Intravenous Caffeine

Totally Unfair and Completely Unbalanced

R Allen Stanford wants to help you in the worst way…

Another Deregulation Success Story--cartoon of R. Allen Stanford skipping town, carrying a carpetbag full of loot, being chased by an angry mob of investors...

For some reason, they wouldn't take Sir Stanford's credit card

One of the dogmas of neocon economics is that any kind of governmental regulation or oversight is bad because it prevents business from meeting its true potential. That’s not quite true. What it does is prevent businessmen from having as much fun as they want playing with the markets and becoming Masters of the Universe. In other words, fraud…
I can understand this reluctance to allow governmental interference. I too was enamored of the schemes of Fisk and Gould in the 19th Century. What a pair…how they ran off Erie Railroad stock on their own printing press to sell to Commodore Vanderbilt and skipped across the Hudson on the Ferry moments ahead of the police. Or how they cornered the gold market and caused a massive panic. As James Fisk said when people complained about losing entire fortunes: “Can’t a couple of guys just have some fun?” I’m sure they were whom Ronald Reagan had in mind when he began the march towards totally free-wheeling markets.
Of course, there is a downside. With no regulation, you get people like Bernie Madoff (Weekend at Bernie’s $50bn), R. Allen Stanford, given the title Sir by Antigua for his role in its economic boom, soon to evaporate with the worthless CDs he sold, and that DOPE stock trader who tried to fake his own suicide by crashing a plane without even taking care to load a dead body into it. No one’s seen Sir Stanford lately–he tried to skip town by chartering a plane, but the credit card company had already axed his card–presumably, he went home to pick up some spare krugerands so he could rent one for cash. Of course, all these shenanigans take place in a rarefied region where people HAVE a few millions that they can lose. But, I ask you, who’s gonna pay for it? Three guesses, and I bet you guess it on the first try…

ANNOY YOUR FRIENDS! CONFOUND YOUR ENEMIES! PRESS ONE OF THESE BUTTONS--OR ELSE!
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

Jabba the Oil Executive

Cartoon: Jabba the oil executive eats a customer--it was all his fault anyway for being so tasty...

And when he dies, Exxon Mobil will render him for additional reserves


Ever see one of those movies where the bad guys have the good guys in a hostage situation? The bad guys always say, “Behave yourselves and nothing will happen.” Then either the hostages try to get loose or the cops do something stupid and someone gets killed and the bad guys say, “It wasn’t MY fault. We told you to behave. You only have yourselves to blame.” Bad guys have a warped set of ethics. The fact that they are robbing a bank or hijacking an airplane or something similarly illegal doesn’t really count. It’s YOUR fault for not letting them get away with it.
We’ve, of course, had the last 8 years with a bunch of hoodlums in charge, the chief of whom, one George Bush, was never responsible for anything. Someone else always gave him bad information, or no one could have foreseen the consequences of our actions or inactions. Or something else that would inevitably gain the offending party the Medal of Freedom. With the banking crisis, it’s different. George was NOT the only person responsible. Everyone in government from Ronald Reagan on has been giving banks a free ride, letting them go on a merry deregulated spree until finally, whoopsiedaisy, we’ve got to bail them out. Or else, we’re the ones who’re going to get screwed. Never mind that bailing them out of their greed, rapacity and, worst of all, incompetence is getting screwed enough. If we don’t bail them out, we’ll get doubly screwed.
But during all this, the markets crashing, stock analysts trying to fake suicides, a giant Ponzi scheme to the tune of 50 billion dollars being exposed, whose balance sheets show record profits? The OIL companies. As the economy was going into the ashcan during the summer, they screwed every last cent they could out of anyone who wanted a tank of gas. Why? Because they expected an oil shortage. Well, the oil shortage never arrived. People stopped driving. Did the price go down? Yes, in time for the election in the hope that another laissez-faire Republican, the so-called Maverick McCain, might get to be in charge. But now gas prices are rising again and there is a surplus of crude. What gives? Oh, they shut down refining capacity to match the lowered demand of the summer.
Feel like a hostage? Well, just remember. It isn’t THEIR fault…
By the way, yes, I know Lee Patrick is no longer CEO of Exxon, they have some new, less Jabba-the-Huttish person who nevertheless has just as much appetite–he only LOOKS less gluttonish. But Lee was such a perfect caricature of the oil executive that I had to use him here.

ANNOY YOUR FRIENDS! CONFOUND YOUR ENEMIES! PRESS ONE OF THESE BUTTONS--OR ELSE!
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

A Great New Idea from the Republican Party (Note for the irony-deficient: this is irony)

Captain Taxcut to the Rescue: parody comicbook cartoon cover showing Captain Taxcut promising an unemployed and evicted family that he will go to Washington and bring more corporate tax cuts so their old employers can hire them back at reduced wages, saving their jobs from being outsourced to Mumbai...

