That turkey comment is how Ann Pettifor describes bankers and their lobbyists in her lastest post at The Huffington Post: Defeating Homeowners: A Phyrric Victory for Bankers. I might have said it's just one more example of emphasizing short-term gains over the long view of prosperity for everyone, but Pettifor's analogy did tickle my funny bone.
A monument of Pyrrhus in the town of Arta, Epirus. - wikipedia
About the senate's vote last week against help for homeowners, Pettifor writes:
[...]This was a defeat for American democracy. It represented a failure of senators to represent their constituents, honor the constitution and 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare of the American people. But while it was a defeat for democracy, it was a Pyrrhic victory¹ for the bankers. One more such victory over Congress and the White House, and the bankers will be facing ruin.Why? Property makes up most of the collateral backing up toxic assets owned by bankers. The upward spiral of foreclosures places downward pressure on property prices - the banks' collateral. With falling collateral values, bank debts rise and become unpayable - forcing even more financial institutions into bankruptcy.
[...]
The market will not stop house prices falling. So government has to intervene. Not just to save the homeowners, but also to save banks, because the banking system is still at risk of systemic failure.
In her previous post, America: The Bank-Owned State, also at Huffington Post, Pettifor made a case for the admission that would come more recently from Dick Durbin's lips. Paraphrasing Durbin: Congress has been bought.
From Pettifor's April 20th post:
Why would bankers stage a hold-up of the administration you ask? Because, to echo the words of an old bank robber: "That's where the money is".As millions in the real economy suffer bankruptcy or unemployment, bank profits and bank share prices have soared.
Bankers are barely able to conceal their glee. Their triumphalism is justified. Thanks to the 2008 heist, $700 billion of 'Troubled Asset Relief Funds' (TARP) was siphoned out of taxpayers' pockets and into bank coffers. The heist was pulled off in classic 'Shock and Awe' style, with virtually no questions asked.
[...]
So what lies ahead for the bank-owned state?
Well, my view is that the triumphalism of the bankers is a little overdone, and may not last. Why? Because they can't get away with cooking the books forever. As with Enron, some day the sheriff will walk through the door.
Second, bankers do not deal in the real economy. You and I do that, by working, caring for others and producing goods and services. They need us to keep that up, if they are to keep their grip on government, and siphon off our hard-earned surplus. But by raiding government coffers and squeezing the economy dry, the bankers may be cutting the ground that is the real economy from underneath them.
Third, the bank outlaws have failed to spot a big cloud on the horizon -- Climate Change -- and are not prepared for the shocks that extreme weather events will cause to their business and the economy as a whole .
[...]
If Americans don't organise politically to transform the bank-owned state to make it accountable to the people -- then God help American democracy. But if Americans do once again organize to defend hard-won democratic gains, then in the words of Abraham Lincoln "Money will cease to be master and become servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Pettifor offers suggestions on what that type of political organization would look like. Clearly, she does not include Wall Street or financial types in her calculations. And she also offers some suggestions for personal lifestyle changes that would make us less personally dependent upon banks... just as environmentalists contine to suggest ways we can become less dependent upon foreign oil. There are more dots to connect here... Ann Pettifor seems likely to continue connecting them for us.
¹ I confess that I have a strong preference for writers who make cogent cases using classical literary references. We really need them now, too, if only for therapeutic purposes, after the past decade of mangled syntax, forced/false dichotomies, and a viral form of conflation that wreaked so much havoc with our national discourse.
* * * * *
Ann Pettifor's HuffPost Bio:
I'm Ann Pettifor - new economist and analyst of the global financial system (debtonation.org), and a co-author of the Green New Deal.
I predicted an Anglo-American debt-deflationary crisis back in 2003, and am known for my work on sovereign debt and international finance, including co-founding the Jubilee 2000 (Drop the Debt) campaign.
My books include Real World Economic Outlook - the legacy of globalization, debt and deflation, and The Coming First World Debt Crisis, both published by Palgrave Macmillan.
I'm currently a fellow of the new economics foundation and Executive Director of Advocacy International.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Paul Hinrichs
David Dean Bottrell
Auxarc
AtHomePilgrim
Redstocking Grandma
wakingupslowly
Salon.com
Comments
Apparently BBE and I were twins separated at birth. He speaketh the truth. (Let's also not forget that Obama could have demanded that a nice chunk of the stimulus funds go to the 95% of blacks that voted for him as well as the poor and otherwise disenfranchised of society. Instead it went to the bankers and other elite. monkey fingered---sideways, with no grease)
Needless to say (for those who have read my blog), I agree that we need to "organise politically to transform the bank-owned state to make it accountable to the people," so that "[m]oney will cease to be master and become servant of humanity." And, of course, I have my own ideas about what type of political organization we need for that purpose.
