Methland
Since the beginning of this blog, I have been concerned about the scourge of methamphetamine on our land. Now Nick Redding has written and important book, Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town
The ravages of meth, or “crank,” on Oelwein and countless forsaken locales much like it are shown to be merely superficial symptoms of a vaster social dementia caused by, among other things, the iron dominion of corporate agriculture and the slow melting of villages and families into the worldwide financial stew.
Meth is actually the perfect drug for this moment, supplying chemical optimism until we crash. But the moniker “Hillybilly Heroin” is not correct, because it’s really working class cocaine. If the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street can afford grams of cocaine to augment their nerve as they trade billions of credit default swaps, then their proletarian counterparts in the slaughter houses of Iowa will smoke a little crank to get them through an 8 hour shift.
The agricultural conglomerates that have gobbled up Oelwein and similar farm towns may feed the world, but they starve the folks who work for them, breeding a craving for synthetic stimulants that conveniently sap the appetite while enlarging the body’s capacity for toil. These offal-streaked Dickensian mills are also magnets for desperate immigrant laborers who, in some cases, blaze the smuggling trails that run up into the Corn Belt from Mexico, home to the gang lords who own the superlabs that, increasingly, dominate the meth trade.
As the Financial Times recently pointed out, thirty years of globalization have masked one important fact.
The answer is capitalism’s dirty little secret: excessive lending was the only way to maintain the living standards of the vast bulk of the population at a time when wealth was being concentrated in the hands of an elite.
The amount by which the elite has benefited is startling, and illustrates the problem with lightly regulated free markets: the rich get much richer while the rest do not get richer at all. According to Société Générale economists, the inflation-adjusted income of the highest-paid fifth of US earners has risen by 60 per cent since 1970, while it has fallen by more than 10 per cent for the rest. As was recently pointed out in the New York Review of Books, the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, is wealthier than the bottom third of the US population put together – about 100m people.
The cynic in me thinks that the Masters of the Universe are not really interested in ending the drug plague in America. Because if so many poor people weren’t stoned half the time, they might turn on those Master of the Universe and their political servants. As Bob Dylan once said, “When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”
Krim’s review was amazing, Jon. I’m a book columnist for Pop Matters so I’m anxious to check and see if “Methland” is available in our queue. And “working class cocaine” is indeed a more appropriate appelation than “hillbilly heroin”; here in the upscale Las Vegas suburb of Summerlin there are dozens of arrests for meth possession and intent to dstribute every week.
Krim’s review was amazing, Jon. I’m a book columnist for Pop Matters so I’m anxious to check and see if “Methland” is available in our queue. And “working class cocaine” is indeed a more appropriate appelation than “hillbilly heroin”; here in the upscale Las Vegas suburb of Summerlin there are dozens of arrests for meth possession and intent to dstribute every week.
Krim’s review was amazing, Jon. I’m a book columnist for Pop Matters so I’m anxious to check and see if “Methland” is available in our queue. And “working class cocaine” is indeed a more appropriate appelation than “hillbilly heroin”; here in the upscale Las Vegas suburb of Summerlin there are dozens of arrests for meth possession and intent to dstribute every week.
The cynic in you is right. Pretty soon our rich will ALL have themselves walled off in secure enclaves (like in Mexico & South America)…it would seem on the surface that paying for such security might strain even their copious resources until you consider that they own the stock in the security companies…who both nab the bad guys outside the walls and run the prison system.
The cynic in you is right. Pretty soon our rich will ALL have themselves walled off in secure enclaves (like in Mexico & South America)…it would seem on the surface that paying for such security might strain even their copious resources until you consider that they own the stock in the security companies…who both nab the bad guys outside the walls and run the prison system.
The cynic in you is right. Pretty soon our rich will ALL have themselves walled off in secure enclaves (like in Mexico & South America)…it would seem on the surface that paying for such security might strain even their copious resources until you consider that they own the stock in the security companies…who both nab the bad guys outside the walls and run the prison system.
How are you going to get them off of crack and crank when those are the most exciting things available to them? What do the addicts have to look forward to tomorrow? Getting high…
How are you going to get them off of crack and crank when those are the most exciting things available to them? What do the addicts have to look forward to tomorrow? Getting high…
How are you going to get them off of crack and crank when those are the most exciting things available to them? What do the addicts have to look forward to tomorrow? Getting high…
The FT journalist who wrote this has one significant point wrong. Excessive lending was not possible because of “lightly regulated free markets”. Excessive lending was possible exactly because the government regulation, through Fed, kept credit rates artificially low and thus lending too cheap. Without constant Fed micromanagement of lending rates, the free market would have priced the credit at its real value, making excessive lending impossible thus forcing the economic players to choose more sustainable wealth build-up routes, instead of the free-robbing masked with artificially cheap credit that the FT writer mentions. Yes, it happened. But it didn’t happen because of too little regulation, it happened because of too much regulation.
