Wednesday, September 28, 2016

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: DID BILL CLINTON CAUSE THE 2008 ECONOMIC MELTDOWN?

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS AND THE FINAL 

DEATH OF AMERICA'S MIDDLE CLASS AS 

THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE EXPANDS 

TO ALL 49 OTHER MEXIFORNIAS

On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008. “We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,&r...

Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession


On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since 2008.
“We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”
In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008. What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the numbers were declining.
The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households, disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to just 24 percent.
The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown as a problem -- remember “Murphy Brown” -- let alone as an explanation for the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the deplorables” as they would come to be known.
The Clintons found the confirmation they were looking for in a 1991 study by the Federal Reserve. According to the study, 61 percent of blacks had been approved in their quest for government-backed home loans as compared to 77 percent for whites. Bingo!
To make the racism story line work, the Clintons had to ignore another significant set of data, namely, default rates. A comprehensive HUD study of FHA loans for the years 1992-1999 found that blacks were defaulting more than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three times more frequently. If minorities had been held to a higher standard, their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. This was obvious.
No matter. As early as 1993, HUD began to bring legal action against those mortgage bankers who declined a higher percentage of minorities than whites. In 1995, the Clinton administration put teeth in Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had merely “encouraged” financial institutions to “help meet the credit needs of local communities.” Under Clinton, regulators moved from encouraging to strong-arming.
The regulators were backed by the street-level bullyboy tactics of the late and unlamented ACORN, shorthand for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Historically, banks had been reluctant to offer home loans to people who might not pay them back, and so ACORN set out to embarrass bankers into overcoming that reluctance.
A sympathetic media romanticized ACORN and turned what might have been a nuisance for the banks into a public-relations nightmare. As the New York Timesreported approvingly, “The nation’s largest banks have come to the negotiating table just to silence objections that could derail or create costly delays to a merger.”
To make ACORN’s task easier, the Clinton administration demanded that banks quantify the progress they were making in giving loans to LMIs -- people of “low and moderate income.” The administration encouraged banks to use “innovative or flexible” lending practices to reach their LMI numbers.
Meanwhile HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals for affordable housing, even if that meant buying subprime mortgages. The media cheered the agencies on. A September 1999 Times article commended Fannie Mae for prodding banks to provide mortgages to those whose credit was “not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.”
With a gun to their head, the lenders turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relieve them of the imprudent loans they were now being forced to make. Before the 1990s, Fannie and Freddie had sufficiently tough lending standards that default was not much of an issue. That would change.
In 1999, the Clintons’ newly appointed CEO, Franklin Delano Raines, was boasting of the changes Fannie Mae had already made and the changes to come. As he told the Times, Fannie Mae had lowered the down payment requirements for a home and now planned to extend credit to borrowers a “notch below its traditional standards.” That notch was spelled subprime.
Given the greater risk, subprime prospects typically have had to pay more interest to secure a loan. For investors, high interest translated into high yield. In October 1997, the investment banks Bear Stearns and First Union Capital Markets underwrote the first securitization of subprime loans for a total of $385 million.
The back-patting press release announcing the launch hit all the bubble-era hot buttons: these “affordable” and “flexible” mortgages offered the possibility of credit for “low and moderate income families” in “traditionally underserved markets.”
These securities proved enormously popular. They promised a 7.5 percent yield in a low-interest environment and, if that were not enough, a chance to cleanse one’s venal Wall Street soul by doing what appeared to be a social good.
To rally the base a week before the 2000 election, the Clinton administration announced historic new regulations that would put a further squeeze on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “These new regulations will greatly enhance access to affordable housing for minorities, urban residents, new immigrants and others left behind, giving millions of families the opportunity to buy homes,” said HUD Secretary, now New York State governor, Andrew Cuomo.
The regs upped Fannie and Freddie’s “affordable housing” quota from 42 to 50 percent. “We have not been a major presence in the subprime market,” boasted CEO Raines, “but you can bet that under these goals, we will be.”
Raines deflected criticism by focusing on Fannie Mae’s success at social engineering. “We have met or exceeded our affordable housing goals, even as they have increased,” he told the Congressional Finance Committee in late 2003. He also shared the company’s “voluntary goal,” namely, to “lead the market in serving minority families.”
When President Bush expressed concern about the precarious state of Fannie and Freddie in June 2004, he triggered seventy-six Democrats in Congress to sign a letter warning that “an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.”
Despite early signs of impending disaster, Congress kept the pressure on. On June 27, 2005, Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on House Financial Services Committee, took to the House floor to chide those who worried about a housing bubble.
“You are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble,” he lectured his colleagues. “So those on our committee in particular are going to continue to push for homeownership.”
And push they did. Subprime credit had become, what one wag called, “the mad cow disease of structured finance.” With a clean bill of health from the media and the Democrats, and a shockingly ignorant assist from Wall Street, the infected product was allowed to poison the entire economy.
No sweat for Hillary. The final convulsion -- Phew! -- occurred on George Bush’s watch.



OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS FOR THE RICH: 
On behalf of bankster-owned Barack Obama, Yellen vows to the rich and crony banksters that they will be protected and subsidized with no strings bailouts during the next looming economic meltdown around the corner from elections.

“In fact, these policies have already produced financial and asset bubbles that are unsustainable, and there are increasing signs of financial instability and crisis. There are growing warnings that the spread of negative interest rates is leading to a new financial meltdown even worse than the disaster that struck eight years ago.”


"The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s."




AMERICA'S ROAD TO REVOLUTION




 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan 

THE AMERICAN THINKER.com


DID OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS DESTROY AMERICA?

HOW WELL DID OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS DO UNDER THE BANKSTER-OWNED PRESIDENCY OF BARACK OBAMA?

In the financial industry, the five largest American banks controlled 25 percent of the country’s banking assets in 2000. Today, they control 45 percent of these assets.


OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS:


THE FINAL TRANSFER OF AMERICA’ ECONOMY TO THE SUPER RICH!

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/barack-obama-and-his-crony-bankstershow.html




THE GREAT DEPRESSION IS JUST AROUND THE/ALL CORNERS!

Economist magazine warns of revolutionary consequences of unprecedented corporate power



By Gabriel Black 
28 September 2016
On September 17, the Economist magazine published a special report by Adrian Wooldridge titled “The Superstar Company.” The article details the sharp growth in the economic and political power of the world’s top corporations.
The editorial accompanying the report, “A giant problem,” warns that today’s economic climate contains “worrying similarities to a much earlier era,” the period leading up to the Russian Revolution.
“The business titans of that age,” the editors write, 

“reinforced their positions by driving their competitors out 

of business and cultivating close relations with politicians. 

The backlash that followed helped to destroy the liberal order

in much of Europe.” Today, a century later, what may be 

taking place is a return to “1917 and all that.”
A hundred years ago, capitalism was in the midst of a breakdown much like today. It led on the one hand to the growth of war pursued by the various capitalist powers, and the outbreak, on the other hand, of socialist revolution pursued by the working class.
Also a hundred years ago, Lenin, writing in the midst of the world war, explained why this was the case in his work Imperialism, written during the first half of 1916.
Lenin described the imperialist epoch as a stage of capitalism

in which the titans of industry ferociously consume their 

smaller opponents to create ever larger monopolies. At the 

same time, the epoch gives rise to a 

“new financial aristocracy” characterized by “corruption, 

bribery on a huge scale and all kinds of fraud.”
Though limited in its scope, the facts and figures detailed in the Economist report convey just how far this process of corporate consolidation and institutionalized political bribery has gone.
In 1994, the top 100 American companies accounted for 33 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Today, they account for 46 percent of American GDP. In the financial 

industry, the five largest American banks 

controlled 25 percent of the country’s banking

 assets in 2000. Today, they control 45 

percent of these assets.
The article argues that the market share of the leading companies is so vast that competition, in any meaningful sense, has been eliminated at the top of the corporate ladder.
Today, ten percent of the world’s companies generate 80 percent of the world’s profits. Firms whose annual revenue exceeds $1 billion account for 60 percent of all global revenue and 65 percent of global market capitalization.
Fueling this has been a surge in mergers and acquisitions, particularly since the financial crash of 2008. In 1990, there were 11,500 mergers and acquisitions, valued at 2 percent of global GDP. Since 2008, there have been an average of 30,000 mergers and acquisitions per year. The total value of these relative to global GDP has increased by about 50 percent and now equals 3 percent of world economic output.
This new wave of corporate monopolization comes amidst stagnation in the global economy. It is only firms with huge pools of capital that are able to compete in times of stagnation and slump. The article notes that the mortality rate for listed American companies over a five-year period is about 36 percent. However, for companies worth more than $1 billion, it is about 18 percent. (Many companies with assets over a billion dollars go bankrupt only to be looted and have their profitable sections incorporated into other companies).
Much has been made of the entry of high-tech companies into the list of top corporations. At the end of 2006, the following companies were the largest listed firms by market capitalization: Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Gazprom, Microsoft, Citigroup, Bank of America, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Petro China, HSBC. But today that list reads as follows: Apple, Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Amazon, Facebook, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, China Mobile.
The emergence of the so-called ‘information economy’ has redistributed claims on the world’s wealth towards tech companies. However, this has not produced an economy of disruption in which small upstarts challenge the titans. On the contrary, it has led to an intensification of the competitive drive towards monopoly.
The report notes the growth of a “tech aristocracy,” which buys up smaller startups as they grow, weaving them into their ever-expanding web. Speaking about Silicon Valley, the Economist writes: “Today the valley has been thoroughly corporatized: a handful of winner-takes-most companies have taken over the world’s most vibrant innovation center.” It notes that both the “tech aristocracy” and the “traditional” corporate aristocracy employ fewer workers today, even though they are making record profits.
The article continues: “The most successful tech companies have achieved massive scale in just a couple of decades. Google processes 4 billion searches a day. The number of people who go on Facebook every month is much larger than the population of China. These companies have translated vast scale into market domination and soaring revenues. The infrastructure of the information economy is increasingly controlled by a handful of companies: Amazon has almost one-third of the market for cloud computing, and its cloud-services division has grown by more than half over the past year.”
According to the report, 90 percent of successful startups “exit” by selling themselves to other companies. And, at the same time, the number of new startups is actually lower than at any time since the late 1970s. More companies tend to die each year than are born.
Hand in hand with the growth of these 

