Welcome to our Incestuous Fiscal Orgy – State Farm Privacy Policy

Take notice of this text of the upper area of the note:
“Why are we sending you a Notice of our Privacy Policy?

“Federal law permits banks, investment companies, and insurance companies to provide all their services under one organization. This same law requires State Farm to share our Notice of Privacy Policy in writing with you each year you are insured with us or maintain an account with us.”

Let me re-emphasize this point:
“Federal law permits banks, investment companies, and insurance companies to provide all their services under one organization.”

This law – the Glass-Steagall Act – since its inception in Great Depression era America in 1933, FORBADE the incestuous fiscal orgy under which this nation now suffers.

The Glass-Steagall Act was the subject of intense lobbying efforts by Banks, Insurance Companies and Stock Brokerage Houses to repeal the law, and especially intensified circa 1960’s, climaxing in the late 1990’s under a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate, or commingle, their business.

Previously, it prohibited any of those institutions (banks, insurance companies, and stock brokerage houses) from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, or insurance company.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999), was signed into law by President Clinton.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO YOU and ME, AND HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU and ME?

The recent financial melt-down in this nation – now being called “The Great Recession” – is due in large part to the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act, because the banks that made bad loans, the insurance companies that insured the real estate and commercial paper, and the stock brokerage houses that traded the stocks of both, and owned both, were greedy for more gain, and eventually began to invent complex mechanisms and artificial commercial paper which came to be known as “derivatives.”

In essence, those “derivatives” were based upon Credit Default Swaps – another complex and inherently evil type of financial thing/device – which was described by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in March 2010 as “Credit-default swaps, where you insure your neighbor’s house just to destroy it and make money from it, that’s exactly what we have to curb. We must succeed at putting a stop to the speculators’ game with sovereign states.”

The types of investments that most people tend to be familiar with, such as stocks and bonds, involve betting that a company or government will do well. In stark contrast, a credit default swap (CDS) allows an investor to bet that a certain bond issuer will do poorly, or fail – not be able to meet its obligations. In financial markets, the CDS is sometimes thought of as a form of

Taxpayers’ $182B TARP bailout of AIG Now Fully Recovered

As the president and others – nonpartisan and partisan alike – have noted, BIG BUSINESS should NOT need a bailout. They should be operated in such a manner as to allow the Free Market to decide how, to what extent, and if they prosper. As part of that process, ironclad and strong regulation to prevent fraud and abuse should be vigorously enforced. And chief executives

Something Stinks in Denmark: “TOO BIG TO FAIL,” Bank Corruption, LIBOR, and the Federal Reserve

No… no… no…

Banks don’t need to be regulated.

They’re doing quite fine with all the money they’ve stolen from you already.

No, they don’t need regulation.

And no, we don’t need to re-enact the Glass-Steagall Act – the federal law that kept Wall Street Brokerage Houses, Insurance Companies, and Banks separate and out of each other’s business. Right now, as things stand with them, they’re enjoying an incestuous fiscal orgy. And that’s good. We need more incest. We need more orgies. They’re all good. In fact, the more mammon… er, money you have, the more holy you are, the more the Almighty has blessed you – and not someone else (those lazy slobs who don’t deserve anything). {/sarcasm}

But there’s really no reason to worry… the banks will get what’s comin’ to ’em – and the ‘what’ is NOT your money. They have that already.

Come a-courtin’ time (that’d be in the court room), the Banksters be ruled against in a BIG way.

Just wait.

It’s coming.

Next thing you’ll hear in the news are the BIG BANKSTERS wanting legal protection from Congress for the wrongdoing they’ve done.

Just wait.

—

Losing With LIBOR: One Trader’s Story

by David Kestenbaum

Listen to the Story All Things Considered [3 min 18 sec] Download

We’ve been talking a lot lately about what’s been dubbed the “LIBOR rate fixing scandal,” where some of the biggest banks in the world have been accused of manipulating a key global interest rate.

London-based Barclays Bank agreed to pay a $453 million fine over charges it manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate — LIBOR — a key global interest rate. Oli Scarff/Getty Images

If those words — “manipulation of a key interest rate” — leave you wondering what the big deal is, and who would be harmed, meet Dan Sullivan. He says the manipulation of LIBOR cost him a million dollars, in just 24 hours.

Dan Sullivan used to work

“TOO BIG TO FAIL” is just BIG enough to rob you blind: How Goldman Sachs robbed an American entrepreneur of $580 Million, and screwed over the American economy in the process

Honestly (and some use that word lightly), is there any reason why Banks should NOT be heavily regulated?

