Skip to content

European Bailout – Corporatism is Not Capitalism – DHS Napolitano Caught Lying – Herman “Cainsian” Economics Explained

October 28, 2011

Europe Tries To Kick The Can Down The Road But It Will Only Lead To Financial Disaster

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults

U.S. Government Seeks to Create Website Ban List

‘Get Your Freak On Girl’ TSA Screener Fired

————————————————————————————

Corporatism Is Not Capitalism: 7 Things About The Monolithic Predator Corporations That Dominate Our Economy That Every American Should Know

The American Dream

Right now, there is a lot of talk about the evils of “capitalism”.  But it is not really accurate to say that we live in a capitalist system.  Rather, what we have in the United States today, and what most of the world is living under, is much more accurately described as “corporatism”.  Under corporatism, most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations and big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further.  In a corporatist system, the wealth and power of individuals and small businesses is dwarfed by the overwhelming dominance of the corporations.  Eventually, the corporations end up owning almost everything and they end up dominating nearly every aspect of society.  As you will see below, this very accurately describes the United States of America today.  Corporatism is killing this country, and it is not what our founding fathers intended.

The following is the definition of “corporatism” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary….

the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism.  They are all “collectivist” economic systems.  Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are “egalitarian” economic systems.  Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters realize that our economic system is fundamentally unjust in many ways, but the problem is that most of them want to trade one form of collectivism for another.

But our founding fathers never intended for us to have a collectivist system.

Instead, they intended for us to enjoy a capitalist system where true competition and the free enterprise system would allow individuals and small businesses to thrive.

In an article that was posted earlier this year on Addicting Info, Stephen D. Foster Jr. detailed how our founding fathers actually felt about corporations….

The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense.

Our founding fathers would have never approved of any form of collectivism.  They understood that all great concentrations of wealth and power represent a significant threat to the freedoms and liberties of average citizens.

Are you not convinced that we live in a corporatist system?

Well, keep reading.

The following are 7 things about the monolithic predator corporations that dominate our economy that every American should know….

#1 Corporations not only completely dominate the U.S. economy, they also completely dominate the global economy as well.  A newly released University of Zurich study examined more than 43,000 major multinational corporations.  The study discovered a vast web of interlocking ownerships that is controlled by a “core” of 1,318 giant corporations.

But that “core” itself is controlled by a “super-entity” of 147 monolithic corporations that are very, very tightly knit.  As a recent article in NewScientist noted, these 147 corporations control approximately 40 percent of all the wealth in the entire network….

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 percent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 percent of the companies were able to control 40 percent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

Unsurprisingly, the “super-entity” of 147 corporations is dominated by international banks and large financial institutions.  For example, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America are all in the top 25.

#2 This dominance of the global economy by corporations has allowed global wealth to become concentrated to a very frightening degree.

According to Credit Suisse, those with a household net worth of a million dollars or more control 38.5% of all the wealth in the world.  Last year, that figure was at 35.6%.  As you can see, it is rapidly moving in the wrong direction.

For a group of people that represents less than 0.5% of the global population to control almost 40 percent of all the wealth is insane.

The dominance of corporations is also one of the primary reasons why we are witnessing income inequality grow so rapidly in the United States.  The following comes from a recent article in the Los Angeles Times….

An economic snapshot from the Economic Policy Institute shows that inflation-adjusted incomes of the top 1% of households increased 224% from 1979 to 2007, while incomes for the bottom 90% grew just 5% in the same time period. Those in the top 0.1% of income fared even better, with incomes growing 390% over that time period.

You can see a chart that displays these shocking numbers right here.

#3 Since wealth has become concentrated in very few hands, that means that there are a whole lot of poor people out there.

At a time when technology should be making it possible to lift standards of living all over the globe, poverty just continues to spread.  According to the same Credit Suisse study referenced above, the bottom two-thirds of the global population controls just 3.3% of all the wealth.