monopolies comes their capacity to 

manipulate and control the regulatory 

system.
The report points out that the growth of regulatory agencies and laws, far from limiting the power of the corporate giants, is aiding their domination. “Regulation inevitably imposes a disproportionate burden on smaller companies because compliance has a high fixed cost,” the article notes. For a business with less than 19 employees, the cost of federal regulatory compliance is $10,585; for businesses with over 19 employees, it is $7,755.
The actual texts of major new laws are so long that only a few people in the world are rumored to have read them in their entirety. The Dodd-Frank Act, for example, is 2,319 pages long. The tax code is about 3.4 million words long. These are laws and codes written by and for armies of corporate lawyers and they are riddled with loopholes.
The report also notes: “Multinationals routinely use foreign direct investment (FDI) in order to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay.” In 2012, despite being a miniscule island nation, the British Virgin Islands was the fifth largest recipient of FDI in the world, receiving $72 billion. By comparison, “Britain, with an economy 3,000 times larger, had an inflow of only $46 billion.”
Only the largest companies can afford to create an elaborate array of offshore holding companies to maximize returns on capital by avoiding regulations and tax. The top 100 most globalized companies have an average of 20 holding companies each. However, each one of those holding companies has, in turn, its own holding companies. The report notes that the “convoluted” governance structure of modern corporate giants is even more so in high tech.
The report cites the recent case of Apple, which used Ireland 

to avoid EU taxes. Google also largely avoids tax outside the 

US. It had an effective tax rate of 2.4 percent on its non-

American profits between 2007 and 2009 due to its use of 

Bermuda, Ireland and the Netherlands as a complicated tax 

haven network.
At the same time, these companies are spending unprecedented amounts of money on lobbyists. There are 37,700 lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. and 70 percent of them are companies. The average spending per lobbyist nearly doubled between 1998 and 2012.
The report cites a finding from Brown University showing that the pharmaceutical industry spent $130 million, a record amount, in getting a 2003 revision of Medicare passed. The revision netted the pharmaceutical corporations $242 billion.
In the EU, lobbying has also ballooned. Brussels is estimated to be home to at least 30,000 lobbyist groups.
In this regard, the report mentions the 

infamous revolving door. It is no secret that 

those who staff government offices, 

particularly regulatory boards, routinely move

to top positions in corporate law firms and 

s Jose Manuel Barroso, former president of 

the European Commission, now a banker at 

Goldman Sachs.
The report concludes with a boilerplate call to regulate the excess of these monopolies and reign in the worst parts of their practice. The author notes with worry that “over 70 percent of America’s population believes that the economy is rigged in favor of vested interests.”
The reality is that this phenomenon is intrinsic to capitalism. The profit system drives towards monopoly and financialization. As Lenin explained 100 years ago, the growing power of just a handful of capitalists creates an ever more intimate bond between bourgeois politicians and big business.
The advent of new, revolutionary technologies only intensifies the drive to corporate profit as companies must operate at even larger scales to be profitable. From the standpoint of capital, war and economic nationalism abroad and repression at home become the only means of preserving and expanding profit.

But this same process also creates its opposite. Today, the world economy is more socialized than at any point in history. Today’s economy is global, technologically advanced, and based on the social cooperation of millions of people. The means of production are tied to a dying social order subordinated to the profiteering of a tiny elite. The working class is being driven into revolutionary struggle against this system. It needs a revolutionary leadership to imbue this struggle with an understanding of the social forces it confronts and a worked out internationalist and socialist program.


Under Obama-Clintonomics, the rich became VERY rich and we got the tax bills for their bailouts and crimes!


AMERICA’S ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON


Under Obama-Clintonomics, the rich became VERY rich and we got the tax bills for their bailouts and crimes!

NO ONE CAN PROTECT A FILTHY BANKSTER MORE THAN THEIR BOY, THE OBOMB!


BARACK OBAMA AND THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….

There’s more than one way to destroy America’s white middle class!



HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the past two decades. The bank transferred at least $881 million of known drug trafficking proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel in 
Mexico, which is known for dismembering its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.


 OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: You were wondering how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have done???


The sputtering economic recovering under President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression, according to a new report.

Had the recovery under Obama been the average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and there would be six million more jobs.

THE OBAMA-CLINTON ECONOMIC MELTDOWN -----  HOME OWNERSHIP – ECONOMIC MELTDOWN

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: ABET CRONY BANKSTERS SO THEY CAN FINSISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS. KEEP BORDERS WIDE OPEN TO EASE MILLIONS OF MEX FLAG WAVERS INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS, AND EXPAND THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS’ MARKETS IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS TO KILL OFF AMERICA’S WHITE POPULATION TO BUILD A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FOR ONE BARACK OBAMA, THE “Hope & Change” HUCKSTER FROM CHICAGO.
"The decline in homeownership is one sign of the deep social crisis in the United States. As rents and housing costs have soared, spurred on by financial speculation that has enriched the ruling elites, incomes and jobs for most Americans have shriveled."


SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA


"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS TO SERVE THE SUPER RICH: The slow and painful death of America that dominates American society."

THE OBAMA SOLUTION TO END WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICA:

DRUG ADDICTION!!!


MEXICO: AMERICA’S DRUG DEALER!

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.

“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”

THE MEXICAN DRUS CARTELS HAVE GREATLY BENEFITED FROM BARACK OBAMA’S SABOTAGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

THE CLINTON “JOBS” PLAN ENDORSED BY NARCOMEX – IT’S CALLED AMNESTY!

Clinton, in the guise of a “jobs” and “infrastructure” program, promoted yet another scheme to hand out tax cuts and other incentives for companies to hire workers at poverty-level wages, with the trade unions brought in to keep the workers in line in return for a cut in the spoils.


THE GLOBAL REACH OF HILLARY AND BILLARY  AND THEIR BRIBES SUCKING
America’s Looming Economic Armageddon – Can the Rich Get Even Richer During the Meltdown? Haven’t they looted us into bankruptcy?


 OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS FOR THE RICH: On behalf of bankster-owned Barack Obama, Yellen vows to the rich and crony banksters that they will be protected and subsidized with no strings bailouts during the next looming economic meltdown around the corner from elections.

“In fact, these policies have already produced financial and asset bubbles that are unsustainable, and there are increasing signs of financial instability and crisis. There are growing warnings that the spread of negative interest rates is leading to a new financial meltdown even worse than the disaster that struck eight years ago.”


"The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s."

"The decline in homeownership is one sign of the deep social crisis in the United States. As rents and housing costs have soared, spurred on by financial speculation that has enriched the ruling elites, incomes and jobs for most Americans have shriveled."


AMERICA’S YOUTH STARVE

FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND HIS HAREM OF CORRUPT DEM POLS

HAS SABOTAGED OUR BORDERS TO EASE TENS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS

INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS. 


What is left for Legals is only the tax bills for La Raza's looting!


The new reports show that in addition to “traditional” coping strategies of skipping meals and

eating cheap food, these teens and pre-teens are increasingly forced into shoplifting, stealing,

selling drugs, joining a gang, or selling their bodies for money in a struggle to eat properly.




THE CLINTON MAFIA:
IN THE IMAGE OF THE “HOPE & CHANGE” HUCKSTER BARACK OBAMA, REDEFINING POL CORRUPTION!
When asked to compare Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, D'Souza said no contest.  "She is basically Obama plus gangsterism.  The Clintons are like Bonnie and Clyde.  Their goal is to steal America. 

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: You were wondering how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have done???

The sputtering economic recovering under President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression, according to a new report.

Had the recovery under Obama been the average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and there would be six million more jobs.

"The decline in homeownership is one sign of the deep social crisis in the United States. As rents and housing costs have soared, spurred on by financial speculation that has enriched the ruling elites, incomes and jobs for most Americans have shriveled."


AMERICA: A NATION RULED WALL STREET'S BIGGEST CRIMINALS - Economist magazine warns of revolutionary consequences of unprecedented corporate power

AMERICA'S ROAD TO REVOLUTION




 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has 

become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is 

the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan 

THE AMERICAN THINKER.com


DID OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS DESTROY AMERICA?

HOW WELL DID OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS DO UNDER THE BANKSTER-OWNED PRESIDENCY OF BARACK OBAMA?

In the financial industry, the five largest American banks controlled 25 percent of the country’s banking assets in 2000. Today, they control 45 percent of these assets.


OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS FOR THE RICH: 

On behalf of bankster-owned Barack Obama, Yellen vows to the rich and crony banksters that they will be protected and subsidized with no strings bailouts during the next looming economic meltdown around the corner from elections.

“In fact, these policies have already produced financial and asset bubbles that are unsustainable, and there are increasing signs of financial instability and crisis. There are growing warnings that the spread of negative interest rates is leading to a new financial meltdown even worse than the disaster that struck eight years ago.”


"The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s."


OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS:


THE FINAL TRANSFER OF AMERICA’ ECONOMY TO THE SUPER RICH!

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/barack-obama-and-his-crony-bankstershow.html




THE GREAT DEPRESSION IS JUST AROUND THE/ALL CORNERS!

Economist magazine warns of revolutionary consequences of unprecedented corporate power



By Gabriel Black 
28 September 2016
On September 17, the Economist magazine published a special report by Adrian Wooldridge titled “The Superstar Company.” The article details the sharp growth in the economic and political power of the world’s top corporations.
The editorial accompanying the report, “A giant problem,” warns that today’s economic climate contains “worrying similarities to a much earlier era,” the period leading up to the Russian Revolution.
“The business titans of that age,” the editors write, 

“reinforced their positions by driving their competitors out 

of business and cultivating close relations with politicians. 

