Life is unfair

Says the bankers’ toady in an attempt to justify their massive greed, so be sure to punch him in the face when you see him.

It’s our own fault that these assholes take the mickey after our money bailed them out. The Royal Navy had a tradition of executing admirals unlucky enough to lose one battle too many; this should’ve been done to a couple of bankers as well when the crisis hit last year. Because we didn’t, but instead bailed out the fuckers without demanding anything in return, they now feel emboldened to demand bigger bonuses or they’ll move abroad. If they were smarter they would have stayed silent, but if they were as smart as they think they are, they wouldn’t have caused the crisis in the first place…

Pigs fly

Daniel “D-Squared” Davies finishes Freakonomics review:

We stopped doing economics and started doing awful amateur-hour sociology, basically, because we believed that all the major problems had been solved, that some form of dynamic general equilibrium was all that there was to be said about the economy considered as a system, and that the only interesting things to do were growth theory and finance. It is no coincidence that Freakonomics began in Chicago; for a guy like Levitt who doesn’t possess the engineering-maths to be a finance theorist or the empirical skills to do endogenous growth, there was literally nothing to do.

The biggest lie of this recession

Is the idea being pushed in respectable newspapers that since Goldman Sachs has posted an unexpected (by whom) second quarter profit of no less than 2.7 billion euros, the economy is on the mend again. Let Matt Taibbi explain why this is wrong:

Last year, when Hank Paulson told us all that the planet would explode if we didn’t fork over a gazillion dollars to Wall Street immediately, the entire rationale not only for TARP but for the whole galaxy of lesser-known state crutches and safety nets quietly ushered in later on was that Wall Street, once rescued, would pump money back into the economy, create jobs, and initiate a widespread recovery. This, we were told, was the reason we needed to pilfer massive amounts of middle-class tax revenue and hand it over to the same guys who had just blown up the financial world. We’d save their asses, they’d save ours. That was the deal.

It turned out not to happen that way. We constructed this massive bailout infrastructure, and instead of pumping that free money back into the economy, the banks instead simply hoarded it and ate it on the spot, converting it into bonuses. So what does this Goldman profit number mean? This is the final evidence that the bailouts were a political decision to use the power of the state to redirect society’s resources upward, on a grand scale. It was a selective rescue of a small group of chortling jerks who must be laughing all the way to the Hamptons every weekend about how they fleeced all of us at the very moment the game should have been up for all of them.

The only reason Goldman Sachs or any other big bank is now “profitable” again is because of the huge pots of free money our governments handed out to them as a reward for fucking up the economy — as if you went to Vegas, gambled away your house and the government got you a new one to play away at the blackjack table.

Back in January the entire financial sector was bankrupt, barely kept alive by those massive government cash injections, yet six months later everything’s back to normal again, a bank like Goldman Sachs can be billions in profit and this is evidence the economy is turning around? Pull the other one. that 2,7 billion is loot, evidence for the greatest wealth transfer ever, as millions of tax payers are fleeced to make a few multibillionaires even richer.

Sunday Morning Salaciousness

“Jardines infinitos, lagos artificiales, órganos sexuales al aire, juegos lésbicos, efectos especiales, pizza y helado gratis… .”

Oh my. Somehow it sounds much more wicked in Spanish.

Take a look at the the teenage boy’s fantasy that is the life of some world leaders, via El Pais’ gallery of censored images of Silvio Berlusconi and an unidentified E. European statesman cavorting with half-naked young ‘models’ interviewing potential researchers at Berlusconi’s villa.

Perhaps it was a very hot day and the PM (because, as we all know, he is so very kind to young people) suggested the interviewees make themselves a little cooler.

Perhaps one of the interview panel, explaining the process to one of the candidates as she prepared for her coming ordeal on a handy chaise longue, became a little excited at the prospect of putting such an obviously qualified candidate through her paces.

It’s an explanation. Isn’t it?

The Foxes In The Henhouse

bastard_

Over the past few days multiple pundits have referred casually to the House of Commons Commission and the Members’ Estimate Committee without bothering to explain what it is they do, or more importantly who they are. The first is in charge of the regulation of the House; the second’s in charge of MPs remuneration and expenses and was accused of bias from the start:

A review of MPs’ perks and expenses has been condemned as a stitch-up.

The panel picked by Commons Speaker Michael Martin to carry out the investigation is dominated by politicians tainted by sleaze or who have campaigned to keep allowances secret.

So I thought I should take a look at who’s currently on this committee and who, if any of those tasked with keeping their fellow members honest has got clean (ish) hands themselves.

The score? Not good: only 3 out of 5:

    Rt Hon Michael J Martin MP (Labour ): The Speaker’s been spending hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to stop the details of the expenses claims being published: he spent £1,400 on chauffeurs to drive him to his constituency job centre in Glasgow (60% of children in his area live in “workless households”) and to Celtic football stadium; he employed his wife and daughter both on the payroll for an extra bite at the cherry:

    On top of his £137,000 salary, he has a pension estimated to be worth £1.4m, and the best rent-free apartment in London. His wife was earning £25,000 a year in the first years of his speakership, and his daughter until very recently worked as his constituency secretary. His son, Paul, eased gently into the Scottish parliament, earns £50,000 a year. And, even though he has a primary home fully paid for by the taxpayer, Michael Martin claimed £17,166 last year in housing allowance on his home outside Glasgow, which is mortgage-free.

    Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC (Lab) : Clean so far as is known apart from that one dodgy donation.and a few pesky clerical errors. But that’s largely due to an accident of geography rather than innate rectitude. Harriet’s answer to accusations of corruption? Blame Derek Conway. To be fair, she has voted for pay and expenses reform. But then she can afford to, on over 140 grand a year plus expenses (Which she helps to set the level of. Neat.).
    Sir Stuart Bell (Lab): Sweeper-under-carpet-in-chief and Church Commissioner. Fought disclosure of expenses tooth and nail; currently trying to have the administration of MP’s expenses and pay privatised, so as to exempt it from the Freedom of Information Act so we can’t see how completely lax he’s been and string him up.
    Rt Hon Nick Harvey (Lib Dem): In 2008, Harvey told his fellow MPs: “The public believe—quite erroneously, in my view—that our allowances are excessive, that there are irregularities in the way in which Members claim those allowances and that the systems in this place are lax. I repeat that those are not my views”
    Then why did he say this?

But even the three committee members with (currently) clean hands themselves. McClean, Harman and Harvey, don’t think they or their greedy colleagues have done anything wrong; they’re either tribally loyal to party, like allegedly bipartisan Leader of the House Harman and Tory Chief Whip McClean, or complacent, like lone Lib Dem Harvey. It’s not MPs, it’s the system, they cry.

But they control that system: they could have stopped it. They didn’t. Better to kick it into the long grass and hope it goes away. It hasn’t.

I was always taught as a good churchgoing girl that tempt somebody to sin was a worse sin than the one incited. Harman, Martin, McClean, Harvey and Bell allowed their colleagues steal from the public. They turned a blind eye; they even participated. They’re just as guilty as their greedier colleagues, if not more so.