Cross-posted from Progressive-Independence.org.

According to Reuters, the wealthy are starting to feel the sting of what they’ve done to the American and global economies.

http://www.reuters.com/article…

Wealthy Americans like Morrison and Goldberg were relatively insulated from the global financial crisis until just a few months ago. Now, falling stock markets are slashing their investments, and some are even starting to panic.

“I’m a little angry that I didn’t trust my own gut, my own instinct to stay on the sidelines and wait,” said Goldberg, 57, an executive coach who lives in Washington. “I’m angry at myself.”

Of course, reaction to the financial crisis differs from person to person and even from husband to wife.

“My husband’s approach has been ‘Oh my God, I’ve got to sell, we’re mature people and there goes our retirement’,” said Morrison, 59. Morrison, who lives in Alexandria, Virginia, and runs a PR firm, has about $2 million in investable assets.

Why, they’re even having second thoughts about buying those extra yachts and private jets!

http://www.reuters.com/article…

GENEVA (Reuters) – The financial crisis is forcing the wealthy to rethink splurges like fancy cars and yachts, private bankers say, threatening to crimp the free-wheeling luxury goods spending bonanza of previous years.

Luxury brands had signaled they were weathering the global financial crisis better than others, with many saying they expected emerging markets in Asia and China to offset flat or declining sales elsewhere.

But investors have been looking for signs the credit crunch and dismal economic outlook are biting into purchases of luxury goods, and bankers to the wealthy say even the super-rich have begun to rein in spending as they fret over their shrinking portfolios.

It’s even gotten so commodities are going out of fashion!  See?

http://www.reuters.com/article…

GENEVA (Reuters) – Dabbling in commodities markets has fallen out of favor with the wealthy who are abandoning the sector in droves as energy and metal prices slide, private bankers say.

Commodity prices, which have surged for most of the past six years, have imploded over the last three months. Estimates by Citigroup and Barclays Capital put third-quarter losses in the asset class at between $50 billion and $60 billion.

“Commodities were in fashion at the beginning of the year and clients reduced their exposure mid-year,” said Bruno Lebre, head of investment at SG Private Banking, adding he had been advising clients to limit energy and metals exposure in their portfolios.

Rich people everywhere are starting to get skittish, and are now starting to heed the old adage, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

http://www.reuters.com/article…

GENEVA (Reuters) – The world’s wealthiest are opening multiple accounts to help spread risk through the global financial crisis, their bankers say.

“Clients who had accounts with three institutions now have six accounts. Clients who had six accounts now have 12 accounts,” Gerard Aquilina, vice chairman of Barclays Wealth (BARC.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), told the Reuters Wealth Management Summit in Geneva.

Aquilina said he even had one client with 21 accounts with 50 million British pounds ($88 million) in each of them.

You know the Second Great Depression is having a huge impact when even the ridiculously wealthy get nervous.  We’re supposed to take notice of this, because it’s not as though anyone else has been adversely affected by the financial meltdown, right?

Also available in teal.

I was browsing the ‘net looking for political videos when I saw a couple that use fear to try to sway opinion.  The first, from the political right, is a McCain campaign ad against Barack Obama.

None of what is in the ad is even remotely true; it uses fear and lies to try to cement in the minds of voters that because the Democratic presidential candidate has an Arab-sounding name, he must therefore be a terrorist or someone with ties to terrorists.  The second ad is a creation of the left, used against Republican John McCain.

Now, most if not all of what is in this video is undeniably true; McCain supports and promotes the lies and imperial policies of the Bush-Cheney regime, and his dictatorship would continue them on what perhaps would be an even larger scale.  Nevertheless, the video still uses fear in an attempt to dissuade voters from casting their ballots for McCain.

Webster’s Dictionary defines terrorism thus:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Just some food for thought.  Enjoy Columbus Day.

Why, in a presidential election that has at least half a dozen candidates running, are only the two most right-wing politicians receiving any coverage in the corporate-owned press?