The FT journalist who wrote this has one significant point wrong. Excessive lending was not possible because of “lightly regulated free markets”. Excessive lending was possible exactly because the government regulation, through Fed, kept credit rates artificially low and thus lending too cheap. Without constant Fed micromanagement of lending rates, the free market would have priced the credit at its real value, making excessive lending impossible thus forcing the economic players to choose more sustainable wealth build-up routes, instead of the free-robbing masked with artificially cheap credit that the FT writer mentions. Yes, it happened. But it didn’t happen because of too little regulation, it happened because of too much regulation.
The FT journalist who wrote this has one significant point wrong. Excessive lending was not possible because of “lightly regulated free markets”. Excessive lending was possible exactly because the government regulation, through Fed, kept credit rates artificially low and thus lending too cheap. Without constant Fed micromanagement of lending rates, the free market would have priced the credit at its real value, making excessive lending impossible thus forcing the economic players to choose more sustainable wealth build-up routes, instead of the free-robbing masked with artificially cheap credit that the FT writer mentions. Yes, it happened. But it didn’t happen because of too little regulation, it happened because of too much regulation.
After reading this I am tempted to re-read Snowcrash.
After reading this I am tempted to re-read Snowcrash.
After reading this I am tempted to re-read Snowcrash.
And come on, Attila, when was the last time we saw excessive lending to the extent of deflationary funny-money? A: the Savings & Loan cockup of the 1980s. Can anyone spell “Con-struc-tion de-fect liti-ga-tion?”
Sorry, Attila, but that did NOT “happen because of too little regulation,” nor did it happen, rather, “because of too much regulation”; it happened because the American People were lazy happy dumbfucks asleep at the switch, clueless as to how to provide for their proliferating babies who now are in thrall to today’s similarly shortsighted politicians.
And come on, Attila, when was the last time we saw excessive lending to the extent of deflationary funny-money? A: the Savings & Loan cockup of the 1980s. Can anyone spell “Con-struc-tion de-fect liti-ga-tion?”
Sorry, Attila, but that did NOT “happen because of too little regulation,” nor did it happen, rather, “because of too much regulation”; it happened because the American People were lazy happy dumbfucks asleep at the switch, clueless as to how to provide for their proliferating babies who now are in thrall to today’s similarly shortsighted politicians.
And come on, Attila, when was the last time we saw excessive lending to the extent of deflationary funny-money? A: the Savings & Loan cockup of the 1980s. Can anyone spell “Con-struc-tion de-fect liti-ga-tion?”
Sorry, Attila, but that did NOT “happen because of too little regulation,” nor did it happen, rather, “because of too much regulation”; it happened because the American People were lazy happy dumbfucks asleep at the switch, clueless as to how to provide for their proliferating babies who now are in thrall to today’s similarly shortsighted politicians.
The real problem is that foreign workers will do the same job for around a buck an hour and need the money more then we do– simple labor will be used at the lowest cost in a free trade world–its not that the rich are exploiting the working class it’s because there is a global labor market and we are over priced relative to the rest of the world–there is no simple answer to this problem
The real problem is that foreign workers will do the same job for around a buck an hour and need the money more then we do– simple labor will be used at the lowest cost in a free trade world–its not that the rich are exploiting the working class it’s because there is a global labor market and we are over priced relative to the rest of the world–there is no simple answer to this problem
“it happened because of too much regulation”
Y0u’re calling the secretive, some might say aribitrary decisions of the FOMC “regulation”?
We have different definitions.
“it happened because of too much regulation”
Y0u’re calling the secretive, some might say aribitrary decisions of the FOMC “regulation”?
We have different definitions.
“it happened because of too much regulation”
Y0u’re calling the secretive, some might say aribitrary decisions of the FOMC “regulation”?
We have different definitions.
If we would finally, once and for all, eliminate the taxes and nanny-state regulations on meth production, distribution and consumption that have been strangling the hard-working American methworker for so long, this problem would vanish overnight.
But that’s not the story the MSM will tell you!
