All posts by administrator

Clifford Taylor Fleischbein has been in full-time self-employment since 1975 earning revenue as a entrepreneur consultant, with the most recent passage of twenty years generating income from On-demand services for Information technology consulting, Database Management, Marketing, Change Management, and Customer relationship management job projects.

Tavis Smiley interviews Oliver Stone regarding the film: SNOWDEN

Tonight, a conversation with award-winning filmmaker, Oliver Stone. The DVD and Blu-ray release of his film, “Snowden”, comes out December 27 and there’s also a new book out about his work. It’s called “The Oliver Stone Experience”. We’ll talk about that and much more tonight with filmmaker, Oliver Stone.

Tavis: Pleased to welcome award-winning director, Oliver Stone, back to this program. His latest project is called “Snowden”, which releases December 27 on DVD and on Blu-ray.

There is also a wonderful and very heavy coffee table book called “The Oliver Stone Experience”, which delves into his film work over the years. We’ll get to this later in the program. Before we start our conversation, though, with Oliver Stone, first a clip from “Snowden”.

[Clip]

Tavis: You buy that? You believe that? That secrecy is security and security is victory?

Oliver Stone: No, Tavis. He buys it and that is an argument that the national security people always make, that we are running an empire basically since World War II that has gotten so big and it’s so vast. And we have to know everything in order to preserve it and to maintain it. That’s basically the argument. We have to know everything.

Tavis: Yeah. What do you make of that argument?

Stone: Well, it stems from the film. “Snowden” is–you know, I got into this issue when, you remember, he broke the news in June of 2013. That was pretty stunning stuff.

It was evidence finally that the national security agency had gone way beyond its mandate and it was collecting information not just on American citizens, but on everybody in the world, on corporations, on banks, on governments, on people that it was interested in. It’s a vast operation beyond any comprehension.

Most people were really shocked. I was. Then I got into it with Ed. I went to Moscow and I met him, made many trips. And he told us more and more. He didn’t warm up right away. He was very cautious and he told us more over these nine visits over about a year.

And what happens is that, you see, he and I both agree. I mean, a lot of people agree that, if you really are fighting terrorism which was the original excuse given for this, you have to have selected targeting, which is to concentrate on the terrorist and his people around him, and they’re all findable.

Usually, we have a pretty good trace on them and you use human intelligence, you use signals intelligence. You know, we tracked a lot of the phone numbers of the people at 9/11. We had that before.

This is all true, but we have to really concentrate on that amount of targeting and focus on that and have the agencies communicate with each other. The FBI, the NSA, the CIA don’t communicate. And even though we add more intelligence agencies, the communication is not really working that well.

So here we are in this situation where we’re getting so much information that, in a sense, it’s so vast for our computers—although we build bigger and bigger computers, you know, I’m hearing stories now about new types of computers, you know, quantum computers and stuff like this—it’s getting out of hand. I mean, no one knows what’s going on in the world.

And the movie that we just picked is not only about surveillance. It’s also about cyberterrorism, cyberwarfare which is a new form of warfare which, I mean, Americans don’t know anything about, as well as drone warfare which comes from data mining.

Tavis: I don’t need to ask you, but I’m going somewhere with this, so stay with me. I don’t need to ask you whether you think that Edward Snowden is a traitor or a patriot. I think your views on that are pretty clear. But there are people whose views on Edward Snowden have changed over the years and there are other persons whose views have not changed. I want to talk about a couple of different people in those various categories and get your take on it.

Let me start with former Attorney General Eric Holder who was once a staunch critic of Edward Snowden and has said on the record since then that he does think that Snowden provided a public service. That’s his phrase, that he did provide a public service. You think it was a public service?

Stone: I do, I do. You know, Mr. Snowden, he always gave his motivations. He said, “I’m giving this information responsibly to journalists who’ve reported on this and it’s up to them to propagate what they think is in the interests of the American people.”

He always said that. He never veered from that story. He didn’t make any money off of this. I don’t know of any traitor who gives information away for free. He’s maintained that from the beginning, from the first time he met them in June until now. So the profit motive is out.

People who’ve actually seen this movie, actually seen it, have said, well, I’ve changed my mind on Snowden and I really think he should be pardoned or he should be brought back to the United States and given a minimal sentence for breaking the law. He always said, “I’m breaking this law in the service of a higher law” which is what Martin Luther King said.

Tavis: Absolutely.

Stone: You have to sometimes ruffle the…

Tavis: An unjust law is no law at all, yeah.

Stone: Not only that, I mean, it was just–he was shocked because he’s a bit of a boy scout in that way. He was very pure. He was a Libertarian, Conservative, Army family background. After he’d been in the NSA for a few years, he was surprised at just the crossing of barriers into personal lives every day that we were doing this and not questioning it.

It’s against the Constitution. You have to have reasonable cause to survey somebody, reasonable cause. There was no reasonable cause given and, especially when you take on the whole population of the United States, we’re not terrorists.

Tavis: I want to come back to Snowden’s politics in just a second because it’s a fascinating part of the journey that you took. But I want to stick with this point I made a moment ago of quoting a couple of other people who have their own thoughts about Edward Snowden.

So I mentioned Eric Holder and how he started to change on his view of Edward Snowden, it would appear, from the quote that I referenced a moment ago.

Now Congressman Mike Pompeo who Donald Trump, as you know, has picked to be the head of the CIA–I wrote this down. I wanted to make sure I quoted him correctly–has referred to Edward Snowden–this is a quote–“the traitor, Edward Snowden–that’s how he refers to him–“as the traitor, Edward Snowden”.

This is the guy who would run the CIA if approved by the Senate, nominated by Mr. Trump, and he has called for Edward Snowden to be executed. So what do you make of the guy that may run the CIA who has heretofore at least called for Edward Snowden, the traitor, to be executed?

Stone: Well, you’re jumping way ahead of me here. The movie was based on the idea that you would see it, you know, that this Congressman might see it, but they don’t even give it any thought. They have an ideological stance on it and you’re saying he’s preset, he should be executed. Trump said the same thing at one point a few years ago.

You know, life is much more complicated than that and you should be able to change your views as you go through life. This fellow presumably will get appointed to the CIA. He’s also advocating Guantanamo opening again, more prisoners, and also torture, he seems to be fine with torture.

So it’s all going in one direction which is pretty rigid. It’s another America. It’s going back to the dark side of Mr. Cheney, Dick Cheney.

Tavis: President Obama was asked just on Friday about Edward Snowden, as you probably already know. Certainly Oliver Stone knows this.

Stone: No, I didn’t know.

Tavis: There is a big movement afoot and I suspect it’s going to grow in the coming weeks to press President Obama to pardon Edward Snowden before he leaves office–don’t laugh–but there’s going to be a huge press for him to do that before he leaves office.

President Obama was asked about this on Friday and this is a direct quote. “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something I would comment on at this point.” That’s President Obama on Friday when asked about whether he would pardon Edward Snowden.

I guess the question is whether you think there is any chance that Barack Obama, before he leaves the White House, would pardon Edward Snowden?

Stone: I wish he would or at least pre-pardon him, you know. I mean, make the condition such that he could be pardoned. No, it’d be the merciful thing to do and a graceful thing for him. I mean, he’s done many good things, but he hasn’t changed the system, the surveillance system at all. We’ve maintained a war state. We’re still very much in this kind of neoconservative lock that we fell into with George Bush.