Is there any reason why Stock Brokerage Houses should not be similarly heavily regulated?

Is there any legitimate reason why Insurance Companies should not be regulated?

Finally, is there any compelling reason why those BIG THREE financial businesses should be allowed to be in each other’s business?

Why do people NOT see these horrible things?

Where is the disconnect that they’re not able to put 1 + 1 together and come up with 2?

This is FRAUD – FRAUD – FRAUD!!!

And we’re just gonna’ let it slide by?

Please!

—

July 14, 2012

Goldman Sachs and the $580 Million Black Hole

By LOREN FELDMAN

THE business deal from hell began to crumble even before the Champagne corks were popped.

The deal, the $580 million sale of a highflying technology company, Dragon Systems, had just been approved by its board and congratulations were being exchanged. But even then, at that moment of celebration, there was a sense that something was amiss.

The chief executive of Dragon had received a congratulatory bottle from the investment bankers representing the acquiring company, a Belgian competitor called Lernout & Hauspie. But he hadn’t heard from Dragon’s own bankers at Goldman Sachs.

Janet and Jim Baker at home. They are fighting Goldman Sachs over its work in 2000 on the all-stock sale of their business, Dragon Systems, to a company that later collapsed, leaving them shut out. / Photo: Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times

“I still have not received anything from Goldman,” the executive wrote in an e-mail to the other bank. “Do they know something I should know?”

More than a decade later, that question is still reverberating in a brutal legal battle between Goldman and the founders of Dragon Systems — along with a host of other questions that go to the heart of how financial giants like Goldman operate and what exactly they owe their clients.

James and Janet Baker spent nearly two decades building Dragon, a voice technology company, into a successful, multimillion-dollar enterprise. It was, they say, their “third child.” So in late 1999, when offers to buy Dragon began rolling in, the couple made what seemed a smart decision: they turned to Goldman Sachs for advice. And why not? Goldman, after all, was the leading dealmaker on Wall Street. The Bakers wanted the best.

This, of course, was before the scandals of the subprime mortgage era. It was before the bailouts, before Occupy Wall Street, before ordinary Americans began complaining about “banksters” and “muppets” and “the vampire squid.” In short, before Goldman Sachs became, for many, synonymous with Wall Street greed.

And yet, even today what happened next to the Bakers seems remarkable. With Goldman Sachs on the job, the corporate takeover of Dragon Systems in an all-stock deal went terribly wrong. Goldman collected millions of dollars in fees — and the Bakers lost everything when

Welcome to our Incestuous Fiscal Orgy

On June 1 this year, I had posted a photo and commented about it. The following is that commentary. Though the picture is not necessary to support the entry, it served as a malignant source of inspiration. However, if you simply must see the photograph…

Welcome to our Incestuous Fiscal Orgy – State Farm Privacy Policy

Text of the area of the note:
“Why are we sending you a Notice of our Privacy Policy?

“Federal law permits banks, investment companies, and insurance companies to

A Greece Fire; Thoughtful Commentary on Unthoughtful Commentary

A Greece Fire; Thoughtful Commentary on Unthoughtful Commentary

Having read Mr. Alex Tokarev’s commentary “My big fat Greek bonus” published online May 11, 12:49 PM at http://online.worldmag.com/2010/05/11/my-big-fat-greek-bonus/, I must admit that some of his concerns are, in part, well taken… however poorly expressed. Though he does not adequately support the case for fiscal prudence, the complaints he makes in general terms about fiscal prudence are well-deserved.

Though his straw man argument is inadequately defended, placing exclusive responsibility and blame upon Greek national officials for that nation’s crisis is insufficient, and certainly short sighted. However, his rambling, miasmatic complaints have not fallen upon deaf ears – although they may have fallen upon spirited ones. Excitement, however, must be directed toward a long-term objective, and it is the more broad scope which I think he ignores. While having the ability to direct the nation toward a long-term goal is laudable, he neither cites any governmental mandate. On the whole, after having read his opinion, one might wonder if he were doing little more than expressing infantile frustration, for he certainly offers no potential solution.

The Grecian debt crisis is not due exclusively to what he calls “the bursting of the statist bubble,” “welfare pyramids” or other descriptive pejoratives to describe Grecian governmental services and activities.

Though he decries “irresponsible lenders and borrowers” whom perpetuate “bankrupt political practices,” he attempts to correlate and demean both, describing what he calls a “strong culture of entitlement” as “a beast,” though he never specifically mentions any program, plan, office, group or person.

As colorful and passionate as he may feel about Greece’s problems, he failed to