This evening's episode of Harry's Law literally takes on the banks and uses the show, as a Populist soapbox. The plot contrasts how a homeless, foreclosed on, single mother, turned bank robber, gets 20 years, yet if one is incorporated and has lobbyists, then one gets $7.7 trillion in Federal Reserve loans. The episode is below.
To wit we have this post on the Philly OWS eviction, pointing out the absurdity of a massive police presence:
The Philadelphia Police Department is currently ‘protecting’ virtually every corner in Washington and Rittenhouse Squares, with police cars and vans squatting square in the middle of each entrance to the parks.
The above post documents how Cities magically have unlimited resources to intimidate peaceful protests, including press departments to blame the protestors for costs, yet are laying off cops, teachers. These same city police departments supposedly do not have the resources to investigate fraud and white collar crime.
Most importantly, there have been no prosecutions any of the banks or executives who caused the financial crisis and ongoing economic malaise. As the above post put it:
No resources to fight economic crimes against the vulnerable, but many resources to protect us from the threat of people protesting… economic crimes and inequality.
Think Progress got one right when calling out the mayor for such brazen hypocrisy.
LA Mayor Says He Evicted Protesters Out Of Concern For Children, But City Has 13,000 Homeless Kids.
Even people working on Wall Street are getting a conscience and speaking up, warning people the game is rigged:
The financial markets are rigged. 99% of the investing public has access to services such as basic brokerages, 401k/IRA's, mutual funds, pension plans, etc. Some of these services, especially pension funds, will invest into hedge funds, who take an additional 2 and 20 (meaning 2% of assets plus 20% of capital gains).
What this means is that if you go any of the traditional retail routes, you are utterly screwed facing off against the hedge funds.
First, you are paying exorbitant fees. Commissions on every stock trade. Mutual fund managers taking a cut - an annual % cut, as well as a % per profit cut. If these managers (i.e. pension plans) invest in another fund, that fund is also taking another % cut. You're down 2% the minute you invest your money.
Next, if you're doing the investing yourself, you're paying ridiculous spreads. The bid/ask spread of a stock will cause you to be down another 2-3% the minute you buy the stock. For example, if you're buying a share of company at $4.25, you can sell back at only $4.15.
Furthermore, you have absolutely no chance in terms of access to the best services. Hedge funds have a direct line to investment bank's institutional brokerage teams - these are the guys that spend day and night sucking up to hedge funds, trying to get them the best deals at the cheapest rates. This means that while you're buying stocks and bonds, hedge funds are getting special rights, warrants, sweetheart deals, private placement deals, in-the-money options, bigger discounts on bonds, and much better bulk commission rates and lower spreads on stocks. If you're paying 4.25$ for a 4.15$ stock, they are paying something like 4.16$. And they are eating alive your profits because when the stock goes up to $4.30, they can activate another warrant to purchase 20m shares at $4.25, diluting the value of your shares.
Next, you lack information and exposure. You have no idea what is going on in the market besides what you see on the news - while hedge funds have analysts working around the clock and a bunch of service providers who give minute-by-minute analysis of their portfolio opportunities and weaknesses in all markets with exposures to nearly everything. Meaning, if there is an opportunity in the real estate market (i.e. legislation), it might take you weeks to get in - hedge funds will have gotten in the minute the legislation was passed. Furthermore, when IPOs come out for companies, hedge funds get top billing on the primary market shares - which means investment banks are selling directly to them. Once the secondary market becomes available, hedge funds are up 15-20% on these investments, sometimes within hours.
Finally, you have no capital compared to these hedge funds. The people who invest in these hedge funds are not just the 1%, they are the 0.1%. These are the guys with 500million dollar bank accounts and the ability to do whatever the fuck they want. Hedge funds know this, and they invest without having to care about whether their clients can pay the rent or send their kids to college. All of that is irrelevant. Their sole purpose is to earn money, not to mitigate risk.
What does this all mean? It means the hedge fund industry is making a gigantic proportion of the profits. The top .1% is earning nearly half of the profits in the industry, through not just hedge funds, but other similar vehicles.
The finance industry is a complete scam, designed to funnel money from the 99% investing public into the hands of the top .1%.
Think about it. Why should someone who brandishes a gun and robs a bank get 20 years in prison when the Banksters rip off people everyday, to the point of homelessness and destitution, yet nothing ever happens?
How many times have you watched the local news, thinking what an idiot that guy is, holding up the local bank, when white collar crime not only pays well, there is pretty much zero consequence?
I don't know how people know, but they do know what's going on, in a general way. I think authors and producers of "fiction" like Harry's Law understand the public mind from the inside better than any opinion polls can describe it from the outside.
The "okeydoke" just don't fly no more ... or if it does get run up the flag pole a thousand times per day on corporate media, nobody salutes. It's amazing to see a convergence of views from all demographics on the same understanding of how sadly broken the system is.
sitcom soap box
We've seen this before, sitcoms using the show as a soapbox for some liibberraal position of the day. I cannot think of how many shows have gone on and on about the "poor undocumented" as if it's a political story plant. Never a criminal among them, despite the statistics. ;)
But I just had the tube on and this is not subtle. It's almost like they took direct quotes from the blogs, the OWS people, general public and wrote them into "closing arguments" for the show.
I thought I was listening to someone read from this site as I was making dinner, haphazardly watching. Seriously, it's almost a direct lift.
So, I decided to embed their episode (besides, Kathy Bates can seriously act, that helps) for the story seems to be making everything media....but cable pundits and Congress/White House.
I cannot tell you how many times I've watched some idiot get busted for robbing a bank with a gun or other types of robberies, where no one was hurt and they are going to prison for a very long time over it...
and I think to myself every time, only stupid people get arrested. No one with half a brain would commit a crime like that. It's not even very much money. The real money is 100% in white collar, "digital" "cyber" crime or legalized crime, such as banks giving out loans as described in the episode.