If we would finally, once and for all, eliminate the taxes and nanny-state regulations on meth production, distribution and consumption that have been strangling the hard-working American methworker for so long, this problem would vanish overnight.
But that’s not the story the MSM will tell you!
If we would finally, once and for all, eliminate the taxes and nanny-state regulations on meth production, distribution and consumption that have been strangling the hard-working American methworker for so long, this problem would vanish overnight.
But that’s not the story the MSM will tell you!
It’s a goddamn police state.
It’s a goddamn police state.
It’s a goddamn police state.
Uhm, boys and girls, since this “concentration” of wealth has started:
1. Much of the third world has increased their longevity. Now those long living bastards want to compete with us int he labor market. The bastards.
2. Our definition of poor has been raised. In America today a 2 bedroom apartment with air conditioning, microwave, hot clean water, broadband and computer, a nearby well stocked library, and 500 channels on a big screen TV – can still considered poor.
—–
The point is you should not just PRETEND or ASSUME that if things were more equitably distibuted, we’d be as advanced as we are now OR that their be as much total wealth in society.
You’ll very well be splitting up a much smaller pie.
—–
The smart play for our own nation’s poor, of course, is my play… be the country where all the rich want to live. Lure them here and keep them happy.
Uhm, boys and girls, since this “concentration” of wealth has started:
1. Much of the third world has increased their longevity. Now those long living bastards want to compete with us int he labor market. The bastards.
2. Our definition of poor has been raised. In America today a 2 bedroom apartment with air conditioning, microwave, hot clean water, broadband and computer, a nearby well stocked library, and 500 channels on a big screen TV – can still considered poor.
—–
The point is you should not just PRETEND or ASSUME that if things were more equitably distibuted, we’d be as advanced as we are now OR that their be as much total wealth in society.
You’ll very well be splitting up a much smaller pie.
—–
The smart play for our own nation’s poor, of course, is my play… be the country where all the rich want to live. Lure them here and keep them happy.
Uhm, boys and girls, since this “concentration” of wealth has started:
1. Much of the third world has increased their longevity. Now those long living bastards want to compete with us int he labor market. The bastards.
2. Our definition of poor has been raised. In America today a 2 bedroom apartment with air conditioning, microwave, hot clean water, broadband and computer, a nearby well stocked library, and 500 channels on a big screen TV – can still considered poor.
—–
The point is you should not just PRETEND or ASSUME that if things were more equitably distibuted, we’d be as advanced as we are now OR that their be as much total wealth in society.
You’ll very well be splitting up a much smaller pie.
—–
The smart play for our own nation’s poor, of course, is my play… be the country where all the rich want to live. Lure them here and keep them happy.
Ackshully, if I hafta give my heart-of-hearts, I doubt that Jon has any business trying to pinpoint methamphetamine. He probably knows little about it except that it’s discreetly produced in remote if not derelict kitchens, to be flogged elsewhere such as to become the bane, seemingly willy-nilly, of the existence of cops who operate on the margins of urban justice–and therefore of cops who operate within. Of cops.
To valorize this bullshit is to threaten peace officers.
Ackshully, if I hafta give my heart-of-hearts, I doubt that Jon has any business trying to pinpoint methamphetamine. He probably knows little about it except that it’s discreetly produced in remote if not derelict kitchens, to be flogged elsewhere such as to become the bane, seemingly willy-nilly, of the existence of cops who operate on the margins of urban justice–and therefore of cops who operate within. Of cops.
To valorize this bullshit is to threaten peace officers.
Ackshully, if I hafta give my heart-of-hearts, I doubt that Jon has any business trying to pinpoint methamphetamine. He probably knows little about it except that it’s discreetly produced in remote if not derelict kitchens, to be flogged elsewhere such as to become the bane, seemingly willy-nilly, of the existence of cops who operate on the margins of urban justice–and therefore of cops who operate within. Of cops.
To valorize this bullshit is to threaten peace officers.
Ackshully, if I hafta give my heart-of-hearts, I doubt that Jon has any business trying to pinpoint methamphetamine. He probably knows little about it except that it’s discreetly produced in remote if not derelict kitchens, to be flogged elsewhere such as to become the bane, seemingly willy-nilly, of the existence of cops who operate on the margins of urban justice–and therefore of cops who operate within. Of cops.
To valorize this bullshit is to threaten peace officers.
