and TV news producers, who over time develop an ingrained habitual fear of publishing material that seems hysterical or angry.
This certainly has an effect on the content of news reporting, but perhaps even more importantly, it impacts the tone of news coverage, where outrages are covered without outrage, and stories that are not particularly “balanced” in reality — stories that for instance are quite plainly about one group of people screwing another group of people — become transformed into cool, “objective” news stories in which both the plainly bogus version of events and the real and infuriating version are given equal weight.
Brooks lays out the crux of his case his case in his first three grafs of his article:
Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds. The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.
These two attitudes — populism and elitism — seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.
Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue. The Republicans have their populists. Sarah Palin has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites. And the Democrats have their populists. Since the defeat in Massachusetts, many Democrats have apparently decided that their party has to mimic the rhetoric of John Edwards’s presidential campaign. They’ve taken to dividing the country into two supposedly separate groups — real Americans who live on Main Street and the insidious interests of Wall Street.
Now, there’s bullshit all up and down this lede. The first lie he tells involves describing everyone who is a critic of Wall Street as a populist. It’s sort of a syllogism he’s getting into here:
All people who criticize Wall Street are populists.
All populists think of themselves as enlightened and pure, and are primarily interested in dividing society, the same way racists do.
Therefore, all people who criticize Wall Street are primarily interested in dividing society, just like racists.
This is obnoxious on so many levels it’s almost difficult to know where to start. As for the populism label, let me quote the Alison Porchnik character from Annie Hall (Woody’s first wife, in the movie): “I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype.”
Brooks here is trying to say that by criticizing, say, Goldman Sachs for mass thievery — criticizing a bank for selling billions of dollars worth of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities mismarked as investment grade deals, for getting the taxpayer to pay them 100 cents on the dollar for their billions in crap investments with AIG, for forcing hundreds of millions of people to pay inflated gas and food prices when they manipulated the commodities market and helped push oil to a preposterous $149 a barrel, and for paying massive bonuses after receiving billions upon billions in public support even beyond the TARP — that in criticizing the bank for doing these things, people like me are primarily interested in being divisive and “organizing hatreds.”
He is also saying that by making these criticisms, people like me are by implication making statements about our own moral purity and enlightenment relative to others. He goes on:
It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.
Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.
Stuff like this makes me want to scream. If I’m writing about a bank that took a half-billion worth of mortgages where the average amount of equity in the home was less than 1%, and where 58% of the mortgages had no documentation, and then sold those mortgage-backed securities as investment-grade opportunities to pensions and other suckers — and then bet against the same kind of stuff they were enthusiastically selling to other people — is Brooks seriously suggesting that I also have to point out that the Chinese economy was doing well at the time?
Yeah, okay, the rise of China is a factor in the overall decline of the American economy, but it has nothing to do with the Goldman story, which is a specific crime story about a specific bank. If I or any other reporter is writing about a gang of car thieves, what, we’re supposed to also mention that the endive crop was weak in that part of the country that year? What the fuck? And this whole business about how criticizing Goldman absolves voters — Jesus, how primitive can you get? Using that logic, criticizing anyone for anything is invalid:
ME: Well, Ike Turner was sort of a dick because he used to get high and punch his wife in the face all the time…
BROOKS: But it’s so easy to say that.
ME: It’s easy to say that a guy who punches his wife in the face is a jerk? (Scratching head) Well… I guess you’re right about that. Would you like me to say it while juggling three chainsaws? Would you have less of a problem with it then?
BROOKS: But by criticizing Ike Turner, you’re absolving all the people who do other bad things. Like purse-snatchers in Central Park, and those kids who keyed my Lexus, and all those baseball players who took steroids! Rafael Palmeiro lied to congress! What about them?
ME: Dude, are you okay? Your pupils look dilated.
BROOKS: You’re absolving Mark McGwire! The single-season home run record is a fraud!
ME: (backing away slowly toward the door) Okay, yeah, sure. Listen, I’ll catch up with you later, okay? I’ve got to return some videotapes.
And so on. The entire argument is literally this nonsensical. If Brooks disagrees with criticism of banks like Goldman, he has a fantastic platform to point out where those criticisms are incorrect. The best platform there is, in fact. But not only does he not go in that direction, he does just the opposite — he concedes that these criticisms are basically true, and chooses instead to argue against the wisdom of making those criticisms, apparently because “bashing the rich” will make them less inclined to “channel opportunity to new groups.” The emphasis in this next excerpt is mine:
So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.