So I have not seen that sense of pardon in him. He’s a tough man, Obama. I’ve lost a lot of respect. I thought the 2008 election was going to be a different movement. We’re gonna get rid of this madness that we’re living in and I’m very disappointed.

But I do think he’s done some good things. He hasn’t pressed the war in Syria to the place where it could have been suicidal for us as well as the Syrians. But Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was of another nature and I think she was much tougher than Obama. Obama’s regarded as weak by Trump, so I worry about that.

You know, he wasn’t weak. If you have a powerful country such as we have, the most powerful in the world, you have to learn the power of soft power. You have to be forgiving and you can’t always seek enemies in the world. And this is what I fear is what’s going to happen in this new administration.

Tavis: How do you juxtapose his conservative politics with what he actually did? Because when you get a chance to see the film and read more about this guy, you see that his politics have been a bit conservative.

Stone: He was, yeah. He came from a southern family, two generations of FBI and military. He expressed those opinions when he was young and they’re in the movie, some of them. He was definitely pro Iraq War. He signed up for the military. He went in and he had a fragile body. He broke his legs, not a major break, but it was enough to keep him out.

Then he went over and volunteered for the CIA and he got in because he was quite good on a computer, very smart young man. And, basically, once he got in, he did his job very well except he was posted in Geneva, he was posted in Maryland, he was posted in Japan where he learned a lot about cyberterrorism, and then he moved on to Hawaii.

So he became more valuable as he went. One of the programs he built was Epic Shelter, which was used as a backup program which is very helpful to our global presence. But at the same time, he got more leeway.

He was a contractor essentially for the NSA at the end. And in Hawaii, he was able to access cyber offensive operations as well as defensive operations. He was covering China and Pakistan. But he knows a lot about cyberwarfare and a lot about drone warfare.

So what he was seeing, we were putting these offensive capabilities to use. We were hacking a lot of different places. As you may not remember, because it’s been sort of covered up in history, in 2009, Obama launched the Stuxnet virus against Iran. It was not discovered, I believe, until June or so of the following year, 2010.

But the deal was Obama was told by his “intelligence” people that this Stuxnet virus would not go beyond the borders of Iran and it would end where it ended, and would never be traced to the United States or Israel, who are its originators.

All three things turned out to be wrong. The virus did limited damage in Iran. They rebuilt those reactors and then, on top of that, it moved on into other countries and it could not be stopped for a while. And it was traced ultimately with a lot of research to the United States and Israel. So, I mean, we launched a warlike device which is a form of cyberwarfare in Iran in 2009, and we were doing it since 2006, I’m told.

There were earlier prototypes of Stuxnet, but they weren’t working. So in 2009, we essentially declared a new form of warfare and said here we are, and we thought we’d hide it, but we couldn’t. Other countries figured it out and they started to copy us.

In fact, Russia was soon behind us as well as China is very good at it. They’re smart. There’s a lot of independent hackers in the world that are very like Dr. No’s. They operate on their own and they can do enormous damage.

And as a result, we have all kinds of accusations about cyberwarfare going on. You heard a lot during the election campaign and many of them were silly and really out of hand, based on a sort of McCarthy-like fear of Russia or China.

So we’re in a mess right now. We need a cyber treaty between countries. We really have to sit down and renegotiate this thing because no one knows what–as Snowden says, surveillance is in freefall. I mean, no one knows what’s happening.

Tavis: Is Trump the right person to hit the reset button with Russia, since you referenced it? And what does that look like, do you think?

Stone: I really hope so, because if I had one beef, the major obstacle I had with Ms. Clinton, what I’m most scared of her, was this Russia situation. She was certainly pressing the Russia button making accusations about their cyberwarfare influencing the election and so forth and so on.

It was, I thought, outrageous claims and she should have not made them because she had a short rope to hang herself with…

Tavis: Or put the evidence out.

Stone: Yeah. There was no evidence either.

Tavis: Either/or, I mean, yeah.

Stone: In fact, a lot of people I know in the intelligence world—you can reference James Bamford. He’s written a lot about the National Security Agency–do think it’s probably an insider at the Democratic National Committee that was upset about the bad things that the officers were doing there.

They were trying to block Sanders. They were also selling ambassadorships. Four major officials resigned, you know. They were in some way implicit in this thing. One was a treasurer too.

So these were not mild accusations. These were serious accusations of malfeasance against officials. In other words, Ms. Clinton–well, going back to your original question on Trump. God, I hope so. You know, if there’s one good…

Tavis: The Trump-Putin relationship, friendship, whatever it is, doesn’t scare you?

Stone: No, it doesn’t scare me at all because–I mean, you’re asking me several questions here. No, Russia has not behaved aggressively towards the United States, believe it or not. It’s been the United States has been behaving very aggressively towards Russia for many years. This has been going on since we expanded NATO.

I don’t know if you remember, we had Gorbachev and Baker back in the 90s agreed that NATO would not expand eastward. Well, we’ve expanded to 13 countries. The first Clinton, then Bush, and then Obama, three presidents have expanded NATO to the east. There’s no reason to have that organization which is a defensive organization made after World War II still existing.

Tavis: Of course, the NATO argument, as you well know–I’m telling you stuff you already know–the NATO argument is that if we don’t expand particularly in that region of the world, then Putin runs amok.

Stone: But he hasn’t run amok. He has not run amok. Contrary, if you look at the figures, Russia’s been shrinking. They lost 21 million Russians in the 1990s. They were cut off from Russia. He has never expressed an interest in revitalizing that empire.

He is trying to keep his land mass complete and, if you look at the history of NATO which is taking it right to the border and looking at the hostility of his neighbors, looking at the abrogation in 2002, George Bush unilaterally revoked the ABM Treaty which we had signed with Russia.

Nixon and Brezhnev had signed it in 1972. That’s a big treaty, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He just said it’s off the table. So how can the United States be trusted if it breaks treaties like this? There’s been a lot of provocation to Russia in many ways.

And because the United States has been very concerned about the Eurasian-Chinese unification sort of, the idea of a big economic bloc emerging from Eurasia with China, China is the biggest economic power in the world besides us. But Russia has 10%. As Julian Assange has said, Russia has 10% of our domestic economy. They don’t have anything like it. They’re a smaller country.

They’re like a European country and they have a smaller military, but they have an effective military. They spend–what is it–20% of our spending on defense. There’s no evidence that Russia is trying to be something bigger than it is. They’re trying to stay alive is what I’m trying to say.

Tavis: Let me circle back to the film. There have been award-winning documentaries that come to mind about Edward Snowden. What were the challenges or the reasons, the rationale, for your interest in wanting to do it as a feature film?

Stone: Because when I heard the story from Snowden, it was inside information. No one had ever written or done anything about the National Security Agency with realism yet. There’s been very few books written on it. Bamford is one of them, James Bamford. But getting inside the dialog, the mindset, the sets, the way they look, this is crucial stuff. We went on Ed’s story and it is his story, his point of view.

There has been no convincing counter story from the National. Security Agency blaming him. He is what he is. He’s a smart young man who worked his way up through the NSA where he saw these horrible things going on and he said, “Let the public decide.”

Well, the public, unfortunately, did not understand it because that story broke in 2013 and there’s been no reaction. We’re still in this state we’re in. There were some mild reforms, yes, but essentially he brought–I think we have accepted the fact that the government is a global surveillance state.

We accept it, but we don’t understand the implications of that. And that’s what I’m trying to say to you. We have gathered more data than any single person. We’ve tapped everybody.

We have 22,000 miles up in space. We have satellites with antenna on them as big as the Eiffel Tower listening in on everything. So let’s say we have a coups recently in Brazil. Dilma Rousseff is removed from office. She was a leftist. She was the inheritor of Lula’s Workers’ Party.

I think it was an interesting story about why she was removed with what information. Because we were tapping Petrobras, which is the oil company of Brazil, as we were tapping a lot of the companies in Venezuela and so forth.

So we gave information maybe to the opposition party and they used that to bring all kinds of corruption charges against her. That’s a possibility. So you get a lot of pressure from this information. You can create coup d’états.

In Ukraine, there was a tremendous amount of help form the United States giving to the Ukrainian government which overthrew, again, its president who was democratically elected, overthrew him, instead of waiting for another election.

So if we keep promoting regime change, as Hillary Clinton has said, in these countries, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Turkey maybe–we tried a month or two ago. There was a big coups in Turkey that came very close–Brazil.

I’m saying these are significant changes in countries and we don’t have that right. It seems to me that we are using this power we have to listen in on everybody to promote the agenda we want.

Now what is the agenda? We’ve never argued this with the public. We’ve never debated what should the United States be doing? Should we be going around the world policing it? Demanding regime change when we don’t like a leader? This has happened since 1940s. It’s been going on.

We’ve had at least 100 changes of government that we’ve been involved in. Is this the right role for the U.S.? If we are really out for the United States, if we think about America first, to use Trump’s quote, which is important, I suppose, to say, look, let’s think about America.

What’s good for our health? It’s not changing regimes around the world because they’re not going to attack us. We’re pretty mighty, as it is. Let me finish my point. The idea is that, if we’re America first, let’s concentrate on America. Let’s build up the infrastructure here, and that’s one good thing he said.

Horrible things he said, but one good thing was let’s try to build up this American infrastructure. Let’s put the jobs here. Now he may not succeed, but we can sure build our bridges and roads and try to re-ignite our country economically. We know we’re sagging. We feel it.

Tavis: Whether Mike Pompeo, the future head of the CIA, or just an everyday American, sees this film, what is it about the film that will get them to reconsider their view of him if they take his…

Stone: You know, a film operates in a dramatic level. It’s…

Tavis: It’s powerful.

Stone: It’s human. It makes the human. You understand his story. The public didn’t understand Snowden in 2013. He thought he was–he’s a guy who gave away secrets. That makes him a bad guy in American parlance, but if you look into why he did it and what his life was like and look at his girlfriend, his relationship, he stayed human.

There was a part of him that was honest and pure, and I think we appeal to that in the American people and they will see why he did it. Many Americans would do the same thing if they could. The thing is, he had the courage at 29 years old.

At 29, imagine what you were like at 29. To walk away from the money, the job, the girlfriend? He had a beautiful life in Maryland, but he said no. My conscience is my guide and he lived up to it.

Tavis: This book is not by you, but it is about you. Tell me about “The Oliver Stone Experience”.

Stone: Well, I happen to like it [laugh]. Matt Seitz is a television critic for New York Magazine and he’s written about film extensively, loves film. He’s a man who’s not harshly judgmental, to put it that way, and he’s a very sweet man. He’s a good writer and he’s written about films and this is five years of his work.

He put it out and I gave him access to my files. He went through them. He used what he wanted. There was no negatives. I didn’t put any conditions on it, and this is what he wrote. Some of it, I agree with, some of it I don’t, but I think it’s interesting because, if you’re interested in any particular film I’ve done over those 20 films over, whatever, 25 years, it’s there.

Tavis: It’s called “The Oliver Stone Experience”, as he just said, analyzing his 20 films over this period. And the movie, “Snowden”, by Oliver Stone on Blu-ray and DVD December 27, if you want to have a copy in your personal library. Oliver Stone, always good to have you on the program, sir. Thanks for coming to see us.

Stone: My pleasure. That was fast.

Tavis: Always. You got so much to say, which is why we want you on.

Stone: Did we actually last for 24?

Tavis: We lasted. We got through it.

Stone: Really?

Tavis: Yes. That’s our show for tonight [laugh]. Thanks for watching…  And, as always, keep the faith.

 

All The Presidents’ BANKERS: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power

Who Rules America?

 All The Presidents’ Bankers is a groundbreaking narrative of how an elite group of men transformed the American economy and government, dictated foreign and domestic policy, and shaped world history.

Culled from original presidential archival documents, All The Presidents’ Bankers delivers an explosive account of the hundred-year interdependence between the White House and Wall Street that transcends a simple analysis of money driving politics, or greed driving bankers.

nomi-prins-journalistThe author, Nomi Prins, ushers the reader into the intimate world of exclusive clubs, vacation spots, and Ivy League universities that binds presidents and financiers.  She unravels the multi-generational blood, intermarriage, and protege relationships that have confined national influence to a privileged cluster of people.  These families and individuals recycle their power through elected office and private channels in Washington, DC.

All the Presidents’ Bankers sheds new light on pivotal historic events, such as why, after the Panic of 1907, America’s dominant bankers convened to fashion the Federal Reserve System; how J.P. Morgan’s ambitions motivated President Wilson during World War I; how Chase and National City Bank chairmen worked secretly with President Roosevelt to rescue capitalism during the Great Depression while J.P. Morgan Jr. invited Roosevelt’s son yachting; and how American financiers collaborated with President Truman to construct the World Bank and IMF after World War II.

Prins divulges how, through the Cold War and Vietnam era, presidents and bankers pushed America’s superpower status and expansion abroad, while promoting broadly democratic values and social welfare at  home.  But from the 1970s, Wall Street’s rush to secure Middle East oil profits altered the nature of political-financial alliances.  Bankers’ profit motive trumped heritage and allegiance to public service, while presidents lost control over the economy, as was dramatically evident in the financial crisis of 2008.

The unprecedented history of American power illuminates how the same financiers retained their authoritative position through history, swaying presidents regardless of party affiliation.  All the Presidents’ Bankers explores the alarming global repercussions of a system lacking barriers between public office and private power.  Prins leaves the reader with an ominous choice: either we break the alliances of the power elite, or they will break us.

 

 

Economic Collapse, Bailout & All The Presidents’ Bankers with Nomi Prins
BuzzSaw interview (September 5, 2014)

The following is an excerpt from ALL THE PRESIDENTS’ BANKERS: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power by Nomi Prins (on sale April 8, 2014).  Reprinted with permission from Nation Books. Nomi Prins is a former managing director at Goldman Sachs.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / the associated press Wall Street executives Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, John Mack and Brian Moynihan (from left) are sworn-in prior to testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Wednesday.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / the associated press
Wall Street executives Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, John Mack and Brian Moynihan (from left) are sworn-in prior to testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Wednesday.

NIXON’S BANKERS:
When What Was Good for Wall Street Was Good for the President

Wall Street’s War

While the protests against the Vietnam War intensified in the first years of the Nixon administration, the financial elite was fighting its own war—over the future of banking and against Glass-Steagall regulations. National City Bank chairman Walter Wriston was a steadfast warrior in related battles, as he fought with Chase chairman David Rockefeller for supremacy over the US banker community and for dominance over global finance.

Rockefeller’s sights were set on a grander prize, one with worldwide implications: ending the financial cold war. He made his mark in that regard by opening the first US bank in Moscow since the 1920s, and the first in Beijing since the 1949 revolution.

