Skip to main content

Gary Cohn is giving Goldman Sachs everything it ever wanted from the Trump Administration

Gary Rivlin, Michael Hudson

Part 5 - THE VAMPIRE SQUID

Goldman Sachs repaid repaid its $10 billion bailout partway through 2009, less than 12 months after the loan was made. Other banks in the U.S. and abroad were still struggling but not Goldman, which reported a record $19.8 billion in pre-tax profits that year, and $12.9 billion the next. Gary Cohn went without a bonus in 2008, left to scrape by on his $600,000 salary. Once free of government interference, the Goldman board (which included Cohn himself) paid him a $9 million bonus in 2009 and an $18 million bonus in 2010.

Yet the once venerated firm was now the subject of jokes on the late-night talk shows. David Letterman broadcast a “Goldman Sachs Top 10 Excuses” list (No. 9: “You’re saying ‘fraud’ like it’s a bad thing.”). Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi described the bank as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money,” a devastating moniker that followed Goldman into the business pages. After news leaked that the firm might pay its people a record $16.7 billion in bonuses in 2009, even President Barack Obama, for whom the firm had been a top campaign donor, began to turn against Goldman, telling “60 Minutes,” “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street.

They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks,” Obama said. “Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem.

Goldman was also facing an onslaught of investigations and lawsuits over behavior that had helped precipitate the financial crisis. Class actions and other lawsuits filed by pension funds and other investors accused Goldman of abusing their trust, making “false and misleading statements,” and failing to conduct basic due diligence on the loans underlying the products it peddled. At least 25 of these suits named Cohn as a defendant.

State and federal regulators joined the fray. The SEC accused Goldman of deception in its marketing of opaque investments called “synthetic collateralized debt obligations,” the values of which were tied to bundles of actual mortgages. These were the deals Goldman had arranged in 2006 on behalf of John Paulson so he could short the U.S. housing market. Goldman, it turned out, had allowed Paulson to cherry-pick poor-quality loans at the greatest risk of defaulting — a fact Goldman did not share with potential investors. “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio,” the SEC’s enforcement director at the time said, “telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.

Suddenly, Cohn and other Goldman officials were downplaying the big short. In June 2010, Cohn testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, created by Congress to investigate the causes of the nation’s worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Cohn asked the commissioners how anyone could claim the firm had bet against its clients when “during the two years of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs lost $1.2 billion in its residential mortgage-related business”? His statement was technically true, but Cohn failed to mention the billions of dollars the firm pocketed by betting the mortgage market would collapse. Senate investigators later calculated that, at its peak, Goldman had $13.9 billion in short positions that would only pay off in the event of a steep drop in the mortgage market, positions that produced a record $3.7 billion in profits.

Two weeks after Cohn’s testimony, Goldman agreed to pay the SEC $550 million to settle charges of securities fraud — then the largest penalty assessed against a financial services firm in the agency’s history. Goldman admitted no wrongdoing, acknowledging only that its marketing materials “contained incomplete information.” Goldman paid $60 million in fines and restitution to settle an investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general into the financial backing the firm had offered to predatory mortgage lenders. The bank set aside another $330 million to assist people who lost their homes thanks to questionable foreclosure practices at a Goldman loan-servicing subsidiary. Goldman agreed to billions of dollars in additional settlements with state and federal agencies relating to its sale of dicey mortgage-backed securities. The firm finally acknowledged that it had failed to conduct basic due diligence on the loans its was selling customers and, once it became aware of the hazards, did not disclose them.

In the final report produced by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Goldman Sachs was mentioned an extraordinary 2,495 times, and Gary Cohn 89 times. A Goldman Sachs representative declined to respond to queries on the record.

The investigations and fines were a blow to Goldman’s reputation and its bottom line, but the regulatory reforms being debated had the potential to threaten Goldman’s entire business model. Even before the 2008 crash, the firm’s lobbying spending had grown under Lloyd Blankfein and Cohn. By 2010, the year financial reforms were being drafted, Goldman spent $4.6 million for the services of 49 lobbyists. Their ranks included some of the most well-connected figures in Washington, including Democrat Richard Gephardt, a former House majority leader, and Republican Trent Lott, a former Senate majority leader, who had stepped down from the Senate two years earlier.

