February 9th, 2010

Two individuals that both go by single names are Ilargi and Stoneleigh of The Automatic Earth.  They are the main writing talent for a consistently excellent website covering the decline and failure of Market. This morning, Stoneleigh shares her wisdom with us. This was originally posted on February 08, 2010.


Corruption, Culpability and Short-Termism

Stoneleigh

People are increasingly collectively horrified at the extent of the fraud and corruption that lies at the heart of our financial and broader governance structures. They seem surprised, as if this were something new, when it has actually been growing in tandem with our credit hyper-expansion for decades. Corruption in complex systems never goes away, it merely waxes and wanes, and goes through phases where it is more or less visible.

During long manic periods, all manner of abuses occur, but no one notices while the party continues, because no one wants to notice. As long as people generally have access to easy credit and the illusory wealth effect it brings, they don’t ask hard questions and are largely oblivious to risk. Even if they lied on their own mortgage application, in order to qualify for a larger loan than they could really afford, and know others who did the same, they cannot seem to imagine what the consequences might one day be, both for themselves and for the financial system as a whole. To paraphrase one journalist who commented on the national pyramid bubble in Albania in the mid 1990s, when people feel they are operating within the bounds of properly structured criminality, they feel no personal responsibility and do not fear consequences.

Both the predators and the prey are complicit in the development of a mania. Predators lent money into existence without regard to risk, since they were selling that on to Wall Street investors through securitization. Just like those they preyed upon by actively enticing people into loans they could not afford, they turned a blind eye to the blatant lies on mortgage applications, inflated assessments and other fraudulent aspects of the developing bubble. They made their money through fees anyway, but did not contemplate the creation of systemic risk which would ultimately bring them down as well.

Both sides had an interest in the party continuing because it benefited them personally in the short term. The prey were insisting on being handed the empty bag, which is all that’s left at the height of a bubble, while the predators were only too pleased to oblige. Of the two, the predators were certainly in a better position to assess the situation and must be regarded as the more culpable party, but without the greed of the prey, the exploitation would not have been possible.

When times have been both relatively good and stable for a long time, people’s time horizons lengthen, and they feel they have the luxury of the longer term view. Economists would say that their discount rates (the extent to which they value the present over the future) have declined. Humans are never collectively very good at taking a long term view, but in stable times, where they don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, they are at their best in this regard. It is in times like this that environmental movements arise and humans start collectively valuing other forms of life (many individuals do this anyway, but for it to become a collective movement requires a human herding element that is only present at certain times).

The height of a mania is a very unusual time that combines the best of good times for a majority of people, illusory though it may be, with a rapid rate of change. People begin to manifest mixed messages, for instance environmentalism tinged with fear. As discount rates steepen, people make more and more short-term decisions and ignore the longer term risks. They throw caution to the wind, with predictable consequences, first through euphoria and then in desperate denial. That is how we became the authors of our own present debt predicament.

Eventually, as the mania comes to an end, the rapid rate of change mostly to the upside will be replaced with a rapid rate of change to the downside, combined with a significant contraction in material wealth, as excess claims to it are extinguished. The confluence of circumstances that had led to a longer-term view will reverse sharply. Unfortunately, the result will be a state of crisis management, just when cool heads and rationality would matter most. We who have had the luxury of the long term will find out what it is like to worry about where our next meal is coming from, and just how short our time horizons will become under those circumstances.

In many parts of the world, instability has been a chronic condition for decades. There are huge disparities between haves and have nots, and one’s position of fortune or misfortune is often determined in relation to personal connections with those in power, when power itself can be a very ephemeral thing. These are conditions that promote very high discount rates, not just among the have nots who have to worry about feeding themselves, but also among the haves whose benefactors could be out of power tomorrow, ending their privileged position. Under these circumstances, governance is often appalling, because those in or near power have a direct incentive to loot the public coffers while they have the chance. Where power structures are clan-based, the incentive is even stronger, as losing power could easily lead to persecution by the incoming group, and the consequent need to escape with portable wealth.

What this engenders is a culture of endemic corruption, which we would do well to study, as it is likely where we will find ourselves for much of this century. We think we live with corruption now, as we hear about fraud, ponzi schemes, bailouts combined with epic bonuses and a revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the US Treasury. As self-evidently corrupt as this is, it is nothing in terms of the impact on daily life compared with the top-to-bottom corruption other peoples have to live with. We have not had to pay off every public official for the performance of his own job, pay bribes to secure contracts, pay to have legal standards waived, pay protection money to the police or pay a high enough political ‘roof’ to prevent our property from being claimed by the better connected. We have not had to live where life is cheap, authority figures at all levels are completely unaccountable, abuse of arbitrary power is rampant, the legal system actively undermines the rule of law and casual violence abounds. This is what happens when people feel that they have no long term.

Our media, when it focuses on unluckier parts of the world at all in our infotainment bubble, tends to do so with an air of superiority, as if we were somehow innately better than those who live under corrupt regimes. They fail to note that our position at the centre of a globalized world has allowed us to cream off the surpluses of the periphery, giving us the stability required for the luxury of the long term while actively depriving others of the same. Our boom has been an aggravating factor in the culture of corruption that has taken root in so many places, but our coming bust will see these same tendencies develop in our own countries.


Visit The Automatic Earth.

February 5th, 2010

Reposted from OpEdNews.


Battle of the Titans

Ellen Brown

We are witnessing an epic battle between two banking giants, JPMorgan Chase (Paul Volcker) and Goldman Sachs (Rubin/Geithner). The bodies strewn on the battleground could include your pension fund and 401K.

The late Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard wrote that U.S. politics since 1900, when William Jennings Bryan narrowly lost the presidency, has been a struggle between two competing banking giants, the Morgans and the Rockefellers. The parties would sometimes change hands, but the puppeteers pulling the strings were always one of these two big-money players. No popular third party candidate had a real chance at winning, because the bankers had the exclusive power to create the national money supply and therefore held the winning cards.

In 2000, the Rockefellers and the Morgans joined forces, when JPMorgan and Chase Manhattan merged to become JPMorgan Chase Co. Today the battling banking titans are JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, an investment bank that gained notoriety for its speculative practices in the 1920s. In 1928, it launched the Goldman Sachs Trading Corp., a closed-end fund similar to a Ponzi scheme. The fund failed in the stock market crash of 1929, marring the firm’s reputation for years afterwards. Former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin, came from Goldman, and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner rose through the ranks of government as a Rubin protégé. One commentator called the U.S. Treasury “Goldman Sachs South.”

Goldman’s superpower status comes from something more than just access to the money spigots of the banking system. It actually has the ability to manipulate markets. Formerly just an investment bank, in 2008 Goldman magically transformed into a bank holding company. That gave it access to the Federal Reserve’s lending window; but at the same time it remained an investment bank, aggressively speculating in the markets. The upshot was that it can now borrow massive amounts of money at virtually 0% interest, and it can use this money not only to speculate for its own account but to bend markets to its will.

But Goldman Sachs has been caught in this blatant market manipulation so often that the JPMorgan faction of the banking empire has finally had enough. The voters too have evidently had enough, as demonstrated in the recent upset in Massachusetts that threw the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s Democratic seat to a Republican. That pivotal loss gave Paul Volcker, chairman of President Obama’s newly formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board, an opportunity to step up to the plate with some proposals for serious banking reform. Unlike the string of Treasury Secretaries who came to the position through the revolving door of Goldman Sachs, former Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker came up through Chase Manhattan Bank, where he was vice president before joining the Treasury. On January 27, market commentator Bob Chapman wrote in his weekly investment newsletter The International Forecaster:

“A split has occurred between the paper forces of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. Mr. Volcker represents Morgan interests. Both sides are Illuminists, but the Morgan side is tired of Goldman’s greed and arrogance. . . . Not that JP Morgan Chase was blameless, they did their looting and damage to the system as well, but not in the high handed arrogant way the others did. The recall of Volcker is an attempt to reverse the damage as much as possible. That means the influence of Geithner, Summers, Rubin, et al will be put on the back shelf at least for now, as will be the Goldman influence. It will be slowly and subtly phased out. . . . Washington needs a new face on Wall Street, not that of a criminal syndicate.”

Goldman’s crimes, says Chapman, were that it “got caught stealing. First in naked shorts, then front-running the market, both of which they are still doing, as the SEC looks the other way, and then selling MBS-CDOs to their best clients and simultaneously shorting them.”

Volcker’s proposal would rein in these abuses, either by ending the risky “proprietary trading” (trading for their own accounts) engaged in by the too-big-to-fail banks, or by forcing them to downsize by selling off those portions of their businesses engaging in it. Until recently, President Obama has declined to support Volcker’s plan, but on January 21 he finally endorsed it.

The immediate reaction of the market was to drop and drop, day after day. At least, that appeared to be the reaction of “the market.” Financial analyst Max Keiser suggests a more sinister possibility. Goldman, which has the power to manipulate markets with its high-speed program trades, may be engaging in a Mexican standoff. The veiled threat is, “Back off on the banking reforms, or stand by and watch us continue to crash your markets.” The same manipulations were evident in the bank bailout forced on Congress by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in September 2008.