Have you guys ever actually seen a meth addict…particularly one who smokes the stuff? We can be all jolly and theoretical about this, but those who do the shit are going right down the toilet, and it’s costing all of us whether it’s from increased crime or ER visits. I think I’d rather have heroin addicts on the block than tweakers…
Have you guys ever actually seen a meth addict…particularly one who smokes the stuff? We can be all jolly and theoretical about this, but those who do the shit are going right down the toilet, and it’s costing all of us whether it’s from increased crime or ER visits. I think I’d rather have heroin addicts on the block than tweakers…
Have you guys ever actually seen a meth addict…particularly one who smokes the stuff? We can be all jolly and theoretical about this, but those who do the shit are going right down the toilet, and it’s costing all of us whether it’s from increased crime or ER visits. I think I’d rather have heroin addicts on the block than tweakers…
Have you guys ever actually seen a meth addict…particularly one who smokes the stuff? We can be all jolly and theoretical about this, but those who do the shit are going right down the toilet, and it’s costing all of us whether it’s from increased crime or ER visits. I think I’d rather have heroin addicts on the block than tweakers…
You remind me of an article I once read about drug use in the U.S and the authors concern that it’s a class delineated issue.
The author compared use of synthetic opiates with the use of real opiates. In his eyes if you were wealthy you could get, what is effectively the same thing as any other opiate (in mechanical terms it uses the same molecule binding process), prescribed for you. Perfectly legal and socially acceptable.
But if you were poor doing essentially the same thing which he characterised as medicating yourself is illegal (because you happen to use real rather than synthetic opiates) and socially unacceptable.
The only distinction he could see between the two behaviours being where on the social ladder you stood.
The author believed the poor were hounded and abused for behaviours that are no different than those protected and sheltered by priviledge.
And that the drug issue illuminates essential and fundemental divisions of class and exploitation.
I’ve no personal experience of such things, it just sounds sad to me that some people have such limited horizons and options that trade offs with amphetamine abuse seems desireable.
You remind me of an article I once read about drug use in the U.S and the authors concern that it’s a class delineated issue.
The author compared use of synthetic opiates with the use of real opiates. In his eyes if you were wealthy you could get, what is effectively the same thing as any other opiate (in mechanical terms it uses the same molecule binding process), prescribed for you. Perfectly legal and socially acceptable.
But if you were poor doing essentially the same thing which he characterised as medicating yourself is illegal (because you happen to use real rather than synthetic opiates) and socially unacceptable.
The only distinction he could see between the two behaviours being where on the social ladder you stood.
The author believed the poor were hounded and abused for behaviours that are no different than those protected and sheltered by priviledge.
And that the drug issue illuminates essential and fundemental divisions of class and exploitation.
I’ve no personal experience of such things, it just sounds sad to me that some people have such limited horizons and options that trade offs with amphetamine abuse seems desireable.
You remind me of an article I once read about drug use in the U.S and the authors concern that it’s a class delineated issue.
The author compared use of synthetic opiates with the use of real opiates. In his eyes if you were wealthy you could get, what is effectively the same thing as any other opiate (in mechanical terms it uses the same molecule binding process), prescribed for you. Perfectly legal and socially acceptable.
But if you were poor doing essentially the same thing which he characterised as medicating yourself is illegal (because you happen to use real rather than synthetic opiates) and socially unacceptable.
The only distinction he could see between the two behaviours being where on the social ladder you stood.
The author believed the poor were hounded and abused for behaviours that are no different than those protected and sheltered by priviledge.
And that the drug issue illuminates essential and fundemental divisions of class and exploitation.
I’ve no personal experience of such things, it just sounds sad to me that some people have such limited horizons and options that trade offs with amphetamine abuse seems desireable.
YES, Rick Turner.
Meth is a nasty, nasty drug. Much nastier than cocaine. Much, much nastier than heroin … I too definitely would prefer junkie neighbors to tweaker neighbors.
It costs $20-30k a year to incarcerate an addict, after they steal, assault, or get caught dealing.
It costs millions to treat their MSRA, injection abscesses, strokes, and cardiac diseases. All in uninsured- thus public- dollars.
It costs hundreds of thousands to clean up the apartments and homes where they cook the drug.
And, additionally, @Fentex, there are proportionally just as many poor people strung out on synthetic opiates as there are rich ones – Medicare and Medicaid pay for oxycontin and methadone, just like private insurance does.
YES, Rick Turner.
Meth is a nasty, nasty drug. Much nastier than cocaine. Much, much nastier than heroin … I too definitely would prefer junkie neighbors to tweaker neighbors.
It costs $20-30k a year to incarcerate an addict, after they steal, assault, or get caught dealing.
