February 21, 2009

Banking On Credit Unions [I'm so lucky to have smart parents]

From nader.org:

While the reckless giant banks are shattering like an over-heated glacier day by day, the nation’s credit unions are a relative island of calm largely apart from the vortex of casino capitalism.

Eighty five million Americans belong to credit unions which are not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members who are depositors and borrowers. Your neighborhood or workplace credit union did not invest in these notorious speculative derivatives nor did they offer people “teaser rates” to sign on for a home mortgage they could not afford.

Ninety one percent of the 8,000 credit unions are reporting greater overall growth in mortgage lending than any other kinds of consumer loans they are extending. They are federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for up to $250,000 per account, such as the FDIC does for depositors in commercial banks.


click here for the whole thing

The main point of the article is that there are some "credit unions" that are credit union in name only, basically. Big corporate ones who work like the big loan shark banks.

Lucky for myself and my family, we belong to an NCUA backed credit union. I was recently back in Texas and went in to my local credit union to talk about a CD account of mine that had recently matured. The atmosphere in there was really laid back, just like I'd always remembered our credit union being. Also much like the credit union over here in New Orleans that I use to deposit checks, it's just so quiet and calm, not how you'd expect a bank to be at this time. But, it's not really a "bank" in 21st century terms anyway.

It's not like we're on easy street or anything, because we're surely not at the moment, but it's good to know that my family's banking methods did not contribute to the downfall of our economy.

Not to rub it in anyone's face, or anything...

But if you're a credit union member, make sure they are not tempted to turn in to Wall Street style casinos, because:

The one area that is now spelling some trouble [...] comes from the so-called “corporate credit unions”—a terrible nomenclature—which were established to provide liquidity for the retail credit unions. [...] They invested in those risky mortgage securities with the money from the retail credit unions. These “toxic assets” have fallen $14 billion among the 28 corporate credit unions involved.

February 16, 2009

An Open Letter to Craig, the Sexist

Dear Craig,

You've been dating my sister for about four or five weeks now. For the last couple of weeks, your plans have been to move in together and get married, and maybe have a baby.

If you can't see whats wrong with this picture, lets keep looking.

I'm not one for snooping on people's Facebook profiles, but after you added my girlfriend as a friend on that site she noticed a comment you had from the beginning of January, just days before you began dating my sister, from a girl named Mary saying how much she loved you, how you guys were going to be together forever, and that she was so happy that she was "having babygrl." You have yet to explain who this person is and what she meant by "having babygrl." It sounds as if she's expecting a child, but it could be another "misunderstanding," right Craig? I'm sure all fifteen pages of your criminal record are a bunch of misunderstandings too (it's amazing what you can do with the internet and a license plate number, eh Craig?).

If you still can't see whats wrong with this picture, lets keep looking.

Early on, you had some moments of threatening suicide if you didn't get to see my sister. My parents witnessed this behavior with their own eyes. It was at this point that you should have been taken away by some higher authority. But you weren't.

Lets keep looking.

Several details of the past few weeks can be found almost ver batim (that means "word for word" in Latin, if you didn't know) in this article, "Warning Signs That You're Dating a Loser." I don't want to call you a "loser," Craig. Afterall, guys like you have been running the world since the beginning of human history. You guys aren't losers, but you are losing. However slowly, you are a dying breed. Sexism still reigns supreme, but it is in it's final days. It may be many more decades, but your way of thinking is on it's way out.

The difference between you and I is that I have ambition. I have something that I believe makes me a better person when I learn more about it, and that's music. I have recently come to believe that becoming a better musician makes me a better citizen of the world. It allows me to interact with people in a positive way and somehow make the world a little bit better while I'm here. This probably sounds like a bunch of faggy bullshit to you, Craig. But that's your problem.

You, Craig, will never take responsibility for your actions. With you, every problem is a woman's fault. It was your mom's fault that she kicked you out of her house and you had no where to sleep but your car. It was my sister's fault that she "wouldn't stand up for you" when everyone was realizing how dangerous you were. It's her friends' fault that everyone thinks you're bad because they supposedly lie about you. My sister's former best friend really just has a homosexual crush and is trying to get you out of the picture (even if that were true, it would be a hell of a lot better than what's going on now). And I'm sure Mary is just some crazy "bitch" telling another lie about you on your profile, which is why you had to delete her words.

