Wednesday, October 19, 2011

My Planet Money Top Picks

At the request of a friend, here are some of my top Planet Money podcast picks:


(The top three might be the best - they were shows done with This American Life, another great NPR show, so they might be a little more people-focused but they will also be more explanatory).




About the housing crisis






How Money Got Weird
Das got the airline to start making speculative bets on the price of oil. That decision was good for the bottom line: One year, the company made more money from trading than it did from selling tickets on its planes.


Why The World Stills Need The Dollar
The role of the dollar in international commerce, trade, etc.

Fed Behaving Dangerously, Fed President Say
About the Federal Reserve and the one guy who doesn't like how its being run.

Do We Need the IMF?
A look into the IMF, the role it was created the play and the role is plays today

Do The Rich Flee High-Tax States?
A quantitative look into this frequently used argument against taxing the rich

The Island That Ran Out Of Money
Using Iceland as a real-life case study, I think this explains a lot about a national banking system and how it interacts with the international economy.

Fannie and Freddie's Rise and Fall
A look into the two quasi-private institutions that were a large part of the 2008 financial crisis.


What Comes After Fannie And Freddie?
A look at the different proposals

About the moment the US went off the gold standard - it might not sound important but it changed our concept of 'money' forever

Talking to the people in charge of writing the banking regulations

The findings of the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry committee - interesting, not satisfying.

A look at the 30-year mortgage at the cornerstone of US home ownership

A look into the strange concept of money, with a fascinating case study

A chemist explores the question of the gold standard

A look into social security

A look into national economy with a fascinating case study. A crazy plan to stop inflation that worked

Pet Toxie, a Toxic Asset - like the one that brought down our financial system
Planet Money bought a toxic asset (named it Toxie) in order to learn about what it is, how it works, etc. This turned into a series of podcasts:

The Fed bought this much money worth of mortgage bonds to prop up the housing market. How does this even work?

A little about subprime mortgages

About the stimulus and a bit of economics theory




I might add to this later. This list took a long time to make.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Educate yourself

One month ago, I got involved in the Occupy Wall St movement and realized that I needed to learn more before my anger could become sometime productive. Also, I was keenly aware of the criticisms, even before the critics themselves, that the movement would be full of people who didn't really know much about Wall St and the banking industry. Now, I don't think you need a degree in economics to know that things have gone wrong in our country. And I also don't necessarily thing it is the job of the Occupy movement to write the legislation that will fix these wrongs. But, we should know what we are talking about. And - many, many occupiers do. There are professors and lawyers and students and business execs (former and current) who are occupying and could debate the pants off any media show host. But this movement isn't going to elect them leaders and let them do the thinking - we need to educate ourselves (and each other). I think the 'teach-ins' are awesome and should happen every day, all the time.

But, me, I live in a rural area 2.5 hours north of NYC and can't attend a teach in. So I've spent the last month teaching myself. About the economy, about the banking system, about Wall St, legal standings of corporations in America and how it got to be that way, a bunch of about the history of the US left and a lot of US politics in general. I used to be really into politics actually - in high school I was into constitutional debate and did Model UN and all that. In college I got somewhat into progressive politics but lost steam and became jaded very quickly. For the last 2-3 years I have kept up with international politics a bit and hardly any US politics. I mean, can you blame me? US politics is a joke. Our representatives are clowns just trying to get laughs. We have serious problems and clowns in congress. [Note to self: 'Clowns in Congress' would be a great piece of gorilla art/occupational theater].

Anyway, I've been educating myself from a variety of sources:

#1 NPR's Planet Money podcast - entertaining, totally fact-based and they really make an attempt at getting different sides of the story. The general focus of the podcast is explaining economic issues in layman's terms and trying to make connections to 'regular day to day life' on Main st. I started listening only a few weeks ago and wanted more than twice per week, so I started going backwards. But this was annoying because some are part of a series, so instead I went to the oldest podcast and starting listening to them forwards. It turns out Planet Money started in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis when it was clear that something big was happening but no one was really sure what yet. The purpose of the podcast was to try to explain to non-economists what was going on.