It costs millions to treat their MSRA, injection abscesses, strokes, and cardiac diseases. All in uninsured- thus public- dollars.
It costs hundreds of thousands to clean up the apartments and homes where they cook the drug.
And, additionally, @Fentex, there are proportionally just as many poor people strung out on synthetic opiates as there are rich ones – Medicare and Medicaid pay for oxycontin and methadone, just like private insurance does.
hill[y]billy heroin = oxycontin
also, you’re missing crack.
hill[y]billy heroin = oxycontin
also, you’re missing crack.
hill[y]billy heroin = oxycontin
also, you’re missing crack.
hill[y]billy heroin = oxycontin
also, you’re missing crack.
Legalization would be a hell of a lot cheaper for everyone.
I’ve been in the music biz for over 40 years. I’ve seen folks use a lot of drugs, and I’ve seen some of the peripheral people in the concentric outer circles of it all where the glamor fades and the teeth get really bad. I don’t know of anyone who refrains from using drugs BECAUSE they are illegal. The legal status of drugs is just a joke to anyone who wants to use.
The illegal status of the drugs, however, encourages those who don’t make a bundle of money in spite of their habits to steal, to maim, and to kill and to buy drugs from people who do all that to the nth degree.
You like what’s going on in Mexico? Well, it’s slipped over the border now. “No Country for Old Men” is a bit too real these days, and in fact, the violence of that movie may be understated now.
Meth, of course, has all the down side of opiates and pot in terms of the underground economy and gangsters, but it also brings with it incredibly bad behaviour, paranoia, and physical degradation that is just beyond the beyond. Heroin and opiates make people sleepy and dreamy; pot give folks the munchies and makes for a lot of stupid laughter; crank kills and encourages killing in the settings in which it’s found.
Legalize it all, control it all, make a medical issue out of it all, and society will get off much cheaper in the long run…and maybe the tweakers will get off the drugs or at least get some nutrition and not walk the streets with rotting teeth looking to smash your car window and rip off your new GPS unit.
Legalization would be a hell of a lot cheaper for everyone.
I’ve been in the music biz for over 40 years. I’ve seen folks use a lot of drugs, and I’ve seen some of the peripheral people in the concentric outer circles of it all where the glamor fades and the teeth get really bad. I don’t know of anyone who refrains from using drugs BECAUSE they are illegal. The legal status of drugs is just a joke to anyone who wants to use.
The illegal status of the drugs, however, encourages those who don’t make a bundle of money in spite of their habits to steal, to maim, and to kill and to buy drugs from people who do all that to the nth degree.
You like what’s going on in Mexico? Well, it’s slipped over the border now. “No Country for Old Men” is a bit too real these days, and in fact, the violence of that movie may be understated now.
Meth, of course, has all the down side of opiates and pot in terms of the underground economy and gangsters, but it also brings with it incredibly bad behaviour, paranoia, and physical degradation that is just beyond the beyond. Heroin and opiates make people sleepy and dreamy; pot give folks the munchies and makes for a lot of stupid laughter; crank kills and encourages killing in the settings in which it’s found.
Legalize it all, control it all, make a medical issue out of it all, and society will get off much cheaper in the long run…and maybe the tweakers will get off the drugs or at least get some nutrition and not walk the streets with rotting teeth looking to smash your car window and rip off your new GPS unit.
And again yes, Rick. That’s why I was riffing on one. That shit’s got more cops killed than anything before combined. For that reason alone, screw it. I’m sick of worrying about the abuser-end; what about the enforcement side, and the values they represent? America’s subculture once was a brew from which some fine ferments came, but now it’s just a disgusting goddam soup from which one can’t make wine, much less strong spirits. We keep trying to pretend otherwise.
And again yes, Rick. That’s why I was riffing on one. That shit’s got more cops killed than anything before combined. For that reason alone, screw it. I’m sick of worrying about the abuser-end; what about the enforcement side, and the values they represent? America’s subculture once was a brew from which some fine ferments came, but now it’s just a disgusting goddam soup from which one can’t make wine, much less strong spirits. We keep trying to pretend otherwise.
And again yes, Rick. That’s why I was riffing on one. That shit’s got more cops killed than anything before combined. For that reason alone, screw it. I’m sick of worrying about the abuser-end; what about the enforcement side, and the values they represent? America’s subculture once was a brew from which some fine ferments came, but now it’s just a disgusting goddam soup from which one can’t make wine, much less strong spirits. We keep trying to pretend otherwise.
Fentex- Right on. There are billions of doses of Vicodan, Percocet and Oxycontin prescribed every year.
