If so, don’t get too cheerful—it isn’t the kind of lawlessness we twel– 21 would like to see.
Many writers and analysts are investing significant time and effort in trying to both comprehend and explain the current economic mess to lay audiences around the world. Not all of them—not even all the Nobel laureates in the group—seem to have a clue ... although I do suspect some of that has to do with currying favor with the powerful. And while I haven’t yet come across any writer with whom I agree completely, Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil probably comes closest. Today’s commentary from him, One Nation, Under Banks With Justice for No One is an excellent example. From deep in the essay, subheadings omitted:
It didn’t matter that investors were buying and selling billions of the banks’ shares without a clue that Merrill had lost more than $12 billion during the fourth quarter. Bernanke and Paulson had a singular objective — to get the Merrill deal done, on time — even if that meant duping the stock market and threatening to fire Lewis as chief executive officer, along with the company’s board.
The best that can be said about Bernanke and Paulson is that they believed the ends justified the means, and that preventing system-wide harm to the world’s financial markets took priority over strict adherence to the law. And yet, if you think they didn’t breach the public’s trust, ask yourself this:
Knowing what we know now, how could you ever trust anything Bernanke says again?
What about Paulson’s successor as Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who at the time was still the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? How could he have been out of the loop? Or was he playing the quiet role of boy wonder?
All this puts the SEC and the rest of the government in a horrible spot. It is a matter of public record that the law wasn’t followed, thanks to Cuomo’s disclosures last week. And yet the agencies and policy makers responsible for enforcing the law are probably powerless to do anything about it.
It would be nice to think that SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro might call for a sincere, thorough investigation. But there’s nothing in her professional background that suggests she has the spine or the nerve to take on a major financial institution, much less a former Treasury secretary or the sitting Fed chairman. ....
That leaves you and me, the American public, with the uncomfortable realization that we are slipping toward a state of lawlessness in this country, all in the name of saving our financial system by creating even bigger banks out of combinations of banks that were dangerously too big already.
Weil rightly blasts Paulson, Bernanke, Schapiro, and Geithner (along with Lewis), but I don’t understand how he can label the climate one of “lawlessness”; he himself states that those responsible for enforcing the law aren’t doing anything about this flagrant violation of it.
It is a clear lack of accountability, and it’s a fine example of what seems to be an inevitable progression in state governance. Laws regulating a service sector are passed in an effort to “protect” consumers and cow would-be cheaters; yet, in that process, honest individuals looking for a competitive edge can find one, only to have their competition protest to the lawmakers and ultimately find themselves being prosecuted for their creativity. Or, if the sector gains enough prestige and/or power, those tasked with regulating them find themselves craving some of that action—and become lapdogs of the industry. Thus are regular individuals’ interests left by the wayside: the political–economics complex flattens us in its expansion, then turns to us as taxpayers to bail out the rich and powerful.
If only we had real lawlessness—paired with accountability—in the financial sector! There would be much more consumer choice in banking services, instead of one-size-bleeds-all under the guise of various pretty logos for banks, mortgages, and credit cards. Consumers would be much more cautious about where they put their money, or the terms they select for large purchases or credit cards. Reputation and word of mouth commentary would once again be powerful tools consumers could wield against institutions—because with real choices, dissatisfied customers could and would go elsewhere.
Yah, I’m a dreamer. But you eleven knew that already ... It’s just frustrating to see someone like Weil be so close to nailing it, then falling apart where it matters most.
Another interpretation
I don't really know what this writer had in mind, but I've had similar discussions with a number of people and the general consensus is that "lawlessness" in this sort of context is the growing disrespect for ALL "law" because so much of it is senseless, counterproductive or just plain evil.
When people grow up in an atmosphere of oppressive "law" that does not differentiate between mala in se and mala prohibita, there is - eventually and inevitably in at least some people - a loss of understanding of and respect for the true laws of non aggression and keeping one's word as well as the bogus "laws" of oppression. Those who never really understood or accepted any kind of individual responsibility, or simply didn't care, would be most susceptible.
Therefore, at least some people would tend to ignore ALL law, from any source, and therefore become "lawless." And I think that this situation is exactly the fear of those who scream against "anarchy," but have no clue that a strong central government - and all of the bogus "law" - is the cause of that chaos, not the cure.
That makes sense.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, M.L.
Wherein I Pretend Wit
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth all the way over here in New York already (it may be mine) but I'm going to try. This is going to be terrible.
So the king's chancellor has to try to explain why the king's stupid policies have produced disaster. Why is it that, for example, violating the young daughter of a powerful prince of the neighboring kingdom (which is bigger and has a larger, more dedicated and more experienced army) in front of said prince caused them to go to a very unhappy war which they brutally lost? The king (luckily) escaped the endgame with his parts still intact, but his kingdom has never been the same. Then there was the agricultural policy, which stipulated that the seeds be sown in the frost, in the winter, to get an early harvest. Naturally this policy brought starvation and ruined many fields. Similarly, his policy of forcibly abolishing the gong pits in cities led to outbreaks of plague and leprosy. The chancellor's task is not a simple one. His motivations are rather complex. In addition to having to explain to his majesty why his policies have resulted as they do, he must, at the same time, flatter his majesty, especially with respect to the judgments made. He cannot call his majesty a fool, he cannot point out his vain attachment to his ludicrous belief in his own perfection, and he most certainly cannot point out how this is the root cause of the bad choices he makes. Also, he would like to keep both his job and his neck intact; that more than anything else. So, what does he do? At first he is truly confused by the problem. How to reverse certain destruction?