The backlash that followed helped to destroy the liberal order

in much of Europe.” Today, a century later, what may be 

taking place is a return to “1917 and all that.”
A hundred years ago, capitalism was in the midst of a breakdown much like today. It led on the one hand to the growth of war pursued by the various capitalist powers, and the outbreak, on the other hand, of socialist revolution pursued by the working class.
Also a hundred years ago, Lenin, writing in the midst of the world war, explained why this was the case in his work Imperialism, written during the first half of 1916.
Lenin described the imperialist epoch as a stage of capitalism

in which the titans of industry ferociously consume their 

smaller opponents to create ever larger monopolies. At the 

same time, the epoch gives rise to a 

“new financial aristocracy” characterized by “corruption, 

bribery on a huge scale and all kinds of fraud.”
Though limited in its scope, the facts and figures detailed in the Economist report convey just how far this process of corporate consolidation and institutionalized political bribery has gone.
In 1994, the top 100 American companies accounted for 33 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Today, they account for 46 percent of American GDP. In the financial 

industry, the five largest American banks 

controlled 25 percent of the country’s banking

 assets in 2000. Today, they control 45 

percent of these assets.
The article argues that the market share of the leading companies is so vast that competition, in any meaningful sense, has been eliminated at the top of the corporate ladder.
Today, ten percent of the world’s companies generate 80 percent of the world’s profits. Firms whose annual revenue exceeds $1 billion account for 60 percent of all global revenue and 65 percent of global market capitalization.
Fueling this has been a surge in mergers and acquisitions, particularly since the financial crash of 2008. In 1990, there were 11,500 mergers and acquisitions, valued at 2 percent of global GDP. Since 2008, there have been an average of 30,000 mergers and acquisitions per year. The total value of these relative to global GDP has increased by about 50 percent and now equals 3 percent of world economic output.
This new wave of corporate monopolization comes amidst stagnation in the global economy. It is only firms with huge pools of capital that are able to compete in times of stagnation and slump. The article notes that the mortality rate for listed American companies over a five-year period is about 36 percent. However, for companies worth more than $1 billion, it is about 18 percent. (Many companies with assets over a billion dollars go bankrupt only to be looted and have their profitable sections incorporated into other companies).
Much has been made of the entry of high-tech companies into the list of top corporations. At the end of 2006, the following companies were the largest listed firms by market capitalization: Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Gazprom, Microsoft, Citigroup, Bank of America, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Petro China, HSBC. But today that list reads as follows: Apple, Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Amazon, Facebook, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, China Mobile.
The emergence of the so-called ‘information economy’ has redistributed claims on the world’s wealth towards tech companies. However, this has not produced an economy of disruption in which small upstarts challenge the titans. On the contrary, it has led to an intensification of the competitive drive towards monopoly.
The report notes the growth of a “tech aristocracy,” which buys up smaller startups as they grow, weaving them into their ever-expanding web. Speaking about Silicon Valley, the Economist writes: “Today the valley has been thoroughly corporatized: a handful of winner-takes-most companies have taken over the world’s most vibrant innovation center.” It notes that both the “tech aristocracy” and the “traditional” corporate aristocracy employ fewer workers today, even though they are making record profits.
The article continues: “The most successful tech companies have achieved massive scale in just a couple of decades. Google processes 4 billion searches a day. The number of people who go on Facebook every month is much larger than the population of China. These companies have translated vast scale into market domination and soaring revenues. The infrastructure of the information economy is increasingly controlled by a handful of companies: Amazon has almost one-third of the market for cloud computing, and its cloud-services division has grown by more than half over the past year.”
According to the report, 90 percent of successful startups “exit” by selling themselves to other companies. And, at the same time, the number of new startups is actually lower than at any time since the late 1970s. More companies tend to die each year than are born.
Hand in hand with the growth of these 

monopolies comes their capacity to 

manipulate and control the regulatory 

system.
The report points out that the growth of regulatory agencies and laws, far from limiting the power of the corporate giants, is aiding their domination. “Regulation inevitably imposes a disproportionate burden on smaller companies because compliance has a high fixed cost,” the article notes. For a business with less than 19 employees, the cost of federal regulatory compliance is $10,585; for businesses with over 19 employees, it is $7,755.
The actual texts of major new laws are so long that only a few people in the world are rumored to have read them in their entirety. The Dodd-Frank Act, for example, is 2,319 pages long. The tax code is about 3.4 million words long. These are laws and codes written by and for armies of corporate lawyers and they are riddled with loopholes.
The report also notes: “Multinationals routinely use foreign direct investment (FDI) in order to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay.” In 2012, despite being a miniscule island nation, the British Virgin Islands was the fifth largest recipient of FDI in the world, receiving $72 billion. By comparison, “Britain, with an economy 3,000 times larger, had an inflow of only $46 billion.”
Only the largest companies can afford to create an elaborate array of offshore holding companies to maximize returns on capital by avoiding regulations and tax. The top 100 most globalized companies have an average of 20 holding companies each. However, each one of those holding companies has, in turn, its own holding companies. The report notes that the “convoluted” governance structure of modern corporate giants is even more so in high tech.
The report cites the recent case of Apple, which used Ireland 