Here’s Ralph Nader speaking September 29th on the bailout.

Cross-posted from Progressive-Independence.org.

From an article by John Browne at Asia Times:

Last week, US Treasury secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke faced congressional leaders with a reported forecast that we are “literally days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system”. Apparently, the politicians were stunned into a long silence.

If citizens across the country could glimpse the horror seen by the congressmen (of which we have long warned), then widespread panic would truly be the order of the day. In particular, people will be shocked to see how Paulson’s seemingly vast request to congress for some $1 trillion is utterly dwarfed by the likely problem.

Later in the article:

If the economy moves into a severe recession and then depression, default rates will explode. These, in turn, will cause stock markets to implode, as they did in 1929. In addition, the US dollar is likely to plummet, driving up the trade deficit in the longer term. Considering these factors, many of which the government prefers to hide, things look bad – very bad.

The thing is, most Americans seem to oppose any bailout of Wall Street whatsoever.  U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein was inundated with communications from constituents demanding that she vote against giving any of their tax dollars to Wall Street, according to the Kansas City Star:

Feinstein’s office has heard from about 50,000 constituents since Congress began considering a financial rescue plan about a week ago – and “only one of a thousand supports it – whatever it is,” the California Democrat said.

Lawmakers from both parties reported similar confusion and concern among constituents as they spent their Saturday painstakingly, and sometimes painfully, trying to craft a still-elusive compromise package.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell aimed to have a final plan ready by 6 p.m. Sunday, in time for the opening of markets around the world.

But House Republicans, whose objections derailed a deal reached last week, warned they did not want any rush to judgment.

And:

The senator tends to side on most issues with Democratic liberals and moderates, but her feedback from home was similar to what conservatives were hearing. “People call us and say they’re really against bailing out fat-cats. That’s a big issue,” she said.

“We’ve heard from hundreds of people who say, ‘We pay our bills. Why can’t Wall Street pay theirs?’ ” said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said his office had received 3,500 calls in recent days “and just 95 said they supported what we’ve done so far.”

Republicans have apparently been revolting against their own party’s dictator in the White House, seemingly out of a desire to finally look as though they oppose big government interference in the market system – earlier this month, the feds took lending giant Fannie Mae back under their control and also seized its counterpart, Freddie Mac.

Whether this is really the case is up for debate; it could all be a ploy to extend the financial crisis so as to force Democrats in Congress to cave in and write another blank check.  My gut, however, tells me there’s genuine fear that a bailout not crafted to give taxpayers at least partial ownership of the financial institutions in return for a bailout would create a massive backlash at the polls come November.

At any rate, once the bailout does go through (no matter what form it takes), shall it be enough?  According to at least one American economics writer and the foreign press, we’re already in the throes of an economic depression that began months ago.  Considering the massive U.S. debt already being passed on to an incalculable number of future generations, adding another trillion or so dollars to it doesn’t seem as though it’ll solve the problem we now face.

Reading Randy Cassingham’s blog entry about an irate right-winger who chose to pick a fight with him over the ‘net soon after reading a similarly crybaby comment at the Progressive Blue version of my previous entry, I couldn’t help but recognize a pattern: there is a large segment of American society that goes out of its way to take offense at anything, no matter what.  Even…no…especially when the perceived offense is absolutely true and not necessarily intended to raise hackles, someone, somewhere must make a gymnastic leap in logic.  Why this is so is a matter of speculation, but I like to think my theory is closer to the mark.

You’re blowing it, you corporate-conservative jerk.  On the one hand, you’ve wised up a little in the wake of polls showing your opponents ahead; your attack on Palin’s hypocrisy and dishonesty over earmarks was good, though it could have been a little stronger — call her a liar, Barack.

“Don’t be fooled,” Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. “John McCain’s party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge” for nearly eight years.