That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.
Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.
In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.
Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.
What’s so ironic about this is that Brooks, in arguing against class warfare, and trying to present himself as someone who is above making class distinctions, is making an argument based entirely on the notion that there is an lower class and an upper class and that the one should go easy on the other because the best hope for collective prosperity is the rich creating wealth for all. This is the same Randian bullshit that we’ve been hearing from people like Brooks for ages and its entire premise is really revolting and insulting — this idea that the way society works is that the productive ” rich” feed the needy “poor,” and that any attempt by the latter to punish the former for “excesses” might inspire Atlas to Shrug his way out of town and leave the helpless poor on their own to starve.
That’s basically Brooks’s entire argument here. Yes, the rich and powerful do rig the game in their own favor, and yes, they are guilty of “excesses” — but fucking deal with it, if you want to eat.
And the really funny thing about Brooks’s take on populists… I mean, I’m a member of the same Yuppie upper class that Brooks belongs to. I can’t speak for the other “populists” that Brooks might be referring to, but in my case for sure, my attitude toward the likes of Lloyd Blankfein and Hank Paulson has nothing to do with class anger.
I don’t hate these guys because they’re rich and went to fancy private schools. Hell, I’m rich and went to a fancy private school. I look at these people as my cultural peers and what angers me about them is that, with many coming from similar backgrounds to mine, these guys chose to go into a life of crime and did so in a way that is going to fuck things up for everyone, rich and poor, for a generation.
Their decision to rig the markets for their own benefit is going to cause other countries to completely lose confidence in the American economy, it will impact the dollar, and ultimately will make all of us involuntary debtors to whichever state we end up having to borrow from to bail these crimes out.
And from my perspective, what makes these guys more compelling as a journalistic subject than, say, the individual homeowner who took on too much debt is a thing that has nothing to do with class, not directly, anyway. It’s that their “excesses” exist in a nexus of political and economic connections that makes them very difficult to police.
We have at least some way of dealing with the average guy who doesn’t pay his debts — in fact our government has shown remarkable efficiency in passing laws like the bankruptcy bill that attack that particular problem, and of course certain banks always have the option of not lending that money (and I won’t even get into the many different ways that the banks themselves bear responsibility for all the easy credit that was handed out in recent years).
But the kinds of things that went on at Goldman and other investment banks, in many cases there are not even laws on the books to deal with these things. In some cases what we’re talking about is the highly complicated merger of crime and policy, of stealing and government, which is both fascinating from a journalistic point of view and ought to be terrifying from the point of view of any citizen, rich or poor.
And even if I were to accept the Brooksian view of an upper class that must be looked to to fix things and take care of the lower classes and create the needed wealth to help us escape our economic crisis, the whole point is that this upper class he is talking about has abdicated that very responsibility — and, perhaps having reached the cynical conclusion that our society is not worth saving, has taken on a new mission that involves not creating wealth for all but simply absconding with whatever wealth is remaining.
It’s not pessimism or “combative divisiveness” to talk about these problems and insist that they get fixed. On the contrary, it’s a very positive view of what citizenship is to believe that everyone has a real role in fixing his country’s problems, and that when we identify problems, we should try to do something about them because we might actually succeed.
On the other hand, telling oneself that when powerful people “rig the game” one should just tolerate it, because one’s best hope for seeing the situation fixed rests in hoping those same powerful people fix it themselves — I would describe that as pessimism, or something worse than pessimism. The whole point of America is that we are all supposed to be our own masters, never viewing anyone as better or more capable than ourselves, and these people at these investment banks are the perfect example of that concept.
The fact that a lot of these guys have a lot of money recently doesn’t make them “upper class.” They’re no different from any of us, they’re the same assholes we all were in high school and college, except that they made some very particular moral choices in adulthood, and became criminals, and have now arranged things so that they’re going to be tough as hell to catch. And when they fall, which a lot of them will… I mean a lot of these guys are ten seconds from losing it all and spending the next ten years pushing shopping carts under the FDR expressway. And they know it. These people aren’t the nobility. They’re just really stupid people.