Despite all those lobbyists on the payroll, Goldman made its case primarily through proxies during the debate over financial reform. “The name Goldman Sachs was so radioactive it worked to their disadvantage to be tied to an issue,” said Marcus Stanley, then a staffer for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and now policy director of Americans for Financial Reform. Instead, Goldman lobbied through industry groups.

Goldman’s people likely knew that all of Wall Street’s lobbying might could not stop the passage of the sprawling 2010 legislative package dubbed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Obama was putting his muscle behind reform — “We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds or private equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers,” he said in one speech — and the Democrats enjoyed majorities in both houses of Congress. “For Goldman Sachs, the battle was over the final language,” said Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets, a Washington, D.C., lobby group that pushes for tighter financial reforms. “That way they at least had a fighting chance in the next round, when everyone turned their attention to the regulators.

There was a lot for Goldman Sachs to dislike about Dodd-Frank. There were small annoyances, such as “say on pay,” which ordered companies to give shareholders input on executive compensation, a source of potential embarrassment to a company that gave out $73 million in compensation for a single year’s work — as Goldman paid Cohn in 2007. There were large annoyances, such as the requirement that financial institutions deemed too big to fail, like Goldman, create a wind-down plan in case of disaster. There were the measures that would interfere with Goldman’s core businesses, such as a provision instructing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate the trading of derivatives. And yet nothing mattered to Goldman quite like the Volcker Rule, which would protect banks’ solvency by limiting their freedom to make speculative trades with their own money. Unless Goldman could initiate what Stanley called the “complexity two-step” — win a carve-out so a new rule wouldn’t interfere with legitimate business and then use that carve-out to render a rule toothless — Volcker would slam the door shut on the entire direction in which Blankfein and Cohn had taken Goldman.

It was 5:30 a.m. on Friday, June 25, 2010, when a joint House-Senate conference committee approved the final language of Dodd-Frank. By Sunday, an industry attorney named Annette Nazareth — a former top SEC official whose firm counts Goldman Sachs among its clients — had already sent off a heavily annotated copy of the 848-page bill to colleagues at her old agency. It was just the first salvo in a lobbying juggernaut.

Within a few months, Cohn himself was in Washington to meet with a governor of the Federal Reserve, one of the key agencies charged with implementing Volcker. The visitors log at the CFTC, the agency Dodd-Frank put in charge of derivatives reform, shows that Cohn traveled to D.C. to personally meet with CFTC staffers at least six times between 2010 and 2016. Cohn also came to the capital for meetings at the SEC, another agency responsible for the Volcker Rule. There, he met with SEC chair Mary Jo White and other commissioners. “I seem to be in Washington every week trying to explain to them the unintended consequences of overregulation,” Cohn said in a talk he gave to business students at Sacred Heart University in 2015.

Gary was the tip of the spear for Goldman to beat back regulatory reform,” said Kelleher, the financial reform lobbyist. “I used to pass him going into different agencies. They brought him in when they wanted the big gun to finish off, to kill the wounded.

Democrats lost their majority in the House that November, and Goldman threw its weight behind the spate of Republican bills that followed, aimed at taking apart Dodd-Frank piece by piece. Goldman spent more than $4 million for the services of 45 lobbyists in 2011 and $3.5 million a year in 2012 and 2013. Its lobbying spending was nearly as high in the years after passage of Dodd-Frank as it was the year the bill was introduced.

Goldman lobbyists dug in on a range of issues that would become top priorities for Republicans in the wake of Donald Trump’s electoral victory. Records from the Center for Responsive Politics show that Goldman lobbyists worked to promote corporate tax cuts, such as on the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 and Senate legislation aimed at extending some $200 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Goldman lobbied for a bill to fund economically critical infrastructure projects, presumably on behalf of its Public Sector and Infrastructure group. Goldman had seven lobbyists working on the JOBS Act, which would make it easier for companies to go public, another bottom-line issue to a company that underwrote $27 billion in IPOs last year. In 2016, Goldman had eight lobbyists dedicated to the Financial CHOICE Act, which would have undone most of Dodd-Frank in one fell swoop — a bill the House revived in April.

Yet defanging the Volcker Rule remained the firm’s top priority. Promoted by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, the rule would prohibit banks from committing more than 3 percent of their core assets to in-house private equity and hedge funds in the business of buying up properties and businesses with the goal of selling them at a profit. One harbinger of the financial crisis had been the collapse in the summer of 2007 of a pair of Bear Stearns hedge funds that had invested heavily in subprime loans. That 3 percent cap would have had a big impact on Goldman, which maintained a separate private equity group and operated its own internal hedge funds. But it was the restrictions Volcker placed on proprietary trading that most threatened Goldman.

Prop trading was a profit center inside many large banks, but nowhere was it as critical as at Goldman. A 2011 report by one Wall Street analyst revealed that prop trading accounted for an 8 percent share of JPMorgan Chase’s annual revenues, 9 percent of Bank of America’s, and 27 percent of Morgan Stanley’s. But prop trading made up 48 percent of Goldman’s. By one estimate, the Volcker Rule could cost Goldman Sachs $3.7 billion in revenue a year.

When regulators finalized a new Volcker Rule in 2013, Better Markets declared it a “major defeat for Wall Street.” Yet the victory for reformers was precarious. “Just changing a few words could dramatically change the scope of the rule — to the tune of billions of dollars for some firms,” said former Senate staffer Tyler Gellasch, who helped write the rule. Volcker gave banks until July 2015 — the five-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank — to bring themselves into compliance. Yet apparently the Volcker Rule had been written for other financial institutions, not elite firms like Goldman Sachs. “Goldman Sachs has been on a shopping spree with its own money,” began a New York Times article in January 2015. The bank used its own funds to buy a mall in Utah, apartments in Spain, and a European ink company. Paul Volcker expressed disappointment that banks were still making big proprietary bets, as did the two senators most responsible for writing the rule into law. That June, Cohn appeared to reassure investors that Goldman would find a workaround. Speaking at an investor conference, he said Goldman was “transforming our equity investing activities to continue to meet client needs while complying with Volcker.

Goldman had five years to prepare for some version of a Volcker Rule. Yet a loophole granted banks sufficient time to dispose of “illiquid assets” without causing undue harm — a loophole that might even cover the assets Goldman had only recently purchased, despite the impending compliance deadline. The Fed nonetheless granted the firm additional time to sell illiquid investments worth billions of dollars. “Goldman is brilliant at exercising access and influence without fingerprints,” Kelleher said.

By mid-2016, Goldman, along with Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, was petitioning the Fed for an additional five years to comply with Volcker — which would take the banks well into a new administration. All Blankfein and Cohn had to do was wait for a new Congress and a new president who might back their efforts to flush all of Dodd-Frank. Then Goldman could continue the risky and lucrative habits it had adopted since traders like Cohn had taken over the firm — the financial crisis be damned — and continue raking in billions in profits each year.

Goldman’s political giving changed in the wake of Dodd-Frank. Dating back to at least 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, people associated with the firm and its political action committees contributed more to Democrats than Republicans. Yet in the years since financial reform, Goldman, once Obama’s second-largest political donor, shifted its campaign contributions to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, for instance, Goldman’s people and PACs contributed $4.8 million to Democrats and $1.7 million to Republicans. By the 2012 cycle, the opposite happened, with Goldman giving $5.6 million to Republicans and $1.8 million to Democrats. Cohn’s personal giving followed the same path. Cohn gave $26,700 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2006 and $55,500 during the 2008 election cycle, and none to its GOP equivalent. But Cohn donated $30,800 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012 and another $33,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2015, without contributing a dime to the DSCC. Cohn gave $5,000 to Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown weeks after news broke that Elizabeth Warren — an outspoken critic of Goldman and other Wall Street players — might try to capture his U.S. Senate seat, which she did in 2012.

Goldman Sachs, under Cohn and Blankfein, was hardly chastened, continuing to play fast and loose with existing rules even as it plunged millions of dollars into fending off new ones. In 2010, the SEC ran a sting operation looking for banks willing to trade favorable assessments by its stock analysts for a piece of a Toys R Us IPO if the company went public. Goldman took the bait, for which they would pay a $5 million fine. An employee working out of Goldman’s Boston office drafted speeches, vetted a running mate, and negotiated campaign contracts for the state treasurer during his run for Massachusetts governor in 2010, despite a rule forbidding municipal bond dealers from making significant political contributions to officials who can award them business. According to the SEC, Goldman had underwritten $9 billion in bonds for Massachusetts in the previous two years, generating $7.5 million in fees. Goldman paid $12 million to settle the matter in 2012.

