Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The I Luv Ralph Nader Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (65)	2/19/2007 11:10:59 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 111

I had a dream that I found a big building of abandoned cars of all makes and types. Especially these ones... aston.co.uk

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (65)	2/20/2007 1:13:05 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 111

Coprorate Sinners By Ralph Nader February 26, 2002 For years I have wondered why religious sermons in places of worship focus so exclusively on excoriating individual sin while avoiding corporate sin in the business world. Well, those days of avoidance are being replaced with increasing attention to the gigantic, multi-directional Enron crimes and abuses against so many innocent people. "The behavior of Enron executives is a direct violation of biblical ethics," writes the Rev. Jim Wallis, an anti-poverty leader and editor of Sojourners magazine. "Read your Bibles. The strongest media critics of Enron call it putting self-interest about the public interest; biblical ethics would just call it a sin," he asserts. Wallis, whose books relate religious principles to justice for humanity in the most eloquent language, brings the Bible's message on Mammon and God to today's business crimes: "It's the second most prominent theme in the Hebrew Bible," and in the New Testament "one of every 16 verses" addresses "riches and God's concern for the poor." Decrying the imbalanced concentration of sermons on personal frailties Wallis says "I think people want to hear that faith has to do with money as well as sex." Speaking to a Washington Post reporter, the Rev. John P. Burns, pastor of a Baptist Church in Maryland said "The people in the pews areappalled by it [Enron].....There is a general feeling among most people that they don't know what to do about this, other than to shake their heads and moan." Burns delivered a sermon recently on Hubris and Enron. "Hubris, he declared, "makes the rich buy 10 homes -- that is what Kenneth Lay of Enron had -- while others sleep on grates. Right now it may only be the pensioners and the low-level employees who suffer. . . But. . .hubris always brings the retribution of God." The Rev. William J. Byron, pastor of the Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., raises this ethical principle of corporate executives "having such disproportionate income relative to others in the same organization." He told the Post: "The principle I would use is that it's always wrong to take an unfair gain at the expense of someone." Over at the Presbyterian Church in Northwest Washington, D.C., the Rev. Roger Gench told the paper that the Enron case "speaks to me about what's gone awry with global capitalism. It's an example of a corporation that is so totally focused on making markets work and gaining wealth for a few people that it lost sight of how. . . to create wealth for the community in which it exists." That community for Enron, a major tax escapee, was its pensionholders, its investor, its gouged consumers and eventually its thousands of employees who lost their jobs. The Rev. John Mack, of the nearby First Congregational Church, summed it up: "The salient thing about the Enron case is the selfishness and greed of executives." In the centuries before the creation of corporations, most marketplace wrongdoing emanated directly from individuals. The moneylenders driven from the Temples were individual businessmen. Now the complex corporatized economy, with its capacity to obscure or diffuse responsibility, has shielded the institutions as well as their executives from the judgments of sensitive clergy. Until Enron and its executives spilled their greed and the media attached the necessary anthropomorphic attributes for widespread public revulsion. When public sermons start treating corporate crime with biblical judgments, can Congress be far behind with secular reforms and remedies?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (65)	2/21/2007 12:44:50 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 111

Greenspan Shrugged: The Reserve Chair's Philosophy Differs Little From His Ayn Rand Days by Ralph Nader Last year Congress made Federal Reserve Board chair Alan Greenspan a virtual regulatory czar over financial services corporations. Considering the waves of adulation that have been sweeping over Greenspan, the anointment was not a surprise. It would be reasonable to assume that before placing this important regulatory power under the Federal Reserve, Congress undertook a careful review of Greenspan's regulatory philosophy and record. You can toss that assumption in the nearest trash can. Congress knows little and cares less about how Greenspan views the government's role in protecting the public interest and the public purse. The same is true for the three presidents -- Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and William Clinton -- who have appointed and reappointed Greenspan to four terms as chair of the Federal Reserve. A causal observer of Senate confirmation hearings would be led to believe that financial regulation has nothing to do with the job of Federal Reserve chair. The issue never comes up. It is the rarest of occurrences when a congressional oversight hearing places a Federal Reserve official in the dock over financial regulatory shortcomings. Yet Congress, with only half-hearted opposition from the Clinton administration's Treasury Department, handed Greenspan and the Federal Reserve the regulatory plums when it authorized the merger of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies under common ownership in giant conglomerates. The safety and soundness of the nation's financial system will rest heavily on how vigorously the Federal Reserve carries out its responsibility. For longtime watchers of Greenspan the move was incongruous, if not outright risky. As a disciple of Ayn Rand, later as an economic guru for the Republican Party, and still later as a lobbyist for financial corporations, Greenspan has disagreed with regulation as a tool to protect consumers and the well-being of a free enterprise economy. Greenspan has argued that the self-interest of the corporations – the desire of corporations to protect their reputation – was all that was necessary for consumer protection. In an article published in 1963 as part of Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Greenspan declared that protection of the consumer against "dishonest and unscrupulous business was the cardinal ingredient of welfare statism." "Regulation which is based on force and fear undermines the moral base of business dealings," he wrote. "Protection of the consumer by regulation ... is illusory." Some may well argue that these diatribes against regulation were part of a passing phase in Greenspan's career. Perhaps, but this philosophy was alive and well when Greenspan, as a consultant-lobbyist, badgered federal regulators. In one case, Greenspan intervened directly with the principal regulator of Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings in an attempt to gain special exemptions from regulations for the institution. Risky investments ultimately brought Lincoln Savings down, sent Keating to jail, and cost the taxpayers $2.5 billion. Greenspan became chair of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan's antiregulation philosophy continues to crop up at the Federal Reserve. Not only has the General Accounting Office raised questions about the efficacy of the Federal Reserve's regulation of bank holding companies, but Greenspan has erected roadblocks to the collection of data important to consumer protection and fair lending as well. In 1996 Greenspan was urged to help in the enforcement of fair lending laws by collecting data on the race and gender of applicants for small business and consumer loans. Despite pleas from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, Greenspan and his fellow governors blocked the proposal. This year Greenspan decided to end the collection of nationwide data on bank fees. The survey, which was authorized as part of the financial reforms adopted in 1989, has proven an excellent tool that consumer groups have used to highlight and battle the excessive fees that banks impose on consumers. Similarly, the Federal Reserve is dropping its "Functional Cost Analysis" study, which has provided important data on how much it costs banks to provide services. This has been a great tool for measuring the validity of bank charges. Credit unions, particularly, have made good use of this data to dramatize fee and interest rate gouging by banks. But if we believe the words of Greenspan during his Ayn Rand period, he probably doesn't see any need for such data, much less regulation. And if anyone complains about the loss of such consumer and fair-lending information, Greenspan could send them this excerpt from his writings with Ayn Rand: "Government regulation is not an alternative means of protecting the consumer. It does not build quality into goods, or accuracy into information. Its sole contribution is to substitute force and fear for incentive as the 'protector' of the consumer. The euphemisms of government press releases to the contrary notwithstanding, the basis of regulation is armed force. At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun." And this is the Alan Greenspan who Congress believes should protect the public interest in the regulation of the new financial conglomerates? commondreams.org