The Quiet Coup

[Nbadan]

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time....

The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice)

[DarkReign]

Is it really all that "quiet" of a coup?

I dont believe it is. Everyone here on this board and in life knows Washington is a bought and paid for commodity.

We still havent done anything about it, nor will we ever (as a people).

Its my belief Americans/Humans just want to be left alone and have a fair chance at success. Governments in general, do not allow this to happen in its entirety.

Dont take that statement the wrong way...I realize government is absolutely necessary, period. But with time, that power grows. As it grows, it becomes coveted. Demand for it increases even though what it supplies is limited (at first).

Its really predictable when you step back and think about what government is without the semantics.

Bottom Line: Few control the many.

[LockBeard]

Government should be for the people and not working to push the agendas of those really in power who wish only to gain more control over the masses.

Those pulling the strings have control of billions and trillions. Join government to control your country and you make millions. Pretty good deal.

[mogrovejo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem

-----

The most amazing thing about guys like Mr. Johnson (btw, his blog is a very good reading; just like this article) is that they try to keep curing the illness with more poison. The problem is that the government has too much power making it a target for special groups interested on capturing that power and use it to their own benefit; yet some people keep hoping that if you increase the power of the government enough this problem will get away. It's insane.

[Extra Stout]

If not for the bloody wars that will kill millions, the splitting of the U.S.A. into several smaller countries would be so much better for the people.

Control of the most powerful government entity in the history of the world is simply too big a prize for the oligarchs, left or right, to ignore.

[RandomGuy]

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time....

The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice)

The IMF is auditing our financial system. I will wait until I see the results, but I doubt I will like what I read.

There is probably more truth to this than many would like to admit.

People with money should have some influence in any government, but I think that our greater good has been subordinated to special business interests on more than one occasion.

[micca]

If not for the bloody wars that will kill millions, the splitting of the U.S.A. into several smaller countries would be so much better for the people.

Control of the most powerful government entity in the history of the world is simply too big a prize for the oligarchs, left or right, to ignore.

I don't know I don't think it would necessarily be bloody, I think alot of people would support the idea.

[Nbadan]

I think any thoughts of dissolving the union would be crushed...

[Nbadan]

Those pulling the strings have control of billions and trillions. Join government to control your country and you make millions. Pretty good deal.

They may have billions but we have the power of the vote.....hell, it works in Europe....government works for people to a fault....imagine that

[Wild Cobra]

If not for the bloody wars that will kill millions, the splitting of the U.S.A. into several smaller countries would be so much better for the people.

Control of the most powerful government entity in the history of the world is simply too big a prize for the oligarchs, left or right, to ignore.

I don't think that would ever happen, but I'm beginning to believe that we need to mask it so. As far as I care, our governments have become treasonous to the ideals and heart of America. Since we no longer have a republic form of government, if we split up, at least we, as citizens, have the freedom to move around to the areas that we like. Let all the freeloaders move to California and other similar places and those of us who believe in hard work, move to the more conservative states. With no Federal mandates dropping us all to the lowest common denominator.

[smeagol]

You guys think you have problems . . . ?

What a fucking joke . . . :lmao

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I thought the joke was an Argentinian spoonfeeding the same old BS for like five years in this political forum.

Non elected officials are doing more to influence this country than ever before.

This guy also said a while back that if the IMF were to look at the US's numbers, without knowing it was the US, their quick answer to the solution to the financial crisis would be temporary nationalization, sell off healthy parts back to private sector, hold onto ailing parts.

[RandomGuy]

I thought the joke was an Argentinian spoonfeeding the same old BS for like five years in this political forum.

Non elected officials are doing more to influence this country than ever before.

This guy also said a while back that if the IMF were to look at the US's numbers, without knowing it was the US, their quick answer to the solution to the financial crisis would be temporary nationalization, sell off healthy parts back to private sector, hold onto ailing parts.

That seems to be an emerging consensus.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think that would ever happen, but I'm beginning to believe that we need to mask it so. As far as I care, our governments have become treasonous to the ideals and heart of America. Since we no longer have a republic form of government, if we split up, at least we, as citizens, have the freedom to move around to the areas that we like. Let all the freeloaders move to California and other similar places and those of us who believe in hard work, move to the more conservative states. With no Federal mandates dropping us all to the lowest common denominator.

Riiiiiggghht. Because it's all those southern states that have to carry the northern ones on their backs...

[smeagol]

I thought the joke was an Argentinian spoonfeeding the same old BS for like five years in this political forum.