Just two years later, Goldman officials were again summoned by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to address charges that the bank under Cohn and Blankfein had boosted its profits by building a “virtual monopoly” in order to inflate aluminum prices by as much as $3 billion.

The last few years have brought more unwanted attention. In 2015, the U.S. Justice Department launched an investigation into Goldman’s role in the alleged theft of billions of dollars from a development fund the firm had helped create for the government of Malaysia. Federal regulators in New York state fined Goldman $50 million because its leaders failed to effectively supervise a banker who leaked stolen confidential government information from the Fed, which hit the firm with another $36.3 million in penalties. In December, the CFTC fined Goldman $120 million for trying to rig interest rates to profit the firm.

Politically, 2016 would prove a strange year for Goldman. Bernie Sanders clobbered Hillary Clinton for pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman, while Trump attacked Ted Cruz for being “in bed with” Goldman Sachs. (Cruz’s wife Heidi was a managing director in Goldman’s Houston office until she took leave to work on her husband’s presidential campaign.) Goldman would have “total control” over Clinton, Trump said at a February 2016 rally, a point his campaign reinforced in a two-minute ad that ran the weekend before Election Day. An image of Blankfein flashed across the screen as Trump warned about the global forces that “robbed our working class.

Goldman’s giving in the presidential race appears to reflect polls predicting a Clinton win and the firm’s desire for a political restart on deregulation. People who identified themselves as Goldman Sachs employees gave less than $5,000 to the Trump campaign compared to the $341,000 that the firm’s people and PACs contributed to Clinton. Goldman Sachs is relatively small compared to retail banking giants.

Yet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, no bank outspent Goldman Sachs during the 2016 political cycle. Its PACs and people associated with the firm made $5.6 million in political contributions in 2015 and 2016. Even including all donations to Clinton, 62 percent of Goldman’s giving ended up in the coffers of Republican candidates, parties, or conservative outside groups.

Source, links:


[1] [2] [3] [4] [6]

Related:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The real reason Boris Johnson pushes for a no-deal Brexit

globinfo freexchange

The UK political landscape looks increasingly chaotic, especially after Boris Johnson's ultimatum for a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. It looks like the whole country suffers from a general nervous breakdown through a "bellum omnium contra omnes" situation. But if you "follow the money", you will, eventually, see the whole picture quite clearly. And you will realize that this whole Brexit issue, is primarily the product of a merciless war among rival factions of the British capital.

In the mid-July, Reuters "exposed" some key supporters of Boris Johnson who have poured hundreds of thousands of pounds into his campaign. As Reutersreported:

          More than half the donations came from financiers and businessmen who funded the campaign to leave the European Union. The two biggest backers are Anthony Bamford, the billionaire chairman of the construction equipment maker JCB, and Jonathan Moynihan, chairman of venture capital fund Ipe…

Τα κρατικοδίαιτα τραπεζοπαράσιτα ετοιμάζονται για άλλο ένα μεγάλο πάρτι με κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη

globinfo freexchange
Οι γαλάζιοι υπηρέτες του κεφαλαίου ετοιμάζονται να ρίξουν άλλο ένα πακέτο δισεκατομμυρίων στις τραπεζικές μαύρες τρύπες. Αυτή τη φορά, θέλουν να τις απαλλάξουν από τα κόκκινα δάνεια και φυσικά ο λογαριασμός θα πάει, ως συνήθως, στα γνωστά υποζύγια.  
Όπως αποκάλυψε ρεπορτάζ του The Press Project:
Την έγκριση των ευρωπαϊκών θεσμών φέρεται να αναμένει η κυβέρνηση, ώστε να προχωρήσει σε σχέδιο «κρατικής υποβοήθησης» των τραπεζών, εφαρμόζοντας ουσιαστικά το σχέδιο του Ταμείου Χρηματοπιστωτικής Σταθερότητας (ΤΧΣ) για κρατική ενίσχυση προς κάλυψη των κόκκινων δανείων που αναμένεται να φτάσει τα 20 δισ. ευρώ. Την ίδια ώρα, οι τράπεζες προχωρούν σε τιτλοποιήσεις κόκκινων δανείων ύψους 6,5 δισ. ευρώ, με πρώτη και καλύτερη τη Eurobank και τις υπόλοιπες να ακολουθούν. 
[...]
Υπενθυμίζεται πως λίγες ημέρες πριν τις εκλογές, αλλά και μετά από αυτές, στο επίκεντρο της αντιπαράθεσης βρέθηκε το «μαξιλάρι» των 37 δισ. ευρώ της προηγούμενης κυβέρνησης και τα σχέδια της…