You will probably go on for the rest of your life thinking that you are superior to women, and that controlling them and using them makes you more of a man. You will never realize that this behavior holds down society's progress and enslaves people to bigotry. As I said, this cycle is slowing, but you're a part of what's keeping it going.

That, Craig, is why nobody fucking likes you.

Sincerely,
adam

February 10, 2009

Prisoners on Parade

Courtesy of Alternet:

Last week in Maricopa County, Ariz., more than 200 Latino immigrants were chained, dressed in prison stripes and forced to march down a public street from a county jail to a detainment camp in a desert industrial zone outside Phoenix.

[...]

The Phoenix New Times pointed out that Arpaio’s immigrant parade was scheduled for the same day that MCSO Captain Joel Fox was scheduled to appear in court to appeal a $315,000 fine levied against him for channeling an illegal $105,000 campaign donation to the Republican Party in the name of a shadowy entity called the “Sheriff’s Command Association.”

click here for the whole article

This is really fucked up, sick, wrong, racist, nothing that would make me proud as an American.

Just so happens I was studying some prison statistics just before I came across this article. I think I'll be sharing my findings soon, if I get the time to dig further in to it.


February 7, 2009

What the centrists have wrought

Paul Krugman, NY Times:

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. [...] So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

click here for the entire article

It's a damn shame you have to have 60% membership of the Senate just to pass a bill that isn't even good enough to begin with, and if you've only got 59% that plan gets watered down even further.

Gee can't say I saw this coming...

Deregulation Caused the Salmonella Outbreak

From the NY Times
"Wary Shoppers Cause Slide in Peanut Butter Sales"

The Department of Agriculture, which oversees school lunch programs, banned the Peanut Corporation of America from doing any further business with the government. The company’s chief executive, Stewart Parnell, was removed from the Agriculture Department’s Peanut Standards Board, which advises the agriculture secretary on quality and handling standards.


Read further, if you need to.

What was the CEO of a private corporation doing on the standards board of a federal agency meant to regulate his own business?

Sure, regulators should be knowledgeable of their fields, but a sitting chief executive? Is that not a conflict of interest from the get-go? I mean, the Times just nonchalantly mentions, "Yeah, this guy is no longer advising his own regulators, now that his company has spread salmonella all over the country," like it's just a random detail of the overall story. Hopefully Obama understands cause-and-effect more than the Bush administration did, but perhaps a little research is afoot to see who is on the federal agencies and who they're really loyal to: themselves or the People?

Hey, at least Parnell's previous work did not involve Arabian horses.

February 2, 2009

Is the Entire Bailout Strategy Flawed? Let's Rethink This Before It's Too Late

By Joseph Stiglitz, by way of Alternet:

For a while, there was hope that simply lowering interest rates enough, flooding the economy with money, would suffice; but three quarters of a century ago, Keynes explained why, in a downturn such as this, monetary policy is likely to be ineffective. It is like pushing on a string.

[...]

What's the alternative? Sweden (and several other countries) have shown that there is an alternative -- the government takes over those banks that cannot assemble enough capital through private sources to survive without government assistance.

It is standard practice to shut down banks failing to meet basic requirements on capital, but we almost certainly have been too gentle in enforcing these requirements. (There has been too little transparency in this and every other aspect of government intervention in the financial system.)

To be sure, shareholders and bondholders will lose out, but their gains under the current regime come at the expense of taxpayers. In the good years, they were rewarded for their risk taking. Ownership cannot be a one-sided bet.

click here for all of it

Joseph Stiglitz used to work for the World Bank. He was basically kicked out for telling journalists like Greg Palast exactly what they do: fuck people over, whole countries even (Latin American ones often).

Stiglitz knows globalization inside and out; he's been on the inside and now he's on the outside. He's probably one of the most important economists there is, because he was a free trade baron who did a 180 in favor of the public interest. It doesn't get much cooler than that.

So I'm saying we should trust Joe on this one, consider this idea, look to Sweden, and fix this mess before we're all standing in bread lines, reminiscing about how we loved our SUVs and MacBooks so much. Maybe when the Senate votes down Obama's budget, this idea can get tabled.

It would behoove all of us to call our representatives and send them this message:

NATIONALIZE THE BANKS!