If by "spoonfeeding the same BS" you mean me ROFLing at some of you guys who want a coup because you distrust or outright hate your political system . . . then yes, you guys are a fucking joke.

After benefiting for decades by living in the wealthiest country in the world, you fuckers start crying about Washington . . . :lmao

You guys don't know how good you have it. You really don't.

[Ignignokt]

If not for the bloody wars that will kill millions, the splitting of the U.S.A. into several smaller countries would be so much better for the people.

Control of the most powerful government entity in the history of the world is simply too big a prize for the oligarchs, left or right, to ignore.


or we could bring back emphasis on states rights, that's a hell of alot easier.

[Yonivore]

or we could bring back emphasis on states rights, that's a hell of alot easier.
The states should never have ratified the 17th Amendment...that sealed our fates on states' rights.

[Winehole23]

The states should never have ratified the 17th Amendment...that sealed our fates on states' rights.The popular election of US Senators *killed* state sovereignty? Funny, I thought it was the Civil War. Are you sure, Yoni?

[mogrovejo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem

-----

The most amazing thing about guys like Mr. Johnson (btw, his blog is a very good reading; just like this article) is that they try to keep curing the illness with more poison. The problem is that the government has too much power making it a target for special groups interested on capturing that power and use it to their own benefit; yet some people keep hoping that if you increase the power of the government enough this problem will get away. It's insane.

There's another very curious phenomenon: many rent-seeking oligarchs are incapable of self-awareness. Mr. Johnson is a very good example of that: he recognizes the captains of the finance as a dangerous oligarchy that tries to capture the government to protect their self-interest, but he's never showed the ability to understand that the group he belongs to - the high-end bureaucrats from international/government institutions - is just another side of the same coin.

[MannyIsGod]

If not for the bloody wars that will kill millions, the splitting of the U.S.A. into several smaller countries would be so much better for the people.

Control of the most powerful government entity in the history of the world is simply too big a prize for the oligarchs, left or right, to ignore.

I should look up my posts where I said this was the case some time ago. The United States is too big for its own good. As they saying goes, all politicis is local, and while we bicker about shit like abortion, corporations put the real power in our government to use.

[Yonivore]

The popular election of US Senators *killed* state sovereignty? Funny, I thought it was the Civil War. Are you sure, Yoni?
Yep, until the 17th Amendment, Senators were selected by the State's legislatures -- thus, representing the States in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives was populated by the people.

That's the way the founders intended it.

The Civil War didn't help but, the 17th Amendment put the nail in the coffin. There is no one representing the States' interests in Washington anymore.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

[Ignignokt]

:lol

:wowOkay ChumpD... we all wanna know what you're laughing about..:wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

Do you really?

[LnGrrrR]

Yep, until the 17th Amendment, Senators were selected by the State's legislatures -- thus, representing the States in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives was populated by the people.

That's the way the founders intended it.

The Civil War didn't help but, the 17th Amendment put the nail in the coffin. There is no one representing the States' interests in Washington anymore.

They really weren't being elected for their states though. From what I've read, senators got their positions by being given them as a form of payment for political favors, and the people demanded that they be able to vote their senators in due to this.

[DarkReign]

They really weren't being elected for their states though. From what I've read, senators got their positions by being given them as a form of payment for political favors, and the people demanded that they be able to vote their senators in due to this.

Ding Ding Ding!

It was changed because the position of Senator was nepotism at its finest. It was a traded political commodity that had no real bearing on the State's interests.

[RandomGuy]

Yep, until the 17th Amendment, Senators were selected by the State's legislatures -- thus, representing the States in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives was populated by the people.

That's the way the founders intended it.

The Civil War didn't help but, the 17th Amendment put the nail in the coffin. There is no one representing the States' interests in Washington anymore.

Because when a Senator is elected by the population of the entire state, they really don't feel much of a compulsion to represent that population when they get to Washington, but a person elected to the house of representatives feels all the compulsion in the world to represent their sub-section of their state.

Gotcha. Anybody elected by an entire population of a state doesn't really represent that state.

I think there are 50 governors who might disagree with that implication.

:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

Because one roll of the eyes just doesn't convey my sheer frustration with the logical failure of this post.

[Don Quixote]

Its my belief Americans/Humans just want to be left alone and have a fair chance at success. Governments in general, do not allow this to happen in its entirety.

Dont take that statement the wrong way...I realize government is absolutely necessary, period. But with time, that power grows. As it grows, it becomes coveted. Demand for it increases even though what it supplies is limited (at first).

