TALKING-HEADS PAID TO DIS POPULISM, SPREAD DANGEROUS GREED
Right when Obama should be offloading all the Goldman Sachs people in his administration, he brings another on board: Goldman Sachs vice chairman Robert Hormats has been chosen for Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley are all making huge profits. They say they're lending. What they've done is make a great deal of money by jacking up fees. Meanwhile, as the bailout money went to the bankers (some of whom say they didn't even want it), the "stimulus" that went to individuals was used to meet immediate expenses or to pay down debt or went into savings. What happened to job creation via Main-Street-infrastructure spending and the like? Not much is the answer.
How much has crash-spending cost so far? The estimate right now is an end-cost of about $24 trillion.
The problem is that the mainstream-news types are selling the idea that the worst is definitely over. However, unemployment is still increasing. Local and state governments are still being squeezed. Foreclosures have not been stemmed.
Just because the biggest banks have made huge profits by increasing fees does not bode well for the citizenry as a whole.
The "too big to fail" was a lie. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke should never have been in the position to do all the secretive favors.
The talking-head panels on the TV business networks who are talking down populism are the same people who up until the day of the Crash, were still in denial. They are still living in unreality. They don't feel what people are going through. Most of those so-called news people know next to nothing about how the economy actually works. The superrich play them like a fiddle. The talking heads have their jobs and get their pay for spreading the Ponzi scheme that is still right there in front of their faces.
They all feel threatened by the bloggers who tell the truth about the Federal Reserve System and all the neocons' imperial lies.
So, what's the plan? The large online mainstream-news sites are making agreements to all start charging subscription and other fees to access content. They plan to do to the Internet what they used to do via paper. They plan on taking the Internet from the advertising model to the cable model, just as what happened to television.
What will happen if they do this? There will be another major shakeout. Many people won't pay but will seek out sites that will remain no-charge. Also, if they are going to pay anything, many will opt for alternative news that will start doing more serious journalism.
The thing the Rupert Murdoch's aren't appreciating is that back in the day; newspapers became expensive, and people didn't want a different paper for each type of topic. TV stations were expensive too. The Internet though allows for billions of topics from millions of sites. There just isn't any way of consolidating by force without a major backlash. Murdoch doesn't seem to understand what happened to America Online. It tried to keep AOL users all on AOL's site. The Internet is too big for that.
The only way around this is ruining the Internet. What's the excuse? The only excuse would be dictatorship. Dictatorship would bring violent revolution, and violent revolution would mean guillotining the greedy elitists who have caused all the pain and suffering. I don't advocate it. I speak against it.