Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 > > Suze, I'm a former journalist, 10 years at Bloomberg News. That is interesting - it was Bloomberg that has been the only large media organization that's been regularly reporting on the amount of money the Fed has been creating since the " bailout " began. It is Bloomberg that first reported the multi trillion in Federal Reserve notes being pumped out, up to $23.7 trillion at last count. Are they in any way left or right leaning, out of curiousity? > Polls of journalists over the years have showed that there is a trend > to the left in the personal politics of national reporters, to the > right for local reporters, but it matters not a whit because the > viewpoints that matter are those of the bosses that set the agenda and > have final approval on stories, who themselves are overwhelmingly > conservative or they're censored by conservative owners. That may be so, but I wasn't referring to the newspaper owners in my previous posts, but rather about those oligarchs at the very TOP of the power structure in the nations of the West. THEY are the ones that control/influence the newspaper owners and may in some cases (possibly many cases) be the true owners of several popular mainstream media outlets. Although it may be very difficult to trace true ownership that deep behind the curtain. And most > journalists of my personal acquaintance are most interested in being > fair and truthful and, in fact, censor themselves. You don't piss off > your bosses by writing stories with a bent the bosses might fire or > demote you for. And you don't get to write stories that call the whole > system into question. Right and that's a critical message that must be gotten out to the public. > >. For the most hard- > hitting investigative reporting, you generally have to go to the > shoestring Internet or newsletter operations (CounterPunch, > Truthout.org, etc.) plus the above three. Salon.com has good writing > too. I'm sure I've failed to point out a few. > Jeanmarie > Have any of them reported on the $23.7 trillion that the banking cartel has stolen from the American people? If not, I wouldn't consider them to be " hard-hitting " . Suze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 I think Bloomberg does a good job of maintaining relative neutrality, but then again, the company's primary business is supplying realtime financial information and analytical tools to the financial services industry, so despite lots of first-rate investigative reporting about the sins of the corporate world and Wall Street, there is no editorial viewpoint that would question anything on a fundamental level. That would be suicidal for the company. Still, I think it's a first-rate news organization, but its reputation as a workhouse is well deserved! I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague. I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way? Jeanmarie On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Suze Fisher wrote: > > > > Suze, I'm a former journalist, 10 years at Bloomberg News. > > That is interesting - it was Bloomberg that has been the only large > media > organization that's been regularly reporting on the amount of money > the Fed > has been creating since the " bailout " began. It is Bloomberg that > first > reported the multi trillion in Federal Reserve notes being pumped > out, up to > $23.7 trillion at last count. > > Are they in any way left or right leaning, out of curiousity? > > > Polls of journalists over the years have showed that there is a > trend > > to the left in the personal politics of national reporters, to the > > right for local reporters, but it matters not a whit because the > > viewpoints that matter are those of the bosses that set the agenda > and > > have final approval on stories, who themselves are overwhelmingly > > conservative or they're censored by conservative owners. > > That may be so, but I wasn't referring to the newspaper owners in my > previous posts, but rather about those oligarchs at the very TOP of > the > power structure in the nations of the West. THEY are the ones that > control/influence the newspaper owners and may in some cases > (possibly many > cases) be the true owners of several popular mainstream media outlets. > Although it may be very difficult to trace true ownership that deep > behind > the curtain. > > And most > > journalists of my personal acquaintance are most interested in being > > fair and truthful and, in fact, censor themselves. You don't piss > off > > your bosses by writing stories with a bent the bosses might fire or > > demote you for. And you don't get to write stories that call the > whole > > system into question. > > Right and that's a critical message that must be gotten out to the > public. > > > > >. For the most hard- > > hitting investigative reporting, you generally have to go to the > > shoestring Internet or newsletter operations (CounterPunch, > > Truthout.org, etc.) plus the above three. Salon.com has good writing > > too. I'm sure I've failed to point out a few. > > Jeanmarie > > > > Have any of them reported on the $23.7 trillion that the banking > cartel has > stolen from the American people? > > If not, I wouldn't consider them to be " hard-hitting " . > > Suze > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Headline news and CNN are my favorite. Bill O'Reilly and others that use his " no-spin " tactics. You find out that most politicians and parties, especially liberal and conservative, don't really have good quality solid plans when it comes to any particular issue. There are times though when different individuals have something good to offer on certain issues. > > > > Suze, I'm a former journalist, 10 years at Bloomberg News. > > That is interesting - it was Bloomberg that has been the only large > media > organization that's been regularly reporting on the amount of money > the Fed > has been creating since the " bailout " began. It is Bloomberg that > first > reported the multi trillion in Federal Reserve notes being pumped > out, up to > $23.7 trillion at last count. > > Are they in any way left or right leaning, out of curiousity? > > > Polls of journalists over the years have showed that there is a > trend > > to the left in the personal politics of national reporters, to the > > right for local reporters, but it matters not a whit because the > > viewpoints that matter are those of the bosses that set the agenda > and > > have final approval on stories, who themselves are overwhelmingly > > conservative or they're censored by conservative owners. > > That may be so, but I wasn't referring to the newspaper owners in my > previous posts, but rather about those oligarchs at the very TOP of > the > power structure in the nations of the West. THEY are the ones that > control/influence the newspaper owners and may in some cases > (possibly many > cases) be the true owners of several popular mainstream media outlets. > Although it may be very difficult to trace true ownership that deep > behind > the curtain. > > And most > > journalists of my personal acquaintance are most interested in being > > fair and truthful and, in fact, censor themselves. You don't piss > off > > your bosses by writing stories with a bent the bosses might fire or > > demote you for. And you don't get to write stories that call the > whole > > system into question. > > Right and that's a critical message that must be gotten out to the > public. > > > > >. For the most hard- > > hitting investigative reporting, you generally have to go to the > > shoestring Internet or newsletter operations (CounterPunch, > > Truthout.org, etc.) plus the above three. Salon.com has good writing > > too. I'm sure I've failed to point out a few. > > Jeanmarie > > > > Have any of them reported on the $23.7 trillion that the banking > cartel has > stolen from the American people? > > If not, I wouldn't consider them to be " hard-hitting " . > > Suze > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 > I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague. Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the " Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or " Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes political figures such as Kissinger, Brzeziñski, former presidential advisor House and many other political manipulators. > I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say > who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy > enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way? Originally who reported on the growing number over several months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg. But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like 17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one example: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year. If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history. " <snip> " In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service. Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. " Suze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Sweden is a successful oligarchy. Singapore is a well off citystate that makes a lot of money. Not sure what type of government they are... Both nations make a lot of money, and the other big similarty they have, they are very small peices of land. It's far easier to be efficient with a small well ran piece of land. I think we should build a fourth branch of the government that would be called the " financial branch " . It would have researchers and decision makers that work with various business and mayors in order to improve the economy of this country. They would even work with other countries in order to make our financial relations more efficient. Our central goverment should be ran more like a business where if any of the individuals can't pick up the slack and follow the standards aren't followed they get fired and replaced. We should give the mayors and governers of each state more options and take in more input in order to make each state more efficient. The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as G. and Trump to help with it too. The financial branch would also be constantly working with the richest people of this nation such as Bill Gates, The Oil Industry, etc. and show them oppurtunities where they can invest into new industries of the future. With this combined knowledge it would be much easier for our country to move forward and fix it's financial woes. Because all the rich people are joined together in one goal they will be far more efficient putting together their plans, not to mention gaining massive government help. We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure economist statesman. We would then need to rework the system and remove corruption. It's time our country became ethical and wholesome again. We're treading in a dangerous direction, and it may lead to the collapse of the free system. This shouldn't hurt small businesses either. They will be able get in touch with the financial branch and find out what funding programs are truly available. Hopefully this will help us remove our debt, improve our relations with other countries, and afford college for everybody. Because the big industries are so aware of how to make money in new industries, they no longer need to hold on to old technology such as oil and oil pulling. This would ultimately lead to a cleaner environment. Does that sound radical? Holt From: Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> Subject: RE: so-called leftist media Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 8:15 PM > I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague. Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the " Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or " Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes political figures such as Kissinger, Brzeziński, former presidential advisor House and many other political manipulators. > I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say > who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy > enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way? Originally who reported on the growing number over several months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg. But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like 17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one example: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year. If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history. " <snip> " In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service. Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. " Suze ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 On the question of whether non-corporate left-wing new sources have covered the bank bailout cost, the World Socialist Web Site, a good source of news even if you don't favor their Trotskyite politics, has been covering the bailout, which they call " a crime of historic proportions. " " The report’s estimate of the bailout’s total cost, $23 trillion, is in itself mind-boggling. It amounts to 1.7 times the total Gross Domestic Product of the whole United States. In other words, the product of more than a year’s labor for all American workers is being directly transferred to the banks. To put this figure in perspective, the government’s total outlay for discretionary spending, which includes education, food and nutrition programs and housing and urban development, is less than a trillion a year. " This massive transfer of wealth entails the immiseration and impoverishment of the great majority of society. The bank bailout program is widely reviled, and the bankers who benefited are seen as no better than criminals. All of this has explosive implications. It is in tacit recognition of this fact, and in desire to make the Treasury’s theiving less blatant, that the document warns that the Treasury’s actions “could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their Government.†" The bank bailout was designed from the start to enrich the financial elite at the expense of everyone else while being presented as relief for the economic crisis . The program’s favoritism, conflicts of interest, and massive loopholes are not a rough patch in an otherwise sound program, but are essential to its very aim. The whole thing is a crime of historic proportions. " See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/tarp-j22.shtml > > > I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague. > > Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the > " Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or > " Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as > Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking > and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes > political figures such as Kissinger, Brzezi�ski, former presidential advisor > House and many other political manipulators. > > > > I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say > > who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy > > enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way? > > Originally who reported on the growing number over several > months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg. > But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg > reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like > 17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks > like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one > example: > > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html > Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion > > " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end > up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. > government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is > nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year. > > If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal > government has spent on any single effort in American history. " > > <snip> > > " In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the > United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost > $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research > Service. > > Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion: > the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and > the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, > according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. " > > Suze > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 > >The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as >G. and Trump to help with it too. Seriously? Trump? The guy's a serious tool, though he certainly knows about how to mismanage things and then be bailed out by the banks. Would fit right in with the other criminals. > > We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure >economist statesman. Thank you, Plato, but I don't think most people, right or left, on this list or in this country want to live in a technocratic autocracy, even if that is the dream of our ruling-class elites for the better part of a century now. > > Does that sound radical? > > Holt Wasn't the word I'd use... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Thanks for this! We have another wonderful media black out of the really important events… but you can bet CBS nightly news is going to rehash ’s drug addictions/death or whatever it was! Dawn From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of lynchwt Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:31 PM Subject: Re: so-called leftist media On the question of whether non-corporate left-wing new sources have covered the bank bailout cost, the World Socialist Web Site, a good source of news even if you don't favor their Trotskyite politics, has been covering the bailout, which they call " a crime of historic proportions. " " The report’s estimate of the bailout’s total cost, $23 trillion, is in itself mind-boggling. It amounts to 1.7 times the total Gross Domestic Product of the whole United States. In other words, the product of more than a year’s labor for all American workers is being directly transferred to the banks. To put this figure in perspective, the government’s total outlay for discretionary spending, which includes education, food and nutrition programs and housing and urban development, is less than a trillion a year. " This massive transfer of wealth entails the immiseration and impoverishment of the great majority of society. The bank bailout program is widely reviled, and the bankers who benefited are seen as no better than criminals. All of this has explosive implications. It is in tacit recognition of this fact, and in desire to make the Treasury’s theiving less blatant, that the document warns that the Treasury’s actions “could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their Government.†" The bank bailout was designed from the start to enrich the financial elite at the expense of everyone else while being presented as relief for the economic crisis . The program’s favoritism, conflicts of interest, and massive loopholes are not a rough patch in an otherwise sound program, but are essential to its very aim. The whole thing is a crime of historic proportions. " See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/tarp-j22.shtml --- In <mailto: %40> , " Suze Fisher " <suzefisher@...> wrote: > > > I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague. > > Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the > " Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or > " Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as > Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking > and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes > political figures such as Kissinger, Brzezi�ski, former presidential advisor > House and many other political manipulators. > > > > I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say > > who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy > > enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way? > > Originally who reported on the growing number over several > months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg. > But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg > reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like > 17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks > like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one > example: > > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html > Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion > > " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end > up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. > government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is > nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year. > > If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal > government has spent on any single effort in American history. " > > <snip> > > " In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the > United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost > $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research > Service. > > Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion: > the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and > the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, > according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. " > > Suze > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Second the motion on Trump... he's the master of bullshitting, not finance. He goes bankrupt every time he has a divorce pending. He's all about ego, marketing, BS. Jeanmarie On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:39 AM, lynchwt wrote: > >The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as > >G. and Trump to help with it too. > > Seriously? Trump? The guy's a serious tool, though he > certainly knows about how to mismanage things and then be bailed out > by the banks. Would fit right in with the other criminals. > > > > > We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure > >economist statesman. > > Thank you, Plato, but I don't think most people, right or left, on > this list or in this country want to live in a technocratic > autocracy, even if that is the dream of our ruling-class elites for > the better part of a century now. > _,___ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 I was either for that idea or unadulterated naked anarchy. I would rather go around beheading people with the samurai sword I would eventually steal from Arden Fair Mall if total chaos did ever take dominance in our society. That may very well be a possible reality when Osama Binladen puts an embargo on American soil in the near future. That is after he conquers the Eastern Hemisphere with his chemical warfare and forces us to convert to the nation of Islam. Then come the barcodes on our hands and foreheads, the beheadings, and the concentration camps... very bleak future. While Trump did lose it all he got it all back. He's a financial genius. He's got credit even when he's got no money. He can manifest 1 dollar into 1 million dollars. That's an act of Jesus!!! Hey now, I think it's a good idea. This way we dissolve classes and so their are no rich and poor. How? Deflation in money as the value of all items has stabilized due to reorganization. We would become somewhat comparable to the auervedic(sp?) culture in that regard. A culture where value is based on merits rather than on financial success. > >The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as > >G. and Trump to help with it too. > > Seriously? Trump? The guy's a serious tool, though he > certainly knows about how to mismanage things and then be bailed out > by the banks. Would fit right in with the other criminals. > > > > > We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure > >economist statesman. > > Thank you, Plato, but I don't think most people, right or left, on > this list or in this country want to live in a technocratic > autocracy, even if that is the dream of our ruling-class elites for > the better part of a century now. > _,___ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.