Άρχισαν να το μετανιώνουν από τώρα οι 'νοικοκυραίοι' πατριώτες;

failed evolution
Δεν θα μπορούσαμε να φανταστούμε ότι θα δικαιωνόμασταν τόσο γρήγορα. Ήδη από τα τέλη Μαΐου είχαμε γράψει:

Οι νεοφιλελεύθεροι ιμπεριαλιστές λοιπόν έστησαν το τέλειο κόλπο. Θέλοντας να ετοιμάσουν την απόλυτα αφοσιωμένη μαριονέτα τους, τον Κυριάκο Μητσοτάκη, για να αναλάβει την εξουσία, έστησαν το σκηνικό στα μέτρα του. Έβαλαν τον Τσίπρα να υπογράψει μνημόνιο, να υπογράψει τη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών και γενικά να κάνει όλη τη βρόμικη δουλειά για να μη λερωθεί ο 'ατσαλάκωτος' Κυριάκος.
Το εγχώριο μιντιακό κατεστημένο δεν έχασε χρόνο. Άρχισε αμέσως νέες επιχειρήσεις προπαγάνδας με επίκεντρο τη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών, προκειμένου να φανεί ότι η εγχώρια δεξιά, όσο και αν έχει αλλάξει, δεν έχει χάσει τα πατριωτικά ανακλαστικά της, σε αντίθεση με τους 'προδότες Αριστερούς'.  
Η προπαγάνδα έπιασε, και ένα σημαντικό ποσοστό των λούμπεν μικροαστών πήγε στην κάλπη θυμωμένο, προκειμένου να τιμωρήσει τον 'ανθέλληνα' Τσίπρα. Η μιντιακή πλύση εγκεφάλου κατάφερε με τ…

Ο πραγματικός λόγος που ο Μπόρις Τζόνσον πιέζει για Brexit χωρίς συμφωνία

globinfo freexchange

Το Βρετανικό πολιτικό τοπίο μοιάζει να γίνεται όλο και πιο χαοτικό όσο πλησιάζουμε την 31η Οκτωβρίου, ημερομηνία-τελεσίγραφο που έχει ορίσει ο τωρινός Βρετανός πρωθυπουργός, Μπόρις Τζόνσον, ο οποίος μάλιστα απειλεί με ένα Brexit χωρίς συμφωνία. Ολόκληρη η χώρα φαίνεται να βρίσκεται υπό το καθεστώς μιας γενικής νευρικής κρίσης, με τα διάφορα στρατόπεδα υπέρ και κατά του Brexix, το καθένα για τους δικούς του λόγους, να έχουν λάβει θέσεις μάχης σε μια "όλοι εναντίον όλων" κατάσταση. 
Όπως ανέφερε η Εφημερίδα των Συντακτών:  
«Στις Βρυξέλλες και στο Λονδίνο ένα ερώτημα ακούγεται όλο και πιο δυνατά: Mπορεί να αναχαιτιστεί ο Μπόρις Τζόνσον;»… Καυτή και εύλογη η απορία που μετέφερε χθες το πρακτορείο Associated Press, καθώς εντείνεται ραγδαία η ανησυχία και στις δύο πλευρές της Μάγχης πως ο νέος, σκληροπυρηνικός μπρεξιστής, πρωθυπουργός του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου όχι μόνο δεν μπλοφάρει επιμένοντας πως θα βγάλει τη χώρα από την Ε.Ε. στις 31 Οκτωβρίου με ή χωρ…