Augmenting their domestic and international expansion plans, both men and their banks prospered from the emerging and extremely lucrative business of recycling petrodollars from the Middle East into third world countries. By acting as the middlemen—capturing oil revenues and transforming them into high-interest-rate loans, to Latin America in particular—bankers accentuated disparities in global wealth. They dumped loans into developing countries and made huge amounts of money in the process. By funneling profits into debts, they caused extreme pain in the debtor nations, especially when the oil-producing nations began to raise their prices. This raised the cost of energy and provoked a wave of inflation that further oppressed these third world nations, the US population, and other economies throughout the world.

Bank Holding Company Battles

When Eisenhower signed the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act banning interstate banking, he left a large loophole as a conciliatory gambit: a gray area as to what big banks could consider “financially-related business,” which fell under their jurisdiction. In practice, that meant that they could find ways to expand their breadth of services while they figured out ways to grow their domestic grab for depositors. On May 26, 1970, the “Big Three” bankers— Wriston and Rockefeller, along with Alden “Tom” Clausen, chairman of Bank America Corporation—appeared before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to press their case for widening the loophole.

During the proceedings, Wriston led the charge on behalf of his brethren in the crusade. Tall, slim, elegantly dressed, and the most articulate of the three, he dramatically called on Congress to “throw off some of the shackles on banking which inhibit competition in the financial markets.”

The global financial landscape was evolving. Ever since World War II, US bankers hadn’t worried too much about their supremacy being challenged by other international banks, which were still playing catch-up in terms of deposits, loans, and global customers. But by now the international banks had moved beyond postwar reconstructive pain and gained significant ground by trading with Cold War enemies of the United States. They were, in short, cutting into the global market that the US bankers had dominated by extending themselves into areas in which the US bankers were absent for US policy reasons. There was no such thing as “enough” of a market share in this game. As a result, US bankers had to take a longer, harder look at the “shackles” hampering their growth. To remain globally competitive, among other things, bankers sought to shatter post-Depression legislative barriers like Glass-Steagall.

They wielded fear coated in shades of nationalism as a weapon: if US bankers became less competitive, then by extension the United States would become less powerful. The competition argument would remain dominant on Wall Street and in Washington for nearly three decades, until the separation of speculative and commercial banking that had been invoked by the Glass-Steagall Act would be no more.

Wriston deftly equated the expansion of US banking with general US global progress and power. It wasn’t so much that this connection hadn’t occurred to presidents or bankers since World War II; indeed, that was how the political-financial alliances had been operating. But from that point on, the notion was formally and publicly verbalized, and placed on the congressional record. The idea that commercial banks served the country and perpetuated its global identity and strength, rather than the other way around, became a key argument for domestic deregulation—even if, in practice, it was the country that would serve the banks.

The Penn Central Debacle

There was, however, a fly in the ointment. To increase their size, bankers wanted to be able to accumulate more services or branches beneath the holding company umbrella. But a crisis in another industry would give some legislators pause. The Penn Central meltdown, the first financial crisis of Nixon’s presidency, temporarily dampened the ardency of deregulation enthusiasts. The collapse of the largest, most diverse railroad holding company in America was blamed on overzealous bank lending to a plethora of non-railroad-oriented entities under one holding company umbrella. The debacle renewed debate about a stricter bank holding company bill.

Under Wriston’s guidance, National City had spearheaded a fifty-three-bank syndicate to lend $500 million in revolving credit to Penn Central, even when it showed obvious signs of imminent implosion.

Penn Central had been one of the leading US corporations in the 1960s. President Johnson had supported the merger that spawned the conglomerate on behalf of a friend, railroad merger specialist Stuart Saunders, who became chairman. He had done this over the warnings of the Justice Department and despite allegations of antitrust violations called by its competitors. With nary a regulator paying attention, Penn Central had morphed into more than a railroad holding company, encompassing real estate, hotels, pipelines, and theme parks. Meanwhile, highways, cars, and commercial airlines had chipped away at Penn Central’s dominant market position. To try to compensate,
Penn Central had delved into a host of speculative expansions and deals. That strategy was failing fast. By May 1970, Penn Central was feverishly drawing on its credit lines just to scrounge up enough cash to keep going.

The conglomerate demonstrated that holding companies could be mere shell constructions under which other unrelated businesses could exist, much as the 1920s holding companies housed reckless financial ventures under utility firm banners.

Allegations circulated that Rockefeller had launched a five-day selling strategy of Penn Central stock, culminating with the dumping of 134,400 shares on the fifth day, based on insider information he received as one of the firm’s key lenders. He denied the charges.

In a joint effort with the bankers to hide the Penn Central debacle behind a shield of federal bailout loans, the Pentagon stepped in, claiming that assisting Penn Central was a matter of national defense.5 Under the auspices of national security, Washington utilized the Defense Production Act of 1950, a convenient bill passed at the start of the Korean War that enabled the president to force businesses to prioritize national security–related endeavors.

On June 21, 1970, Penn Central filed for bankruptcy, becoming the first major US corporation to go bust since the Depression. Its failure was not an isolated incident by any means. Instead, it was one of a number of major defaults that shook the commercial paper market to its core. (“Commercial paper” is a term for the short-term promissory notes sold by large corporations to raise quick money, backed only by their promise to pay the amount of the note at the end of its term, not by any collateral.) But the agile bankers knew how to capitalize on that turmoil. When companies stopped borrowing in the flailing commercial paper market, they had to turn to major banks like Chase for loans instead. As a result, the worldwide loans of Chase, First National City Bank, and Bank of America surged to $27.7 billion by the end of 1971, more than double the 1969 total of $13 billion.

A year later, the largest US defense company, Lockheed, was facing bankruptcy, as well. Again bankers found a way to come out ahead on the people’s dime. Lockheed’s bankers at Bank of America and Bankers Trust led a syndicate that petitioned the Defense Department for a bailout on similar national security grounds. The CEO, Daniel Haughton, even agreed to step down if an appropriate government loan was provided.

In response, the Nixon administration offered $250 million in emergency loans to Lockheed—in effect, bailing out the banks and the corporation. To explain the bailout at a time when the general economy was struggling, Nixon introduced the Lockheed Emergency Loan Act by stating, “It will have a major impact on the economy of California, and will contribute greatly to the economic strength of the country as a whole.” After the bill was passed, not a single Lockheed executive stepped down.

It would take several years of political-financial debate and more bailouts to sustain Penn Central. One 1975 article labeled the entire episode “The Penn-C Fairy Tale” and condemned the subsequent federal bailout: “While the country is in the worst recession since the depression and unemployment lines grow longer every day, Congress is dumping another third of a billion dollars of your tax payer dollars down the railroad rat hole.” (The incident was prologue: Congress would lavish hundreds of billions of dollars to sustain the biggest banks after the 2008 financial crisis, topped up by trillions of dollars from the Fed and the Treasury Department in the form of loans, bond purchases, and other subsidies.)

More Bank Holding Company Politics

Despite the Penn Central crisis, the revised Bank Holding Company Act decisively passed the Senate on September 16, 1970, by a bipartisan vote of seventy-seven to one. The final version was far more lenient than the one that Texas Democrat John William Wright Patman, chair of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, or even the Nixon administration had originally envisioned. The revised act allowed big banks to retain nonbank units acquired before June 1968. It also gave the Fed greater regulatory authority over bank holding companies, including the power to determine what constituted one. Language was added to enable banks to be considered one-bank holding companies if they, or any of their subsidiaries, held any deposits or extended any commercial loans, thus broadening their scope.

President Nixon signed the bill into law without fanfare on New Year’s Eve 1970. In fact, his inner circle decided against making a splash about it. They didn’t think the public would understand or care. Plus, they realized that there was a prevailing attitude that the Nixon administration had favored the big banks, and though it had, this was not something they wanted to draw attention to.

The End of the Gold Standard

The top six banks controlled 20 percent of the nation’s deposits through one-bank holding companies, but second place in that group wasn’t good enough for Wriston, who noted to the Nixon administration that his bank was really the “caretaker of the aspirations of millions of people” whose money it held. Wriston flooded the New York Fed with proposals for expansion. His applications “were said to represent as many as half of the total of all of the banks.” The Fed was so overwhelmed, it had to enlist First National City Bank to interpret the new law on its behalf.

By mid-1971, the Fed had approved thirteen and rejected seven of Wriston’s applications. His biggest disappointment was the insurance underwriting rejection. The possibility of converting depositors for insurance business had been tantalizing. It would continue to be a hard-fought, ultimately successful battle.

Around the same time, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller’s brother) approved legislation permitting banks to set up subsidiaries in each of the state’s nine banking districts. This was a gift for Wriston and David Rockefeller, because it meant their banks could expand within the state. Each subsidiary could open branches through June 1976, when the districts would be eliminated and banks could merge and branch freely.

Several months later, First National City Bank was paying generous prices to purchase the tiniest upstate banks, from which it began extending loans to the riskiest companies and getting hosed in the process; a minor David vs. Goliath revenge of local banks against Wall Street muscle.

By that time, the stock market had turned bearish, and foreign countries were increasingly demanding their paper dollars be converted into gold as they shifted funds out of dollar reserves. Bankers, meanwhile, postured for a dollar devaluation, which would make their cost of funds cheaper and enable them to expand their lending businesses.

They knew that the fastest way to further devalue the dollar was to sever it from gold, and they made their opinions clear to Nixon, taking care to blame the devaluation on external foreign speculation, not their own movement of capital and lending abroad.

The strategy worked. On August 15, 1971, Nixon bashed the “international money speculators” in a televised speech, stating, “Because they thrive on crises they help to create them.”16 He noted that “in recent weeks the speculators have been waging an all-out war on the American dollar.” His words were true in essence, yet they were chosen to exclude the actions of the major US banks, which were also selling the dollar. Foreign central banks had access to US gold through the Bretton Woods rules, and they exercised this access. Exchanging dollars for gold had the effect of decreasing the value of the US dollar relative to that gold. Between January and August 1971, European banks (aided by US banks with European branches) catalyzed a $20 billion gold outflow.

As John Butler wrote in The Golden Revolution, “By July 1971, the US gold reserves had fallen sharply, to under $10 billion, and at the rate things were going, would be exhausted in weeks. [Treasury Secretary John] Connally was tasked with organizing an emergency weekend meeting of Nixon’s various economic and domestic policy advisers. At 2:30 p.m. on August 13, they gathered, in secret, at Camp David to decide how to respond to the incipient run on the dollar.”

Nixon’s solution, pressed by the banking community, was to abandon the gold standard. In his speech the president informed Americans that he had directed Connally to “suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets.” He promised this would “defend the dollar against the speculators.” Because Bretton Woods didn’t allow for dollar devaluation, Nixon effectively ended the accord that had set international currency parameters since World War II, signaling the beginning of the end of the gold standard.

Once the dollar was no longer backed by gold, questions surfaced as to what truly backed it (besides the US military). According to Butler, “The Bretton Woods regime was doomed to fail as it was not compatible with domestic US economic policy objectives which, from the mid-1960s onwards, were increasingly inflationary.”

It wasn’t simply policy that was inflationary. The expansion of debt via the joint efforts of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve was greatly augmented by the bankers’ drive to loan more funds against their capital base. That established a debt inflation policy, which took off after the dissolution of Bretton Woods. Without the constraint of keeping gold in reserve to back the dollar, bankers could increase their leverage and speculate more freely, while getting money more easily from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. Abandoning the gold standard and “floating” the dollar was like navigating the waters of global finance without an anchor to slow down the dispersion of money and loans. For the bankers, this made expansion much easier.

Indeed, on September 24, 1971, Chase board director and former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon (chairman of the Brookings Institution and, from 1972 to 1975, the Rockefeller Foundation) told Connally that “under no circumstances should we ever go back to assuming limited convertibility into gold.” Chase Board chairman David Rockefeller wrote National Security Adviser (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger to recommend “a reevaluation of foreign currencies, a devaluation of the dollar, removal of the U.S. import surcharge and ‘buy America’ credits, and a new international monetary system with greater flexibility . . . and less reliance on gold.”

With the dollar devalued, investors poured money into stocks, fueling a rally from November 1971 led by the “Nifty Fifty,” a group of “respectable” big-cap growth stocks. These were being bought “like greyhounds chasing a mechanical rabbit” by pension funds, insurance companies, and trust funds. The Chicago Board of Trade began trading options on individual stocks in 1973 to increase the avenues for betting; speculators could soon thereafter trade futures on currencies and bonds.

The National Association of Securities Dealers rendered all this trading easier on February 8, 1971, when it launched the NASDAQ. The first computerized quote system enabled market makers to post and transact over-the-counter prices quickly. With the stock market booming again, NASDAQ became a more convenient avenue for Wall Street firms to raise money. Many abandoned their former partnership models whereby the firm’s partners risked their own capital for the firm, in favor of raising capital by selling the public shares. That way, the upside—and the growing risk—would also be diffused and transferred to shareholders. Merrill Lynch was one of the first major investment bank partnerships to go “public” in 1971. Other classic industry leaders quickly followed suit.

Meanwhile, corporations were finding prevailing lower interest rates more attractive. Instead of getting loans from banks, they could fund themselves more cheaply by issuing bonds in the capital markets. This took business away from commercial banks, which were restricted by domestic regulation from acting as issuing agents. But bankers had positioned themselves on both sides of the Atlantic to get around this problem, so they were covered by the shift in their major customers’ financing preferences. While their ability to service corporate demand was dampened at home, overseas it roared. Currency market turmoil also led many countries to the Eurodollar market for credit, where US banks were waiting. Thus, the credit extended through international branches of major US banks tripled to $4.5 billion from 1969 to 1972.

The market rally, cheered on by the media, was enough to bolster Nixon’s fortunes. In the fall of 1972, Nixon was reelected in a landslide on promises to end the Vietnam War with “peace and honor.” Wall Street reaped the benefits of a bull market, and more citizens and companies were sucked into new debt products. The Dow hit a 1970s peak of 1,052 points in January 1973, as Nixon began his second term.

Maverick and the Coalition with Tamara take the stage for Escondido City Mayor’s “Unity In The Community”

Clifford “Maverick” Taylor Fleischbein is now working for fun in his return to the stage, performing his energetic guitar playing and singing with the young and vibrant Tamara Rodriguez:

2016_tamara-rodriguez_unity-in-the-community-event-with-clifford

The collaboration of these two artists will bring the musical sounds like “I Talked To ItalianO” with the fine blending of Techo-Pop sounds with Maverick’s unique and discernible guitar chops:

 

How Wolves Changed the Eco System of Yellow Stone National Park

Published on Feb 13, 2014

If you likes How Wolves Change Rivers, check out How Whales Change Climate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18Hx…

For more from George Monbiot, visit http://www.monbiot.com/ and for more on “rewilding” visit http://bit.ly/1hKGemK and/or check out George Monbiot’s book Feral: rewilding the land, the sea and human life: http://amzn.to/1fjgirx

NOTE: There are “elk” pictured in this video when the narrator is referring to “deer.” This is because the narrator is British and the British word for “elk” is “red deer” or “deer” for short. The scientific report this is based on refers to elk so we wanted to be accurate with the truth of the story.