Not only that, more than 3 billion people currently live on less than 2 dollar a day.

While the ultra-wealthy live the high life, unimaginable tragedies play out all over the globe every single day.  Every 3.6 seconds someone starves to death and three-quarters of them are children under the age of 5.

#4 Giant corporations have become so dominant that it has become very hard for small businesses to compete and survive in the United States.

Today, even though our population is increasing, the number of small businesses continues to decrease.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006.  Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

This is the exact opposite of what should be happening under a capitalist system.

#5 Big corporations completely dominate the media.  Almost all of the news that you get and almost all of the entertainment that you enjoy is fed to you by giant corporations.

Back in 1983, somewhere around 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States.

Today, control of the news media is concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.

#6 Big corporations completely dominate our financial system.  Yes, there are hundreds of choices in the financial world, but just a handful control the vast majority of the assets.

Back in 2002, the top 10 banks controlled 55 percent of all U.S. banking assets.  Today, the top 10 banks control 77 percent of all U.S. banking assets.

The “too big to fail” banks just keep getting more and more powerful.  For example, the “big six” U.S. banks (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo) now possess assets equivalent to approximately 60 percent of America’s gross national product.

#7 Big corporations completely dominate our political system.  Because they have so much wealth and power, corporations can exert an overwhelming amount of influence over our elections.  Studies have shown that in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time.

Politics in America is not about winning over hearts and minds.

It is about who can raise the most cash.

Sometimes this truth leaks out a bit in the mainstream media.  For example, during a recent show on MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan made the following statement….

“The biggest contributor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is Goldman Sachs. The primary activities of this president relative to banking have been to protect the most lucrative aspect of that business, which is the dark market for credit default swaps and the like. That has been the explicit agenda of his Treasury Secretary. This president is advocating trade agreements that allow enhanced bank secrecy in Panama, enhanced murdering of union members in Colombia, and the refunding of North Korean slaves.”

Later on, Ratigan followed up by accusing both political parties of working for the bad guys….

“But I guess where I take issue is, this president is working for the bad guys. The Democrats are working for the bad guys. So are the Republicans. The Democrats get away with it by saying, ‘Look at how crazy the Republicans are; at the Democrats pretend to care about people.’ BUT THE FACT IS THE 2-PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM IS UTTERLY BOGUS.”

Wow – nobody is actually supposed to say that on television.

Today, most of our politicians are bought, and most of them actively help the monolithic predator corporations accumulate even more wealth and even more power.

In fact, as I wrote about recently, the big Wall Street banks are already trying to buy the election in 2012.

Fortunately, it looks like the American people are starting to wake up.  According to one recent survey, only 23 percent of all Americans now trust the financial system, and 60 percent of all Americans are either “angry” or “very angry” about the economy.

Unfortunately, many of them are joining protest movements such as Occupy Wall Street which are calling for one form of collectivism to replace another.

The American people are being given a false choice.

We don’t have to choose between corporatism and socialism.

We don’t have to choose between big corporations and big government.

Our founding fathers actually intended for corporations and government to both be greatly limited.

The following is a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson….

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Unfortunately, things did not turn out how Jefferson wanted.  Instead of us controlling the corporations, they now control us.

This next quote is from John Adams….

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”

But who dominates our economy today?

The big banks.

Perhaps we should have listened to founding fathers such as John Adams.

Lastly, here is another quote from Thomas Jefferson….

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

How prescient was that quote?

Last year, over a million American families were booted out of their homes by the big banks.  The financial institutions actually now have more total equity in our homes than we do.

Unemployment is rampant, but corporate profits are soaring.  The number of Americans on food stamps has increased by more than 70 percent since 2007, and yet the incomes of those at the top of the food chain continue to increase.

We need a system that allows all Americans to start small businesses, compete fairly and have a chance at success.

Instead, what we have is a corporatist system where the big corporations have most of the wealth, most of the power and most of the advantages.

We need to get the American people to understand that corporatism is not capitalism.

Corporatism is a collectivist system that allows the elite to accumulate gigantic amounts of wealth and power.

The answer to such a system is not to go to a different collectivist system.

Rather, we need to return as much power as possible to individuals and small businesses.

Our founding fathers intended for us to live in a country where power was highly decentralized.

Why didn’t we listen to them?

DHS Boss Napolitano Caught Lying About Fast & Furious

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

The Alex Jones Channel
Friday, October 28, 2011

The Stop Online Piracy Act introduced in Congress and its ramifications for the First Amendment.

DHS boss Napolitano’s knowledge of the ATF’s gun-running to Mexican drug cartels despite her claim she did not know until only recently about the op.

Similar/Related Articles
  1. Napolitano Knew About Fast and Furious In 2009
  2. Gun Grabbers in Congress Exploit Fast & Furious
  3. Was CIA behind Operation Fast and Furious?
  4. Questioning Sec. Napolitano on Fast and Furious
  5. New Fast and Furious docs released by White House
  6. Insider: CIA Orchestrated Operation Fast and Furious
  7. ATF Officials Reassigned as Fast and Furious Continues to Derail
  8. Fast And Furious: 22 Shocking Facts About The Scandal That Could Bring Down The Obama Administration

————————————————————————————–

Herman Cain: “Cainsian” Economics Examined

| Print |  
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 17:30

Presidential candidate and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain fielded questions from voters in Concord, New Hampshire, on October 12. Cain’s rise in the polls has created intense interest in the businessman’s 9-9-9 plan, which has become the centerpiece of his campaign. And the question-and-answer sessions seemed unremarkable until one voter asked: “So sir, if you bought under 9-9-9 an Apple computer designed in the United States, with components made in Malaysia and assembled in China, would you get to deduct it?”

Cain amazingly replied: “I have no idea.”

The question from the voter came after Cain explained the nine-percent corporate tax portion of his 9-9-9 plan this way:

On the first nine, relative to corporate profits, you are allowed to deduct — this was in the calculation — you are allowed to deduct purchases and capital investments. 100 percent. No depreciation schedules. Capital expenses and purchases, if those purchases were made here in the United States of America. If you purchased components from a country outside of the United States, you can’t deduct them. What does that do, folks? It makes U.S. goods more competitive with the rest of the world. It levels the playing field. This is how we deal with China.

Cain’s response of “I have no idea” was noted with an ample helping of snark by liberals such as MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and concern from serious business analysts such as the Wall Street Journal. Indeed, if Cain — the author of the proposal — doesn’t know the details of how it would work, then it raises serious questions about the proposal.

But the part of the proposal where a business couldn’t deduct a foreign-made product it purchases as an expense is no small detail. The proposal — if it ever made it into law — would amount to a giant tariff on foreign imports and overturn just about every trade law that Congress has adopted since the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Yet Cain’s public discussion of 9-9-9 has been bereft of talk about higher tariffs.

Does Cain really have “no idea”? Actually, Cain’s 9-9-9 proposal seems to lack an understanding of how governments have acted in recent history when they have adopted the kind of sales taxes that Cain’s plan would inaugurate.

9-9-9 Plan Basics

The Cain 9-9-9 plan would repeal the current income and Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes and institute a nine-percent flat income tax with no deductions other than for charity and undefined “empowerment zones.” The second “nine” in the 9-9-9 plan would be a flat nine-percent business income tax on profit, and finally Cain would add a new nine-percent sales tax on all goods. Cain’s sales tax contains no exemption for food, as most state sales taxes have, but it does exempt used goods such as used cars and existing homes. The 9-9-9 plan would also repeal the capital gains and death taxes.