“I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she’s change, and that’s great,” Obama said. “She’s a skillful politician. But, you know, when you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it’s convenient, and then suddenly you’re the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can’t just make stuff up.”

This is some of the kind of campaigning we want to see from you, and on a consistent basis (maybe you read Steve Almond’s Huffington Post piece).  Then, almost as though you suddenly remember you’re supposed to be the ringer candidate, you turn around and do something insipidly stupid — like saying you won’t push to repeal the shrub’s tax giveaways to the super-wealthy if you become president.

WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Those tax cuts for the super-wealthy are a large part of what’s caused the economic recession we’re suffering (the foreign press called it a full-blown depression this Spring) in the first place, and Americans know it.

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”

Raising taxes on the wealthy won’t cause things to become worse; there isn’t much else worse that can happen, except perhaps publicly acknowledging what has been common knowledge to many people for years now, and that’s not likely to make a huge impact on the already-failed economy.  Are you so afraid of spooking your corporate masters this close to an election you’ve already decided you don’t want to win that you won’t even allow for even the possibility of making them pay taxes?

You can’t make such flip-flops.  Case in point: what you are quoted saying above, compared to this.

“John McCain likes to talk about fiscal responsibility, but there is no doubt that his proposals blow a hole through the budget,” Obama said.

This is another cause of the recession-depression: the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP.  Lay blame where it belongs, Barack.  Don’t make taxes out to be the bogeyman; they’re not.  They’re the only way we’re going to begin salvaging this economy.

You’re running a granny campaign just like John Kerry did, and you KNOW how that turned out.  Stop doing it.  This election isn’t about you; it’s about every American whose suffering under the shrub and his gargoyle has to end, and you are not allowed to let us all down.

What exactly was the point of last week’s announcements for vice presidential picks?  On one hand we have a shell of a candidate promoting “change” but doing everything in his power to establish himself as an establishment candidate, picking a Washington, D.C. insider with a record of corporate whoring and unquestioning support for U.S. imperial policy.  Small wonder Barack Obama is either neck-and-neck with or trailing John McCain in the polls; he insists on turning off the very people he needs to put him over the top, including the Clinton supporters.  On the other hand we have the Republican candidate picking a “hockey mom,” with even less political experience than his Democratic counterpart (the very thing he chides his rival for), just so he can pander to the bloc of Clinton supporters inclined to vote for McCain out of spite.

In all the hype and bluster, though, one important question remains: what does either VP pick actually add to the ticket?  Joe Biden, a typical DLC insider with a hawkish foreign policy record and a habit of voting for bills that hurt working Americans, is just the sort of candidate likely to further alienate progressives – the very people Obama needs to put him over the top against McCain.  Assuming progressives will get behind the Democratic nominee simply because he and his followers choose to deny any other alternative exists has always been a recipe for disaster.  Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry.  Obama has done everything he can to blow this election by turning off all those who put their faith and hopes in him thinking he represented a departure from the DLC.  Picking Biden, though it allows for a tough yet compliant attack dog in the general election who makes up for a perceived lack of experience, really does nothing for the Democratic nominee’s chances.

Then there’s Sarah Palin.  I get that she was tapped to be McCain’s veep because of her youth and sex, but those are really the only two things she has going for her as a candidate.  As Michael Moore explained to Keith Olbermann the other night, McCain’s cynical pander is based on the assumption that American women are stupid – that they’ll vote for a woman because of her gender and not her politics.  Her record and positions are typically extreme right-wing: opposed to abortion rights, opposed to gay marriage, supports tax cuts for the wealthy and police state thuggery, among other horrendous policies.  None of those qualities, however, have won a presidential election – not for the past sixteen years, anyway (the last two were rigged, so they cannot be counted on as legitimate examples of right-wing extremism winning anything).  Women who actually care about their reproductive rights and are offended by Stepford wife-type politicians may be galvanized to vote against McCain and his so-called “hockey mom.”  There’s also her firing of Alaska’s public safety director, Walter Monegan, for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law.  This scandal is so outrageous there that the Alaskan legislature is investigating what the Washington Post is dubbing Palin’s own “trooper-gate.”