So, it seems like being stupid is also a criminal act in America....except of course if you are a bank customer. ;)
From your last presentation on the ADP jobs report at best there were 200K (inflated estimated) jobs created last month reported. The average ADP creation rate was probably 100K per month over the last year. The natural population growth is in the range of 250K per month, leaving a squeeze out rate of 150K for those
unfortunate enough to have been born in the U.S.A.
DHS has a ballpark estimate of what legal immigration levels were accepted in the last 3 years. There was a bar room discussion before 2008 about what would happen to immigration levels if a second great depression ever happened. We have some of the answers. How does the labor participation rate look like now? It went down somewhat in the last month due to the drop out rate being 3/4s of the change in nominal unemployment.
Year LPR Status Obtained for the Legal Permanent Resident
All legal permanent
Legal permanent residents
eligible to naturalize
Number Percent Number Percent
Total . . . . . 12,630,000 100.0 8,070,000 100.0
Before 1960 . . . . 180,000 1.4 180,000 2.2
1960–1969 . . . . 420,000 3.3 420,000 5.2
1970–1979 . . . .1,040,000 8.2 1,040,000 12.9
1980–1989 . . . .1,110,000 8.8 1,110,000 13.7
1990–1999 . . . .2,770,000 21.9 2,650,000 32.9
2000–2004 . . .. 2,290,000 18.1 2,010,000 25.0
2005–2006 . . . 1,860,000 14. 8 660,000 8.2
2007–2009 . . . .2,980,000 23.6 — —
This is legal immigration. Note the levels before 1960 and the levels after 1960.
1965 is the year of the change in immigration law.
I was going to blast you
until I hit the link, hmmm, now it's nuts to claim of the monthly civilian nonstitutional pop increases that's all immigrants, and so on, I clearly need to do some posts on the "foreign born" stats.
No Claim Immigration is the only factor.
People drop out of the job market for various reasons. Some are forced out.
I am asking for an accounting of the drop in the participation rate.
Squeeze out is many things as well. Remember the argument about how technology
replaces jobs? That is another factor claimed. We know that the net replacement
of jobs due to technology changes should be small if the technology is domestically created.
"The natural population growth is in the range of 250K per month, leaving a squeeze out rate of 150K for those unfortunate enough to have been born in the U.S.A.:
3 million is not 30 million
Roughly 3 million LPR came during 20o7-2009. The real number of people needing a job is about 25-30 million, taking the outliner data points, including those stuck in part time who need full time jobs, those not counted at all.
That's simply not enough to justify blaming LPR for the unemployment problem. I'm sorry, yes immigration is clearly negatively impacting native (U.S. citizen) workers, but it sure isn't the real story.
I will go through some of these numbers as soon as I can, but if you want credibility, you need to be accurate in your ratios.
Also, regular population is not the group from where the workforce originates, unless you want to believe in slave, child, mental asylum and prison labor.
The foreign born civilian labor force just dropped 96k for the past year. For the past year, their non-institutional civilian population increased 455,000. That's 38,000 per month, not 150k.
This is anyone who wasn't born in the U.S., be they brought over as infants to the U.S. or recently border hopped illegally or came over on guest worker Visas.
Finally, please put comments in their corresponding post. This belongs under unemployment rate.
The Ratios of Monlthy Employment vs Immigration Demand - Monthly
From the LPR stats in the graph, (2980K in the 2007-2009 column). Monthly immigration is over 83K per month for the last 3 years. There are 4 million live births in the U.S. annually and 2 million deaths leaving a net of 2 million annually net births. On a monthly basis that number is 167K. 83K monthly immigration (last 3 years) plus 167K = 250K monthly demand from demographics. The net births figure is constant over 30 years. So in regards to the cumulative number you cite
"Roughly 3 million LPR came during 20o7-2009. The real number of people needing a job is about 25-30 million".No doubt that is U6 plus failed business plus others wanting full time work.
The 250K (Demand) = 83K (LPR) + 167K (Net Births). This formula has excluded illegal immigration, so the both sides of the Demand/Supply equation increase by the illegal factor.
(Again 250k=3M / 12, 83k = 2980k / 36 months,)
Regarding slave and prison labor, and child labor,all are real and significant in the slave
economy of today. 2 million net births today will work its way into employment demand in 18 to 20 years. They become either proletariat, sub-proletariat or the 25-30 million industrial reserve army.The sub-proletariat (non-working) are the part of the labor force which the ruling class has put in the non-working category. Every one born and living has an economic place.
For the last 40 years, it is believed that only the select have the right to work. One day, not so very long ago, there was Humphrey-Hawkins, mandating no more than 4 Percent Unemployment.
The mantra of this age would be - INFERIOR PEOPLE MUST NOT BE EMPLOYED.
The larger picture is also about technology and what role it plays in job creation and destruction. Some tech is still domestic. Job losses from technology are offset by job gains in tech if the tech stays on shore. IEEE did preliminary studies on this. Really hard analysis is wanting.
So when the numbers are knocked around in Big Media, what makes up the raw numbers?
LPR not immigration
If you look at the top post and the side post, you will see how much the population increases every month and those from where the workforce comes. LPR is not all immigration, it's just green cards.
If you message is to say this country is not deeming work a right and providing jobs, that's true, along with the "permanently temporary" attitudes as if all are disposable workers, that's true too.
Such is the schizophrenic
Such is the schizophrenic nature of the world economic system that US Bank credit ratings are falling while the Dow is on a holiday tear. The system looks good on the outside, but it's hiding a cancer: http://djia.tv/press-tv/top-us-banks-credit-ratings-fall/