Eating the Potato Stops the Game

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

“We could have lower inequality, a more balanced financial system, and higher economic growth. But if we allow things to carry on the way they are, we are going to have not only an unbalanced economy, but unbalanced politics, with the financial sector really distorting both our economy and our democracy,” he said.  Stiglitz is a former chief economist of the World Bank, and won the Nobel Prize in 2001. He has recently written a new book, ‘The Price of Inequality’. 

Editor’s Notes:  

The principle is so simple that it is hard to imagine why our national leaders and even the top 1% don’t get it. They continue to bully and intimidate the other 99% into near poverty in a form of economic slavery — and then expect the same people to support an economy that is 70% driven by consumer spending. This proves the assertion that you don’t have to be smart to have money and the corollary that even if you have money, it doesn’t make you smart.

There is simply no doubt amongst any historians or economists or even anthropologists that when income and wealth inequality gets too large, the society converts from being a world of opportunity to a world of slavery and crashes because while there is plenty of capital around to build  and make things, nobody has any money left to buy what the Holders of capital want to sell.

All ideological misrepresentations aside, there is an inescapable fact of history that the economy and the stock market tend to do better under the anti-business pro union administrations than they do under the pro-business anti union administrations. Look it up yourself. You can rationalize the facts but you can’t change them.

And again, the principle is so simple that even a young child gets it. It’s like the old game “Hot Potato.” It keeps going as long as the potato is hot and it gets passed around. The game abruptly ends if someone eats the potato. The 1% ate the potato and have closed their eyes to the consequences of their own actions. If you want money circulating making money for lots of people then make sure the people at  the bottom get a fair share of it by whatever means are necessary to get money into their hands. They spend every cent they get and they spend it with people, stores and companies that spend most of the money they get from the consumers. This makes rich people richer while at the same time maintaining a society is that is stable. Pushing money into the lower strata of the society is simply good business and good politics.

The United States and other countries have turned these simple principles and facts on their head. The result is stalled economies, crashing societies and arguments over ideology that is classically rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The ship is going down and all this needed is a little more air at the bottom so it won’t sink.

The massive theft of wealth from the middle class pushed those families down from middle class to lower classes. Debt was substituted for income which has been flat for more than 30 years. Exactly why is anyone surprised that the economy crashed when the borrowers couldn’t borrow any more money because they simply didn’t have the income to even make the first payment on the debt. The Banks answer we need more debt. It isn’t enough that their debt derivative instruments amount to ten times all the actual money in the world, they want more. Who do they think is going to pay this debt?

And where are the referees in this “game.” Why were they pulled of the playing field and why are they not swarming all over all the players making sure the play is fair? Oh right, that would be government regulation and everyone knows government regulation is a bad thing. So let’s get rid of all government regulation. Start with murder and work your way down. See where that gets you.

Banks Risk Distorting Our Democracy: Stiglitz

By Kathy Barnato

Under-regulated and over-powerful banks weaken the global economy and lead to higher inequality, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told CNBC.

Joseph Stiglitz
Franco Origlia | Getty Images
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-winning economist and former chief economist at the World Bank.

Highlighting the Libor [cnbc explains] -fixingscandal that has hit UK banks Barclays[BARC-GB  162.85    -2.75  (-1.66%)   ] and Royal Bank of Scotland [RBS  6.771    0.171  (+2.59%)  ], Stiglitz said reforming financial markets was the single most pressing issue facing the global economy.

“A lot of inequality, especially at the top, does not come from people really making the size of the pie bigger, making our economy work better, it comes from what we call rent seeking, trying to seize a bigger slice of that pie through things that actually make our economy weaker,” Stiglitz told CNBC’s ‘Worldwide Exchange‘ on Friday.

Stiglitz said he supported a “much stronger version” of current financial market regulation, with the sector forced to focus on its core purpose of providing credit. He said banks [.DJUSBK  194.95    3.81  (+1.99%)   ] should be told: “You can’t engage in these kinds of speculative activities, these non-transparent CDS[cnbc explains] , these gambles on the market — they are not your business.”