Fentex- Right on. There are billions of doses of Vicodan, Percocet and Oxycontin prescribed every year.
Fentex- Right on. There are billions of doses of Vicodan, Percocet and Oxycontin prescribed every year.
Doug- Thats why we have to start making stuff here like Wind Turbines that are both too big and too much knowledge in them to be easily ripped off in Malaysia.
Doug- Thats why we have to start making stuff here like Wind Turbines that are both too big and too much knowledge in them to be easily ripped off in Malaysia.
Doug- Thats why we have to start making stuff here like Wind Turbines that are both too big and too much knowledge in them to be easily ripped off in Malaysia.
Doug- Thats why we have to start making stuff here like Wind Turbines that are both too big and too much knowledge in them to be easily ripped off in Malaysia.
legalize it all. It’s just like Darwin or Kevorkian, and they’ll pay taxes to do it. It’ll be years of abuse before they bite off more than they can chew. I’m reminded of what someone once said about Quaaludes – the fun in taking them is fighting off the effects! With numbnuts like that, all our budget problems would go away and we might be able to have upward class mobility again. England bankrupted an entire ruling class with nicotine and caffeine alone. Weight for weight, silver for drugs. Coffee shops in the 1600′s are today’s meth dens and crack houses. we just forgot to tax them. Wake up America!
legalize it all. It’s just like Darwin or Kevorkian, and they’ll pay taxes to do it. It’ll be years of abuse before they bite off more than they can chew. I’m reminded of what someone once said about Quaaludes – the fun in taking them is fighting off the effects! With numbnuts like that, all our budget problems would go away and we might be able to have upward class mobility again. England bankrupted an entire ruling class with nicotine and caffeine alone. Weight for weight, silver for drugs. Coffee shops in the 1600′s are today’s meth dens and crack houses. we just forgot to tax them. Wake up America!
How about a slight turn toward discussion of another addiction and perversion hinted at by Mr. Taplin in his post above? Here’s one little piece of a big picture that also mostly goes on invisible. You think meth is bad for the culture? How about all the continuing “not-illegal” pumping up of yet another bubble, in the form of “program trading,” which sounds like institutionalized fraud on a scale to shame Madoff and the rest? And is only being highlighted because some penny-ante “German” was somehow involved in trying to get himself a piece of the action?
“Up until about two weeks ago, Matt Taibbi’s favorite Goldman Sachs’ market observers, the folks over at the Zero Hedge blog, had been continually commenting over the past six-plus months about how Goldman had all but cornered the market on program trading within the NY Stock Exchange. (Program trading is the automated stock trading via computers by firms specially authorized by the NYSE to facilitate same.) Clearly, according to Zero Hedge publisher Tyler Durden, something was up.
“A couple of months ago, we also learned through Zero Hedge that Goldman had profited greatly from a sweetheart deal with the federal government concerning a new program instituted by the Feds known as “The Supplemental Liquidity Provider” Program (“SLP”), launched this past Thanksgiving, which was supposed to provide “market liquidity” (i.e.: an ongoing, active market) for selected groups of 500 different NYSE stocks per SLP participant. As Durden pointed out to all who were interested, it certainly appeared to him that Goldman was the only active participant in the program.
“In April, we also learned that Goldman-Sachs had reaped the benefits of more $100 million-plus days of trading revenue than it had in the history of its business! (Yes, you read that correctly, $100 million dollars per day in gross income from its trading business.)
“This past week, according to Durden tonight, things starting going downright stranger than strange when Goldman’s name went completely missing from the NYSE’s Weekly Program Trading report. The firm that, by far and away (in most instances accounting for anywhere from third to more than one-half of all program trades throughout Wall Street), had maintained the top position in program trading on Wall Street for practically every week for the past six-plus months, all of the sudden was nowhere in sight.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/6/750420/-Breaking:-FBI-Arrest-Opens-Goldman-Sachs-Pandoras-Box. You can read the root story here.
Interesting that the sort of central theme in the previous “No Free Lunch” post was all about how to “get money for nothing and yer chicks for free.” Not much about a stable and sustainable economy, but lots about how to “get mine and more of it.” I guess that’s what it’s all about, which is one of the reasons it seems to me that our species is dead-end, with an unacknowledged death wish.
Spare me the lines about how important these “markets” are, and how “everyone” has access to them, and how “transparent” they are and all the other myths that the Oligarch-Kleptocrats keep selling us to protect their scams. These folks own the people who define by legislation and regulation what is “legal,” they have a massive edge in both access to and creation and control of “market information,” and the peasantry simply labors to give them the gelt to over-gild the solid-gold toilet bowls they shit into.