In Keiser’s January 23 broadcast with co-host Stacy Herbert, he explains how Goldman’s manipulations are done. Keiser is a fast talker, so this transcription is not verbatim, but it is close. He says:

“High frequency trading accounts for 70% of trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Ordinarily, a buyer and a seller show up on the floor, and a specialist determines the price of a trade that would satisfy buyer and seller, and that’s the market price. If there are too many sellers and not enough buyers, the specialist lowers the price. High frequency trading as conducted by Goldman means that before the specialist buys and sells and makes that market, Goldman will electronically flood the specialist with thousands and thousands of trades to totally disrupt that process and essentially commandeer that process, for the benefit of siphoning off nickels and dimes for themselves. Not only are they siphoning cash from the New York Stock Exchange but they are also manipulating prices. What I see as a possibility is that next week, if the bankers on Wall Street decide they don’t want to be reformed in any way, they simply set the high frequency trading algorithm to sell, creating a huge negative bias for the direction of stocks. And they’ll basically crash the market, and it will be a standoff. The market was down three days in a row, which it hasn’t been since last summer. It’s a game of chicken, till Obama says, “Okay, maybe we need to rethink this.’”

But the President hasn’t knuckled under yet. In his State of the Union address on January 27, he did not dwell long on the issue of bank reform, but he held to his position. He said:

“We can’t allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy. The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.”

What this “real reform” would look like was left to conjecture, but Bob Chapman fills in some blanks and suggests what might be needed for an effective overhaul:

“The attempt will be to bring the financial system back to brass tacks. . . . That would include little or no MBS and CDOs, the regulation of derivatives and hedge funds and the end of massive market manipulation, both by Treasury, Fed and Wall Street players. Congress has to end the “President’s Working Group on Financial Markets,’ or at least limit its use to real emergencies. . . . The Glass-Steagall Act should be reintroduced into the system and lobbying and campaign contributions should end. . . . No more politics in lending and banks should be limited to a lending ratio of 10 to 1. . . . It is bad enough they have the leverage that they have. State banks such as North Dakota’s are a better idea.”

On January 28, the predictable reaction of “the market” was to fall for the seventh straight day. The battle of the Titans was on.


Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com and http://www.ellenbrown.com.

January 24th, 2010

American President Barack Obama has been heavily criticized for not solving many of America’s current problems. His popularity with American voters seems in freefall. … On another note, his speech delivered one week ago on January 17th honoring Martin Luther King gives us another basis to understanding how this American President thinks.


The Challenge of a New Age

Barack Obama

Good morning.  Praise be to God.  Let me begin by thanking the entire Vermont Avenue Baptist Church family for welcoming our family here today.  It feels like a family.  Thank you for making us feel that way.  (Applause.)  To Pastor Wheeler, first lady Wheeler, thank you so much for welcoming us here today.  Congratulations on Jordan Denice — aka Cornelia.  (Laughter.)

Michelle and I have been blessed with a new nephew this year as well — Austin Lucas Robinson.  (Applause.)  So maybe at the appropriate time we can make introductions.  (Laughter.)  Now, if Jordan’s father is like me, then that will be in about 30 years. (Laughter.)  That is a great blessing.

Michelle and Malia and Sasha and I are thrilled to be here today.  And I know that sometimes you have to go through a little fuss to have me as a guest speaker.  (Laughter.)  So let me apologize in advance for all the fuss.

We gather here, on a Sabbath, during a time of profound difficulty for our nation and for our world.  In such a time, it soothes the soul to seek out the Divine in a spirit of prayer; to seek solace among a community of believers.  But we are not here just to ask the Lord for His blessing.  We aren’t here just to interpret His Scripture.  We’re also here to call on the memory of one of His noble servants, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Now, it’s fitting that we do so here, within the four walls of Vermont Avenue Baptist Church — here, in a church that rose like the phoenix from the ashes of the civil war; here in a church formed by freed slaves, whose founding pastor had worn the union blue; here in a church from whose pews congregants set out for marches and from whom choir anthems of freedom were heard; from whose sanctuary King himself would sermonize from time to time.

One of those times was Thursday, December 6, 1956.  Pastor, you said you were a little older than me, so were you around at that point?  (Laughter.)  You were three years old — okay.  (Laughter.)  I wasn’t born yet.  (Laughter.)

On Thursday, December 6, 1956.  And before Dr. King had pointed us to the mountaintop, before he told us about his dream in front of the Lincoln Memorial, King came here, as a 27-year-old preacher, to speak on what he called “The Challenge of a New Age.”  “The Challenge of a New Age.”  It was a period of triumph, but also uncertainty, for Dr. King and his followers — because just weeks earlier, the Supreme Court had ordered the desegregation of Montgomery’s buses, a hard-wrought, hard-fought victory that would put an end to the 381-day historic boycott down in Montgomery, Alabama.

And yet, as Dr. King rose to take that pulpit, the future still seemed daunting.  It wasn’t clear what would come next for the movement that Dr. King led.  It wasn’t clear how we were going to reach the Promised Land.  Because segregation was still rife; lynchings still a fact.  Yes, the Supreme Court had ruled not only on the Montgomery buses, but also on Brown v. Board of Education.  And yet that ruling was defied throughout the South  — by schools and by states; they ignored it with impunity.  And here in the nation’s capital, the federal government had yet to fully align itself with the laws on its books and the ideals of its founding.