He added that over-mighty banks not only distort the economy, but also distort politics. He said the 1999 repeal of the U.S. Glass–Steagall Act, which enforced the separation of investment bank activity from commercial bank activity, was due to lobbying by the financial sector.

“That was the influence of the banks again… They lost money on a lot of their real financial investments, but their political investments really paid off! Not for shareholders and bondholders, but for the bank managers, who have done very well in the last few years,” he said.

Without reform, both Europe and the global economy will be “weak” in five to 10 years’ time, said Stiglitz.

“If we continue on the current course, the financial system will not be serving the rest of our economy, the economy will be weak. Inequality will be greater, and we are paying a very high price for this inequality.

“We could have lower inequality, a more balanced financial system, and higher economic growth. But if we allow things to carry on the way they are, we are going to have not only an unbalanced economy, but unbalanced politics, with the financial sector really distorting both our economy and our democracy,” he said.

Stiglitz is a former chief economist of the World Bank, and won the Nobel Prize in 2001. He has recently written a new book, ‘The price of inequality’.

To view Joseph Stiglitz’s appearance on CNBC, click here

— By CNBC.com’s Katy Barnato

BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED

COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS

27 Responses

  1. […] Read more… […]

  2. @ Nancy Drewe, on June 30, 2012 at 8:03 am said:
    “anyone who closed where the servicer was immediately servicing loan is screwed with clouded title by the GREEDY Bastards”

    Please explain in more detail so we can understand. Many of us closed knowing the named servicer…Thanks

  3. @S.Shafer

    Thanks for your post. Interesting articulation.

    From my own recorded DOT (not mers and not fannie Freddie) – (and the DOT clearly identifies the “Lender” and the “Beneficiary” to be one and the same entity) and yes I signed it:

    “20. Sale of note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance. The note or a partial interest in the note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times ….

    (A) “Security Instrument” means this document, which is dated……together with all Riders to this document.….

    Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security….

    23. Reconveyance. Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall request Trustee to reconvey the Property and shall surrender this Security Instrument, and all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee. Trustee shall reconvey the Property without warranty to the person or persons legally entitled to it….

    The DOT also states:

    “…If the default is not cured on or before the date specified in the notice, Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument”

    So the recorded document says lender/beneficiary has the power of sale and no other. That is the entity with a right to receive the benefit of the homeowner payments and no other. That is the entity who has a right to the benefit of the proceeds of a sale and no other. That is the only entity who is harmed by the non-payment and no other. That is the only entity who can declare a default occurred and the amount of the default and no other. The amount due this entity is the only amount due and no other. All amounts paid to the lender/beneficiary from any source reduce the amount owed by the trustor. When the lender/beneficiary is paid in full the trustee shall reconvey……
    The obligation is between the Trustor and Lender/Beneficiary (single entity). There is no other obligation.

    Identify all of the above according to the law and it shouldn’t even be necessary to do this in a court of law (where almost all homeowners do not have a prayer). Moratorium until this is enforced as the law of the land (I realize MERS is a further complication in identifiying the Lender/Beneficiary but do not have MERS so not fully informed but it is real property and same as all the above it seems to me).

  4. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 1%, a more balanced financial system, Barclays, bully, CNBC, democracy, financial market regulation, gambles on the market, Glass-Steagall Act, higher economic growth, Joseph Stiglitz, Kathy Barnato, lower inequality, Nobel Prize 2001, Royal Bank of Scotland, stalled economics, The Price of Inequality, World Bank, Worldwide Exchange Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  5. Another words !!!! The judges prejudice on presentation and wealth or lack of it instead of the rule of law is what stands in the court room.My understanding from law and case law I have read, judges are to be impartial and judge by the rule of law and not the god like la, which is unconstitutional law and possible treason. Judges are keepers of the laws that exhist and not law makers. However case law pretty much gives them that honor. However I am just a pro se.

    Enraged dont throw away the towel. Massive waives of thrust against these crooks get somewhere. We are far past two years ago. Diligence! Make squeeky wheels and drive them nuts with complaints ,calls, emails, vote them out of office. Never quit! I am for one not going to make it easy on them.