to avoid EU taxes. Google also largely avoids tax outside the 

US. It had an effective tax rate of 2.4 percent on its non-

American profits between 2007 and 2009 due to its use of 

Bermuda, Ireland and the Netherlands as a complicated tax 

haven network.
At the same time, these companies are spending unprecedented amounts of money on lobbyists. There are 37,700 lobbying groups in Washington, D.C. and 70 percent of them are companies. The average spending per lobbyist nearly doubled between 1998 and 2012.
The report cites a finding from Brown University showing that the pharmaceutical industry spent $130 million, a record amount, in getting a 2003 revision of Medicare passed. The revision netted the pharmaceutical corporations $242 billion.
In the EU, lobbying has also ballooned. Brussels is estimated to be home to at least 30,000 lobbyist groups.
In this regard, the report mentions the 

infamous revolving door. It is no secret that 

those who staff government offices, 

particularly regulatory boards, routinely move

to top positions in corporate law firms and 

s Jose Manuel Barroso, former president of 

the European Commission, now a banker at 

Goldman Sachs.
The report concludes with a boilerplate call to regulate the excess of these monopolies and reign in the worst parts of their practice. The author notes with worry that “over 70 percent of America’s population believes that the economy is rigged in favor of vested interests.”
The reality is that this phenomenon is intrinsic to capitalism. The profit system drives towards monopoly and financialization. As Lenin explained 100 years ago, the growing power of just a handful of capitalists creates an ever more intimate bond between bourgeois politicians and big business.
The advent of new, revolutionary technologies only intensifies the drive to corporate profit as companies must operate at even larger scales to be profitable. From the standpoint of capital, war and economic nationalism abroad and repression at home become the only means of preserving and expanding profit.
But this same process also creates its opposite. Today, the world economy is more socialized than at any point in history. Today’s economy is global, technologically advanced, and based on the social cooperation of millions of people. The means of production are tied to a dying social order subordinated to the profiteering of a tiny elite. The working class is being driven into revolutionary struggle against this system. It needs a revolutionary leadership to imbue this struggle with an understanding of the social forces it confronts and a worked out internationalist and socialist program.


AMERICA’S ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON


Under Obama-Clintonomics, the rich became VERY rich and we got the tax bills for their bailouts and crimes!

NO ONE CAN PROTECT A FILTHY BANKSTER MORE THAN THEIR BOY, THE OBOMB!


BARACK OBAMA AND THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….

There’s more than one way to destroy America’s white middle class!



HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the past two decades. The bank transferred at least $881 million of known drug trafficking proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel in 
Mexico, which is known for dismembering its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.


 OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: You were wondering how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have done???


The sputtering economic recovering under President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression, according to a new report.

Had the recovery under Obama been the average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and there would be six million more jobs.

THE OBAMA-CLINTON ECONOMIC MELTDOWN -----  HOME OWNERSHIP – ECONOMIC MELTDOWN

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: ABET CRONY BANKSTERS SO THEY CAN FINSISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS. KEEP BORDERS WIDE OPEN TO EASE MILLIONS OF MEX FLAG WAVERS INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS, AND EXPAND THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS’ MARKETS IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS TO KILL OFF AMERICA’S WHITE POPULATION TO BUILD A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FOR ONE BARACK OBAMA, THE “Hope & Change” HUCKSTER FROM CHICAGO.
"The decline in homeownership is one sign of the deep social crisis in the United States. As rents and housing costs have soared, spurred on by financial speculation that has enriched the ruling elites, incomes and jobs for most Americans have shriveled."


SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA


"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS TO SERVE THE SUPER RICH: The slow and painful death of America that dominates American society."
http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/08/hillary-clintons-america-obama-poverty.html

THE OBAMA SOLUTION TO END WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICA:

DRUG ADDICTION!!!


MEXICO: AMERICA’S DRUG DEALER!

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/obama-clintonomics-their-crony.html

“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”

THE MEXICAN DRUS CARTELS HAVE GREATLY BENEFITED FROM BARACK OBAMA’S SABOTAGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

THE CLINTON “JOBS” PLAN ENDORSED BY NARCOMEX – IT’S CALLED AMNESTY!

Clinton, in the guise of a “jobs” and “infrastructure” program, promoted yet another scheme to hand out tax cuts and other incentives for companies to hire workers at poverty-level wages, with the trade unions brought in to keep the workers in line in return for a cut in the spoils.


THE GLOBAL REACH OF HILLARY AND BILLARY  AND THEIR BRIBES SUCKING
America’s Looming Economic Armageddon – Can the Rich Get Even Richer During the Meltdown? Haven’t they looted us into bankruptcy?


 OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS FOR THE RICH: On behalf of bankster-owned Barack Obama, Yellen vows to the rich and crony banksters that they will be protected and subsidized with no strings bailouts during the next looming economic meltdown around the corner from elections.