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” – John Muir

When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in the United States after being absent nearly 70 years, the most remarkable “trophic cascade” occurred. What is a trophic cascade and how exactly do wolves change rivers? George Monbiot explains in this movie remix.

Narration from TED: “For more wonder, rewild the world” by George Monbiot. Watch the full talk, here: http://bit.ly/N3m62h

B-Roll Credits:
“Greater Yellowstone Coalition – Wolves” (http://bit.ly/1lK4LaT)
“Wolf Mountain” (http://bit.ly/1hgi6JE)
“Primodial – Yellowstone” (https://vimeo.com/77097538)
“Timelapse: Yellowstone National Park” (http://bit.ly/1kF5axc)
“Yellowstone” (http://bit.ly/1bPI6DM)
“Howling Wolves – Heulende Wölfe” (http://bit.ly/1c2Oidv)
“Fooled by Nature: Beaver Dams” (http://bit.ly/NGgQSU)

Music Credits:
“Unfoldment, Revealment, Evolution, Exposition, Integration, Arson” by Chris Zabriskie (http://bit.ly/1c2uckW)

This video was edited by Steve Agnos with editorial assistance from Chris Agnos (who also conceived the idea for the video) the brothers behind Sustainable Man. For more from Steve Agnos visit https://vimeo.com/steveagnos or https://vimeo.com/thesustainableman

For any concerns or questions, you may contact us at http://sustainableman.org/contact/

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the US Copyright Law.

Metamorphosis – Iron Butterfly (1971)

Iron Butterfly 2012 (THE FINAL PERFORMANCE) with Original founding members (In a Gadda da Vida)

Lee Dorman, bassist for Iron Butterfly, died on Friday December 21, 2012 at the age of 70, the Associated Press reports. According to a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Dorman was found dead in a vehicle on Friday morning and may have been on his way to a doctor’s appointment.

Dorman was born in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1942. He joined the Southern California-based Iron Butterfly for its second and best-known album, In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida, which was released in 1968. The 17-minute title track helped the album sell more than 30 million copies, and a three-minute version of the song became a Top 40 hit.

2012 In Memoriam: Musicians We Lost
During Iron Butterfly’s temporary break-up in the 1970s, Dorman and guitarist Larry Reinhardt formed the metal-jazz fusion band Captain Beyond, with Rod Evans from Deep Purple. The group released three albums and had a radio hit with the 1973 song “Sufficiently Breathless.”

Iron Butterfly 2012 (In A Gada Da Vida) Preformance at The Mt. Tabor Theatre Portland Oregon with Founding Members Lee Doorman (Bass Guitar) and Ron Bushy (Drums)

Metal-Jazz Fusion band: Captain Beyond

25 Little Known Facts About Forrest Gump.

Forrest Gump, made in 1994, is heartbreaking, odd, and beautiful. Breath taking performances by a stellar cast of actors guarantees this film to be a delight every time.


1/25. Bill Murray, John Travolta and Chevy Chase turned down the role of Forrest Gump. Travolta later admitted that passing on the role was a mistake.

2/25. Tom Hanks’ younger brother Jim Hanks doubled for him in many of his numerous running sequences.

3/25. Tom Hanks signed onto the film after an hour and a half of reading the script but agreed only to take the role if the film was historically accurate. He initially wanted to ease Forrest’s pronounced Southern accent, but was eventually persuaded by director Robert Zemeckis to portray the heavy accent stressed in the novel and patterned his accent after Michael Conner Humphreys (young Forrest) who actually talked that way.

 

 

4/25. Tom Hanks wasn’t paid for the film. Instead he took percentage points which ultimately netted him in the region of $40 million.


5/25. When Forrest gets up to talk at the Vietnam rally in Washington, the microphone plug is pulled and you cannot hear him. According to Tom Hanks, he says, “Sometimes when people go to Vietnam, they go home to their mommas without any legs. Sometimes they don’t go home at all. That’s a bad thing. That’s all I have to say about that.”


6/25. The line, “My name is Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump,” was ad libbed by Tom Hanks while filming the scene. Director Robert Zemeckis liked it so much that he decided to keep it in

7/25. With every transition of Forrest’s age, one thing remains the same – in the first scene of each transition he wears a blue plaid shirt.

8/25. Forrest and Dan’s Shrimp Emporium “Bubba Gump”, is now a themed restaurant in 33 locations around the world in the U.S., Japan, China, Mexico, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and the UK. There is one in Orlando, Florida, at the entrance to the Universal theme parks, at the Anaheim Gardenwalk in walking distance from Disneyland Park in Anaheim, California in the Los Angeles area and at Pleasure Pier in Galveston, Texas.

9/25. When Forrest first learns to play ping-pong in the infirmary, he is told the trick is to “keep his eye on the ball” by another soldier. After that moment, whenever he is shown playing ping-pong, he never blinks.

 

 

10/25. The actor who plays the reporter on the scene when Tom Hanks visits Washington DC after his tour in Vietnam was, himself, an actual tourist from Atlanta, Georgia. He happened to be on Capitol Hill that day with his wife, and was asked to read.


11/25. Many of the extras in the hippie scene were actors from the Maryland Renaissance Festival, since the casting director Ellen Lewis realized that would be a good source of performers with long hair.


12/25. Gary Sinise’s lower legs were wrapped in a special blue fabric that allowed them to be digitally removed later.

13/25. During the ping-pong matches, there was no ball; it was entirely CGI, animated to meet the actors’ paddles.

14/25. The running scene was inspired by an actual event. In 1982, Louis Michael Figueroa, aged 16, ran from New Jersey to San Francisco for the American Cancer Society, unknowingly inspiring a line for Forrest Gump’s famous run on the silver screen. “I just put one foot in front of the other,” it goes. “When I get tired I sleep. When I get hungry I eat. When I have to go to the bathroom, I go.”

15/25. The park bench that Tom Hanks sat on for much of the movie was located in historic Savannah, Georgia, at Chippewa Square. The fiberglass bench he sat on, since then, has been removed and placed into a museum to avoid being destroyed by bad weather, or possibly stolen. The church where the feather first falls was about 100 yards just down the street from the bench. To this day, the bench is held in the Savannah History Museum, Savannah, Georgia.

 

 

16/25. Gump’s Medal of Honor ceremony uses the footage of the actual ceremony for Sammy L. Davis, who was awarded the Medal of Honor on 19 November 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson for his actions in Vietnam a year earlier. Tom Hanks’ head was superimposed on Davis’ body.

17/25. When Lt. Dan Taylor first meets Forrest and Bubba in Vietnam, he says, “You must be my FNGs”. Generally speaking, this stands for “F*ckin’ New Guys”.

18/25. Every still picture of Forrest during this film shows Tom Hanks with his eyes closed.

19/25. Robin Wright was sick with a cold while shooting the nightclub scene. In spite of this, she was still able to perform her own singing during a non-stop twenty-four hour shoot in which she was nearly nude except for her guitar.

20/25. David Alan Grier, Ice Cube and Dave Chappelle turned down the role of Bubba. Cube refused to play someone with a disability and Chappelle thought the movie would bomb. Chappelle has since admitted to deeply regretting not taking the role.

21/25. Kurt Russell has said that he did the voice of Elvis Presley (uncredited) in the film, reprising his role from Elvis (1979).