That’s not a class story. It’s a crime story, and it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with China.
- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Damn Gina!
For David Brooks to argue that it must be this way is a bit ridiculous in a world that contains Sweden, Denmark, etc.
The NY Times ought to publish an edited version of Taibbi’s response after inflicting Brooks and Friedman’s anti-Populist broadsides (that were so intellectually-dishonest in re-framing the rhetoric so that it equated those striving for justice with petty score-settlers who are merely jealous of the rich).
Unfortunately, Brooks has Obama’s ear and this tripe is reflective of the NY Times Magazine’s previous water-carrying for the Administration’s coddling of the very Wall Street cretins who arranged this rip-off.
Then, the Rahmn and Gibbs spinners tried to foist the story that Obama’s betrayal of everything he spoke about as a candidate was somehow a mature act of non-confrontational Progressivism (that doesn’t need Populism to negotiate an FDR-like legislative legacy).
Puh-leaze. We are not that dumb. Nearly every decision Obama has made has enriched these greed-heads and avoided even investigating the people who created this dilemna for the American tax-payer. He couldn’t replace Geithner, Bernanke and Summers even if he wanted to (and, to prove he’s in charge, can only brush a few “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” Clinton-cake crumbs our way to maintain the fiction that the White House outranks the bankers).
And always, its the same tired excuse. We’re the grown-ups who are too mature to seek retribution.
Never mind that the pension-funds that Goldman Sachs ripped-off are told to screw themselves for lacking investor due-diligence.
No. When the AIG-insured junk went south on Goldman Sachs, we didn’t hear Timmy Geithner telling them to chalk it up to “investor due diligence.” Nope.
They gave $85 billion, according to SigTARP Neil Barofsky, in a matter of minutes without strings attached and without any leverage remaining(even though the NY Federal Reserve Bank could have easily offered compensation at 40 cents on the dollar instead).
Then they redact the records, under a Democratic Administration, hoping that the average citizen is too confused to be interested in anything other than the bonus amounts in the newspapers.
Matt Taibbi is gutsy and his instincts are probably right about how his recent deconstructing of David Brooks’ Paul Shirley-like Haiti-column has surely gotten under Brooks’ skin.
If only “The New York Times” had the guts to feature Taibbi’s response to Brooks’ outlandish attempt to calling out for justice with jealousy of the rich.
Sadly, that Column will be read by millions while Taibbi’s blog will only see the eys of a few. And this from a non-corporate-controlled, supposedly-balanced family newspaper, ahem, “of record.”
If accountability is no longer allowed for some, it should not be allowed for all. So, a poor kid in a Texas jail for a joint of Marijuana can be prosecuted, but the Wall Street cretins who will cost every American $2000 a year– not counting the interest– can get away scot-free (when they are already obscenely rich).
I could see Brooks argument if the banks were allowed to go bust and bankruptcy trustees put their assets in receivership (to allow for the years of clawbacks on the profits they games the system of profiting on the junk they sold due to the easily-corrupted ratings-agencies mislabeling).
But we never even got to investigation or even prosecution (yet Brooks has the gall to actually equate the entirely-justified populist fury with childish and racist score-settling)?
Just goes to show how badly screwed up the Fifth-Estate has become.
But keep it rocking and rolling, Matt. Some of us are very appreciative of your efforts.
You, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and eminent historian Garry Wills are the only ones I can even stomach reading these days. (Dr. Thompson would be proud).
There needs to be some sort of literary award devoted to the best take down of a NYT op ed writer.
Thanks Matt!
He deserves the Imus award!!!
isn’t it the fourth estate? or is this a mashup of fourth estate and fifth column?
I dunno, Matt, for years I, and many others, have had to grind our teeth and suffer the ignorance and hubris of the sniveling entity known as David Brooks.I know that I’m exceedingly pleased that someone has the intelligence, stones and the wherewithal to take this asshat down on a consistent basis. So we kinda enjoy your ‘fixation’.
I’ll second this statement, thanks Matt keep it coming.
word. Thanks for having the stones to call bullshit – someone at the NY Times should have had the decency to do it themselves.