What gives, people? Are we reduced to just skittering around among the dead leaves and dung beetles on the jungle floor, squabbling over bits of dried droppings with undigested chunks of fruit in them, trying to keep from being squashed by the behemoths trampling above us?
How about a slight turn toward discussion of another addiction and perversion hinted at by Mr. Taplin in his post above? Here’s one little piece of a big picture that also mostly goes on invisible. You think meth is bad for the culture? How about all the continuing “not-illegal” pumping up of yet another bubble, in the form of “program trading,” which sounds like institutionalized fraud on a scale to shame Madoff and the rest? And is only being highlighted because some penny-ante “German” was somehow involved in trying to get himself a piece of the action?
“Up until about two weeks ago, Matt Taibbi’s favorite Goldman Sachs’ market observers, the folks over at the Zero Hedge blog, had been continually commenting over the past six-plus months about how Goldman had all but cornered the market on program trading within the NY Stock Exchange. (Program trading is the automated stock trading via computers by firms specially authorized by the NYSE to facilitate same.) Clearly, according to Zero Hedge publisher Tyler Durden, something was up.
“A couple of months ago, we also learned through Zero Hedge that Goldman had profited greatly from a sweetheart deal with the federal government concerning a new program instituted by the Feds known as “The Supplemental Liquidity Provider” Program (“SLP”), launched this past Thanksgiving, which was supposed to provide “market liquidity” (i.e.: an ongoing, active market) for selected groups of 500 different NYSE stocks per SLP participant. As Durden pointed out to all who were interested, it certainly appeared to him that Goldman was the only active participant in the program.
“In April, we also learned that Goldman-Sachs had reaped the benefits of more $100 million-plus days of trading revenue than it had in the history of its business! (Yes, you read that correctly, $100 million dollars per day in gross income from its trading business.)
“This past week, according to Durden tonight, things starting going downright stranger than strange when Goldman’s name went completely missing from the NYSE’s Weekly Program Trading report. The firm that, by far and away (in most instances accounting for anywhere from third to more than one-half of all program trades throughout Wall Street), had maintained the top position in program trading on Wall Street for practically every week for the past six-plus months, all of the sudden was nowhere in sight.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/6/750420/-Breaking:-FBI-Arrest-Opens-Goldman-Sachs-Pandoras-Box. You can read the root story here.
Interesting that the sort of central theme in the previous “No Free Lunch” post was all about how to “get money for nothing and yer chicks for free.” Not much about a stable and sustainable economy, but lots about how to “get mine and more of it.” I guess that’s what it’s all about, which is one of the reasons it seems to me that our species is dead-end, with an unacknowledged death wish.
Spare me the lines about how important these “markets” are, and how “everyone” has access to them, and how “transparent” they are and all the other myths that the Oligarch-Kleptocrats keep selling us to protect their scams. These folks own the people who define by legislation and regulation what is “legal,” they have a massive edge in both access to and creation and control of “market information,” and the peasantry simply labors to give them the gelt to over-gild the solid-gold toilet bowls they shit into.
What gives, people? Are we reduced to just skittering around among the dead leaves and dung beetles on the jungle floor, squabbling over bits of dried droppings with undigested chunks of fruit in them, trying to keep from being squashed by the behemoths trampling above us?
How about a slight turn toward discussion of another addiction and perversion hinted at by Mr. Taplin in his post above? Here’s one little piece of a big picture that also mostly goes on invisible. You think meth is bad for the culture? How about all the continuing “not-illegal” pumping up of yet another bubble, in the form of “program trading,” which sounds like institutionalized fraud on a scale to shame Madoff and the rest? And is only being highlighted because some penny-ante “German” was somehow involved in trying to get himself a piece of the action?
“Up until about two weeks ago, Matt Taibbi’s favorite Goldman Sachs’ market observers, the folks over at the Zero Hedge blog, had been continually commenting over the past six-plus months about how Goldman had all but cornered the market on program trading within the NY Stock Exchange. (Program trading is the automated stock trading via computers by firms specially authorized by the NYSE to facilitate same.) Clearly, according to Zero Hedge publisher Tyler Durden, something was up.