#2 Dylan Ratigan's Radio Free Dylan podcast - Dylan used to work on Wall St and now works on MSNBC and has his own show. He is currently starting a massive political campaign called 'Get Money Out' and his podcast is real issues, real solutions, no media circus bullshit. To see what I mean, watch this short clip. I've only watched a few but listening to a real, intelligent debate on important political issues is so refreshing and educational. He actually talks about the need to educate yourself constantly.

#3 EconTalk - Okay, I haven't actually listened to any of these yet but I've heard good things.

#4 EconStories - The truth is, I didn't get into these but I wanted to put up the link because you might.

Other thoughts:

> In the iTunes store go to either 'iTunes U' or 'Podcasts' - lots of free sources of information (among pay sources).

> If you know anyone (even a boring uncle or old high school friend), go for coffee and pick their brains. Conversation is, with a doubt, my favorite way to learn and, in my opinion, the best way to really engage the information.

> Democracy Now - its not exactly a source of information but a non-main-stream media station that tells it like it is, and definitely tries to explain things without jargon.

The internet is a big place with lots of free knowledge. If you have any of your own sources, comment them to me!

Thanks,
Mark

PS. Not sure where to start? Here are keywords/areas to explore: 'Causes of 2008 Financial Crisis', 'Mortgage backed securities', 'Credit default swap', 'The Federal Reserve', 'Citizens United vs FEC'.

If I had all the time in the world, I'd do more writing and summarize what I'm learning on all these things but I don't want to make promises I can't keep.

Sunday, October 09, 2011

Unifying to Treat the Cause of All of our Problems (Instead of dividing to fight the symptoms separately)


See this image at its source (on Facebook)


This message is from Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, an important organizing fighting to solve the climate crisis and push for policies that will put the world on track to get to 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is the acceptable level for our planet; we are currently at 392 ppm).

But he doesn't talk about the parts per million of carbon dioxide in this message to his member-base. Instead he gives a message that I hope is repeated and sent all over the world and gets into the hands of every occupier of every city and state: our personal, and professional, issues are many but, instead of fighting separate battles, let us unify behind this cause to address the root.

The left has been too divided to do anything more than get Obama elected for many years. In my life, other than the Obama presidential campaign, I haven't really seen a united and strong left. I've seen a weak and spineless Democratic party that is hardly any further to the left of center than the Republican party is to the right of it. And the united push for Obama gave me hope for change (I wonder what made me think that was coming..), I felt proud to be a part of the left when I saw Obama sworn into the White House. And while I sure as hell am glad I didn't see John McCain get sworn in, my passion and pride has wained recently because Obama joined the ranks of all those politicians - left and right - who had favors to return once he arrived into his new position in DC.

I'm not saying Obama planned and plotted to unify the left, ride their passion to the presidency and then turn on them - I don't think life or politics are ever that simple. Though it is a nice narrative and I can understand why many members of the 'real' left have started using it. No, I think its more complicated than that - what can we expect a politician to do when it costs millions just to run a campaign? Go door to door asking for singles or panhandle for quarters on the subway? If they want to spend any time at all doing anything other than fundraising (discussing issues, drafting policy, their current jobs, etc)- they need big bucks and fast.
The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races.
["2008 Costliest..." Nov 5, 2008. Politico]
 
Useful nay-sayer says:
"but Mark, I don't care about campaign reform - thats not my issue - I'm protesting against the process of hydrofracking which is ruining our..."


I know what hydrofracking is.
I also know what the wealth gap is between the racial groups in America,
and I know the income gap between men and women,
and I know that there are groups of people that don't identify as 'men' or 'women',
and I know how cows are treated on Tyson's CAFOs that go into McDonald burgers,
and I know that its silly that marijuana is still illegal,
and I know capitalism and consumerism are rotting our souls,
and I know the education system is killing our children's imaginations and not teaching them anything,
and I know that none of this will matter if we don't get our act together and stop ruining this planet's fragile ecosystem.