  6. 1. When you say wake up you do not have a loan. . .what is it your seeking to have the court understands. The promissory note and recorded deed are sufficient evidence for the mortgage to exist. Was the lender collaboration rewarded for their talents and economic savory? Is that the basis for no loan? Is the lender subject to having lost the note to a sale, transfer and subsequent transfers? What happens on the cut of date and subsequent closing date that “in fact” support your claims for no loan?
    2. You see, the lender , a tax payer copration, did sell the note and file. It’s lost to the purchaser via the commercial warehouse financing provider who is an FDIC member Bank
    3. The purchaser is a “buyer” a “Transferee” fro the FDIC Bank. So in the least sense the platform is constructed from inter-related entities that include the obbject of the transfers, a foregn jurdcition not for profit entity. For tax shelter purposes , the deal is managed by investor’s in an LLC. They, the LLC are the investors credited with the transfer of loan into the sponsorship.
    4. Consider where the investment held by a sole shareholder formed as an LLC are the directors of the FDIC member bank and the Not for Profit is a subsidiary of the lender, a tax payer corporation.
    5. Herein the equitable shares that represent the subject mortgage are owned by the holder that is the holder of common stock placed into a SPV and held under the parent company who forms a REIT.
    6. In this case the holder is a subsidiary of the originating lender and parent FDIC Member bank in most cases. The shares that represent ownership are no less transferred by into deposit to the originating lenders account or collateral account held at the FDIC ember bank who delivered the ABA wire into settlement
    7. There was a Dr. on this site who learned about the ABA wire and became the expert on ABA’s. The ABA wire is the tread that brings each of these entities together and will eventually act to its own demises – as satisfaction of the principal balance held at settlement. These facts are affirmed in agreement and render Mers Corp a nullity meaning a moot argument for transfers of chattel.
    8. The amount placed on deposit is in fact subject to conditional consideration and benefiting debt, for a mortgagee extending acceptance to a mortgagor. This is dangerous as the bank is the creditor and the lender is an obligor causing the household to immediately fall into the role of a guarantor
    9. No Sir, we disagree here with arguments for NO LOAN!
    Our take alleges there is evidence of two loans versus none. This understanding is affirmed and to be brought into court. It is held from discover through our study of the matter. There exist two obligations that bind the consumers title and strangely enough, not the consumer
    10. Our preference suggests lawyers argue defenses of fee and Pro Tanto style attack on the estates title. I would allege the material causes for title to rest disturbed through the life of loan cauasal to avoid sale by void ab initio .

    P.s. Finally I would ask your attorney to consider the accounting rules and “here to stay” effect on the matter under controversial GAAP guideines for which the new standard of sale in banking is called Divestiture of assets.

    Alliance for Economic Priorities
    West Coast Chapter

  7. Another words !!!! The judges prejudice on presentation and wealth or lack of it instead of the rule of law is what stands in the court room.My understanding from law and case law I have read, judges are to be impartial and judge by the rule of law and not the god like la, which is unconstitutional law and possible treason. Judges are keepers of the laws that exhist and not law makers. However case law pretty much gives them that honor. However I am just a pro se.

  8. boots, on June 30, 2012 at 10:00 am said:
    a s a Pro Per in all my cases, i actually notice that if your represented yourself 100% chance your case will be dismissed with prejudiced. the only recourse however is to appeal your case in the court of appeal. the judges who handles foreclosure cases most of them are Probate Judges. basically, your due process right was violated.

    Boots you are right 100%, I like to share with you what happens in the Supreme Court of Appeal Second Circuit State of New York, my Appeal STAY as GMAC filed Bankruptcy and run away from me. I am a Pro-per litigant faced six courts and now I even filed a complaint in the Bar Association first judicial department disciplinary commission…after six years of litigating Pro-Per I hired an Attorney and he filed a defective document in the Court of Appeal, I took my case back and fired my Attorney and now own my home free and clear Due to the fact New Century transferred the assignment to Mortgage Electronic Registration System…today It shows in the records my balance N/A I own the property free and clear because of this defect.
    I believed you have to look into your documents very carefully who knows you maybe a winner.