"Your majesty, I am truly at a loss for words to explain the recent troubles,"
"You are a bumbling incompetent!"
"I admit insufficient ability to-"
"We want answers, not excuses!" said the king as he hoped for an excuse that would convince at least him, until the end of the day. Tomorrow was another matter and would require other excuses.
"Your majesty must concede that certain mistakes were made, in various places, and tha-"
"Tell us about them!"
"You see, there were certain things not fully considered in your excellency's plans, which--"
"How dare you insult our intelligence?!?" dammit he's jumping ship! If he so much as says, 'guards, seize the king and kill him!' I am dead!
"I didn't mean to-"
"You did!"
"I must explain myself."
But then his true motivation in all this takes hold, and it will be easy to solve the real problem; he'll blame the victims! He gets to stay alive and at work, the king is placated, all is well!
"Your majesty, I must say it is rather obvious to me that if the farmers had carried out your most wise instructions properly, you would see a country bounding over with wheat! They failed, no no, they sabotaged your plans!"
"How shall I punish such treachery?"
"While it's obvious that the whole rotten lot of the peasants are in on the conspiracy, either as participants or enablers, we must accept a certain probability that some are innocent and so we cannot hang the whole of the population. I propose, instead, we take a part from all of them and engage in mass executions. Draw and quarter takes too long, so hangings and beheadings will have to do."
"Perhaps one of every ten."
"Yes, a most excellent suggestion your excellency!"
How to make rape the victim's fault? Easy!
"That succubus should not have presented herself so! If she had a whore's countenance, then she must have had the whore's sensibility, and the prince ought to have known this, most certainly! He attacked your majesty precisely because - coward that he is - he refused to accept what he himself already knew," at this the chancellor's legs grow weak. He is not sure if he will collapse in laughter or tears. She was so young, and she merely said, 'we are very happy that your majesty has been so kind as to host us in his own home on our long pilgrimage,' and that was enough to inflame the king's need for debauchery, "and she was hardly a fine pearl, and certainly not an untai--"
"Do you think we are so oafish and clumsy as to be unable to know a virgin from a harlot? She was fresh as a peach straight off the tree," and at this the king was lost for a moment - eyes closed, mouth salivating - lost in thoughts of past glories. It would be some time before conversation may be resumed. When he returns to the present, "and further you insult our taste by calling her unfair!"
"No, your majesty, I only mean to say that she certainly deserved what happened to her."
"Yes, she did, and she ought to be the happier for it," at this the chancellor winces, for even a coward and a fool can still have moments of conscience and perception. He is very fortunate, perhaps, that he lacks anything like passion himself and has never fathered children.
And now the waste disposal disaster? How to put blame out of its natural place and move it to precisely where blame did not exist? How to shift responsibility away from that which wore it with the ancient crown and put it in the hands of those who knew neither riches nor power? Could he accuse them of being basically degenerate for taking ill after living in their own filth? Maybe, but the argument was not very convincing, and still other problems would crop up. No, he had to blame them in a way that pushed all of it onto them.
"Your majesty's plan was obviously a brilliant one, to remove those unsightly gong pits, but there was failure in execution-" sabotage? no. Negligence? Yes! "you see, it was surely their own faults for not resuming the ancient practice of dumping the wastes in the river-" never mind that most of the kingdom drew its water from wells, wait, yes! "they should have dumped it there, or in the town wells, where it would no longer constitute any kind of problem!"
"Chancellor your stupidity is a shock even to us; everyone knows, even the filthy peasants know, that if you dump the waste in the water supply, it becomes useless as a water supply!"
"Well, your majesty, the peasants do have a long history of technical ingenuity, they did not have expectation that you would solve all the problems in every detail!"
"This is certainly true."
"Further, the execution of that part of the plan was naturally their responsibility! Their place is only to obey your most wise instructions," and they did, but I must survive to continue to advise him, or worse policies will be handed down and a truly sycophantic chancellor won't provide any correction whatsoever, "and to not try to think it all out for themselves, whether such guidance is correct or not."
"You are a perfectly supple little puppet, chancellor. We are always satisfied by your work," says the king, in that voice old women reserve when spoiling overfed household pets. The chancellor is truly pleased at this, indeed, he is never happier than to hear these words.
"Thank you, your majesty. I am ever proud to serve,"
This execrable bit of garbage was an overly pompous 'second!' to this statement:
I hope I never get the impulse to do this again and inflict it on others.
Hardly
That isn’t execrable—not even close. Thanks for sharing your venting here! (Does that make me an enabler?)
You are too kind
and if an enabler, certainly not of the codependent variety.