The thing is, the problem goes beyond the banking and finance sector. Under capitalism, even what Pettifor calls the "real economy" has money as the master and humanity as the servant - i.e., production organized for profit, not for meeting people's needs. In other words, to use BBE's term, it's not just our government that "sucks major ass," it's our entire economic and political system.
For that reason, we need a political organization that is rigorously independent of any influence not only from banks and other financial institutions, but also from corporate capitalism and its defenders, including those in the ostensibly progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
In addition, we need a political organization that does not view political activity in narrow electoral terms. Third parties are effectively locked out of the electoral process in our so-called democracy, so we need to find another way to struggle for our demands. We should take a lesson from today's France - and from our own past, particularly the labor struggles of the 1930s - and organize direct militant action by workers and their allies, particularly including strikes and workplace occupations. A political organization based in the rank and file of organized labor, and committed to using these methods of struggle, is the only kind of organization that has a hope of changing things in any way that matters.
End of rant. Thanks for reading!
I'm glad you appreciated the Phyrrus image, Organian. I thought about a turkey on the chopping block, but thought the monument might be more revelatory. I tried looking for Ann Pettifor's book the "Green New Deal" online, but no luck so far. From the little bit I read in her bio, she seems to have somewhat similar ideas (to yours) about political organizing... That third party thing, though... we really need instant run-off elections first, in order to give them a chance. I'm glad I gave you a chance to rant.
rwnutjobM: ...and do you suppose those bankers and other financial elites all voted for Obama? I'm skeptical, despite the funds he was able to raise there.
BBE, thanks for reading and rating. I always appreciate your comments.
Since that is unlikely to happen soon, our targets should be senators, especially those in the more conservative states, who care more about reelection and raising money than they do about people's lives or reviving our economy. These Blue Dogs need to be targeted when they come up for election. BTW, has anyone heard from our POTUS on this issue since the vote?
Second, bankers do not deal in the real economy. You and I do that, by working, caring for others and producing goods and services. They need us to keep that up, if they are to keep their grip on government, and siphon off our hard-earned surplus.
... I thought that there's no easy way for many of us to quit paying taxes without severe repercussions. However, we do have the option of moving our money away from the big banks to smaller ones, or to credit unions, or savings banks.
Does anyone else foresee the beginnings of a renaissance in bartering?
Polls? Or are there a lot of pending mortgage foreclosures in Chicago, or in Illinois, at large?
I'm always curious when someone who is back and forth on liberal or progressive issues, decides to speak out on one of them. I can't help but think there's probably something personal in it for them.
The odd thing is that he's been saying pretty much the same thing for 20 years and nobody paid any attention at all. I think the BD's just realized he meant it.
Mick, thanks for the clarification about Durbin. I confess that sometimes I really like him, but sometimes I don't. Lately, the latter seems to be when he apologizes or backpedals for telling the truth.
Jim W.: I don't know, but I like to ask questions like that, just to put it out there in the ethers and see what happens. I wouldn't want to see any small banks hurt by such actions... goodness knows we need a lot more of those that are "not too big to fail" banks.
But if depositors were to start leaving Citi and some of the other biggies to go to credit unions, I'd be thrilled.
[I used to get predatory invites from CitiBank pretty regularly... and of course, one of the terms was that one allowing them to raise your interest rate at their whim. Fortunately, I resisted.]
If it's so all-fired important to get the money flowing, why not just loan it directly? It'd save a lot of overhead, by not having to pay out 6-8 figure salaries, dividends to shareholders, or even make a profit. Probably also save (wo)man-hr-$ on oversight, not have the aggravation of trying to make sure they do the "right thing", and cut the greenhouse gases produced by for-the-cameras outraged grilling of bank executives by the Congresscritters.
Pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, and I know the CW answers, but if you want to get the free market religionists wound up, just ask 'em a few of those kind of questions. ;)
I also wonder why more direct aid is not considered. Perhaps it's just the logistics, but as more and more people become dissatisfied with their banks, their credit card companies, etc., I think they will switch. IF they can find some other entity to switch to.