“A couple of months ago, we also learned through Zero Hedge that Goldman had profited greatly from a sweetheart deal with the federal government concerning a new program instituted by the Feds known as “The Supplemental Liquidity Provider” Program (“SLP”), launched this past Thanksgiving, which was supposed to provide “market liquidity” (i.e.: an ongoing, active market) for selected groups of 500 different NYSE stocks per SLP participant. As Durden pointed out to all who were interested, it certainly appeared to him that Goldman was the only active participant in the program.
“In April, we also learned that Goldman-Sachs had reaped the benefits of more $100 million-plus days of trading revenue than it had in the history of its business! (Yes, you read that correctly, $100 million dollars per day in gross income from its trading business.)
“This past week, according to Durden tonight, things starting going downright stranger than strange when Goldman’s name went completely missing from the NYSE’s Weekly Program Trading report. The firm that, by far and away (in most instances accounting for anywhere from third to more than one-half of all program trades throughout Wall Street), had maintained the top position in program trading on Wall Street for practically every week for the past six-plus months, all of the sudden was nowhere in sight.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/6/750420/-Breaking:-FBI-Arrest-Opens-Goldman-Sachs-Pandoras-Box. You can read the root story here.
Interesting that the sort of central theme in the previous “No Free Lunch” post was all about how to “get money for nothing and yer chicks for free.” Not much about a stable and sustainable economy, but lots about how to “get mine and more of it.” I guess that’s what it’s all about, which is one of the reasons it seems to me that our species is dead-end, with an unacknowledged death wish.
Spare me the lines about how important these “markets” are, and how “everyone” has access to them, and how “transparent” they are and all the other myths that the Oligarch-Kleptocrats keep selling us to protect their scams. These folks own the people who define by legislation and regulation what is “legal,” they have a massive edge in both access to and creation and control of “market information,” and the peasantry simply labors to give them the gelt to over-gild the solid-gold toilet bowls they shit into.
What gives, people? Are we reduced to just skittering around among the dead leaves and dung beetles on the jungle floor, squabbling over bits of dried droppings with undigested chunks of fruit in them, trying to keep from being squashed by the behemoths trampling above us?
^Yes.
^Yes.
^Yes.
^Yes.
Interesting, JTM.
Interesting, JTM.
Interesting, JTM.
Interesting, JTM.
As in “This dude should be Baker Acted” interesting?
As in “This dude should be Baker Acted” interesting?
As in “This dude should be Baker Acted” interesting?
As in “This dude should be Baker Acted” interesting?
See how comfortably simple it all really is?
See how comfortably simple it all really is?
See how comfortably simple it all really is?
Yep. Fuckin’ sucks, but it’s simple.
Yep. Fuckin’ sucks, but it’s simple.
Yep. Fuckin’ sucks, but it’s simple.
Yep. Fuckin’ sucks, but it’s simple.
Have you considered that there were likely multiple reasons for the excessive lending problem?
Have you considered that there were likely multiple reasons for the excessive lending problem?
Have you considered that there were likely multiple reasons for the excessive lending problem?
‘Cept it’s cheaper to buy them from the Danes and Germans, the Spanish, or even the Indians. I was speaking to a VC in Tokyo who’s investing in wind and solar/geothermal last week, and he told me that – in Asia at least – Suzlon and Siemens are more competitive than GE.
It’s not the Malaysians you need to be worried about.
‘Cept it’s cheaper to buy them from the Danes and Germans, the Spanish, or even the Indians. I was speaking to a VC in Tokyo who’s investing in wind and solar/geothermal last week, and he told me that – in Asia at least – Suzlon and Siemens are more competitive than GE.
It’s not the Malaysians you need to be worried about.
‘Cept it’s cheaper to buy them from the Danes and Germans, the Spanish, or even the Indians. I was speaking to a VC in Tokyo who’s investing in wind and solar/geothermal last week, and he told me that – in Asia at least – Suzlon and Siemens are more competitive than GE.
It’s not the Malaysians you need to be worried about.
We have word we use in the fair concession business to describe what needs to be done now, “slogging”. As in keep on slogging, there’s only one week to go, or keep on slogging, head down, focused on each next step right on til the next step til it’s over. Slog on, friends, slog on.
We have word we use in the fair concession business to describe what needs to be done now, “slogging”. As in keep on slogging, there’s only one week to go, or keep on slogging, head down, focused on each next step right on til the next step til it’s over. Slog on, friends, slog on.
We have word we use in the fair concession business to describe what needs to be done now, “slogging”. As in keep on slogging, there’s only one week to go, or keep on slogging, head down, focused on each next step right on til the next step til it’s over. Slog on, friends, slog on.