  9. Response – Interesting point of view. Pro Pers are handicapped by Prejudicial views held incourts.

    We believe your perspective is a little off base, as there is more than meets the eye in these foreclosure matters.

    Our view is not to cite fault with the court, but continue to embrace it the best we you can. In every justice is a pension fund trying to survive. That said, you must properly plead the action and state the appropriate challenges

    Herein consider where criminal claims were brought against a top ten fugitive as a defendant in a variety of serious criminal matter. The case brought by the state attorney general in Los Angeles was decided allowing the defendant to prevail and side step over 80 years of incarceration. When prosecutors were asked – how can that be done in a high profile case by a lay person with no college education?

    The response was “he did his homework and prevailed”.

    Merit lacks for claims we review brought by attorneys as well as the pro per litigants. It is not the pro per t issue as it is something more so aligned with a 12 B 6 motion or successful demurrer. In the demurrer the lender alleged will assert the defendant’s fact may have merit, as argued in a well pleaded complaint. Albeit they may be true, they do not entitle the plaintiff to prevail in the lawsuit or sufficient to grant relief.

    For starters, to defeat lenders due for obligation outstanding is an insurmountable feat. It cannot be approached before a competent court without the courts unmpovable understanding for determining borrower capacity to cure or satisfy or make good if decided in favor of a decision to rescind the original mortgage.

    Hence, for starters, it’s not smart for the petitioner to seek hardship for waiver of the courts filing fees. In these instances the court routinely directs the novice petitioner to exit just as swiftly as they entered. Herein they are seen as hopelessly squandering their claims for having lost title.

    Our position is to plead the abuses aginst the see simple esate and broader juridcition in the matter citing wide ranging diversity.

    Alliance for Economic Transparency
    West Coast Chapter

  10. UK politicians: Banking system is corrupt

    “LONDON — British politicians harshly criticized the country’s banking system Saturday after Barclays was fined for manipulating data, with the leader of the opposition calling for an inquiry and government ministers joining the attack.

    Labour leader Ed Miliband said the once-lauded banking sector has fallen into disrepute, claiming that over the last 20 years the word “banker” has gone from a compliment “to a gross insult.”

    The British public “will not tolerate anything less than a full, independent and open inquiry” that will investigate every part of the industry, he said during a speech at the left-wing Fabian Society think tank.

    U.S. and British agencies on Wednesday imposed fines totaling $453 million on Barclays for submitting false data used in setting the London interbank offer rate (LIBOR), a key market index, between 2005 and 2009, to make its financial position appear stronger.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120630/eu-britain-banks/

  11. @Nancy Drewe

    I believe you, now what do I do and how do I phrase it to my attorney?
    Thank you in advance.

  12. a s a Pro Per in all my cases, i actually notice that if your represented yourself 100% chance your case will be dismissed with prejudiced. the only recourse however is to appeal your case in the court of appeal. the judges who handles foreclosure cases most of them are Probate Judges. basically, your due process right was violated. i think Pro Per have more knowledge in the deepness of this foreclosure fraud especially if your are followers of this website. the court thinks we are stupid deadbeat homeowners who just like to get a free house and judges are not interested in reading our complaints instead judges will make their decision based on foreclosure mills demurre to complaints. i think the best remedy for us Pro Per is to sue the court not because of their decision but because they violates our fundamental due process right by not giving us Pro Per the right to be heard. judges dismissed our cases and discouraging us not to use the court system to get a relief. until the court system would not recognize Pro Per in foreclosure cases, there is no way we could achieve our goal to defeat big banks. no matter how good you are in your complaints, opposed the demurre follow the procedural aspect of the case while the attorneys defendants sloppy demurre who demurred on a wrong property (LOL) , but still the judge has the mentality and prejudices toward a homeowners who are Pro Per in a foreclosure cases. any one in a class action suit who are interested whose cases were dismissed based on judges prejudices against the Pro Per, such dismissing entirely all your causes of action in their alternative ruling, then stood by their alternative ruling when you object, don’t read your complaint entirely, will place yourself in the last to be heard when no one is around the court except the plaintiffs and their relatives, the guard, the transcriber, the secretary and the foreclosure attorney whose in call court and reading all the the wrong cases based on their demurre. the judges abuses is very noticeable in the bench. i am just sharing my experiences as a Pro Per in all my cases. i am still fighting no matter what the outcome of my cases in the court of appeal. i am in Ca. and one more , i found out that one of the judges who dismissed my case received a two round of golf valued at $ 170.00 from a couple who run an eviction business on his 700 form disclosure. this is a probate judge i am talking accepting a bribe from real estate investment firm which include eviction notice and yet accepting a foreclosure case.