SuperSame Me!


The Republican wing of the House voted en masse against the Obama stimulus plan. Their criticism? Not enough tax cuts. As Paul Krugman and others have often noted and indeed the Congressional Research Service has noted, tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy. In other words, they don’t work. The only people who actually spend a tax cut are people who are broke. They usually spend it on necessities. The rich invest them. The middle class banks them. Total stimulus? 0. Zero. Goose egg. Nada. So why keep pushing tax cuts. Could it be a fundamentalist belief in Reagonomics? The trickle-down that never reaches bottom? No, I think these guys are lamely following their de facto party leader, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn’t it make you feel great to know that your Congressman might be a ditto-head? And what does commissar Rush want? To push Failure into Obama’s face. Who cares if the nation suffers from their obstructionism, the party is more important than mere people. The senate was nearly as bad, but three senators had the guts to break ranks, realizing that the sooner something was done, the better it was for the American people. Thank you Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. You showed true patriotism and courage. Quite unlike the American Taliban, Pete Sessions of Texas. Democrats aren’t the enemy, Pete. The screwed-up economy is. Oh, that’s right, I forgot. You’re one of the ones who wants it screwed up.

ANNOY YOUR FRIENDS! CONFOUND YOUR ENEMIES! PRESS ONE OF THESE BUTTONS--OR ELSE!
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

How the Other 1/100th of 1% Lives…

CEOs will be forced to hold garage sales to send the kids to Andover.

CEOs will be forced to hold garage sales to send the kids to Andover.


There was an article in the Sunday NY Times Style section by Allen Salkin titled You Try to Live on 500K in This Town about the problems of the poor Senior Executives that may have to try to live on a mere half million in NYC. While the article I presume was jocular in intent, inviting us to view their plight “not in sympathy but in sport,” I did notice just a wee bit of that perverse pride of New Yorkers that their city is too expensive to live in even for God. With a certain amount of satisfaction, Salkin lays out the basic upper crust expenses, noting that these are necessities to persons of power, “If you run a bank, you can’t look like a slob,” and concludes that senior executive life in NYC couldn’t be accomplished for less than $1.6 million, before taxes. A few of the figures are a little off. Salkin includes an estimate of $32,000 for tuition for the kid’s private school–which is in line with Andover’s tuition of roughly $30K for commuters, $38K for boarders. But this doesn’t include clothes, fees, books, etc., which brings the total according to Andover’s estimate, to approximately $68K per year. $68K? That’s several years salary for many families of four in these United States. The kids are right: Bendover, indeed!. Then I noticed something curious. Salkin had included an entry for a nanny at 45K a year. And I started wondering what Mrs. CEO does (or Mr., but probably Mrs.) Does she work? I presume Mr. CEO wouldn’t marry down to a woman of less than commensurate status–unless he’s already on the final stage of the standard upper class 3 marriage career (starter wife to support you through business school, breeder to provide progeny, and trophy wife/wives to cheat on in your old age) in which case, we eliminate the nanny expense but add in child support and divorce settlement expenses. Perhaps Mrs. CEO is an upper level executive herself with salary NOT affected by the 500K cap. After all, that cap only applies to senior executives of companies taking government billions and NOT in particularly good shape even then. In that case, no problem. But if she isn’t working, what do you need a nanny for? The big baby in the executive office? Hmmmmmmm. But then I noticed another expense for a personal trainer. Ahhhhhhh that’s why Mrs. CEO is too busy to take care of the kids. Keeping her body in tone. And maybe a little more. After all, if Mr. CEO is busy with the nanny, someone’s got to take care of Mrs. CEO! Perhaps Mr. CEO has a mistress–then you don’t need the nanny expense, but then you have to add a few 100K to keep the mistress in room and board and clothing. AHHHHH. CLOTHING. Salkin talks about the 1K Brooks Brothers suit. Is he expecting Mr. CEO to buy off the rack? Tailor made, starting at 2K in the city, three per season, an easy 24K. And what about Mrs. CEO’s wardrobe–think Sarah Palin. 150K minimum…and 150K again for the mistress. Not the paltry 3 party dresses that Salkin budgets for. We’re getting back up into the multi-million dollar range.
Mr. Salkin doesn’t say a word apart the parties that Mr. CEO must throw to keep up appearances. That can easily total another 100K per year.
Perhaps the point of Mr. Obama’s salary cap is NOT to allow Mr. CEO to conduct “business as usual.” After all, business as usual was what bankrupted his company. Perhaps he needs to be reintroduced to how the other 99.99% live. Even in New York.

ANNOY YOUR FRIENDS! CONFOUND YOUR ENEMIES! PRESS ONE OF THESE BUTTONS--OR ELSE!
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]
« go backkeep looking »

© 2009-2012 Gregory Uchrin, Intravenous Caffeine All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright