Slavery - The Sherman Act - Felonies - Goldman officials & Lehman...

[WhiskeyGirl]

How do you say insiders and lobbyists and special interest?  Conflicts of interest?

Americans have a right to wonder whether the nation’s onetime rightful support for “free markets” and “limited government” has morphed into a self-dealing system that is now more akin to what happened in Russia in the 1990s, when well-connected oligarchs simply ripped off the country in the name of privatization. Well, now here in the U.S. we have just seen the “privatization” of nearly a trillion dollars.

That’s a concentration of power–an axis between Washington and New York–that we haven’t seen since the 19th century.

So what to do? Is there any recourse? How to break up this power-combine, while not jeopardizing the economy?

One new idea is an old idea: anti-trust.

The grand-daddy of all anti-trust statutes, The Sherman Act, passed in 1890, declares “conspiracy” in “restraint of trade” to be a felony. And in those many Goldman officials spinning through the DC-NYC revolving door, one might wonder if a conspiracy in restraint of trade has been taking place, right before our eyes.

OK, from a legal point of view, it’s probably a stretch to say that government officials are “restraining trade,” but as a practical matter, restraining trade is exactly what they are doing–ask Lehman.

Surely, what we are seeing in Washington and New York is an obvious case of ongoing cronyism, a concentration of power that can’t possibly be in the public interest.

As noted, George W. Bush–with plenty of help from Congressional Democrats–presided over a terrible worsening of the problem.

But now it’s Barack Obama’s problem. After all, he voted for the bailout last year, and as we have seen, he seems happy using the “talents” of some of the same Wall Streeters who caused the problem–most obviously, Robert Rubin who went from Goldman to the Clinton Administration to Citigroup to the Obama campaign, until leaving Citi as it tailspun into near-insolvency.

So what should Republicans be thinking? Should Republicans continue to support policies, such as the bailout, which transfer money from the red-state heartland to New York City? Is that good policy, or good politics? Although many Republicans voted for the bailout last year, the Congressional wing of the GOP seems to have regained its footing–and its good sense.

...opposing further boondoggles isn’t enough. If various banks and brokerages are “too big to fail,” then maybe they are too big, period.

Hence, anti-trust. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it should be noted, was sponsored by a Republican Senator, enacted by a Republican Congress, and signed by a Republican President, Benjamin Harrison. No Republican who is not an anarchist should object to setting fair rules for commerce, as Sen. Sherman sought to do 119 years ago. And what we are seeing now is obviously not fair.

If you weren’t invited to be part of this new venture, well, you’re not alone. All but a handful of Americans were excluded from the pork-and-gravy train. But precisely because 99 percent of Americans were left out—that’s the beginning of a new counter-coalition.

Meanwhile, the biggest financial ripoff in history is hiding in plain sight, with no end in sight.

So Republicans should be looking for a new approach, attacking unjust concentrations of power wherever they are found, even in Washington. As we have seen in the last month, it’s far from clear that these fatcats know what’s good for the country, although it’s supremely evident that they are closely attuned to their own self-interest.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/29/pinkerton_treasury/

What happened to integrity?  Honesty?  When does the party by financial special interest groups come to an end? 

How many future enerations of Americans will live in poverty?  How many trinkets will the new administration offer up to the ignorant in exchange for debt bondage?

Slavery has been around for thousands of years.  IIRC, slave traders often offered trinkets to locals in exchange for bodies to sell to others.    I am sure that is a simplified version.  Today, children and women are sold for their labor or services and their families and middlemen enjoy all the wealth that the western lifestyle has to offer - internet, TV, phones...

The children suffer for years - their lives have been sold by family and middlemen and their futures wasted...all for the profit of a few.

How ironic that a new charismatic face is offering up trinkets to locals - have a new TV, snake oil, water from the fountain of youth...don't worry how your children and grandchildren are going to pay for it...

It's all transparent...a new accountability...see all the wonderful things your taxdollars are buying today...don't worry about who will pay the price...

jmho