I know all this - I'm not trying to diminish or belittle any of these issues, but I'm trying to say that they are symptoms of a larger problem here. We can all go our own ways and each raise money from similar pools of working class supporters, the fruits of which will be pennies compares to the millions that some corporations might put through the laundry in their suit pockets by accident. Almost every one of the issues listed above, comes with a large, multi-national corporation which stands to benefit from legislation opposing the cause. And it just so happens that each of these corporations made some generous contribution to the senator who heads the committee on [_your_issue_goes_here_].

Think this is starting to sound like conspiracy theories? Well, lets consider a real world example:
"Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." [Source: OpenSecrets.org]
Goldman Sachs has contributed a total of $20,194,745 to campaign funds between 1990 and 2010 [Source: OpenSecrets.org].  No, I didn't comb through the FEC's documents for the last 21 years of campaign contributions to get this number - the Center for Responsive Politics does it for us. (Spend an hour on their website, your view of our political system just might be forever shifted).

I realize that the Goldman Sachs bit was a tangent but I'm making a point: organizations of working-class people in favor of wall st reform and regulation enforcement don't have $20 Million dollars to match the influence Goldman Sachs has (oh, and don't forget about paying for lobbyists - GS has already spent $2.4 million on lobbying, this year (2011) alone!

We can't match them and WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

Admittedly, we dropped our guard a few times (in May 1886April 1978January 2010, for example) and allowed the corporations to grab the reigns of this democracy - but I believe the power and support of the Occupy movement can become the first unified offensive against this trend. We cannot wait for congress to get to this issue on their own because they never will - there's nothing in it for them. There is no corporation paying big money to get this legislation pushed through the red tape and onto the floor. So how will it happen? Well, maybe in the first large show of the power of the people in a long time, we can demand this issue be addressed.

Unify because addressing the influence of corporate money in our politics IS addressing environmental issues, animal rights issues, gender politics issues, etc. Making the American government more accountable to the people (to all people, by the way, not just to liberals), is in everyone's best interest. Unless, of course, you are the CEO of a corporation that makes profit from exploitation, in which case I suggest you start working on a new business plan, because the tides are changing in America.

Monday, October 03, 2011

Jon Stewart: Is it okay to laugh at everything?

Now look, I like The Daily Show as much as the next left-leaning middle class American and I think Jon Stewart is genius - but I've harbored this reservation for a while and, with the reviving of this blog, I have a place to put it out there.

This train of thought returned to me today because a friend sent me a link to Jon Stewarts' coverage of the NYPD's excessive use of force and pepper spray on OccupyWallSt protesters.

See the video of the abuse here.

And see The Daily Show segment here.


My question is this:


Is it okay to laugh at everything?

I've heard, and probably given before, the response that laughter is way to make it through the day and, more so, that Jon Stewart is bringing important information to people who would otherwise not hear it. This is valid and true, especially the second part. But... when that video of the girls being pepper sprayed went viral - people got angry. Regular Americans (what I mean is: not just activists) got out of their couches - they at least got as far as their wallets to donate money and supplies to OccupyWallStreet, but thousands got out of their houses and went to Libery Plaza. But when the Jon Stewart segment aired on it - people laughed. They didn't laugh at the protesters in pain, nor at the NYPD's excessive use of force - but they laughed at a joke Steward made about the incident.

To give the counter argument:
"His media is a comedy show, so he jokes - but he told millions of Americans about this incident, that has got to be worth something."

 And it is - its worth a lot. I'm not making the argument that he should not report or that he should not make jokes - he's a political satirist and humor is his tool or weapon here. I understand all this.

But... there are some issues should really garner more extreme reactions - aren't there? In Europe and the Middle East, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people will go into the streets when their government enacts bad financial regulations or laws. In America, if there is something ironic about it - Jon Stewart will report on it and we'll chuckle. If no one involved has a name that sounds like a type of meat, then most Americans probably won't hear about it.