Τα identity politics και η "φεγγαρόφωτη" των νεοφιλελέδων

globinfo freexchange
Το χθεσινό άρθρο του Liberal που αφορά το πρόσωπο της νέας υφυπουργού Εργασίας, Δόμνας Μιχαηλίδου, έχει ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον καθώς αποτελεί χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα αυτού που οι Αμερικανοί ονομάζουν identity politics. 
Με τον όρο identity politics, οι Αμερικανοί περιγράφουν έναν τρόπο άκρως επιφανειακής πολιτικής προσέγγισης, που στην ουσία αποτελεί ένα τέχνασμα της νεοφιλελεύθερης σχολής, το οποίο έχει σαν στόχο να αποπροσανατολίσει και να απομακρύνει το κοινό από την ουσία της πολιτικής αντιπαράθεσης. 
Η συγκεκριμένη τακτική χρησιμοποιήθηκε κατά κόρον από τα Αμερικανικά ΜΜΕ κατά την προεκλογική περίοδο των προεδρικών εκλογών του 2016. Το φιλελεύθερο μιντιακό κατεστημένο εξαπέλυσε σφοδρή επίθεση εναντίον του Μπέρνι Σάντερς, αντίπαλου της Χίλαρι Κλίντον για το χρίσμα των Δημοκρατικών. Και αυτό, γιατί έβλεπε με τρόμο ότι οι σοσιαλιστικές πολιτικές που πρέσβευε ο Μπέρνι Σάντερς (εντελώς αντίθετες με τα συμφέροντα του μεγάλου κεφαλαίου), είχαν τεράστια απήχηση σ…

Η ουσία πίσω από τη νέα επιχείρηση προπαγάνδας με αφορμή τις συντάξεις-μαμούθ

failed evolution

Με το γνωστό στυλ, τα ιδιωτικά ΜΜΕ σχεδίασαν μια νέα επιχείρηση προπαγάνδας με όχημα την "ανακάλυψη" των συντάξεων-μαμούθ. Τα μιντιακά "λαγωνικά" έδωσαν άλλη μια πάσα, αυτή τη φορά στον υπουργό εργασίας, Γιάννη Βρούτση, προκειμένου να επιδοθεί στο τυπικό αντι-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ κρεσέντο με ύφος εισαγγελέα. 
Η Έφη Αχτσιόγλου, έβαλε τα πράγματα στη θέση τους δίνοντας την πραγματική εικόνα:  
              Για όσους ασφαλίζονταν με τα παλαιά καθεστώτα (πριν τον ν. 4387/2016) αλλά αιτήθηκαν συνταξιοδότησης μετά τον ν. 4387/2016 και μετά την 01.01.2019, ακριβώς επειδή το παλαιό σύστημα για κάποιες κατηγορίες ασφαλισμένων δεν προέβλεπε ανώτατα όρια εισφορών δεν προέκυπταν και ανώτατα όρια συντάξεων. Για τον λόγο αυτό   είχαμε επεξεργαστεί και δρομολογήσει νομοθετική ρύθμιση η οποία έθετε ανώτατο όριο σύνταξης το δωδεκαπλάσιο της εθνικής σύνταξης, όμως η ρύθμιση αυτή δεν πρόλαβε να περάσει από τη Βουλή καθώς προκηρύχθηκαν πρόωρα εκλογές.
Αλλά αυτά είναι ψιλά γράμματα…

Οι γαλάζιοι υπηρέτες του κεφαλαίου βάζουν μπρος τον 'οδοστρωτήρα'

globinfo freexchange
Αφού πούλησαν μπόλικο πατριωτιλίκι στους 'Μακεδονομάχους' για να πάρουν αυτοδυναμία, τώρα είναι ελεύθεροι να κάνουν ότι θέλουν, για λογαριασμό των 'μεγάλων αφεντικών'. Κυριολεκτικά. Η χειρότερη δεξιά της μεταπολίτευσης, ανοίγει το δρόμο για τη νεοφιλελεύθερη λαίλαπα, καθώς ο Κυριάκος βάζει μπρος τον 'οδοστρωτήρα' κατά των εργαζομένων. Το πόσο απόλυτα αφοσιωμένη είναι η γαλάζια παράταξη στην εξυπηρέτηση των συμφερόντων του μεγάλου κεφαλαίου φάνηκε κιόλας ξεκάθαρα.
Μετά τις προχθεσινές (ν)τροπολογίες, τις οποίες πέρασε με σχεδόν πραξικοπηματικό τρόπο η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη, καταργείται η υποχρέωση των εργοδοτών να αιτιολογούν απολύσεις αλλά και η ευθύνη εργολάβων/υπεργολάβων απέναντι στους εργαζομένους τους. Και οι δυο παραπάνω ρυθμίσεις είχαν εισαχθεί από την κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ.' 
Δικαιωνόμαστε απόλυτα όταν υποστηρίξαμε ότι η υφυπουργός Εργασίας, το δεξί χέρι του Βρούτση, λόγω φανατικής προσήλωσης στην ιδεολογία της, αναμένεται να πετσοκό…