22/25. The shrimp boat used in the film now resides in the moat surrounding the Planet Hollywood restaurant in Downtown Disney, at the Disney World Resort in Florida. Also, one of the ping-pong paddles used in the film is signed by Tom Hanks and hung up on one of the walls inside the restaurant.

 

 

23/25. On the day that Tom Hanks shot the football running scenes he had been suffering from influenza.

24/25. Sally Field is only ten years older than Tom Hanks.

25/25. When this film became wildly successful, talk of a sequel naturally arose. However, at the time, Tom Hanks adamantly refused to work in any sequel (and making the sequel with another actor was not a consideration).

Age 75+ Long-Term Care Plan: Medicare – Part G – Nursing Home Alternative

Medicare – Part G – Nursing Home Plan
MediCare with Plan G (gun)

A zero premium, no deductible Long -Term Health Care Plan

If you are an older senior citizen (75 or older) who can no longer take care of yourself and need Long-Term Care, but the government says there is no nursing home care available for you, what can you do?

Opt for Medicare Part G.

Part G gives the older senior citizen (75 or older) a Gun (Part G) and one bullet. You are allowed to shoot one worthless politician. This means you will be sent to prison for the rest of your life where you will receive a roof over your head, central heating and air conditioning, three meals a day, cable TV, a library, and all the health care you need including dentures, glasses, hearing aids, new hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart or sex change. They are all covered!

As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as they do now. Who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you they can’t afford to provide nursing home care for you.

This plan allows you to get rid of a useless politician, and as a prisoner you don’t have to pay any more income taxes!

Spirit In The Sky

Norman Greenbaum

When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that’s the best
When I lay me down to die
Goin’ up to the spirit in the sky
Goin’ up to the spirit in the sky
That’s where I’m gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that’s the best

Prepare yourself you know it’s a must
Gotta have a friend in Jesus
So you know that when you die
He’s gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
Gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
That’s where you’re gonna go when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You’re gonna go to the place that’s the best

I’ve been a sinner Yes I’ve  sinned
But I got a friend in Jesus
So you know that when I die
He’s gonna set me up with
The spirit in the sky
Oh set me up with the spirit in the sky
That’s where I’m gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
I’m gonna go to the place that’s the best
Go to the place that’s the best

Money Is Coming To Me

Money is coming to me
Money is coming to me
Money keeps coming to me
Money is coming to me

Money is coming to me
Money keeps coming to me
Money is coming to me
Money keeps coming to me

Money is coming to me
I just feel it, and i belive
It’s coming to me now,
And i’m not worried about how, ooo yee,
Money, is coming to me,

The Universe is working for me,
I just feel it, and i belive
Is working for me now,
And i’m not worried about how, ooo yee…
Money, is coming to me,

More then enough to live,
More then enough to give,
More then enough to share,
Feel like it’s already here,

More then enough to shop,
More then enough to drop,
More then enough to save,
There’s plenty left over to give away.

Money is coming to me
I just feel it, and i belive
It’s coming to me now,
And i’m not worried about how, ooo yee,
Money, is coming to me,

The Universe is working for me,
I just feel it, and i belive
Is working for me now,
And i’m not worried about how, ooo yee…
Money is coming to me, well

More then enough to live,
More then enough to give,
More then enough to share,
Feel like it’s already here,

More then enough to shop,
More then enough to drop,
More then enough to save,
There’s plenty left over to give away.

Money is coming to me
I just feel it, and i belive
Is coming to me now,
And i’m not worried about how, ooo yee,
Money, is coming to me,

Come on,…come on,come on,come on,

I believe it
I just feel it, and i believe,
Is coming to me now,
And i’m not worried about how, ooo yee…
Money is coming to me

Come on,…come on,come on,come on,

I believe it, and i recive it,
And life is already here….

Maverick: The Rock Love Gangster

The Gangster Is Back

Look out, the gangster’s back
I done traded in my old horse for a brand new Cadillac
I’m gonna play some blues
Cause I know you like that
Gonna get real loose
And do the jumpback jack

When I walk into a bar
Girls from near and far
Say I’m the gangster

Listen while a play for you
A crazy little thing called guitar blue
Red, black, yellow, or white
It don’t matter mamas
You’re all outta sight
Don’t get too heavy
Now don’t get uptight
Cause the gangster’s here to turn on your light
You’re my horse and you never win a race
And I dig you mama and your real crazy legs

When I walk into a bar
Girls from near and far
Say I’m the gangster

Do do do do do do
Do do do do do do
Do do do do do do
Do do do do do do
Go gangster (do do do do do)
Go gangster (do do do do)
Go gangster (do do do do do)
Go gangster (do do do do)
I’m a gangster

Started long time ago
Down in Texas where the guitars grow
Folks down there got all shook up
When I cut myself loose and did my stuff
Now it’s ready, set
Ready, set go
Time for the gangster to start the show

Well, I’m lookin’ for women
I’m on the road again
You know the gangster don’t lose
He always win

When I walk into a bar
Girls from near and far
Say I’m the gangster

You better look out the gangster’s back

Blues Without Blame

I ask my baby for a nickel
She gave me a twenty dollar bill
I ask her for a drink of whiskey
And she gave me a liquor still

Whoa, yeah yeah yeah
What can a poor boy do
Ain’t it hard, ain’t it hard
When you have to live the blues

I call my baby on the telephone
She said come on over Stevie I’m all alone
I said I can’t get my car started mama

Whoa, yeah
What can a poor boy do
When he has to live the blues

And while my baby’s makin’ it with my best friend
I know I’m being used, yeah yeah yeah

Lord have mercy
Lord have mercy on me
Lord have mercy
Lord have mercy on me, yeah

I’m tryin’ to find my babe
Won’t somebody please, yeah yeah
Won’t somebody please bring her home to me

Love Shock

Meet me at the station about a quarter past five
That’s about the time that I come alive, yeah
Don’t make sense if it ain’t the real thing y’all
Nothing but the real thing makes my bell ring

Love me baby, won’t you love me please
You got me down here on my knees, yeah
I’m so glad that I’m still alive
Come on baby, won’t you make me feel good now

Come on baby now don’t be too slow
Now I’m in a hurry, you know I got to go
Don’t make sense if you don’t know how to move
I’m a natural born lover, I was born in a groove, yeah
Oooh

[Spoken:]
It’s Jumpin’ Jack Flash on the drums

Let Me Serve You

Oh baby, don’t you want a man like me
Oh baby, don’t you want a man like me
Think about your future
Forget about your used to be

Just a little bit of rock
Just a taste or two of roll
I’ll give you sweet inspiration
Till it satisfies your soul

Oh baby, don’t you want a man like me
Let me serve you pretty baby
Serve you until you’re free

Let me serve you in the morning
Let me serve you in the afternoon
I want to love you pretty mama
Underneath the silvery moon

Oh baby, don’t you want a man like me
Let me serve you pretty baby
Think about what could be
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah…..