And here is where the really effective, but ultimately depressing, counter argument comes in: if Jon Stewart stopped being funny, expressed his outrage about something or moved his show off of a network for Comedians - people would probably stop watching. He might be angry as hell about the pepper spraying of these girls but he knows that if he can't make it funny - his message will be lost also because people probably won't listen.*

And that is not Jon Stewart's fault, it's ours.



*In this wide world of the internet, if I could actually get a response on this from Jon Stewart - I would love to hear what he thinks about this because I have a lot of respect for him and I'm sure he's thought a lot about this.

Great Reads on OccupyWallSt

Here are a collection of great articles/essays on OccupyWallSt:

'Occupy Wall Street': Drawing the Battle Lines (Rolling Stone Magazine)


Occupy Wall Street rediscovers the radical imagination (The Guardian)

Politicians Pinched by Protest Downtown (The Wall Street Journal)

The Bankers and the Revolutionaries (New York Times)

Chris Hedges, former journalist for the New York Times and currently of TruthDig.org, speaks from OccupyWallSt:

Why 'Occupy Wall St' Makes sense by Democracy New journalist Amy Goodman (for The Guardian)

Occupy Wall Street: FAQ (The Nation)


Coming soon: a collection of articles I've been reading on the issues surrounding the movement

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Why Occupy Wall Street?

This probably isn't necessary to say but I will anyway - I'm not an elected representative of the OccupyWallSt movement, but I am an active member who has spent the last three weekends taking part in the marches, general assemblies, logistics and occupation. So I'm not going to fill the following post with 'I-think' and 'in-my-opinion's, because this is all my opinion. Thats my disclaimer.

I've had a lot of conversation about OccupyWallSt over the past three weeks: with fellow occupiers, with police officers, new yorkers passing by Liberty Plaza, my wife, my parents, my siblings and my friends. And since dialogue is such an important part of the movement (both in practice and in principle) - Im going to going use the format of 'question and answer' or a dialogue to explain why I occupied Wall St and why I think others are doing it. Just to be clear, this is not a transcript of a real conversation, the italic speaker is also me.

Hey, I overheard you talking about that protest on Wall St - whats going on over there?

Well, theres a large group of people forming a movement called OccupyWall St and they've been camping out in a private park called Zuccotti Park (previously named and more recently renamed Liberty Plaza). The park was the closest space they could take to Wall St, which was barricaded by police before the event even started. Since before day 1, other Occupy events have popped up all over the United State and abroad - some are in full effect (like OccupyBoston, OccupySF, OccupyChicago) and many are in planning (OccupyNJ, OccupyPhilly, etc). 66 locations and counting.

Oh, who are they? and why are they there?

The movement is made up of a frequently-shifting group of organizers who were not previously part of one organization that created this event. It was thought up and announced by a Canadian magazine called Adbusters, which is ad-free, user generated and covers issues ranging from anti-globalization to corporate advertising. The magazine, as far as I know, has had no other involvement - the event took on a life of its own. An important group of organizers belong to the NYCGA (General Assembly) - which you can learn about here, they help facilitate group meetings.
The general group is huge variety of people (and I'll use overly simplified labels to categorize us). The movement is made up of left-leaning activists, students, academics, veterans, senior citizens (shout out to the Granny Peace Brigade), unemployed people, union workers, etc. Another way of saying it: people that are pissed.
Which is a great transition into why we are here. We are occupying, most generally and all-encompassingly, because we are not happy with the current financial/political/social situation in America and abroad. A little more specifically, we feel taken advantage of, or hoodwinked in some way, and want to express that frustration. I will, of course, get more specific but I first want to say that the more specific I get about the reason for OccupyWallSt, the more likely I am to exclude someone participating. Many people feel angry about the 2008 financial crisis and the bailout - this is a major theme at the event. Many people (and I) feel angry about the influence of money in our political system and feel that corporate campaign contributions (ranging into the tens of millions) will ALWAYS create laws that bias those contributors - which means our political system becomes much less of a democracy and more of a oligarchy or corporatacracy (Yes, I made that word up). I don't mean that as enflamed, meaningless political rhetoric, I mean literally that our politicians no longer represent the people they seem to, but actually only a small group of wealth contributors (including corporations).
Now, I do honestly believe that the majority of the movement would give a thumbs-up to the statements I just made. Certainly some people would not agree it, and many many people would have a particular issue or solution they feel strongly. The issues include the right to unionize, gender discrimination, homelessness, student loans, the mortgage and investment banking industry, etc. The solutions include some concrete and immediately possible (like re-instituting the Glass-Steagall Act), to more abstract and cerebral (a global shift in consciousness to value people ahead of profits) and the more bold and extreme (end the Federal Reserve). Instead of making judgements on this huge range of ideas, I'll say this: there is another goal adopted by many members of the movement that has already been realized. That is the creation of a space that is a microcosm of the world they wish to live in - much aligned with Ghandi's famous charge to "be the change you want to see in the world". This world they created has free expression in political discourse, music and art, it is not hierarchical in nature and make decisions by consensus and direct democracy. To some, creating this space is, in and of itself, an end.
Lastly, the most basic and widely realized goal of this movement is to create dialogue in the public sphere. Open, thoughtful, respectful and empassioned conversation is the most immediate and effective goal of this movement, (fine, I'll say it once:) in my opinion.

Ok - well some of that sounds crazy or weird to me, but I agree with the parts about corporate influence over politicians - but, come on - do you really thing anything can be done about the corporations? They run this show, everyone knows that - they are too big.

This I've heard a lot. After all, wanting a government that is more responsive to its people is not really red state or blue state specific. It reminds a lot of people of Tea Party talk, actually. Despite the general notion that 'wealthy people' and 'wealthy companies' are Republican - I think that corporate influence is not right or left wing. They certainly donate to legislators across the aisle and expect back-scratching from both in return. More importantly, the issues that they might 'encourage' their contribution-recipients to support are not always going to be right or left either. Corporations seek to protect profit - thats all. So unless you are a CEO, stockholder, or contribution-recipient there is a good chance you find some truth in these claims and frustrations. As far as 'too big to fail'? In the last few months, we've seen protests that started like this topple dictators and produce actual political revolutions. This country was started, the Tea Party reminds us, by revolutionaries fighting an all-powerful and god-ordained king. 'Too big to fail' is nothing more than a self-fulfilling attitude.

Ok, Im not sure I share your optimism, but I respect it. But lets talk nuts and bolts here: what does this OccupyWallStreet group want? What is your ONE demand?

The million dollar question right there. First let me explain a little bit of history on the beginning of OccupyWallSt. Adbusters, in their initial call to action, stated not much more than 'occupy Wall St' and 'We will state our ONE demand' - not saying what it was. And just to remind you, Adbusters did not actually create this movement of people, they are not actively involved in this movement in anyway and the OccupyWallSt is being run by the body of individuals that make it up. It seems clear that to me that people have largely rejected this 'ONE demand' approach. It is over simplifying, at its best, and would be group-splintering at its worst. At some point in the very beginning of the organizing for this event (or maybe from its inception), a decisions was made that the entire body of the movement would be deciding this key issue together and by consensus -

Wait - you mean you expect this group of hundred or thousands of individuals to make this decision all together and decide unanimously? 

That is the goal and, yes, it is a lofty one. The general assembly process is slow and frustrating. Direct democracy takes time and patience and respect for each other (even those you disagree with - how radical in this country!). This made me immediately remember a lesson I learned in my US constitution class in high school:
The founding fathers of our government built a system of government that was slow ON PURPOSE. In order to temper the intense passions that humans are prone to, laws must pass get approval in both houses of Congress and get signed in by the president - the whole system subject to checks and balances along the way.
[Paraphrased from Alan Brodman, former lawyer and teacher at East Brunswick High School, NJ]
Slow on purpose is a hard concept to grasp, but it makes a lot of sense - especially seeing it in action. For example, one person gets up and makes a rousing speech encouraging an anti-police action and gets a moderate applause - but the general assembly process allows for people to get up and speak in response, one at a time, with the attention of everyone and it becomes clear that the crowd does not actually support the action - only the sentiment of feeling betrayed by the police officers. Mob-mentality does not win ou, calm is restored and the (long) debate continues about whether or not to pass a certain resolution.