Its really predictable when you step back and think about what government is without the semantics.

Bottom Line: Few control the many.

Good take. I mostly agree. Governments, as a matter of their nature, strive to increase and consolidate their power. They can't help themselves. This is why small-govt conservatism will always be fighting an uphill battle, for (as we saw from about 1998-2006) when the conservatives get power, they too want to increase it.

But I agree 100% that men just want to be left alone, to prosper, worship, etc., without undue interference or taxation from the govt. Well said.

[clambake]

by the way.....i've wanted to commend you on your behavior regarding the angel luv engagement.

[xrayzebra]

They may have billions but we have the power of the vote.....hell, it works in Europe....government works for people to a fault....imagine that

You mean this as April fool joke, right?

[xrayzebra]

:wowOkay ChumpD... we all wanna know what you're laughing about..:wakeup


He doesn't know. He is just thought it was a cute thing to do.

He has problems putting together more than one sentence. And
he loves little pictures.

[ChumpDumper]

Sometimes there is nothing to do but laugh. Saying states are no longer represented in the senate because the senators are elected by the people in the states is pretty laughable.

[RandomGuy]

by the way.....i've wanted to commend you on your behavior regarding the angel luv engagement.

??

[Marcus Bryant]

Is it really all that "quiet" of a coup?

I dont believe it is. Everyone here on this board and in life knows Washington is a bought and paid for commodity.

We still havent done anything about it, nor will we ever (as a people).

Its my belief Americans/Humans just want to be left alone and have a fair chance at success. Governments in general, do not allow this to happen in its entirety.

Dont take that statement the wrong way...I realize government is absolutely necessary, period. But with time, that power grows. As it grows, it becomes coveted. Demand for it increases even though what it supplies is limited (at first).

Its really predictable when you step back and think about what government is without the semantics.

Bottom Line: Few control the many.


Is not the oddest thing that by and large, most Americans live their lives in the spirit of the Framers' creation, most would prefer to be left the F alone, and then we end up with this monstrosity in DC? To me there seems to be a minority of extremists/nuts/loons on both sides of the spectrum who are so motivated to expand the state into every nook and cranny of our lives. I'd start the Leave Me the Fuck Alone Party if I wasn't so apathetic.

Sadly, the Libertarian Party either can't get its act together or most Americans can't figure out what it stands for because the large media conglomerate of their choice has led them to believe that there are only two political parties in these United States.

[DarkReign]

Sadly, the Libertarian Party either can't get its act together or most Americans can't figure out what it stands for because the large media conglomerate of their choice has led them to believe that there are only two political parties in these United States.

Might have something to do with the way we elect our representative government.

This nation uses a two party system one degree less than a parlimentary government (which aint much).

I have heard the arguments for and against, especially during the election. I personally do not care how fucked up things get so I favor more than a two-party system. But I can at least see the oppostition's logic when a President might be elected to office with less than 25% of the popular vote (if there were five parties, for example, and the candidate won the required state's electoral votes by the same margin internally).

It would create a crowded field, to be sure. But I think the field needs to be crowded in short order. As it were...

Government is tricky business. So is money. So is law enforcement.

All absolutely necessary, all equally distrusted by default (guilty until proven innocent).

Rightfully so, I say. They should be distrusted from their birth until their death. Their mere existence should raise your suspicion and that persistent feeling should never leave your conscience.

Because money/government/police should be treated no differently than children, from a societal perspective anyway. If you give them and inch, they take a mile. Problem is, when the government takes a mile, your child no longer has college tuition (so the stakes are raised exponentially). As a group, the onus should be on the officer's to prove they didnt shoot that civilian without good cause. As a society, we should expect the banking institutions to have full disclosure of their investment and trade practices first and foremost. As a People, we absolutely must demand the rights of individuals supercede without question or debate the needs of government or the majority at large.

There are exceptions to every "rule" I wrote there. There always are and always will be. But the spirit should be followed, IMO.

Why?

Because, as a society, we give them power over us. Intentionally or inadvertently, this does not matter. Which is the reason I always ask "Who benefits?" when something strikes me as odd in the news.

Every good citizen knows law enforcement is absolutely needed, so we intentionally give police forces/FBI/etc a pre-determined amount of power to execute their role in society effectively.