Rock Love

Do do do do doot
Do do do do doot
Do do do do doot
You got to have rock love
To weather the storm
It’s got to be rock love
To help you carry on

When the winds of temptation move your soul
Stay with me now, don’t you let it go
I told you so

Rock love will weather the storm
You got to have rock love to hear your song
It’s got to be rock love, yeah
To make you strong

When everybody puts you down
The rock of love will be around
It’s solid ground

Rock love will weather the storm
Rock love, yeah, will help you carry on
Sweet Jesus will see you through
Your trials, tribulations too

No matter how far you go
Still I will love you so
I told you so

Rock love will weather the storm
Yeah

Harbor Nights

I can see the harbor lights
Looks like the fourth of July
Maybe Christmas night
Reflected in water

In my cell, behind this wall
I share my time
With many a soul who is lost
Why must I always be a loser
Why can’t I ever be a winner

So as time
Goes rolling by
I lose my chance
It’s only one life
If I had the wings of an angel
O’er these prison walls I would fly
Straight from the darkness into the light
Why must I always be a loser
Why can’t I ever be a winner

[Spoken:] My dearest darling, as I’m writing you this letter
They’re coming to take me away
They’re beginning to shave my head now, sweetheart
But as their doing it
I just want you to know
That I wouldn’t have it any other way
I’m glad that I killed your mother
She was a low-down dirty old hag
But in the end darling
You will get your revenge
Because you see
Their gonna send you my belongings
In a plastic bag

La, la, la
A plastic bag

Deliverance

Johnny ‘Guitar’ Watson: Gangster of Love

I Wanna Ta Ya You, Baby (Johnny ‘Guitar’ Watson)

The Whole 1977 Johnny ‘Guitar’ Watson show

Reformed Monetary Policies for the 21st Century

Autonomous monetary policies cannot provide efficient means of directing the financial destiny of any nation.  The interconnectedness of the international financial and monetary systems are such that changes in one area will have a dramatic and sometimes negative reaction in another area.

The dynamic between America’s negative balance of payments and China’s huge trade surplus are signs of this relationship.  The large imbalances in the international framework from using the national currency of one nation as the global reserve asset has been the leading cause of poverty and ineffective income distribution worldwide.

The necessary reforms to address this global poverty and disparity Reformed-Monetary-Policyin income distribution could be considered multilateral monetary reforms.  These reforms are focused on three main areas, which are:

  1. Exchange Rate Adjustments
  2. Money Supply Adjustments
  3. Adjustments to Controls on Foreign Capital Flows

Foreign capital flows are the main mechanisms which transfer capital between trade deficits and trade surpluses.  The other two components are used in conjunction to determine the volume and pace of the third.

For any one nation to enact autonomous monetary policies would be counterproductive to the realities of the world today.  At any one time only two of the three areas above can remain autonomous.  This means that there will always be one monetary policy which cannot be autonomous and will remain connected to the larger macroeconomic multilateral framework.

It is this one area which will influence and force change on the others.

An example of this dynamic can be explained by considering the condition of interest parity.  Any nation which holds its domestic currency at a fixed exchange rate with an outside currency, or other exchange rate arrangement, while maintaining a balanced mobility of capital, will find that its interest rate policy will be decided through arbitrage activity.

This condition of interest parity functions across borders and prevents any one nation from maintaining autonomous monetary policies.  The recent interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve and its corresponding effects upon the international monetary system can be considered proof of this dynamic.

As such, it is impossible for any nation to maintain independence and autonomy on:

  1. Fixed Exchange Rates
  2. Money Supply Adjustments
  3. Unregulated International Flows of Financial Capital

Being that the United States dollar has held the title of international reserve unit of account since the end of WW2, it was problematic and inevitable that massive global imbalances would take place.  These imbalances have led to enhanced poverty around the world and caused inefficient income distribution between nations.

Not to mention the large trade deficit which America now holds, and the massive loss of domestic jobs.

Each nation can be interdependent in that its domestic fiscal policies are aligned to capitalize on the effective arrangement and implementation of macroeconomic monetary policies.  Such changes are good for the Unites States and other nations.  The toll which ineffective monetary policy has had on the US is obvious in the loss of factories and jobs, and the huge trade deficit.

This will change with adjustments to the international framework through the implementation of the three monetary policies described above:

  1. Exchange Rate Adjustments
  2. Money Supply Adjustments
  3. Adjustments to Controls on Foreign Capital Flows

Any analysis and prediction on domestic economies or the international economy must consider these larger monetary adjustments in order to be considered accurate or thorough.

The US political establishment understands that the dollar will need to depreciate and that this will bring back factories and jobs as American made goods become affordable once again.  This will boost domestic growth and lower the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Monetary policy reform is not just good for the United States.  It is meant to be good for all nations.  The transition from the unipolar dollar based framework to the multilateral monetary reform based framework will be volatile.  We have already experienced this over the last year or so, and will experience more yet before the transition is complete.

Understanding the dynamics of monetary reform is fundamental to understanding the transition itself.  – JC Collins

Source: http://philosophyofmetrics.com/just-what-is-monetary-policy-reform/

Related:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-global-currency-moves-cost-u-jobs-132155544–business.html

 

The Murphy Twins are Drunk Again

drunkagain

Two men were sitting next to each other at Murphy’s Pub in London.

After awhile, one bloke looks at the other and says, ‘I can’t help but think, from listening to you, that you’re from Ireland’

 The other bloke responds proudly, ‘Yes, that I am!’

 The first one says, ‘So am I! And where about from Ireland might you be?’

 The other bloke answers, ‘I’m from Dublin, I am.’

 The first one responds, ‘So am I!’

 ‘Mother Mary and begora. And what street did you live on in Dublin ?’

The other bloke says, ‘A lovely little area it was. I lived on McCleary Street in the old central part of town.’

The first one says, ‘Faith and it’s a small world. So did I! So did I! And to what school would you have been going?’

The other bloke answers, ‘Well now, I went to St. Mary’s, of course.’

The first one gets really excited and says, ‘And so did I. Tell me, what year did you graduate?’

The other bloke answers, ‘Well, now, let’s see. I graduated in 1964.’

The first one exclaims, ‘The Good Lord must be smiling down upon us! I can hardly believe our good luck at winding up in the same place tonight. Can you believe it, I graduated from St. Mary’s in 1964 my own self!’

About this time, Vicky walks up to the bar, sits down and orders a drink.

Brian, the barman, walks over to Vicky, shaking his head and mutters, ‘It’s going to be a long night tonight.’

Vicky asks, ‘Why do you say that, Brian?’

‘The Murphy twins are drunk again.’

Quickly Destroy Cancer Cells With Plant “Wormwood”

Plant “Wormwood” is capable of rapid destruction of cancer cells

Sunday February 28, 2016 – 20:30
Artemisia_annua_28022016.jpg

BAGHDAD (obelisk) – Scientists from the University of California discovered that wormwood (Artemisia) is capable of destroying 98 percent of the cancer cells in the body in just 16 hours.

This discovery made the experts are working on creating a medical preparation by which to eliminate the disease Completely cancer.

The experts discovered that wormwood produces a artemizinin where clinical tests have shown that a dose of this medication is enough to destroy 98 percent of cancer cells in the body within 16 hours.

In the opinion of scientists, when you add iron to 100 percent of this preparation will destroy cancer cells in the body and prevents the emergence of new cancer cells.

It should be noted that the use alone could eliminate 28 percent of the cancer cells in the body wormwood plant Holi, but when you add the iron component of the mix destroy all the cancer cells in the body. In addition to the tests showed that this plant does not affect healthy cells.

Artemizinin material used in the prevention of malaria, but scientists have proved that the plant wormwood Holi is very effective in the fight against cancer.

Holi wormwood plant Artemisia annua, a type of wormwood plants, fragrant essential oils and custom height ranges between 50 and 150 cm, and his papers Khamlih blade and Qnabath transparent and veins striking green.

Ozahrarh and continue in the months of July and August, and spread in various parts of the world.