Απόλυτη επιβεβαίωση: ο ιδεολογικός φανατισμός της κυβέρνησης Μητσοτάκη την έφερε κιόλας μπροστά στο πρώτο αδιέξοδο

globinfo freexchange

Για άλλη μια φορά επιβεβαιωνόμαστε πανηγυρικά. Αμέσως μετά την αναγνώριση του αποτυχημένου πραξικοπηματία Χουάν Γκουαϊδό από την κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη, είχαμε επισημάνει ότι:

Η κίνηση αυτή αποτελεί άλλη μια απόδειξη ότι ακόμα και η εξωτερική πολιτική της κυβέρνησης θα καθορίζεται, ως επί το πλείστον, από τον τυφλό φανατισμό της και όχι από μελετημένες κινήσεις που απαιτούν συνεχείς ελιγμούς και συνετές αποφάσεις.

Ασχέτως ιδεολογικού προσανατολισμού και προτιμήσεων, η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη έπρεπε να εκμεταλλευτεί την ουδέτερη στάση της χώρας όσον αφορά τη Βενεζουέλα και να έχει την υπομονή να περιμένει να δει που θα οδηγήσουν οι διαπραγματεύσεις. Όμως αντί να εκμεταλλευτεί το πλεονέκτημα που απέκτησε η χώρα με την ουδέτερη στάση, κάτω από τις παρούσες συνθήκες, έσπευσε να το σπαταλήσει, λόγω της ιδεολογικής εμμονής που χαρακτηρίζει τη συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των μελών της.

Αυτό είναι ένα δείγμα του ιδεολογικού φανατισμού που διακατέχει τα γαλάζια στελέχη και πο…

US Air Force and Raytheon join Navy and Lockheed Martin by Introducing Directed Energy Weapons

After many years of speculation as to weather the use of Directed Energy Weapons in war would be unleashed upon the world, we now have our answer. [...] The U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin were the first to announce a system called HELIOS (High-Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-Dazzler with Surveillance).

[...]

As you can see, much of the focus is centered around countering drone attacks. The new announcement from the U.S. Air Force also focuses primarily on this threat, both from the cheap and readily available quadcopter drones that can be modified, to much more advanced A.I. drone swarms.

[...]

As nation after nation becomes wired for war and neutralizes then surpasses each other, new methods must be developed to maintain military supremacy. This is the nature of military conflict and one of the prime reasons why the world seems to have new security threats each and every day. It becomes one endless problem-reaction-solution loop that only serves to benefit those who are investe…

Τρεις βασικοί λόγοι για τους οποίους η νεοφιλελεύθερη δικτατορία συνεχίζει την αντι-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ προπαγάνδα

του system failure
Πρόκειται ενδεχομένως για ένα παγκοσμίως μοναδικό φαινόμενο, τουλάχιστον στο βαθμό που το βιώνουμε στην Ελλάδα. Μιλάμε για το γεγονός ότι ένα σύστημα εξουσίας συνεχίζει με αμείωτη ένταση την προπαγάνδα εναντίον μιας καθαρά ηττημένης αντιπολίτευσης. 
Παρόλο που το πολιτικό κομμάτι αυτού του συστήματος κατάφερε τελικά, μετά κόπων και βασάνων, δηλαδή μετά από αδιάκοπες επιχειρήσεις προπαγάνδας μέχρι ολικής πλύσης εγκεφάλου, να ξαναπάρει την εξουσία, ολόκληρος ο μηχανισμός της νεοφιλελεύθερης δικτατορίας δεν σταμάτησε ούτε δευτερόλεπτο αυτές τις επιχειρήσεις.  
Στη νεοφιλελεύθερη μεταδημοκρατία, το πανίσχυρο αυτό σύστημα εξουσίας έχει καταφέρει μέχρι στιγμής:
- Να ελέγχει απόλυτα σχεδόν όλα τα ΜΜΕ, αλλά πλέον και τη δημόσια τηλεόραση. Άρα, τον κύριο όγκο της καθημερινής πληροφόρησης που φτάνει στον μέσο Έλληνα, ο οποίος αποδείχθηκε εξαιρετικά επιρρεπής απέναντι στα αλλεπάλληλα κύματα παραπληροφόρησης, ήδη από την αρχή της κρίσης. Το αποτέλεσμα του δημοψηφίσματος τ…