Inadvertently and without notice, youre also empowering the legislature of your local municipality, Congress or the POTUS to use that given power against us because they are responsible for crafting law and policy of the land. Sometimes by popular demand (airport security after 9/11), sometimes not so much (War on Drugs). Sometimes even for an overt, government power-grab, no bones about it (domestic wire-tapping).

These entities become self-interested and equally debted to one another, thus We the People become obsolete. The People become a necessary evil to them, as they are a necessary evil to us.

What was supposed to be a symbiotic relationship mutates into a battle of parasites competing for the same host. Whether the People will "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" or the goverment levies unrestricted tax, or spreads the notion of fear for political gain, or any number of tactics (new or unfound as of yet).

One way or the other, the relationship is adversarial. How intense that adversity is determines stability. The USA is unyieldingly stable in comparison to its contemporaries, it isnt even close really.

To be honest, thats the most terrifying part of the equation. While the G20 summit in Britain causes hundreds if not thousands of English citizens to flood the space around the summit building in protest (rightly or wrongly), do we think the same would happen in America?

Moreover, wouldnt we as Americans look down on the unruly ones who chose to voice their dissent?

If there were ever a time for protest in our generation's time, it is now. Our parents had Vietnam and they rightfully resisted the government's every move.

This financial crisis is nowhere near the same as a war/engagement like Vietnam, but its implications to our way of life are way more profound than stopping those filthy reds from expanding their influence in some far-off region of rubber trees.

Yet, all I see is justification. Justify the government, justify the banks, justify the ensuing action, rationalize, justify, accept, conform, understand, make-do, etc.

Sure, the government will put on its dog-n-pony show for the cameras and grill some not-so-lucky-today CEO about its practices, but ultimately, later that day those same politicians signed legislation that effectively wrote checks with a lot of zeros attached to that same guy.

Its because as a government, we allow private institutions to become so influential, intertwined and incredibly HUGE that their very existence is necessary to the government and its People not going bankrupt, wholesale.

My question is, who is the real asshole in this case? Who really benefits?

The answers arent flattering. People say all the time "Hate the game, not the player". These CEOs/bankers/financial managers play the game better than you and me because their wealth and prestige allow them influence over the rules of the game by way of government. These rules are then enforced by law and law enforcement.

So, hate the game, not the player, right? Fuck that. Im broke as hell and pissed off, I say let heads roll. Let the streets flood with blue blood. We Morlocs ought to remind the Eloi a thing or two about the terms of our contractual relationship.

[Winehole23]

This financial crisis is nowhere near the same as a war/engagement like Vietnam, but its implications to our way of life are way more profound than stopping those filthy reds from expanding their influence in some far-off region of rubber trees.People will get it afterward. Most of them don't even understand the game yet. Give them another year or two. This financial crisis is nowhere near over.

[RandomGuy]

UPDATE: Goldman Sachs Hires Law Firm To Shut Down Dissident Blogger, Blogger Sues Bank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/12/goldman-sachs-hires-law-f_n_186035.html)

The oligarchy fights back.

[Winehole23]

UPDATE: Goldman Sachs Hires Law Firm To Shut Down Dissident Blogger, Blogger Sues Bank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/12/goldman-sachs-hires-law-f_n_186035.html)

The oligarchy fights back.One of the basic themes of goldmansachs666.com (http://www.goldmansachs666.com/)is to show how Goldman has been gaming the system. It's recently alleged that Goldman has been maxing out on derivatives and may be front-running its trades. Totally plausible, creepy stuff.

[RandomGuy]

One of the basic themes of goldmansachs666.com (http://www.goldmansachs666.com/)is to show how Goldman has been gaming the system. It's recently alleged that Goldman has been maxing out on derivatives and may be front-running its trades. Totally plausible, creepy stuff.

A lot of brokers have been accused of, and even found guilty of front-running trades. Goldman among them.


Front running is the illegal practice of a stock broker executing orders on a security for its own account while taking advantage of advance knowledge of pending orders from its customers. When orders previously submitted by its customers will predictably affect the price of the security, purchasing first for its own account gives the broker an unfair advantage, since it can expect to close out its position at a profit based on the new price level. Front running may involve either buying (where the broker buys for their account, driving up the price before filling customer buy orders) or selling (where the broker sells for its own account, driving down the price before filling customer sell orders).
(wikipedia, of course)

It is such an easy way to game the system, that it is attractive to larger brokerage houses.

[RandomGuy]

Might have something to do with the way we elect our representative government.

This nation uses a two party system one degree less than a parlimentary government (which aint much).

