Profit may not be Satanic, but when it is coming from the privatization of that which ought to be held in common, or from theft from ordinary workers, it is wrong.

This is an excerpt from an essay in the 10/31 Boston Globe by Neil Gabler, entitled "The gaggle of economic sociopaths":

"Garden-variety sociopaths - say,
rapists or serial murderers - are reviled and typically punished. But
when economic sociopaths were plundering the country, they were being
lionized as bold entrepreneurs, financial buccaneers, even rock stars.
In the financial press, they were gods.

Even when the economy crashed, these
sociopaths didn’t receive the full opprobrium they deserve, and they
aren’t chastened. They continue to argue against any serious financial
regulation or reform, and they continue to defend their obscene payouts
on the grounds that the compensated executives are necessary to save
the very economy they helped ruin. There is a Yiddish word for this
sort of audacity: chutzpah.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a matter of a few bad apples or even of an
entire barrel of rotten apples. The real and nearly intractable problem
is that economic sociopathy isn’t an aberration on Wall Street. This
behavior is the very basis of American finance.

Derivatives, credit swap defaults, complicated hedge funds, convoluted
Ponzi schemes - these were all designed to make bankers richer with the
added advantage that they were so complex they couldn’t be policed. The
average American was never part of their calculation, except as a mark."

The prescription from the Obama administration has been tighter
regulation and other reforms. But the likelihood that these would work,
even if the administration were really serious about them (and, after
all, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Larry
Summers move easily in the world of economic sociopaths), is small
since the financiers are not only sociopaths, they are also known
recidivists.

Paul:

Where does one begin with this article?

"President Obama signed an extension of unemployment benefits for the jobless, allowing them to spend nearly two full years on the dole."

but:

"'Barclays’ CEO, in defense of his industry,  recently said, 'profit is not satanic.' A Goldman Sachs International advisor seconded the thought, adding, 'We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all.'”

Profits are not satanic when they are derived from Labor that creates value from the product made and services provided as opposed to asset appreciation derived speculation on CDO falsely AAA rated and insured by CDS having no reserves and little transparency. You might as well go to Las Vegas and play the roulette wheel or craps. And the Goldman Sachs International Advisor indirectly telling those who are living "on the dole" the "inequity must be tolerated" so Labor may prosper. When we see the W$ investments return to US manufacturing that are presently flowing overseas and into derivatives, then we will see Labor begin to prosper. Other wise, Labor has experienced a "permanent" reduction in the amount of people from the NonInstitutional Civilian Population participating in the Civilian Labor Force which started immediately after the 2001 recession.

For starters, lets get back the ~$180 billion loaned to AIG to save Sachs and other investment banks speculating in CDO/MBS, CDS, etc. This would include the $12 billion funneled to Sachs through AIG and the funds funneled to other Investment Banks as well. Until AIG antes up, any talk of TARP making a profit is silly.  The new holding banks, such as Sachs, can either be Holding Banks or Investment Firms; but, they should not be allowed to be both and have access to the low interest loans from the government. W$ has proven in the past that what is good for W$ is not necessarily good for Main Street America and Labor. W$'s avenue of profit is not Main Street or domestic Labor producing investments. Manufacturing and Labor needs a TARP fund for itself, completely transparent and not the same as the W$ TARP that lacked transparency. Main Street does not believe anything is being done to reinstitute job creation to get them "off the dole" and in that they are correct.

U3 in 1982 and U3 in 2009 are not the same numbers although they are based upon the same percentage of the NonInstitutional Civilian Population as a part of the Civilian Labor Force. What makes this recession worse is the numbers of people who have dropped out of the Civilian Labor Force and into the "Not In Labor" category. From 1982 onward to 2001, we experienced a growing percentage of the NonInstitutional Civilian Population participating in the Civilian Labor Force. It peaked in the late nineties, through 2000, and into 2001 in a super heated economy that caused many boats to rise but not gain equity. With the 2001 recession, the percentage dropped at the end to a perceivably normal percentage of 66.7/8% (Participation Rate) and continued its downward trend from then until today's Participation Rate of 65.1%, a decrease pf such magnitude not experienced in the US Labor Force and perhaps a new plateau.

The decrease in Participation Rate is ~3.8 million people not counted in the official U3 calulation and not totally picked up in the U-6 calculation. The percentage unemployed is higher then 17.5% when this number is taken into consideration completely and marginally employed are fully accounted for also. From "Calculated Risk" this Graph represents the numbers of jobs lost during each recession since WWII and as you can see, this is the worst recession since WII and it does not taken into account an additonal 800,000 payroll jobs lost which the calculation will appear the beginning of next year in BLS numbers. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SvQmqFmXogI/AAAAAAAAGvE/YQrQHOu9KBU/s1600-h/EmploymentRecessionsOct.jpg Year over Year changes in in employment already make this recession the worst since WWII as relected in this "Calculated Risk" graph: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SvQmp44WUdI/AAAAAAAAGu8/9WcGlAVZjD4/s1600-h/EmploymentOct.jpg 

Spencer (Economist) at "Angry Bear" produces a monthly Unemployment Report which goes well beyond BLS or the W$J. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/11/employment-report.html "Employment Report." In Spencer's first graph we can see an improvement in hourly wages earned for the month; but, there is no change in the Year over Year trend. Improvements to the production by fewer workers would cause this to happen; but, it should not be construed as an overall improvement. 24 months out from the start of the recession, we can see the trend in Aggregate Hours worked is still downward http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SvQ6C4r5uoI/AAAAAAAAA9M/02s3Bq1ic6g/s1600-h/Clipboard02.jpg surpassing any other recession since WWII in the decrease of aggregate hours and in the length of the decrease proving Unemployment is not improving and hopefully is still a lagging factor.

I do not see anything in the news or the W$J to get excited about. Yes Unemployment may be bottoming; but if it bottoms out, the implication put forth by the talking heads is there will be instantaneous job gains. "Not" and we may sit at the bottom for months to come. While profits are not satanic, I find W$. in particular Sach's, attitude to be boorish and rude especially when W$ and banking's lack of fiscal responsibiliy can be linked as a major cause of much of the unemployment experienced today. Reflective of the devil a make care attitude shown by W$ and banks is the recent American Banking Association annual meeting held in Chicago which was kicked off with a Sunday "Roaring Twenties" theme party. If it is believed this goes without notice by the general public, it doesn't. At the same time. thousands of people from all over the country descended upon Chicago to attend "Showdown In Chicago" http://www.showdowninchicago.org/ and they marched to WF bank, Sachs, and the ABA's party and their annual meeting. People such as Senator Durbin came to talk to the assembly of disgusted people who have been foreclosed on, face foreclosure, are fighting with banks and lost jobs. And the ABA's answer to them was "one" rehab home donated . . .

Kind of a long post and I am sorry for its length. You opened a can of worms here. Please make sure this is posted with the proper paragraph breaks!

regards,