So it’s not hard for us, then, to imagine that moment.  We can imagine folks coming to this church, happy about the boycott being over.  We can also imagine them, though, coming here concerned about their future, sometimes second-guessing strategy, maybe fighting off some creeping doubts, perhaps despairing about whether the movement in which they had placed so many of their hopes — a movement in which they believed so deeply — could actually deliver on its promise.

So here we are, more than half a century later, once again facing the challenges of a new age.  Here we are, once more marching toward an unknown future, what I call the Joshua generation to their Moses generation — the great inheritors of progress paid for with sweat and blood, and sometimes life itself.

We’ve inherited the progress of unjust laws that are now overturned.  We take for granted the progress of a ballot being available to anybody who wants to take the time to actually vote. We enjoy the fruits of prejudice and bigotry being lifted — slowly, sometimes in fits and starts, but irrevocably — from human hearts.  It’s that progress that made it possible for me to be here today; for the good people of this country to elect an African American the 44th President of the United States of America.

Reverend Wheeler mentioned the inauguration, last year’s election.  You know, on the heels of that victory over a year ago, there were some who suggested that somehow we had entered into a post-racial America, all those problems would be solved.  There were those who argued that because I had spoke of a need for unity in this country that our nation was somehow entering into a period of post-partisanship.  That didn’t work out so well.  There was a hope shared by many that life would be better from the moment that I swore that oath.

Of course, as we meet here today, one year later, we know the promise of that moment has not yet been fully fulfilled.  Because of an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise, because of persistent economic troubles unaddressed through the generations, because of a banking crisis that brought the financial system to the brink of catastrophe, we are being tested — in our own lives and as a nation — as few have been tested before.

Unemployment is at its highest level in more than a quarter of a century.  Nowhere is it higher than the African American community.  Poverty is on the rise.  Home ownership is slipping. Beyond our shores, our sons and daughters are fighting two wars. Closer to home, our Haitian brothers and sisters are in desperate need.  Bruised, battered, many people are legitimately feeling doubt, even despair, about the future.  Like those who came to this church on that Thursday in 1956, folks are wondering, where do we go from here?

I understand those feelings.  I understand the frustration and sometimes anger that so many folks feel as they struggle to stay afloat.  I get letters from folks around the country every day; I read 10 a night out of the 40,000 that we receive.  And there are stories of hardship and desperation, in some cases, pleading for help:  I need a job.  I’m about to lose my home.  I don’t have health care — it’s about to cause my family to be bankrupt.  Sometimes you get letters from children:  My mama or my daddy have lost their jobs, is there something you can do to help?  Ten letters like that a day we read.

So, yes, we’re passing through a hard winter.  It’s the hardest in some time.  But let’s always remember that, as a people, the American people, we’ve weathered some hard winters before.  This country was founded during some harsh winters.  The fishermen, the laborers, the craftsmen who made camp at Valley Forge — they weathered a hard winter.  The slaves and the freedmen who rode an underground railroad, seeking the light of justice under the cover of night — they weathered a hard winter. The seamstress whose feet were tired, the pastor whose voice echoes through the ages — they weathered some hard winters.  It was for them, as it is for us, difficult, in the dead of winter, to sometimes see spring coming.  They, too, sometimes felt their hopes deflate.  And yet, each season, the frost melts, the cold recedes, the sun reappears.  So it was for earlier generations and so it will be for us.

What we need to do is to just ask what lessons we can learn from those earlier generations about how they sustained themselves during those hard winters, how they persevered and prevailed.  Let us in this Joshua generation learn how that Moses generation overcame.

Let me offer a few thoughts on this.  First and foremost, they did so by remaining firm in their resolve.  Despite being threatened by sniper fire or planted bombs, by shoving and punching and spitting and angry stares, they adhered to that sweet spirit of resistance, the principles of nonviolence that had accounted for their success.

Second, they understood that as much as our government and our political parties had betrayed them in the past — as much as our nation itself had betrayed its own ideals — government, if aligned with the interests of its people, can be — and must be  — a force for good.  So they stayed on the Justice Department.  They went into the courts.  They pressured Congress, they pressured their President.  They didn’t give up on this country. They didn’t give up on government.  They didn’t somehow say government was the problem; they said, we’re going to change government, we’re going to make it better.  Imperfect as it was, they continued to believe in the promise of democracy; in America’s constant ability to remake itself, to perfect this union.

Third, our predecessors were never so consumed with theoretical debates that they couldn’t see progress when it came. Sometimes I get a little frustrated when folks just don’t want to see that even if we don’t get everything, we’re getting something.  (Applause.)  King understood that the desegregation of the Armed Forces didn’t end the civil rights movement, because black and white soldiers still couldn’t sit together at the same lunch counter when they came home.  But he still insisted on the rightness of desegregating the Armed Forces.  That was a good first step — even as he called for more.  He didn’t suggest that somehow by the signing of the Civil Rights that somehow all discrimination would end.  But he also didn’t think that we shouldn’t sign the Civil Rights Act because it hasn’t solved every problem.  Let’s take a victory, he said, and then keep on marching.  Forward steps, large and small, were recognized for what they were — which was progress.

Fourth, at the core of King’s success was an appeal to conscience that touched hearts and opened minds, a commitment to universal ideals — of freedom, of justice, of equality — that spoke to all people, not just some people.  For King understood that without broad support, any movement for civil rights could not be sustained.  That’s why he marched with the white auto worker in Detroit.  That’s why he linked arm with the Mexican farm worker in California, and united people of all colors in the noble quest for freedom.

Of course, King overcame in other ways as well.  He remained strategically focused on gaining ground — his eyes on the prize constantly — understanding that change would not be easy, understand that change wouldn’t come overnight, understanding that there would be setbacks and false starts along the way, but understanding, as he said in 1956, that “we can walk and never get weary, because we know there is a great camp meeting in the promised land of freedom and justice.”

And it’s because the Moses generation overcame that the trials we face today are very different from the ones that tested us in previous generations.  Even after the worst recession in generations, life in America is not even close to being as brutal as it was back then for so many.  That’s the legacy of Dr. King and his movement.  That’s our inheritance.  Having said that, let there be no doubt the challenges of our new age are serious in their own right, and we must face them as squarely as they faced the challenges they saw.

I know it’s been a hard road we’ve traveled this year to rescue the economy, but the economy is growing again.  The job losses have finally slowed, and around the country, there’s signs that businesses and families are beginning to rebound.  We are making progress.

I know it’s been a hard road that we’ve traveled to reach this point on health reform.  I promise you I know.  (Laughter.) But under the legislation I will sign into law, insurance companies won’t be able to drop you when you get sick, and more than 30 million people — (applause) — our fellow Americans will finally have insurance.  More than 30 million men and women and children, mothers and fathers, won’t be worried about what might happen to them if they get sick.  This will be a victory not for Democrats; this will be a victory for dignity and decency, for our common humanity.  This will be a victory for the United States of America.

Let’s work to change the political system, as imperfect as it is.  I know people can feel down about the way things are going sometimes here in Washington.  I know it’s tempting to give up on the political process.  But we’ve put in place tougher rules on lobbying and ethics and transparency — tougher rules than any administration in history.  It’s not enough, but it’s progress.  Progress is possible.  Don’t give up on voting.  Don’t give up on advocacy.  Don’t give up on activism.  There are too many needs to be met, too much work to be done.  Like Dr. King said, “We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope.”

Let us broaden our coalition, building a confederation not of liberals or conservatives, not of red states or blue states, but of all Americans who are hurting today, and searching for a better tomorrow.  The urgency of the hour demands that we make common cause with all of America’s workers — white, black, brown — all of whom are being hammered by this recession, all of whom are yearning for that spring to come.  It demands that we reach out to those who’ve been left out in the cold even when the economy is good, even when we’re not in recession — the youth in the inner cities, the youth here in Washington, D.C., people in rural communities who haven’t seen prosperity reach them for a very long time.  It demands that we fight discrimination, whatever form it may come.  That means we fight discrimination  against gays and lesbians, and we make common cause to reform our immigration system.

And finally, we have to recognize, as Dr. King did, that progress can’t just come from without — it also has to come from within.  And over the past year, for example, we’ve made meaningful improvements in the field of education.  I’ve got a terrific Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  He’s been working hard with states and working hard with the D.C. school district, and we’ve insisted on reform, and we’ve insisted on accountability.  We we’re putting in more money and we’ve provided more Pell Grants and more tuition tax credits and simpler financial aid forms.  We’ve done all that, but parents still need to parent.  (Applause.)  Kids still need to own up to their responsibilities.  We still have to set high expectations for our young people.  Folks can’t simply look to government for all the answers without also looking inside themselves, inside their own homes, for some of the answers.

Progress will only come if we’re willing to promote that ethic of hard work, a sense of responsibility, in our own lives. I’m not talking, by the way, just to the African American community.  Sometimes when I say these things people assme, well, he’s just talking to black people about working hard.  No, no, no, no.  I’m talking to the American community.  Because somewhere along the way, we, as a nation, began to lose touch with some of our core values.  You know what I’m talking about.  We became enraptured with the false prophets who prophesized an easy path to success, paved with credit cards and home equity loans and get-rich-quick schemes, and the most important thing was to be a celebrity; it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you get on TV.  That’s everybody.

We forgot what made the bus boycott a success; what made the civil rights movement a success; what made the United States of America a success — that, in this country, there’s no substitute for hard work, no substitute for a job well done, no substitute for being responsible stewards of God’s blessings.

What we’re called to do, then, is rebuild America from its foundation on up.  To reinvest in the essentials that we’ve neglected for too long — like health care, like education, like a better energy policy, like basic infrastructure, like scientific research.  Our generation is called to buckle down and get back to basics.

We must do so not only for ourselves, but also for our children, and their children.  For Jordan and for Austin.  That’s a sacrifice that falls on us to make.  It’s a much smaller sacrifice than the Moses generation had to make, but it’s still a sacrifice.

Yes, it’s hard to transition to a clean energy economy.  Sometimes it may be inconvenient, but it’s a sacrifice that we have to make.  It’s hard to be fiscally responsible when we have all these human needs, and we’re inheriting enormous deficits and debt, but that’s a sacrifice that we’re going to have to make.  You know, it’s easy, after a hard day’s work, to just put your kid in front of the TV set — you’re tired, don’t want to fuss with them — instead of reading to them, but that’s a sacrifice we must joyfully accept.

Sometimes it’s hard to be a good father and good mother. Sometimes it’s hard to be a good neighbor, or a good citizen, to give up time in service of others, to give something of ourselves to a cause that’s greater than ourselves — as Michelle and I are urging folks to do tomorrow to honor and celebrate Dr. King.  But these are sacrifices that we are called to make.  These are sacrifices that our faith calls us to make.  Our faith in the future.  Our faith in America.  Our faith in God.

And on his sermon all those years ago, Dr. King quoted a poet’s verse:
Truth forever on the scaffold Wrong forever on the throne… And behind the dim unknown stands God Within the shadows keeping watch above his own.

Even as Dr. King stood in this church, a victory in the past and uncertainty in the future, he trusted God.  He trusted that God would make a way.  A way for prayers to be answered.  A way for our union to be perfected.  A way for the arc of the moral universe, no matter how long, to slowly bend towards truth and bend towards freedom, to bend towards justice.  He had faith that God would make a way out of no way.

You know, folks ask me sometimes why I look so calm.  (Laughter.)  They say, all this stuff coming at you, how come you just seem calm?  And I have a confession to make here.  There are times where I’m not so calm.  (Laughter.)  Reggie Love knows.  My wife knows.  There are times when progress seems too slow.  There are times when the words that are spoken about me hurt.  There are times when the barbs sting.  There are times when it feels like all these efforts are for naught, and change is so painfully slow in coming, and I have to confront my own doubts.

But let me tell you — during those times it’s faith that keeps me calm.  (Applause.)  It’s faith that gives me peace.  The same faith that leads a single mother to work two jobs to put a roof over her head when she has doubts.  The same faith that keeps an unemployed father to keep on submitting job applications even after he’s been rejected a hundred times.  The same faith that says to a teacher even if the first nine children she’s teaching she can’t reach, that that 10th one she’s going to be able to reach.  The same faith that breaks the silence of an earthquake’s wake with the sound of prayers and hymns sung by a Haitian community.  A faith in things not seen, in better days ahead, in Him who holds the future in the hollow of His hand.  A faith that lets us mount up on wings like eagles; lets us run and not be weary; lets us walk and not faint.

So let us hold fast to that faith, as Joshua held fast to the faith of his fathers, and together, we shall overcome the challenges of a new age.  (Applause.)  Together, we shall seize the promise of this moment.  Together, we shall make a way through winter, and we’re going to welcome the spring.  Through God all things are possible.  (Applause.)

May the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King continue to inspire us and ennoble our world and all who inhabit it.  And may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  (Applause.)


Watch a video of the speech.

January 18th, 2010

This morning’s essay views our present crisis as an opportunity. This is a positive change from the many essays that have focused on the danger within our crisis. The author penned this essay in February 2009.


Random Encounters with Your Deep Self

Catherine Bean Weser

It is an auspicious time. The years from 2009 through 2012 are full of tremendous possibility. Energies are shifting and in cosmic time, these years are ones of cosmic awakening. To live in an awakened manner means to be fearless, present, and in a state of total freedom in the One Life.

It all starts with self-acceptance. The truth is that trying to change who you are in the moment, to become something that you think you are not, is delusion, based on an assumption of inadequacy. Cosmic awakening sees that there is no progression of events or strategies that will take you to a point of awakening. We would describe the recognition of an awakened experience as something more like a random encounter with your deep self. Your deep self is always present, although your intellect and mind often chatter to try to distract you from that knowing.

We suggest that all of you have had such random encounters with the deepest, most essential aspects of your total being, and that each random encounter is a spontaneous initiatory experience.  With these encounters as reference points of the deep self, eventually the intellect, the dualistic device designed  to hold us in time and space, relinquishes its control and you live in the awakened state fully realizing it.

The doors are always open and in the course of simply experiencing your life, you are very likely to have many random encounters with your deep self. They are those times when you have direct perception without intellectual interference, without judgment or comment from your history or your process.

Often it is in the midst of the chaos and the upheaval of your deepest and darkest issues that a random encounter occurs. Like the lotus spontaneously arising from the seemingly darkest waters, the absolute perfection of  all suddenly is realized. It is as if your attention snaps and a breakdown/breakthrough allows the unpremeditated light to shine.

All along you probably had an intuition of something more profound, underneath the heavy cloak that keeps you from your joy. The cloak drops to the floor and with a “thud” all is light once again. This is a random encounter with the deep self. It is an initiatory experience which reinforces what you know to be truth and light–what you know, but often cannot articulate or explain.

In those times when you feel despair or confusion, are engulfed by fear or ignorance, you have probably noticed that meditation is difficult if not impossible. That is because meditation has become, in that state, a strategy for the alleviation of personal distress. You unconsciously try to make meditation take you from what is to something other than what is–and it doesn’t work. Meditation is the method by which we reinforce the knowing of the silent center of our being; therefore, it is best to meditate when we are in more neutral states, and not when we want to change what we mistakenly believe to be real.

Your intellect or your dualistic mental body is tenacious; it holds on to a sense of security based on social conventions, faith, history, and many other tenets of belief. If you can shift your sense of security from what your intellect believes is real to knowing the pure creative energy you embody, you can experience liberation, freedom, and an awakened life.

If you are secure in your creativity, then you will have an answer or response for anything that should confront you. If you respond creatively to every challenge you face, all possibilities exist and all results are possible. This flexibility is going to be especially useful in the next three years when it is likely that there will be many changes and challenges confronting most people on the planet.

When we speak about creativity, we speak about the willingness to try something new. Ask yourself if you are relying primarily on old responses from the past–which may not even have worked in the past—and become willing to be different. Whenever you are willing to change, you open a door allowing a random encounter with your deep self.

Just as in the movie The Matrix, anomalies cause the whole system, or paradigm, to reboot; anomalies cause the evolution of the program. You cannot stay in the Matrix and try to be safe within it by following all its rules while simultaneously knowing that you live outside of the Matrix also.

It would not be wise to try to do everything your dualistic mental body tells you to do to be safe in the old paradigm, while you are also deeply aware of being in a new paradigm of an awakened, liberated life. When you respond to a situation creatively, doing something different than what you have done in the past, reality shifts and the tenacious intellect succumbs to a supra-intellectual reality.

Random encounters of the deep self, spontaneous initiatory experiences, cannot be discounted. Embracing these experiences creates constant reconfiguration of reality constructs and your security becomes dependent on your ability to respond in a creative manner to the ever-changing moment.

The point we wish to make is that randomness is something to embrace—the thought or the idea that you should be in bliss all the time embraces static sameness and actually seeks a kind of safety that is illusion. Believing that things are going wrong if you experience something difficult indicates an egoic attachment to the divisibility of experience as something to accept or something to reject.

This will get you stuck in linearity and keep you thinking that life needs to be evaluated, and you will be so busy with you inner ledger sheets that you will miss the experience of every moment. All your experience is indivisible from your self. This is where “being” comes in.

So what can you do to enhance or promote random encounters with your deep self?

Come together with others with the same intention to activate, realize, stabilize and transform our habituated thought processes and inner “stories” of reality. Accept who you are right now and live with indivisibility. Love the moment and love life.

.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Catherine Bean Weser.

More by Catherine Bean Weser

January 7th, 2010

A cautionary tale is reposted from The Automatic Earth.


Size Matters, But So Does Courage!

Ilargi

The case of Iceland and its financial shenanigans is, if nothing else, intriguing and amusing. Not for some of the people involved, I know, and I mean no disrespect. But it is in the way the situation is dealt with and in how various parties try to come out on top.

A short background: Iceland had 3 main banks who all, albeit to various degrees, made unrealistic profits for investors and depositors in early 21st century times, and then went bust. One bank, Icesave, which had many clients in England and Holland, owes these clients some $6 billion, a sum the Iceland government is held responsible for and initially seems to have agreed to pay. The people of Iceland, all 320,000 of them as it were, have started questioning why they should pay for foreign investors’ losses with banks with whom they have no connection other than that they happen to be located in their country.

Britain’s decision to put Iceland on some terror alert list because of the banking affair is likely a big factor in this, as well as in the decision by the president to let the people decide in a referendum on February 20 whether they want to pay back the losses of foreign investors who had accounts with Icesave only so they could get a few basis points more interest on their funds. It doesn’t look like they will.

Which may put Iceland on some black list, with the IMF threatening to withdraw emergency funds and Scandinavian loans in peril. The Dutch threat to block Iceland’s entry into the EU is seen in Reykjavik as similar to Britain’s terror list boondoggle. The prevailing sentiment these days among the geysers can best be summarized like this: “We may be small, but we ain’t your bitch”. And that is a sentiment that may provoke a lot of sympathy, provided the Icelanders play their cards right.

In the next 6 weeks they will come under huge international pressure to pay up or else, for there’s nothing the international community fears more than members who don’t play by the rules, no matter how inane and insane they are. Plus, of course, Iceland is not some small African nation full of poor black people, it’s a small European nation full of the kind of people that wealthy US and EU citizens can identify with: white and relatively affluent. They could be your neighbors. They could be your family. They could be you.

So how reasonable is it for Britain and the Netherlands to demand restitution of losses suffered? Interesting question. The answer is not that easy, since it begs the next question. Who is to blame for the losses? There’s the bankers, who went megalomaniacal, and got much bigger than banks based in what is population-wise not more than a mid-size town ought to be. But Iceland is a member of the EEA, the European Economic Area, which gives its banks the right to expand to the rest of the EU.

So alright, let’s see. First to blame: the bankers. Second: The Icelandic government, who should have regulated its banks much closer. Third, the governments of Holland and England, who should have done due diligence and demanded far more strict guarantees from the banks. Fourth, the Dutch and British investors, individuals, local governments and companies, who all should have read the fine print. Fifth, the people of Iceland, who were living it up with the cash floating in freely.

But we all know how blame moves. The investors point to their own governments, who didn’t warn them. These governments point to the government of Iceland, which didn’t warn them. That government points to the bankers, who went nuts, but who they still have to cover for. And last, the people of Iceland point to all of the above and say they should all have been wiser, and the fact that they were not doesn’t mean Icelanders now have to fork over, no matter how certain parties like to interpret laws and regulations. Some things just don’t feel right.

And what do we feel about this, who are not directly affected by any of it? Well, try this one on for size. If you allow me to numb and dumb down the numbers a bit, the US at 308 million citizens is about 1000 times bigger than Iceland (320,000). Which means that the US equivalent of what the British and Dutch are demanding from Icelanders would be, loosely, $6 trillion. Now what would you say the odds are that the American people would agree to pay that kind of money, if it were payment for what their banks have (mis-)done in the past, to a group of foreign investors? Let’s say Chinese and Japanese?

I may be wrong, of course, but I have the feeling that I know what Americans would think of that. They’d be marching in the streets, on their way to embassies and consulates, if not private businesses. They’d say: we have a hard enough time ourselves as it is, and we ain’t paying no foreigners who weren’t making sure they knew what they were doing.

The same reaction would come in London and Amsterdam as well, naturally. Funny thing is that the governments there were very quick to guarantee their citizens’ losses, and only after that claimed them back from Reykjavik. There doesn’t seem to be any legal obligation for them to do so, it looks more like an election-related issue. There are all sorts of depositor protection schemes in place, that’s true enough, but everyone could have known that the established $30,000 guarantee from Iceland for every depositor account wasn’t worth much, given that it’s backed only by the full faith and credit of 320,000 people. Britain is what, 200 times bigger than that?

But in the end, as I’m pondering all this, what is probably the most interesting part of it is that the American people ARE in fact in the same boat as the Icelanders. The main difference between them may well be that the latter stand up for themselves, where the former don’t understand what’s going on. The US government has indeed already pledged $14 trillion in public funds (with a total risk of up to $24 trillion) for US bank losses. It’s just that American banks are covered by the ability of the US to borrow enough money in international markets to cover their losses, something for which Iceland is simply too small. And also, the US gets to bleep around with accounting rules, so bank losses can remain hidden for a long time (though not forever).

So while it may look like the situations are entirely different, they’re not really. On the ground level, it’s the citizens who are being forced to pay for institutional gambling debts, the old adage of keep profits private and make losses public. China doesn’t go to Obama to demand payment guarantees tomorrow morning, but it’s all just a matter of size. That size determines that the Icelandic situation is far more transparent, since smaller make simpler. But down the line, the Iceland banks weren’t the greatest gamblers, it was Wall Street and the City of London. And the $20,000 that Icelanders “owe” per capita (in the eyes of others) isn’t really the issue, it won’t kill them. They just take a stand against what they see as bullies.

The amount Americans “owe”, though, is already more than twice as much per capita at $14 trillion. And there’s no end in sight, since none of that money has been used to actively solve problems, it’s all merely hiding them for a while longer.

In other words, here’s waiting for the moment Americans become more like Icelanders, and stand up against bullies (I’m sure Oprah has advice to provide on the topic). But also, here’s not holding any breath, and here’s expecting that by the time any sizeable group stands up, the amounts owed will be a multiple of $20,000 and enough to generate debt and poverty for years, if not decades, to come.

And you know what the funniest thing about it all is? In America it wouldn’t even take 320,000 people standing up, for real, to change policies and history in a heartbeat.

But they’re not there. They’re in Iceland.

Size matters. But so does courage.