Matt,
I gave you a bit of sh!t for your last column on Brooks/Haiti–and I would like to publicly apologize. As I began reading this, I thought to go looking for a noose to fit Mr. Brooks with (we racists still have them lying around, of course). But, when I got to the part where Brooks explains that Abe Lincoln would want the rich to rig the system for their–sorry our–benefit, I realized what a homophobic populist douche I was acting like.
He’s right, you know–punishing the elites won’t produce any of the things required for growth… We need direction from the elites to usher in a new era of prosperity. We need renewable energy, to reduce our collective carbon footprint, to provide healthcare to all Americans, we need to decrease unemployment, etc… And, I believe I can tell you what Mr. Brooks’ answer might be: use the homeless for firewood. Dear reader, before you go off in a populist huff, consider it: given the unabated stream of foreclosures, we have a seemingly endless supply of energy “in the pipeline”. The reduction in population lowers the carbon footprint, thus healthcare will be more affordable and there will be less competition for jobs! And the best part is, it won’t damage the economy at all since the elite generate all the wealth in the first place.
Now, If you’re reading this and find yourself wondering if this is a good idea, a quick test of intelligence is in order. If you’re smart enough to know that you’re not smart enough to move the country forward without the elite guiding you, then you’re safe. You’re too intelligent to get caught up in populist nonsense that would ultimately only hurt you and your family. If, however, you think you’re smart enough to navigate life without the help of the elite, you’re probably a racist.
-Marcus
As an adverage “Middle Class” Teamster Truck Driver, I never got a job from a poor person!
And, as a former poor person, I never asked anyone for a job. Now, I have a little money. David Brooks was in the way, so to speak, as the anticompetitive layer of laws protecting the thieves (i.e., the business class) made it that much harder to compete.
Pity the poor truckdrivers, hat in hand, waiting for the rich guy to toss ‘em all a crumb.
That may be true Chris, but it’s not the point of Matt’s story. Read it again.
Teamster? So, you’re middle class because of the generosity of the rich? Or because you’re a Teamster?
“We have at least some way of dealing with the average guy who doesn’t pay his debts — in fact our government has shown remarkable efficiency in passing laws like the bankruptcy bill that attack that particular problem, and of course certain banks always have the option of not lending that money (and I won’t even get into the many different ways that the banks themselves bear responsibility for all the easy credit that was handed out in recent years).”
The Bankruptcy Reform bill has to be one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I have seen in my lifetime.
Matt,
Your exemplary, logical and factual analysis of the Brooks Propaganda modus operandi is worthy of being made required reading for all high school and college students as part of a critical thinking course.
Your use of ridicue to mock Brooks is particulary welcome because that is the one thing that these propaganda shills have the most difficulty countering. They always want to position the “target” person or group as illogical, hysterical, childish, racist, stupid, self-defeating, etc. The goal is to discredit the “target” to the point of convincing readers to ignore the “irritating” populist talk.
Thanks for all you write. If you ever want to become a senator, congressman or a president, be assured that I would vote for you. you remind me of an FDR with a modern vocabulary.
Matt- as a long time reader of r.s-i do appreciate your attempts to edducate us a bit on the pathetic goings on in our currupt monetery system.we get it. this just in-big money and all the conbobulated crap associated with it is a rabid beast running wild leaving us mere earthlings wringing our hands- i suggest not taking it all too seriously and seeing our world and all the money grabbing psychopaths for what it is—something kind of funny and not a bit more. its just a modern day reflection on the plasticness of modern man.
RICO is the best enama Matt!
Matt, the next step is to expose the fact that these people, Brooks included are actually the ones waging class warfare. Lincoln, in a letter to Seward, warned about the effect these folks would have, a century (almost) prior to Eisenhower warning us of the military-industrial complex. The presumption that these comments relate to military spending alone is naive. By 1920, the trust busting that TR engaged in had been undone by lobbyists, changing the laws in their favor. Reagan attacked the New Deal, and the non-conservative Gingrich Revolution consummated that attack, giving globalist bankers control of the economy. Result: the death of the middle class as wealthflowed upward to the ruling class. Brooks is the intellectual facade to that ruling class, even more than George Will. Face it, they don’t like real people. Common persons might actually rub off on them! They are dependent upon a stratified society, and will attack anyone–like you–who sees them in all their collective criminality.
Where are the Black Panthers when we really need them?