“In fact, these policies have already produced financial and asset bubbles that are unsustainable, and there are increasing signs of financial instability and crisis. There are growing warnings that the spread of negative interest rates is leading to a new financial meltdown even worse than the disaster that struck eight years ago.”


"The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s."

"The decline in homeownership is one sign of the deep social crisis in the United States. As rents and housing costs have soared, spurred on by financial speculation that has enriched the ruling elites, incomes and jobs for most Americans have shriveled."


AMERICA’S YOUTH STARVE

FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND HIS HAREM OF CORRUPT DEM POLS

HAS SABOTAGED OUR BORDERS TO EASE TENS OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS

INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS. 


What is left for Legals is only the tax bills for La Raza's looting!


The new reports show that in addition to “traditional” coping strategies of skipping meals and

eating cheap food, these teens and pre-teens are increasingly forced into shoplifting, stealing,

selling drugs, joining a gang, or selling their bodies for money in a struggle to eat properly.
"On Saturday, WikiLeaks published the 

transcripts of three lavishly paid speeches 

given by Clinton at gatherings held by 

Goldman Sachs, dating from June 4, October 

24 and October 29, 2013. All three feature a 

mix of groveling before the financial 

malefactors who hired her to speak and 

gloating over her own wealth."


OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS TO SERVE THE SUPER RICH: 
The slow and painful death of America that dominates American society."


http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/08/hillary-clintons-america-obama-poverty.html


In secret Goldman Sachs speeches, Clinton explains why the rich should rule

In secret Goldman Sachs speeches, Clinton explains why the rich should rule

By Tom Carter 
17 October 2016
In one question-and-answer session on October 24, 2013 at Goldman Sachs, with CEO Lloyd Blankfein in attendance, an audience member asked the current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the following question: “And Mike Bloomberg had 30 billion other reasons than to take office. Do we need a wholesale change in Washington that has more to do with people that don’t need the job than have the job?”
Clinton’s answer was revealing. “That’s a really interesting question,” she said. “You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don’t have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there’s that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented, but never bought. And I think it’s important to have people with those experiences.”
Clinton’s response is an open defense of the aristocratic principle: the rich should rule. By virtue of being very wealthy, the rich have the leisure time to pursue a political career. Moreover, they supposedly have immunity from being bribed, since they are already so wealthy. Finally, they have the “experience in business” necessary to preside over a social system that benefits the social layer which appropriates all the profits from business and finance. These are sentiments that any 18th or 19th century aristocrat would recognize and embrace.
Clinton merely echoes, in a more crude form, the patrician arrogance of Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903), whose views were summed up by historian Barbara Tuchman:
He did not believe in political equality. There was the multitude, he said, and there were the “natural” leaders. “Always wealth, in some countries birth, and in all countries intellectual power and culture mark out the man to whom, in a healthy state of feeling, a community looks to undertake its government.” These men had the leisure for it and the fortune, “so that the struggles for ambition are not defiled by the taint of sordid greed… They are the aristocracy of a country in the original and best sense of the word… The important point is that the rulers of a country should be taken from among them,” and as a class they should retain that “political preponderance to which they have every right that superior fitness can confer.”
Clinton’s argument that her own wealth entitles her to govern America is an argument also made repeatedly by Donald Trump, who touts his own billions as a reason he will remain immune to “special interests.”
The “former member of the Senate” to whom Clinton was apparently referring was John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat who held office from 1987 to 2005. Considered one of the most conservative Democrats ever to take office, Clinton’s role model went on to pursue a lucrative lobbying career at the firm Squire Patton Boggs. His name is synonymous with Washington’s corrupt “revolving door.”
"On Saturday, WikiLeaks published the 

transcripts of three lavishly paid speeches 

given by Clinton at gatherings held by 

Goldman Sachs, dating from June 4, October 

24 and October 29, 2013. All three feature a 

mix of groveling before the financial 

malefactors who hired her to speak and 

gloating over her own wealth."
In one of her secret Wall Street speeches, Clinton frankly admitted that she has a “public position” and a “private position.” The private position is expressed in “backroom discussions,” while the “public position” consists of the lies she tells to the rest of the population.
The fact that Clinton addressed the notorious 

investment bank in the first place highlights the 

extent to which the American corporate, financial 

and political establishment is drenched in 

corruption and criminalityIn April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report entitled “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse.” This report exhaustively documented that the financial crash of 2008 and the recession that followed were the product of fraud and illegality on the part of mortgage lenders and banks such as Goldman Sachs, with government regulatory bodies as well as credit rating agencies serving as accessories.
Forty percent of the 639-page report, or some 240 pages, 

were devoted to the fraudulent and deceptive practices of 

Goldman Sachs. The report presented documents, emails, 

internal communications and other evidence showing that 

the largest US investment bank had sold billions of dollars in 

subprime mortgage-backed securities to investors, vouching 

for their value, even as it was betting that the investments 

would fail. Goldman made billions and CEO Blankfein and 

other top executives pocketed millions in bonuses by 

accelerating the collapse of the financial system.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate subcommittee, famously described how the investigation had uncovered “a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing.”
“Using their own words in documents subpoenaed by the subcommittee,” Levin said, “the report discloses how financial firms deliberately took advantage of their clients and investors, how credit rating agencies assigned AAA ratings to high-risk securities, and how regulators sat on their hands instead of reining in the unsafe and unsound practices all around them. Rampant conflicts of interest are the threads that run through every chapter of this sordid story.”
So when Clinton was hobnobbing with 

Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while 

investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman 

and the other Wall Street banks were still 

ongoing, she was consorting with a man who 

belonged in prison. In 2011, Levin had recommended that the Justice Department criminally prosecute Blankfein for his fraudulent and deceptive conduct, and the Senate subcommittee charged that he had perjured himself in testimony in 2010 regarding his bank’s role in the financial crash. Nevertheless, no charges were brought, and in 2013 Clinton was accepting upwards of $225,000 per speech from Blankfein’s firm.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have accumulated a total of $153 million in speaking fees since Bill Clinton left the White House. Only the very naive could believe that these vast sums were paid for the speeches themselves. They were payment for services rendered to the American financial aristocracy over a protracted period.
Clinton’s Wall Street speeches deserve to be widely read. They provide an invaluable first-hand education in the sheer cynicism of the American ruling class. While the Obama administration publicly insisted that the Dodd-Frank reforms of 2010 were “strict regulations” that would ensure that the 2008 crash would “never happen again,” Clinton privately told her Goldman audience not to worry, that these cosmetic reforms had to be passed for “political reasons,” to provide the appearance that the government did not “sit idly by and do nothing” as people lost their jobs, homes and life savings.
When Blankfein snidely asked Clinton how, should he decide to run for president, he should conduct his campaign, Clinton responded with her own cynical joke. “I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a soup kitchen somewhere,” Clinton replied, to the merriment of the assembled guests.
The response to the publication of these 

speeches by so-called “socialist” Bernie 

Sanders exposes the utterly fraudulent 

character of his entire presidential bid. While 

he postured during the Democratic Party 

primaries as a proponent of a “political 

revolution” against the “billionaire class,” 

Sanders now functions shamelessly as a 

sideshow for the Clinton campaign, 

browbeating his (now much smaller) 

audiences with admonitions to vote for the 

preferred candidate of the “billionaire class” 

he claimed to oppose.
During his run for the Democratic nomination, Sanders repeatedly called on Clinton to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, which she refused to do. He charged that the speeches would show her subservience to the bankers. Now, transcripts have been leaked to the public, completely substantiating his accusations. His silence only underscores the depth of his political treachery and dishonesty.
Meanwhile, emails published by WikiLeaks to and from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, reveal the consummate cynicism with which Hillary Clinton sought to portray herself as a champion of “everyday Americans,” small businesses, unionized workers, minorities and women. Having no connection whatsoever to any popular movement or any policies that have benefited the bottom 90 percent of American society, Clinton relies on a network of “community leaders,” union bureaucrats, academics, celebrities and media “surrogates,” who use empty demagogy and identity politics to market her brand to voters.
In one particularly Machiavellian email, one of Clinton’s aides discussed adding a “riff” of demagogic statements against Wall Street in a speech to Deutsche Bank in 2015, “precisely for the purpose of having something we could show people if ever asked what she was saying behind closed doors for two years to all those fat cats.”
“I wrote her a long riff about economic fairness and how the financial industry has lost its way,” the aide wrote. “Perhaps at some point there will be value in sharing this with a reporter and getting a story written. Upside would be that when people say she’s too close to Wall Street and has taken too much money from bankers, we can point to evidence that she wasn’t afraid to speak truth to power.”
In another email, Podesta frankly noted that Clinton hated the phrase “everyday Americans,” but Podesta urged her to use it anyway. “I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I’m running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion,” Podesta wrote.
The cynicism of Clinton’s campaign knows no bounds. Her staff actually worked to help Donald Trump secure the Republican nomination, believing that Clinton would have a better chance of defeating Trump in the election than a more conventional Republican candidate. The media was encouraged to “take him seriously,” and Clinton was urged to single Trump out for criticism in order to “help him cement his front runner status” among the Republican primary candidates.
Around 11,000 out of 50,000 emails obtained by WikiLeaks have been published. The Clinton campaign’s response to these exposures has been to blame Russia, in line with the Obama administration’s campaign of saber-rattling against the Putin administration. In an interview last weekend on Fox News, Podesta suggested that the emails were not authentic, while simultaneously (and inconsistently) arguing that the emails were acquired by “the Russians,” who are supposedly attempting to deliver the election to Donald Trump.
On Friday, Podesta taunted WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange with a picture of a number of uniformed chefs preparing a luxurious private dinner for the Hillary Victory Fund. “I bet the lobster risotto is better than the food at the Ecuadorian Embassy,” Podesta wrote as the caption to the photograph on Twitter, referring to the fact that Assange has been a de facto prisoner at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since he sought asylum there in June 2012. Assange immediately replied, “Yes, we get it. The elite eat better than the peasants they abuse.”