This may be the first time since George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton that a Republican candidate blew an election by dubious virtue of being dumber than his Democratic counterpart, but don’t count McCain out yet; there are plenty of caging lists, hackable electronic voting machines, and bought state secretaries with which to steal this election, along with a Democratic rival who insists on replaying the Kerry campaign.

Mr. Obama:

  As one of the relatively few people in this country who saw through your act early on, and for the right reasons, let me first say how utterly ashamed I am to call myself a registered Democrat.  You are a disgrace not only to the party at large, but to the thousands — perhaps, dare I say — even millions of Americans who were and remain so desperate for someone to come and rescue our once-great nation from the fascists that they placed their hope and faith in you.  Hang your head in shame, and then look me straight in the eye and don’t turn away until I’m done.

  According to an article in New York Magazine, the electorate has had about enough of you.  A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has you running in a statistical dead heat with Republican John McCain, FiveThirtyEight.com’s poll doesn’t look good for your chances either, and Zogby has your GOP counterpart five points ahead.  Are you trying to blow this election for us?!?  Because it sure as hell seems as though you are.

  The NY Magazine article gives several reasons for your pathetic performance thus far, but it left out the most obvious: not only your consistent refusal to fight back against the smears of the far right and its tired old champion for this election cycle, but, most importantly, your deliberate alienation of your own political party’s base.  Time and again, you have demonstrated that you do not represent Americans on any issue of importance, and voters realize this.  Long before you secured the Democratic Party nomination to be the ringer candidate against the election sham’s already-chosen victor, you were taking positions including (but in no way limited to):

• Your vile “Harry and Louise” attack mailers, which used the same right-wing talking points against Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals that were used to great success in the 1990s,
• Your purging – quickly followed by a reinstatement after the inevitable uproar from outraged supporters – of roughly nine hundred anti-war delegates from California, probably out of fear that they would defect over to the Clinton camp once they caught wind of your impending flip-flop regarding a pullout from Iraq,
• Your regular, condescending, talking down to Blacks in speeches,
• Your praise of the traitor Ronald Reagan,
• Your betrayal during the FISA battle,
• Your allegedly telling the Canadian government that your initial apparent criticism of NAFTA was “just campaign rhetoric,” which was quickly buried thanks in large part to a denial by Canada that you had said any such thing,
• Your provocative and unnecessary pandering to Israel’s fascist government over the topic of Jerusalem, and
• Your embrace of the horrendous Friedman school of economic policy.

  That’s just off the top of my head, nor is it the most worrisome reason for your refusal to campaign like someone who wants to win.  I have a friend named Dave who has worked on numerous Democratic political campaigns, including yours.  He is witness to the stupid things you’ve got your people in critical states such as Ohio doing, such as:

• Failing to even install a working telephone system in your Lakewood, Ohio, campaign office,
• Sending your people out to register voters — REPUBLICAN-leaning ones at that — whom you MUST know will NEVER vote for you, and
• Deliberately avoiding mentioning that it was under the presidency of Bill Clinton that average American incomes were higher, while it was under the shrub that those same incomes fell.

  This isn’t rocket science, Obama; it’s politics.  You’ve been in the proverbial game long enough to know this.  You seem hellbent on losing this election, and you need to explain why to those who placed their faith and hopes in you before you dash them just a little over two months from now.  It’s that, or pull your head out of your rear orifice and start trying to win this thing.  This race has never been, nor shall it ever be, about you; it’s about this country and the people in it, and turning back from the precipice of fascist empire your predecessors have brought us all to.

  That’s all I have to say to you, Obama.  You have your choice to make, though I am certain you made it long ago.  Just know this: no matter what happens in November, you’ll still be comfortably employed, while the rest of us will have to continue suffering the conservative policies you support.

Sincerely,

Archangel M