  13. @Nancy Drewe

    How do we prove that? /where do we get documents we can use in court?

  14. las vegas

    wake up
    you don’t have a loan

    if you’ve been scammed by the scheme the greedy bastards includes congress

    created process by which

    they beat the due on sale clause

    1989 forward

    Chaiman Greenspan TREASURY & OCC partnership allowed
    Norwest Corp & Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/Resolution Trust Co to underwrite trustee guaranty certificates ‘cash-like equivalents’ for INVESTORS

    and

    cooperation of ‘abstractor’ with FHLB Des Moines

    Norwest Insurance

    and the NORWEST CORP SYSTEM ‘mark’ ATI to be used first in name representing American Title Insurance and then Attorney’s Title Insurance network …in which THE FUND -Old Republic Title INsurnace …underwrites the SELLER’s DEFAULT INSURNACE CLaims for INVESTORS to purchase the property where Norwest Insurance dba Wells Fargo Insurance – RELS TITLE partnership Norwest Mortgage ….

    INVESTOR holds collateral

    your mortgage as investment
    your deed of trust as investment

    if you stop advancing cash in form of real estate receivable

    you lose due to concealment retail unfair seizure property

    anyone who closed where the servicer was immediately servicing loan is screwed with clouded title by the GREEDY Bastards

  15. Homeowner wins motion to dismiss for bank’s failure to amend complaint

    http://foreclosurecourtroom.com/homeowner-wins-motion-to-dismiss-for-banks-failure-to-amend-complaint/

    Homeowner’s motion to dismiss complaint was granted and plaintiff was given 90 day to amend. The homeowner raised a host of arguments in its motion, but only one of them was victorious – the required verification was not in the body of the complaint, but on a separate piece of paper.

    The bank failed to file an amended complaint within 90 days. Instead, after 130 days from the date of the order it filed a motion for extension of time and got it granted. As a result, instead of 90 days to amend, the bank got the total of 180 to amend. But it failed to file an amended complaint anyway.

    The homeowner filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to timely amend complaint. It cited E & E Electric Contractors v. Singer, 236 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970), where the Third District was presented with a similar situation. The lower court granted dismissal with prejudice and the Third District affirmed.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=236+So.+2d+195&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&case=9087759863846197347&scilh=0

    The homeowner also cited a later case, New River Yachting Center v. Bacchiochi, 407 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=407+So.+2d+607&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10&case=477207278552783776&scilh=0

    The homeowner’s motion sought dismissal of the case with prejudice or, alternatively, without prejudice. The court took the matter under advisement, but ultimately granted the homeowner’s motion to dismiss. The order the judge wrote stated the bank’s attorney assigned to the case did not attend the hearing, but the attorney who did attend could not offer any explanation for the delays.

    Interestingly, the order states that at the hearing the homeowner did not ask for dismissal with prejudice. And this is important, because the standard for dismissal with prejudice is set so high, it is almost impossible to meet. Never mind, I can be taking any kind of dismissals all day long. It’s true, the bank can come back, but they rarely do. And even if they do, they make the same mistakes again and again, and are much easier to beat the second time around.