“The 9-9-9 plan gets Washington D.C. out of the business of picking winners and losers, using the tax code to dole out favors, and dividing the country with class warfare,” Cain’s presidential campaign website boasts. But it’s unclear what kind of favors those “empowerment zones” in his proposal would dole out. Cain’s website also claims, “Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone.” Yet Cain’s website doesn’t define where these “empowerment zones” are. Nor does it define whether payroll for businesses — often the largest business expense — would be a standard expensable deduction for his nine percent corporate income tax, or if it would only be a deduction in the “empowerment zones.”

Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is actually only a two-year transitional proposal for eventually eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a higher national sales tax that Cain and supporters of the end proposal call the “fair tax.” Cain’s website says the fair tax would “end the IRS as we know it and repeals the 16th Amendment,” and a national sales tax would indeed be less intrusive to the privacy of American taxpayers than the income tax. But many conservative critics of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan point out that states and nations that have tried to transition from an income tax to a sales tax end up with both. Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, explained on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that once a tax is created, it’s tough to kill it off completely. “What if the Democrats win the House, the Senate or the presidency during the transition period and say ‘let’s keep all three’? All three would grow over time. New Jersey, back in the 70s, said our property taxes are too high. They had no income tax. Let’s have an income tax to get the property tax down. Now they have high income and high property tax.”

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough also cited the example of Connecticut: “Look at Lowell Weicker [and] … Connecticut back in the early 1990s, it was the most competitive state for bringing industry in. So Lowell Weicker gets up there, he decides that he’s going to add an income tax, thinking that that’s going to be a more fair tax…. And guess what? Now Connecticut has one of the highest tax burdens in America, and all of those jobs that kept streaming in to Connecticut, they are leaving — they have been leaving. You can look at Connecticut and it’s not as competitive as it was 10-15 years ago.”

European nations which have added sales taxes have also failed to eliminate income taxes. Moreover, once a retail sales tax is enacted, the tax has often been expanded into a multi-level “value added tax” (VAT) that levies the tax at every stage of production. A VAT levies the tax at each wholesale exchange at which value is added to a product, such as the sale of brake parts for a car by a subcontractor to an auto manufacturer, which are then again taxed when the manufacturer sells the vehicle to the dealer, and then taxed again at the final sale of the vehicle to the consumer. Denmark first imposed a nine-percent VAT in 1962, but gradually raised the tax over the years to its current 25-percent rate, in addition to having “progressive” income taxes that top out at 60 percent of income. The story has repeated throughout Europe, where the VAT is typically over 25 percent.

Leftist Critics of 9-9-9 
Make Contradictory Claims

Leftist critics label Cain’s proposal “regressive,” a derogatory term meaning that the richest Americans would pay the same tax rates as the poorest. But many of the same leftists also make the contradictory claim that the rich hardly pay any taxes at all under the current system, so the 9-9-9 plan should actually look pretty good to them.

Leftist Warren Buffett — one of the richest men in the world — famously complained that he already pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. “In our office,” he told Tom Brokaw, “15 people cooperated in a survey out of 18 — I didn’t make anybody do it. And my total taxes — payroll taxes plus income tax — mine came to 17.7 percent. The average for the office was 32.9 percent. There wasn’t anybody in the office — from the receptionist on — that paid as low a tax rate. And I have no tax planning. I don’t have an accountant. I don’t have tax shelters. I just follow what the U.S. Congress tells me to do.” Of course, Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway stock pays no dividends, meaning there’s no earnings to tax, and when Berkshire-Hathaway stock increases in value, its increased value is not taxed as income. Peter J. Reilly of Forbes magazine noted on August 15, 2011 of Buffett’s claim, “An investment with a holding period of forever incurs a capital gains tax of 0%, while all along the holder can be getting wealthy from appreciation.” In other words, Buffett is counting as “income” what the federal government doesn’t count as income. Likewise, appreciation in the value of most people’s home during the first half of the last decade was not counted as income unless the property was sold.

Even the hard-Left Economic Policy Institute proved that millionaires actually paid a much higher tax rate on average than either the poor or the beleaguered middle-class families earning $75,000-200,000 per year under the current tax code. The rich would continue to pay more taxes than the poor under Cain’s plan, of course, but as a percentage of income it would become virtually identical.

The fact that the current FICA payroll tax is 15.3 percent and far more “regressive” than Cain’s 9-9-9 plan should also pacify some leftist critics. FICA taxes toward Social Security do not tax income above $106,800 at all, as Social Security was not designed to operate as a full-blown welfare program that transfers the wealth from the rich to the poor. That tax rate means that the poor currently pay a much higher percentage of their income toward the Social Security program than do millionaires.

Of course, these calculations assume Cain’s proposals become law, and that Cain can accurately foresee what Washington will do during the transition period. The question is, can Cain accurately predict what Washington will do over the next few years and see to it that it is done? Based upon his past record of predictions and economic analysis, voters shouldn’t be reassured.

Cain Said Economy’s Fine

As late as September 1, 2008, Cain wrote that the economy appeared to be on solid ground: “The supposed failure of Bush’s economic policies has been a constant theme of the Democrats since the 2006 elections, when the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate by convincing enough of the voters that the economic sky was falling, and that the war in Iraq could not be won. Based on all of their convention speeches, they plan to continue those themes right through Election Day on November 4.” Only a “supposed failure”? Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy just two weeks after Cain’s column was published, and President Bush subsequently began pushing for the $700 billion TARP bailout bill to bail out banks and avert what he and his aides described as another great depression.

The Georgia native recently admitted he had no clue that the economy wasn’t on sound footing throughout the housing bubble. But he at least partially diagnosed the housing bubble after the bubble blew up. “What I missed in 2005 was just how bad Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had distorted the housing market,” Cain told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on October 12, 2011. “I honestly did not realize just how bad it was, just how bad the whole bundling and derivatives thing was, and that we were on the brink of a total financial meltdown. So I learned later on by looking into it deeper that the situation was a lot worse than I thought in 2005.” Of course, Cain’s great strength is supposed to be his business experience and tenure in banking as chairman of the Kansas City Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank during the 1990s.

Cain had also written on August 17, 2005 that media “coverage of the Bush economy reads like a collection of Democratic Party press releases, calling a strong economy everything from struggling to volatile or dicey…. That kind of ignorance makes homeowners fear that their most expensive possession could turn worthless overnight. That won’t happen.” The housing market collapsed two years later.

Federal Reserve

Cain’s use of the term “ignorant” in that 2005 column may have been the genesis of Representative Ron Paul’s statement during the October 11 Bloomberg/Washington Post New Hampshire presidential debate. “Mr. Cain,” Paul said, “in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said — you’ve used pretty strong terms, that we were ignorant and that we didn’t know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you’re not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed.” Paul and his economic advisor Peter Schiff had been predicting that the housing bubble would go bust for several years by 2005. Cain replied, “You have misquoted me. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don’t know where that came from. All right, now, you’ve got to be careful of the stuff you get off the Internet.” In reality, Cain had called Paul’s supporters “stupid” on page 154 of his new book This Is Herman Cain.

But the record demonstrates that Cain was ignorant — and not supporters of Ron Paul. Cain was an opponent of a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Fed until 2011, telling Neil Boortz’s radio audience on December 29, 2010: “Some people say that we ought to audit the Federal Reserve. Here’s what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it’s ridiculous. I don’t know why people think we’re going to learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve…. There’s no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve to my knowledge. And I tell people, we’ve got 12 Federal Reserve Banks. Find out which district you are in, call them up and go from there. We don’t need to waste money with another commission or an audit. It’s not necessary.” Yet even as he was saying those words, Americans were finding out in their newspapers that the Federal Reserve had secretly lent at least $16 trillion in taxpayer-guaranteed money funneled through various Federal Reserve emergency facilities from 2008 through 2010, a sum more than the entire size of the U.S. economy, and 22 times the size of the controversial TARP bailout. Moreover, the bulk of these funds had been lent to favored banks and corporations. And the Federal Reserve Bank steadfastly refused to release the bailout information even to the GAO until Bloomberg won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in December 2010.

After Bloomberg News won partial access to the bailout information, the GAO was able to come up with the $16 trillion figure as the bailout total. What came out of the GAO partial audit was that the Federal Reserve highly favored elite Wall Street banks with the following funds: $2.5 trillion for Citigroup, $2.0 trillion for Morgan Stanley, $1.9 trillion for Merrill Lynch, and $1.3 trillion for Bank of America.

TARP Bailout Fan

Cain pronounced TARP a “win-win for the taxpayer” in an October 20, 2008 column: “Unprecedented problems require unprecedented solutions. The actions by the Treasury are a win-win for the taxpayer.” After Congress passed the TARP bailout, Cain complained about how the money was doled out, but not about the principle of crony capitalism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. Cain said in the October 11 Bloomberg/Washington Post debate, “They were discretionary in which institutions they were going to save, rather than apply it equitably, which is what most of us thought was going to be done. The implementation of it is where they got off-track.” Cain has never made it clear who he believes should have gotten a bailout that didn’t, or even if he believed that every failing institution should have been bailed out by taxpayers, but it’s clear from that statement that he believed that the taxpayer bailouts didn’t go far enough. Perhaps even more importantly, he apparently was unable to predict how government would implement the TARP program any more accurately than he can explain implementation of his own 9-9-9 proposal.

Cain’s Economic Advisor 
a Bailout Recipient

But Cain has explained that it’s not essential for a President to become an economic Nostradamus, as his presidential rival Ron Paul (who accurately predicted the housing and financial crisis years before the crash) is. “Well, it’s real simple, Chuck,” Cain replied to a question about why Americans should trust his economic agenda after failing to see the biggest bubble of his lifetime. “I have economic advisors working with me now who spend time studying these various analyses.”

And Cain’s explanation would seem reasonable: A President who has solid economic advisors, and who defers to them, can indeed often compensate for lack of economic knowledge without the public suffering unnecessary economic crashes. But Cain has only publicly named one economic advisor, Rich Lowrie of the metro Cleveland, Ohio, area. Lowrie is a managing director of a Wells Fargo branch. Wells Fargo is a giant bank which received among the largest bailout funds through the TARP program — $25 billion — in addition to another $169 billion in secret loans from the Federal Reserve Bank during the economic crisis. Liberals have sneered that Lowrie doesn’t have “credentials,” i.e., a degree in economics, but most of the accredited economists missed the housing bubble/bust anyway. Nevertheless, it’s unclear what Lowrie’s ability to diagnose the economy is from his scant published record.

In the October 11 Bloomberg/Washington Post debate, Cain gave some indication of the kind of advisor he might hire when he was asked who was the best Federal Reserve chairman over the past 40 years. Cain amazingly named Alan Greenspan — the Fed Chairman from 1987-2006 who blew up the housing bubble by suppressing interest rates to then-record lows — as the man he thought did the best job.

Thus, Cain’s acumen in selecting advisors who would avoid inflationary bubbles is as suspect as his personal economic acumen. But by picking one of the favorite central bankers of the Wall Street elite, Cain may have tapped a golden vein of campaign contributions. Indeed, although his $4.7 million in donations through the third quarter fell well below that of Mitt Romney (whose top source of donations was employees of Goldman Sachs), Cain’s second largest source of donations was employees of another bank — Wells Fargo ($8,300). Of course, that completes the financial circle. Wells Fargo is the employer of Cain’s main economic advisor, and was a major recipient of Federal Reserve bailout funds. Employees of Wells Fargo have also given generous political donations to Cain.

Cain may or may not be a “tool of big banks,” but as a defender of big bank bailouts, he sure makes it look that way.

———————————————————————————-

| |  
Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: