[wasabi]

America Is a Failed State Because It Won’t Prosecute Financial Crime



Washington’s Blog
April 15, 2011

It is now mainstream news that none of the big financial criminals have been prosecuted.

...

Source:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rbc]

No, America is a corrupt state run by and for the big corporations.

It is not, however, a failed state, because the big corporations still allow it to provide police, fire, and other basic social services to keep their employees quiet.

[OdinokiyVolk]

	Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	state run by and for the big corporations.

That's called fascism.

	Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is not, however, a failed state yet, because the big corporations still allow it to provide police, fire, and other basic social services to keep their employees quiet.

There seem to be multiple examples where that statement is no longer true.
So.. I'd say the "yet" there is needed.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by OdinokiyVolk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's called fascism.

Yup, sure is. And how about the aggressive militarism? That goes right along with the corporation-worship.

	Originally Posted by OdinokiyVolk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd say the "yet" there is needed.

Me too, unfortunately.

A truly failed state doesn't prosecute financial crime (or any other kind of crime) because it can't. The US could, at least in theory. The day will probably come, though, and probably fairly soon, when it can't.

(Crosses fingers and really hopes to be wrong. Please, universe, embarrass me deeply. Make me look like an idiot. Please??)

[OdinokiyVolk]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A truly failed state doesn't prosecute financial crime (or any other kind of crime) because it can't. The US could, at least in theory. The day will probably come, though, and probably fairly soon, when it can't.

In theory, you can also spontaneously combust right now.
In theory, a winning lottery ticket can come flying through your open window (because actually BUYING a lottery ticket isnt as likely even in theory, at least for me).

Everything is possible in theory. Some things are just mathematically improbable.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by OdinokiyVolk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's called fascism.

Fascism is a poorly defined phenomenon and people still debate about what characterizes it. I can tell you that Nazi Germany wasn't run by big corporations though. German big business being largely responsible for the rise of the Nazis is a myth. Fascism isn't always characterized by corporatism nor is corporatism an indicator of fascism.

[OdinokiyVolk]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fascism is a poorly defined phenomenon and people still debate about what characterizes it. I can tell you that Nazi Germany wasn't run by big corporations though. German big business being largely responsible for the rise of the Nazis is a myth. Fascism isn't always characterized by corporatism nor is corporatism an indicator of fascism.

Benito Mussolini coined the term “fascism” in 1919 to describe his political movement. He adopted the ancient Roman fasces as his symbol. This was a bundle of rods tied around an ax, which represented the power of Rome. Mussolini established the first fascist regime, followed soon after by others, including Nazi Germany. Fascism, however, differed somewhat from one nation to another. Thus, scholars often disagree on a precise definition of fascism. Even so, they tend to agree on its common characteristics such as: * Absolute Power of the State: Fascist regimes have a strong centralized state, or national government. The fascist state seeks total control over all major parts of society. Individuals must give up their private needs and rights to serve the needs of the whole society as represented by the state. * Rule by a Dictator: A single dictator runs the fascist state and makes all the important decisions. This leader often uses charisma, a magnetic personality, to gain the support of the people. * Corporatism: Fascists believe in taming capitalism by controlling labor and factory owners. Unions, strikes, and other labor actions are illegal. Although private property remains, the state controls the economy. * Extreme Nationalism: The fascist state uses national glory and the fear of outside threats to build a new society based on the “common will” of the people. Fascists believe in action and looking at national myths for guidance rather than relying on the “barren intellectualism” of science and reason. * Superiority of the Nation’s People: Fascists hold up the nation’s people as superior to other nationalities. They typically strengthen and unify the dominant group in a nation while stifling dissent and persecuting minority groups. * Militarism and Imperialism: Fascists believe that great nations show their greatness by conquering and ruling weak nations. Fascists believe the state can survive only if it successfully proves its military superiority in war.

Everything aside from 'dictator' and perhaps absolute power of the state - and even these are debatable - reeks of USA, to me.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by OdinokiyVolk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Everything aside from 'dictator' and perhaps absolute power of the state - and even these are debatable - reeks of USA, to me.

Most of those bullet points are debatable. I disagree with the corporatism bullet too (pretty sure you got that from wikipedia), Nazi Germany was basically capitalism and the government took control of key businesses that were needed for the war effort. There is also no way Americans suffer from extreme nationalism. What can you even point to that indicates extreme nationalism? There is no common will in the U.S. if anything we are too individualistic. We can't even pass laws without bickering.

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A truly failed state doesn't prosecute financial crime (or any other kind of crime) because it can't. The US could, at least in theory. The day will probably come, though, and probably fairly soon, when it can't.

In my view, the US is already beyond that point. There are simply far too few financial fraud investigators, even if the prosecutors and regulatory officials could somehow be persuaded to do the work the government pays them to do, let alone do it well.

That being said, the US is far from what I'd call a failed state. The lack of a system of equal justice is one failing of many that would be necessary for the US to qualify for that title. The circumstances are dire with respect to the future prosperity of the country, not its survival.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fascism isn't always characterized by corporatism nor is corporatism an indicator of fascism.