Matt, what is next? If we agree with your arguments that the actions of senior employees at these financial firms, i.e. AIG, Goldman, et al, constitute actual crimes, how and when do they actually get prosecuted? What can we do to make that happen? Especially when those in government are positioned to protect them? Please make your next blog about that.
your articles are heartening. my difficulty is in trying to ascertain whether these folks are lunatics or scoundrels. don’t these morons realize that after the shit hits the fan they won’t be able to drive their Bentley’s down the street without suffering a hail of brick and other missile material.
the State of the Union address was especially onerous. to watch bobblehead Biden and burn victim Pelosi sitting on O’s shoulder as he delivered the most delusional and cynical speech heard in some time. WTF. the healthcare bill will save taxpayers trillions in the next two decades. HULLO? my house could be worth trillions in two decades. WTF planet does this man reside on?
does anyone else out there feel as if there is an inside joke going on that we are not party to and just may be the butt of? who can take these “leaders” seriously if they are taking Obama seriously? SERIOUSLY.
we are so fucked.
Matt,
Are you following Washington Mutuals current litigation versus JP Morgan and the FDIC?
As you know, Thousands of Wamu shareholders were wiped out by the illegal seizure of the bank… And they are desperately fighting for justice.
This is a vital case for our country… And if the FDIC and JPM are exposed for their collusion to bring down a financially sound bank, The results of this case could rock the foundation of the not only Wall street, but the entire Financial sector.
This is a unique situation that could really use your voice, Thank you.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1112058820100112?type=marketsNews
What you say about the decision of the elite to rig the markets for their own benefit causing loss of confidence in the American economy, impacting the dollar, and ultimately making all of us involuntary debtors to whichever state we end up having to borrow from to bail these crimes out is absolutely true.
No bigger example of this can be found than with Washington Mutualm which was bought for a measly $1.9bn in a scam involving JPMC and the FDIC. The WaMu story has largely been ignored by the world’s media because it’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to mention. But with the ruling on thursday night that an EC Committee formed to protect common shareholders’ interests will not be disbanded, the world will now inevitably hear the truth. The WaMu story needs to be told for all the thousands of everyday folk who lost their livelihoods when their savings were taken away from them by the WaMu heist by the FDIC and JPMC.
Matt excellent article. You are getting to the crux of the argument. Are the American people too busy and uninformed to care? For some reason this seems to be the case, if you were to ask the White House. The spin coming out of there non-stop is enough to make you throw up your “cornflakes and Starbucks $5 expresso!” When you drill down to the root cause of the entire economic collapse of not only the American economy, but an everlasting effect on the world, you get one word GREED! I hate that word! It’s a word no one in the media will utter, because they know it is true. Greed is what caused the downfall of our economy. Jamie Dimon of JPM is never mentioned in your article, WHY? Could he be one of the causes? His company JPM is one of the only ones who exited the economic collapse in great shape. Why is this? Could it be because he bought Bear Stearns with a taxpayers money (30 Bil) , reaping a profit on the deal that has never been reported. Heck if the government, gave me that much money, I could go around any company I wanted. Could it be his company is partially responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers? JPM held back 5 Billion of cash that Lehman had in their bank when Lehman needed it the most (still to this day has it) why? Hank Paulson would not save Lehman why?
Jamie Dimon and crew over at JPM were P.O’ed that WAMU turned down their paltry offer of $8 PPS in March 2008 and opted for an injection of private money from TPG, so they set out on a course of destruction of the west-coast bank. When WAMU was seized, they had over 4.4 Bil in CASH in the BANK (which JPM got)! Court Documents show JPM nicknamed the WAMU Takedown as “Project West” and called themselves “Park”. You talk about NSS (Naked Short Selling) and FTD’s (Failure To Deliver) shares of stock. WM (WAMU) had over 1 Bil NSS on it at the time it was seized by the FDIC and sold to JPM for a piss-poor sum of 1.888 Billion (the date the bank was formed in Seattle). Jamie Dimon and FDIC’s Sheila Bair were talking as early as July 2008, when JPM gave the FDIC a slide presentation of WAMU. Court Docs are showing that this was a coordinated takedown of one of the largest banks in the country.