Ok, I understand the process and the reason for rejecting one demand rhetoric, but what does this group want? They are making so much noise and getting media attention - don't you have a message?


Well, occupywallst.org is updated daily, especially if the GA has passed any statements or press releases. This is a good place to read up on past statements. Some of them are full of activist jargon, others are vague - but it seems like from the Day 1, each statement is more specific and the group is making progress - slowly, but thats okay. And, just because we can't sum it up in four words to fit on a New York Times headline - doesn't mean we don't know why we are here. Intelligent and productive discourse is still valued in some places in America. Maybe not in Congress or on our mainstream news channels - but in Liberty Square it still is.

Ok, so you've talked a lot about the group in general, but what about you? Why are you participating? What do you want?

Well, thanks for asking - as I mentioned briefly or hinted at above, I'm angry about the influence of big money on our government and the types of laws it passes. And I'd place myself into the pragmatist camp of the group - I believe there are real and concrete changes that could take place in our political and financial systems that would make a big difference. And these may be optimistic, but I don't think they are totally unrealistic. I think a suite of changes would need to come at once and in different avenues. I think we need some major campaign reform - there needs to be some way of making the playing field more even for all candidates. The American people should be able to learn about candidates who can't afford hundreds of millions of dollars in their campaign fund. Also, the politicians who do get in power are really and truly accountable to the people who voted them in, instead of to contributors to their campaign fund.
I think the supreme court needs to reverse their 5-4 Citizens United vs FEC decision in which they declared corporations as 'people' and called spending money 'free speech'. Corporations are not people, do not vote in this country, do not get representation in this government and cannot be held accountable to their actions - you can't put a corporation in jail (and CEOs and shareholders have limited liability). This change would affect campaign contributions as well as as a host of other indirect effects that came from affording a for-profit corporation protection under the Bill of Rights. And I can't understand how declaring money as a 'free speech' implies anything other than 'some people should have more free speech than other people'.
I believe that after these two changes, slowly over time the American government would be fundamentally different. Politicians would be free to act on behalf of their constituents and they would be held accountable to the voters instead of the financiers. But, if I can be allowed a little more indulgence - this gradual change might take too long and I think a few immediate changes could take affect. These changes would be to laws that were created by those legislators who were indebted to wealthy people and wealth corporations.
The suite of changes should include closing corporate tax loopholes and expenditures and getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy. Like I said, I think free-thinking politicians would eventually make these changes, but I thought I would mention some other changes that would to level the playing field in America and return the power of this incredible country back to the people, where it belongs.

Wow, thanks for this interview - I'm going to go home, pick up my sleeping bag and head down to Liberty Plaza.

What a coincidence, Im going there myself - I can give you a ride.

--

Thanks for reading, feel free to comment (respectfully, of course) your feedback, questions, etc. This is an ongoing dialogue and every single person (that is, human being) has a voice and a place at the table.
Feel free to quote from or post this article if you feel it could add to the conversation somehow. Or, better yet, jot down your own thoughts and put them out there.

- Mark

Lets broaden these horizons a bit

I decided to re-resurrect this blog and try to use it as a space not only for my artistic ideas and projects, but my general thoughts on a range of issues. I've spend the last three weekends at #OccupyWallStreet and so many of my initial posts will probably be about the event and the issues surrounding it, but hopefully I'll keep up the writing. I've been really researching and trying to learn about issues that pretty new to me: the economy, banks, wall street, the 2008 crisis and bail out, campaign finance reform, campaign contributions, etc etc. Indirectly related, I've also been inspired to try and get back to creative projects and art-making, and will still use this blog for that.