I have heard the arguments for and against, especially during the election. I personally do not care how fucked up things get so I favor more than a two-party system. But I can at least see the oppostition's logic when a President might be elected to office with less than 25% of the popular vote (if there were five parties, for example, and the candidate won the required state's electoral votes by the same margin internally).

It would create a crowded field, to be sure. But I think the field needs to be crowded in short order. As it were...

Government is tricky business. So is money. So is law enforcement.

All absolutely necessary, all equally distrusted by default (guilty until proven innocent).

Rightfully so, I say. They should be distrusted from their birth until their death. Their mere existence should raise your suspicion and that persistent feeling should never leave your conscience.

Because money/government/police should be treated no differently than children, from a societal perspective anyway. If you give them and inch, they take a mile. Problem is, when the government takes a mile, your child no longer has college tuition (so the stakes are raised exponentially). As a group, the onus should be on the officer's to prove they didnt shoot that civilian without good cause. As a society, we should expect the banking institutions to have full disclosure of their investment and trade practices first and foremost. As a People, we absolutely must demand the rights of individuals supercede without question or debate the needs of government or the majority at large.

There are exceptions to every "rule" I wrote there. There always are and always will be. But the spirit should be followed, IMO.

Why?

Because, as a society, we give them power over us. Intentionally or inadvertently, this does not matter. Which is the reason I always ask "Who benefits?" when something strikes me as odd in the news.

Every good citizen knows law enforcement is absolutely needed, so we intentionally give police forces/FBI/etc a pre-determined amount of power to execute their role in society effectively.

Inadvertently and without notice, youre also empowering the legislature of your local municipality, Congress or the POTUS to use that given power against us because they are responsible for crafting law and policy of the land. Sometimes by popular demand (airport security after 9/11), sometimes not so much (War on Drugs). Sometimes even for an overt, government power-grab, no bones about it (domestic wire-tapping).

These entities become self-interested and equally debted to one another, thus We the People become obsolete. The People become a necessary evil to them, as they are a necessary evil to us.

What was supposed to be a symbiotic relationship mutates into a battle of parasites competing for the same host. Whether the People will "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" or the goverment levies unrestricted tax, or spreads the notion of fear for political gain, or any number of tactics (new or unfound as of yet).

One way or the other, the relationship is adversarial. How intense that adversity is determines stability. The USA is unyieldingly stable in comparison to its contemporaries, it isnt even close really.

To be honest, thats the most terrifying part of the equation. While the G20 summit in Britain causes hundreds if not thousands of English citizens to flood the space around the summit building in protest (rightly or wrongly), do we think the same would happen in America?

Moreover, wouldnt we as Americans look down on the unruly ones who chose to voice their dissent?

If there were ever a time for protest in our generation's time, it is now. Our parents had Vietnam and they rightfully resisted the government's every move.

This financial crisis is nowhere near the same as a war/engagement like Vietnam, but its implications to our way of life are way more profound than stopping those filthy reds from expanding their influence in some far-off region of rubber trees.

Yet, all I see is justification. Justify the government, justify the banks, justify the ensuing action, rationalize, justify, accept, conform, understand, make-do, etc.

Sure, the government will put on its dog-n-pony show for the cameras and grill some not-so-lucky-today CEO about its practices, but ultimately, later that day those same politicians signed legislation that effectively wrote checks with a lot of zeros attached to that same guy.

Its because as a government, we allow private institutions to become so influential, intertwined and incredibly HUGE that their very existence is necessary to the government and its People not going bankrupt, wholesale.

My question is, who is the real asshole in this case? Who really benefits?

The answers arent flattering. People say all the time "Hate the game, not the player". These CEOs/bankers/financial managers play the game better than you and me because their wealth and prestige allow them influence over the rules of the game by way of government. These rules are then enforced by law and law enforcement.

So, hate the game, not the player, right? Fuck that. Im broke as hell and pissed off, I say let heads roll. Let the streets flood with blue blood. We Morlocs ought to remind the Eloi a thing or two about the terms of our contractual relationship.

Good rant.

Personally, I am all in favor of capital punishment for people like Madoff.

[Winehole23]

A lot of brokers have been accused of, and even found guilty of front-running trades. Goldman among them.

It is such an easy way to game the system, that it is attractive to larger brokerage houses.They are also gaming their own clients. This is where the fiduciary disconnect happens...

[Winehole23]

Front-running is a criminal fucking activity.

[Winehole23]

Goldman shouldn't be allowed to soak their own clients like that, but just watch them do it. :wow