As I understand it, Mussolini's "corporatism" was not a reference to the modern corporation in the first place. He was referring to stuff like ethnic groups and subcultural movements - tribal corporates. The private man or "family" within the state, as an agent of the state, such that state and nation are indistinguishable. Think Hitler Youth and stuff like that, not Verizon.

[Einarr]

It is a failed state because it maintains the illusion of a democratic republic all the while it is in reality a Kleptocracy perpetrated by governmental and corporate corruption.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As I understand it, Mussolini's "corporatism" was not a reference to the modern corporation in the first place. He was referring to stuff like ethnic groups and subcultural movements - tribal corporates. The private man or "family" within the state, as an agent of the state, such that state and nation are indistinguishable. Think Hitler Youth and stuff like that, not Verizon.

I know very little about Mussolini's particular brand of fascism, but from things I have read corporatism was always in reference to big business. The wikipedia article mentions corporatism under Mussolini as being related to economics. I'm not saying you're wrong, I doubt you are, but I'm just curious about the distinction between the economic system and what you seem to be saying. Are you saying fascism under Mussolini didn't involve corporatism (big business)?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you saying fascism under Mussolini didn't involve corporatism (big business)?

It most certainly did...for example, the founders of Fiat, the Agnelli family, were removed after WWII due to their close relationship with Mussolini. Fiat produced most of Italy's vehicles and aircraft Mussolini used in WWII. Fortunately, their models paled in comparison to American, British, and Soviet weaponry.

[HIDE="Fiat M15"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

[TheCapitalist90]

I can hardly fault the corporations. I fault Wallstreet banks and the gov. The reason why a lot of these insufficient, reckless wallstreet guys aren't in jail is due to crony-ism, because not only is the gov bought out by wallstreet there are even wallstreet guys in top positions of government who were responsible for aiding the events that lead to the crisis.

[Napolean]

	Originally Posted by OdinokiyVolk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's called fascism. There seem to be multiple examples where that statement is no longer true. So.. I'd say the "yet" there is needed.

Oligarchy seems to fit better than one size fits all "fascism".

With fascism, the power is monopolized to one individual, and overthrowing a fascist is almost always a violent endeavor.

In our situation, it could actually be done peacefully but applying the free market the way its supposed to be used.

Big companies once in a position with a big market share, relax their quality standards because their brands sell more product than the reliability and durability of their product.

Once in that position of "large business, cheap products" competing with "small business, expensive products", it seems hopeless that a small company trying to market *good* products will even have a shot.

Most give up and usually scrape moderate success by following the larger businesses model, consumer expectations lower and most people don't really think anything of it that they have to buy a new DVD player every 15 months, but their VCR from 1980 still works fine.

Large businesses still try to keep a foot hold by lobbying with government to put in regulations that only apply to their competitors, and may even exclude them.

The remedy is still the same though, produce a better and more reliable product than everyone else and eventually the market will be yours. There's no way around it other than oppressive regulation on smaller businesses, and using the tax code as another advantage. (There are still workarounds even so, nobody says that a product produced in China actually has to be lower quality).

All its going to take is for new businesses to be ready to take the tougher road. Or, massive government reform that makes government less hostile toward small businesses trying to grow.

This will then diminish the strangle hold the huge businesses have in Washington.

While long winded, this is still simplified and there is still more to our situation. A lot of things need to be fixed. The big issue I didn't even mention was that these financial crimes weren't just not prosecuted, the people with the most red ink on their hands have been hired as advisors for our government.

[Urshulgi]

I think we can learn from Iceland's example. They let their "too big to fail" banks fail, and they're doing okay now.

I think that over the past 31 years Wall St has proven time and again that the value they remove from the economy is far greater than the value of what they put back. We've got an entire subsector of the economy that can only seem to function well when it's stealing from every other sector of the economy.

They've stolen so much for so long though that they've bought out the government and rigged the game to even further benefit them. They just gamble with other people's money: Heads they win, tails you lose.

[Napolean]

Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think we can learn from Iceland's example. They let their "too big to fail" banks fail, and they're doing okay now. I think that over the past 31 years Wall St has proven time and again that the value they remove from the economy is far greater than the value of what they put back. We've got an entire subsector of the economy that can only seem to function well when it's stealing from every other sector of the economy. They've stolen so much for so long though that they've bought out the government and rigged the game to even further benefit them. They just gamble with other people's money: Heads they win, tails you lose.

Whats interesting is things like this happen is all aspects of other things.

Like pandemics, something like avian flu is not nearly as deadly to small populations as it is to larger ones. The main reason its so lethal is because most of us live in big cities where its nearly impossible to not share the same breath with 20 other people while running a few errands.

It's like earth regulating itself, and because of this "function", we will never see a point in time where earth is filled with trillions of humans packed like sardines coast to coast.

Inefficient business have to fail. Enabling them to continue will only cause the enabler to fall with them.

For example, we have two different types of human beings. One has an extremely efficient digestive system, the other not to much. The humane thing to do for the group of humans who cant digest food as efficiently is to give them more food to compensate for the nutrients their digestive system leaves behind.

This results in less food for the more efficient eaters, but its okay at first because they don't need to eat much anyways. But eventually as both groups reproduce, the food supply gets smaller and smaller until there isn't enough food left for either group.

At this point one of two things happens, both groups die out. Or, they ration food and the inefficient eaters still starve to death, while the efficient eaters get by.

The reality is a terrifying one, the efficient eaters wanted and tried everything to help the inefficient eaters, but there were no long term solutions except to find a way to make the inefficient eaters into efficient eaters.

Luckily, in the financial world, we can turn inefficient eaters into efficient ones. We can't do it by surgery or medications though, we have to do it by education and experience.

The solution here is not to feed the inefficient eaters, the solution is to allow things to run their course so, to allow them to get hungry, and learn themselves to be more efficient. If they don't learn, they starve. It's not cruel, the ability to survive is well within their grasps, they had all the resources needed to become efficient, they even had handfuls of people to teach them how.

If after all this they still starve, it's their own fault.

[wasabi]

	If after all this they still starve, it's their own fault.

You see, the problem is that they are not the ones who are paying for their own faults. It is the efficient eaters who are paying for the others fault. Then, how many people do you think has to starve to death before the inefficient eaters start dieing out? 10%? 50%? Perhaps all of them?

I belive all efficient eaters could die out before inefficient eaters start facing the consequences.

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fiat produced most of Italy's vehicles and aircraft Mussolini used in WWII.

The most famous Japanese plane of the war (the A6M "Zero") was made by Mitsubishi. The biggest and baddest German tank of the war (the PzKw VI B) was made by Porsche. British tanks and planes were built by Rolls-Royce and other famous British companies. American tanks and planes were built by General Motors, Chrysler, and other famous American companies. WWII is a bit of a bad example in this case, since all the major powers with private industry simply had to mobilize it for war in an attempt to survive.

On the other hand, one could definitely use WWII to make a reasonable argument that in order to fight a total war, a country pretty much has to become totalitarian overall.

[Napolean]

	Originally Posted by wasabi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You see, the problem is that they are not the ones who are paying for their own faults. It is the efficient eaters who are paying for the others fault. Then, how many people do you think has to starve to death before the inefficient eaters start dieing out? 10%? 50%? Perhaps all of them? I belive all efficient eaters could die out before inefficient eaters start facing the consequences.

I never said they were, that was actually my point.

My analogy was an optimistic one, it is much more likely that the inefficient eaters would be snuffed out by the inefficient eaters.

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by Napolean To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oligarchy seems to fit better than one size fits all "fascism".

I prefer oligopoly -- it makes the monetary connection more apparent, and points to the fact that while America does have a few political families, for the most part it is the corporations who dominate; and they are largely not run by families, but by the private business version of communist apparatchiks.

[Napolean]

	Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On the other hand, one could definitely use WWII to make a reasonable argument that in order to fight a total war, a country pretty much has to become totalitarian overall.

I would disagree. The threat of an oppressive army and the consequences of their success should be a lot more motivating than any consequences your current government could dish out.

At some point, pushing too hard would actually make the people sympathetic to the opposition if their own government mistreats them too harshly.

[stasis]

Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I know very little about Mussolini's particular brand of fascism, but from things I have read corporatism was always in reference to big business. The wikipedia article mentions corporatism under Mussolini as being related to economics. I'm not saying you're wrong, I doubt you are, but I'm just curious about the distinction between the economic system and what you seem to be saying. Are you saying fascism under Mussolini didn't involve corporatism (big business)?

Big business in the sense that it exists today did not exist prior to World War Two. Today's big business makes the big business of yesteryear look like a mom and pop operation. I don't mean to suggest that Mussolini wasn't concerned with economics in his Doctrine of Fascism, just that he wasn't really talking about the modern corporation when he talked about "corporatism". Today's business corporation is far too international and too large to be confined within any one state. I think the fascists of the 1930s would've despised it.

When you read people say that "the basic unit of society is the family" in a political context, that is a lot closer to "corporatism" in the fascist sense than someone saying "let's not prosecute Bill Gates" in the same context. It means that the individual is not the basic or indivisible element of society, but rather that a hierarchical group of individuals - or "the corporate" - who organize traditionally along ethnic, cultural, and economic themes is from whence civilization comes. This is to say that there is no state without nationhood; that nation and state are indistinguishable; that there is no civilized life outside of or apart from the purview of the state. If anything, the manner in which organic or tribal corporates have previously been integrated into the fascist state (see:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) might have the likes of CEOs executed for the crimes of their corporate body.

People seem to take Mussolini's words somewhat out of their time when diagnosing modern fascism. The stuff about big business sort of intersects with pop-cynicism about capitalism, so the terminology sticks. I don't think the critique usually goes beyond that. This is my understanding, at least.

[therrirl]

Yes, banking fault, specifically FED . . . .

[themuzicman]

Sorry, but exactly what crimes have been committed that executives should be prosecuted for?