You need to write about this, you talk about the media and how they are keeping things hidden. You are exactly right. The only people writing about WAMU (One of the Largest banks in the nation, 2200 plus branches, over 42,000 ATM’s, Providian CC company, many subs, one (WMBfsb) had over 21 Bil in Cash in the Bank “which JPM got”) are: Kristen Grind of the Puget Sound Biz Journal in Seattle. Peg Brickley of the DowJones Newswire and Now Tom Hals of Reuters. WHY? No NY Times, Wall Street Journal, etc… No TV Media “At All!” CNBC knew about the seizure before it happened (“another first”) David Faber was the reporter who reported on Thursday morning, “ FDIC seized on THURSDAY!” Check You Tube.
For the first time in history bondholders were completely wiped out, court docs show JPM requested this of the FDIC and the FDIC complied. Shareholders pensions and portfiolio’s were destroyed overnight, many were employees, retirees who were locked in, some were investors who stayed on board because the CEO said the bank was “well-capitalized.” 4 other banks (Banco Santander, Toronto Dominion, Citi, Wells Fargo) were bidding on WAMU and they were turned down by the FDIC (non-conforming bids). JPM was told in advance that they were the winners of the bid, well before the deadline for bidding. JPM held a 7 PM conference call with the shareholders the night the FDIC awarded them the banks. They mentioned they had plenty of time to know what they were buying. They had been privy to a confidentiality agreement they signed with WMI when they were disguised as a suitor (the whole time they were dealing on the side with FDIC) they were acting as if they were going to buy the banks from WMI. Collusion and Corruption are the heart of this; Goldman was contracted by WMI to sell the bank, while they were supposed to be acting in good faith, they were telling their investors and managers to short the stock.
Over 1 Bil FTD’s on WAMU stock, Over 1 Bil NSS on WAMU stock.. How can a company survive, when the market was killing them? Wamu was seized 4 days before TARP, which could of saved them. They had 8 Bil available at the Fed Reserve Window, they necver tapped (they didn’t need to) WAMU was a west-coast bank, not a Wall Street Bank. When CEO Killinger asked Paulson to put WAMU on the “no short” list in July 2008, he said “NO! You should have sold to JPM when you had the chance, and you should do so now. Things can get very worse for you.” The Senate is now investigating, Congress is also investigating. It was revealed Thursday that one of the reasons the FDIC was not able to comply with the request for documents by WMI, is that they are the subject of a wide-ranging congressional subpoena for documents. Many people and companies such as Moody’s, Hank Paulson, The Fed, and others have “read the writing on the wall” and voluntarily complied with WMI’s request “through the court” for documents related the takedown. JPM was forced by subpoena to produce documents, the FDIC has refused. Attorneys for WMI have asked the court to force the FDIC and many other parties to produce the documents, however Judge Mary Walrath of the Del BK Court turned down their request as “too broad: expect the attorney’s to get the hint and come back with specific requests real soon. WMI is building a “business tort claim” against JPM. http://www.my.calendars.net/wmi .
This is a simple case of the government picking who survives and who dies. Why did Wells Fargo overbid Citi’s [2 Billion] bid for Wachovia and piss off Bair in the process? Answer, because they were not going to let the WAMU thing happen to them twice. They used the court to win that one. You need to write an article about this. If you really are the man “Wall Street Fears” then you can wake some people up. Shareholders of WAMU were just awarded an Equity Committee in the BK court last Thursday. There is large lawsuit against JPM in the Delaware court (case # 08-12229) and in DC (stayed pending Del 1:09-cv-0533 against the FDIC. Court Calendar is located at this website: http://www.my.calendars.net/wmi
More info is available at ..
http://www.wamurape.org.
“…Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers…”
This kind of crap makes me so sick.
Lincoln hated central bankers, like what we have now with the Fed and he didn’t champion banks. He briefly got America to print its own money (like the Chinese now do), instead of letting people like the Fed create it–which results in America ultimately being the Fed’s fiefdom. And Lincoln was probably assasinated because he intended, (like Jackson eventually did), to get rid of the central bankers’ ownership of America at that time.
I often think that Capitalism works fine until you run out of greater fool’s money. I never know that it works fine too until you run out of high prices for food and energy that has nothing to do with supply and demand. Gee, these guys are morally bankrupt. Matt, finish them. I love your work.