  16. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-sharp-sudden-decline-of-americas-middle-class-20120622

    “…The system’s incoherence and contempt for its dependents fluoresce brilliantly in the wake of a historic event like the Great Recession. When floodwaters cover our homes, we expect that FEMA workers with emergency checks and blankets will find us. There is no moral or substantive difference between a hundred-year flood and the near-destruction of the global financial system by speculators immune from consequence. But if you and your spouse both lose your jobs and assets because of an unprecedented economic cataclysm having nothing to do with you, you quickly discover that your society expects you and your children to live malnourished on the streets indefinitely. That kind of truth, says Nancy Kapp, “really screws with people’s heads…”

  17. 7212

  18. At the very first opportunity I am presented with the chance to smack John Stumpf in his mouth, I will act with a sharp concise effort.

  19. July 02, 2012

  20. Bulk buying stolen property can be risky!

  21. Stiglizt still envisions a financial model where banks play too large a role, and capitalism is driven by the stock market. Regulation being in place has not smoothed “the business cycle”, which is nothing more than manipulation by the Federal Reserve System for the last 68 years. This point in history seems like a good time to radically revamp not just banking and capitalism, but our system of government which is too easily seized by a few powerful men.
    Government was intended to serve the people and preserve their civil liberties through the rule of laws that were agreed upon by the people. We no longer have what was intended, let alone our civil rights. We are told what to do and when to do it. Government tries to mandate every single aspect of our lives now, and even thinks it will force us to buy health insurance coverage, or pay a tax for not doing so. Who do they think they are? The founding father’s design was flawed, even though it worked for a long while. There must be a separation of money and politics for us to go any further as a country. There must be an end to the industrial military control. Secrecy and imperialism should not be the focus of our existence, and human rights should be our utmost goal. Corruption has stolen our republic and driven it into the ditch. The next generation can’t think critically because they have been drugged and distracted rather then educated. They don’t know law, history, science, english or how to balance a checkbook, but that might not matter if there are no jobs.
    We need to go back to making things, inventing things, and earning a decent wage. We need to be able to buy and pay for things we want with cash so that we aren’t shouldering any debt. People need money for vacations and time to take them, to be able to travel freely without being groped by some psychotic at the airport and to live without the constant fear and stress created by the lunatics in power. Some among us will just run and denounce their citizenship, but many will stay and tackle the real problems we face because they remember what this republic was like before, and they’d like to see it be even better than it was. It’s time to hunker down and say no to a government that has outlived its usefulness to “we the people”. It’s gonna be one hellofa battle, but the sooner we start the better. We outnumber them 750 to 1. Stop funding them, take your freedoms back, keep what you earn and never let anyone tell you “You have to buy this healtcare policy!” Get rid of these power mongers, who only have a job if you allow them to.

  22. If you have $10,000,000. you can be a bulk buyer of foreclosures at a huge discount.
    Tell me this wasn’t the plan from the beginning.

  23. […] Read More: Eating the Potato Stops the Game […]

  24. What if a homeowner is not in foreclosure? What could they do about their loan?

  25. As far as I am concerned the entire stock market is a crap shoot and the mortgage crimes in the stock market should be an indicator that the stock market is one big swindle. Gambling just like Los Vegas! In the great depression, the three businesses that did well, were the Beauty business(hair salons) tabacco and alcohol and gambling. Americans gamble, attempting to dream they will win when the odds are against you in Los Vegas and I exspect the stock market to be that gamble as well, home and dreaming of hitting it big.

  26. “They lost money on a lot of their real financial investments, but their political investments really paid off! Not for shareholders and bondholders, but for the bank managers, who have done very well in the last few years,” he said.”

    Yeah. That’s how they were able to make millions from out taxes, earmarked for our kids. That’s how Paulson racked up 2.8 billions. And that’s how… 4? 5? 12 million people lost or are about to lose their house. The roof over their head. And their job.

    Stiglitz said it but Bill Black, Krugman, Galbraith, Yves Smith, Abigail Field, Dylan Ratigan and many more said it long before. Our politicians, all bought and paid for by banks gave them everything they wanted. It’s over.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: