Nicholas Kristof, "Polluted Political Games": Was Kristof Paid by the Clinton Foundation?

Acknowledging his involvement with the Clinton Foundation in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Polluted Political Games," Nicholas Kristof writes:

"I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?"

Okay, Nick, you've admired the "fine work" of the Clinton Foundation, but now tell us if you were paid to "moderate" these many panels, and if so, how much were you paid? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with moderating panels, but if you, a Times columnist, were paid by the Clinton Foundation, can we please know how much?

Kristof is quick to inform us that Republican presidential candidates have also benefited from "our entire disgraceful money-based political system." Specifically with regard to Marco Rubio, Kristof writes that "Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has received financial assistance from a billionaire, Norman Braman, and has channeled public money to Braman’s causes." Kristof provides a link to a New York Times article entitled "Billionaire Lifts Marco Rubio, Politically and Personally" by Michael Barbaro and Steve Eder, which informs us:

"A detailed review of their relationship shows that Mr. Braman, 82, has left few corners of Mr. Rubio’s world untouched. He hired Mr. Rubio, then a Senate candidate, as a lawyer; employed his wife to advise the Braman family’s philanthropic foundation; helped cover the cost of Mr. Rubio’s salary as an instructor at a Miami college; and gave Mr. Rubio access to his private plane.

The money has flowed both ways. Mr. Rubio has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami institute for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.

. . . .

The reliance on Mr. Braman is likely to put a spotlight on the finances of Mr. Rubio, who ranks among the least-wealthy candidates in the emerging Republican field. Mr. Rubio left the Florida House of Representatives in 2008 with a net worth of $8,351, multiple mortgages and $115,000 in student debt. In his latest financial disclosure form, for 2013, he reported at least $450,000 in liabilities, including two mortgages and a line of credit."

Oh my goodness, Mr. Braman once dared employ both Rubio and his wife! Worse still, Rubio helped secure funds for the cancer research of a Miami institute favored by Mr. Braman. Of course, we all know that government funding must never be used for cancer research . . . not.

Rubio  is considered one of the poorest Republican presidential candidates? Maybe Mr. Braman has not been helping him enough.

But now consider the millions of dollars received by the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which whips gang rape victims and beheads persons accused of engaging in witchcraft. Also consider the millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from banks which were recently convicted of rigging the value of world currencies.

And although Hillary claimed that she and Bill left the White House "dead broke" and whined that "we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy,” Hillary's net worth in 2012 was estimated at between $5 million and $25 million, and Bill's net worth is estimated at some $55 million. Poor, Hillary! Poor, poor Hillary!

Compare  Rubio with the Hillary? I don't think so. Meanwhile, let's see if Kristof or the Times is willing to answer my question above.

Paul Krugman, "The Big Meh": And the Currency Rigging Banks Which Donated to the Clinton Foundation?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Big Meh," Paul Krugman writes about the effect of new technologies on the economy. Paul would have us know:

"So what do I think is going on with technology? The answer is that I don’t know — but neither does anyone else. Maybe my friends at Google are right, and Big Data will soon transform everything. Maybe 3-D printing will bring the information revolution into the material world. Or maybe we’re on track for another big meh.

What I’m pretty sure about, however, is that we ought to scale back the hype."

I don't agree with Paul. The three hi-tech companies with which I work (two as an outside consultant, one as chairman of the board) all have the potential to change our world: revolutionary new drug candidates, a chip capable of restoring vision to persons blinded by age-related macular degeneration following a 30-minute minimally invasive procedure, and a new generation of super-strong fibers for ultra-thin life-saving surgical sutures. I work hard and late every night, and if I didn't believe in these companies, I wouldn't waste the time. No need for hype. Let's wait and see the results.

However, something else is troubling me today: On Friday, in an editorial entitled "Banks as Felons, or Criminality Lite," The New York Times informed us:

"As of this week, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland are felons, having pleaded guilty on Wednesday to criminal charges of conspiring to rig the value of the world’s currencies. According to the Justice Department, the lengthy and lucrative conspiracy enabled the banks to pad their profits without regard to fairness, the law or the public good.

. . . .

In all, the banks will pay fines totaling about $9 billion, assessed by the Justice Department as well as state, federal and foreign regulators. That seems like a sweet deal for a scam that lasted for at least five years, from the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2013, during which the banks’ revenue from foreign exchange was some $85 billion."

However, what the Times didn't tell us was the connection of some of these banks (not Royal Bank of Scotland) to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative ("CGI"). The Clinton Foundation lists Barclays Capital and the Citi Foundation as donors in the $1,000,001 to $5,000,000 range. It also lists JPMorgan Chase as a donor in the $100,001 to $250,000 range.

In addition, with regard to Barclays, a March 3, 2015 CNN article entitled "Base wary of Clinton Foundation's ties to troubled banks" by Alexandra Jaffe states:

"British banking giant Barclays emerged as a 'strategic partner' with CGI for its 2010 annual meeting, and gave the same level of support every year after that.

. . . .

In August of 2010, the Justice Department announced Barclays would pay nearly $300 million in fines for breaking sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan and others.

. . . .

According to a Justice Department statement issued in June 2012, Barclays "admitted and accepted responsibility for its misconduct" at the center of a scheme to manipulate global interest rates, which in turn affected prices for consumer lending.

The bank agreed to pay $450 million in total to the Justice Department, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK's Financial Services Authority to resolve the violations.

. . . .

In July 2014, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations accused both Barclays and Deutsche Bank of helping hedge funds avoid paying more than $6 billion in taxes."

Isn't it a bit peculiar how Paul ("The Conscience of a Liberal") Krugman has nothing to say about the aforesaid abomination? Or is it really not so terrible in our brave new world? What do you think?

New York Times Editorial, "Banks as Felons, or Criminality Lite": No Mention of the Clinton Foundation

In an editorial entitled "Banks as Felons, or Criminality Lite," The New York Times informs us:

"As of this week, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland are felons, having pleaded guilty on Wednesday to criminal charges of conspiring to rig the value of the world’s currencies. According to the Justice Department, the lengthy and lucrative conspiracy enabled the banks to pad their profits without regard to fairness, the law or the public good.

. . . .

In all, the banks will pay fines totaling about $9 billion, assessed by the Justice Department as well as state, federal and foreign regulators. That seems like a sweet deal for a scam that lasted for at least five years, from the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2013, during which the banks’ revenue from foreign exchange was some $85 billion."

Got it: These banks will pay fines of $9 billion on foreign exchange revenue of $85 billion. Sweet!

However, what the Times doesn't tell us is the connection of some of these banks (not Royal Bank of Scotland) to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative ("CGI"). The Clinton Foundation lists Barclays Capital and the Citi Foundation as donors in the $1,000,001 to $5,000,000 range. It also lists JPMorgan Chase as a donor in the $100,001 to $250,000 range.

In addition, with regard to Barclays, a March 3, 2015 CNN article entitled "Base wary of Clinton Foundation's ties to troubled banks" by Alexandra Jaffe states:

"British banking giant Barclays emerged as a 'strategic partner' with CGI for its 2010 annual meeting, and gave the same level of support every year after that.

. . . .

In August of 2010, the Justice Department announced Barclays would pay nearly $300 million in fines for breaking sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan and others.

. . . .

According to a Justice Department statement issued in June 2012, Barclays "admitted and accepted responsibility for its misconduct" at the center of a scheme to manipulate global interest rates, which in turn affected prices for consumer lending.

The bank agreed to pay $450 million in total to the Justice Department, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK's Financial Services Authority to resolve the violations.

. . . .

In July 2014, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations accused both Barclays and Deutsche Bank of helping hedge funds avoid paying more than $6 billion in taxes."

Can't wait for Hillary to field questions concerning her foundation's ties to the banking industry from a journalist who didn't donate to the foundation. Yes, I know, I shouldn't hold my breath.

Thomas Friedman, "Did You Hear the One About the Bankers?": Obama Should Also Wear a Nascar-Style Jumpsuit

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Did You Hear the One About the Bankers?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Thomas Friedman makes four proposals involving US banks:

"We need to focus on four reforms that don’t require new bureaucracies to implement. 1) If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up. We can’t risk another trillion-dollar bailout. 2) If your bank’s deposits are federally insured by U.S. taxpayers, you can’t do any proprietary trading with those deposits — period. 3) Derivatives have to be traded on transparent exchanges where we can see if another A.I.G. is building up enormous risk. 4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from."

As those who read this blog know, I favor reenactment of Glass-Steagall and am not hostile to Friedman's suggestions. A pity the world's banks are not rated according to their ethical standards and service as opposed to their assets and profits (see, for example: http://www.bankersalmanac.com/addcon/infobank/bank-rankings.aspx).

However, why should only congressmen be forced to dress like Nascar drivers? Why shouldn't President Obama also wear a Nascar-style jumpsuit with the logos of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, and Morgan Stanley, all among his top contributors in 2008 (see: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638), embroidered in crimson upon the garment?

Obama, Solyndra, the Banks and Wall Street: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

We are more than a year away from the 2012 presidential election, yet Obama is already in full campaign mode, seeking to blame others, i.e. the banks and Wall Street, for America's persistent economic woes. Obama's October 6, 2011 press conference was illustrative of this offensive (in both senses of the word) strategy:

"So I'm going to be fighting every inch of the way here in Washington to make sure that we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices by the financial sector.

I will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions that are doing the right thing by their customers. We need them to be lending. We need them to be lending more to small businesses. We need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing business and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. But until the American people see that happening, yes, they are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules.

. . . .

What I think is that the American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that; that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that that used to be the essence of the American Dream. That's how you got ahead -- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded, and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded.

And that's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we're getting back to some old-fashioned American values in which, if you're a banker, then you are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefitting everybody."

Ah yes, the old-fashioned American value of making prudent loans to enable businesses to build plants and hire workers to create products that benefit everybody. And I suppose that the half billion dollars in federal loans granted to Solyndra provide an example of this rock solid, old-fashioned American value?

Let there be no mistake: I am in favor of reinstating both Glass-Steagall and the uptick rule in order to prevent predatory financial practices. On the other hand, Obama and friends have demonstrated their own incompetence in providing federal loans and are hardly in a position to furnish financial oversight by way of a "consumer watchdog." Given the warnings about the legality of the Solyndra loans from within Obama administration (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html?hpid=z1), this scandal appears ready to enmesh the highest echelons of the West Wing and even the president himself.

Federal supervision of the banks and Wall Street? By all means, but who will guard the guards?

Does Antitrust Law Still Exist?

Does antitrust law still exist? If so, does the U.S. Federal Trade Commission do anything whatsoever to enforce it?

In recent months we have seen a wave of giant mergers and acquisitions in the pharma industry: Pfizer merged with Wyeth, Merck merged with Schering-Plough, Roche merged with Genentech.

Although these mega-mergers might have been wonderful for the financial industry, did they benefit consumers? Will they be conducive to competition, which will result in new lifesaving drugs and diagnostics?

Or, were these mergers corporate palliatives intended to remedy many failed years of R&D by combining dwindling pipelines and cutting costs, without remedying failed R&D?

You know the answers to all of these questions, and let me predict that in a few short years, several once great pharma companies will devolve into little more than pill marketers. Sad.

And while the Federal Trade Commission permits pharma companies to abandon drug and diagnostic discovery and mutate into pill marketers, it is also allowing the big banks to deviate from their core business of lending money to worthy companies and individuals.

An editorial in today's New York Times , "Even Bigger Than Too Big to Fail", takes the position that "banks that are too big to fail pose too much of a risk to the economy" and that "any serious effort to reform the financial system must ensure that no such institutions exist". I agree with The Times and favor some very strong medicine. My comment, if The Times agrees to post it:

"'If we have learned anything over the last couple of years, it is that banks that are too big to fail pose too much of a risk to the economy. Any serious effort to reform the financial system must ensure that no such banks exist.'

Some banks will always fail, but why allow them to become 'too big' with the attendant risk to the economy? Why enable giant financial institutions to control U.S. economic policy and deviate from their core business of lending money to worthy companies and individuals? Why enable them to pursue quick profit without risk to executive bonuses?

More to the point, was it wise to allow Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch? Should Wells Fargo have been permitted to acquire Wachovia? And should JPMorgan Chase have taken over Bear Stearns?

Is there still a Federal Trade Commission? Does antitrust law still exist?

Perhaps it is time to look at the possibility of divestment and fostering financial institutions that serve the interests of small businesses and not the inflated egos of bank management.

Or stated otherwise, perhaps it is again time for many smaller banks that are little enough to fail if they abuse financial norms without significant damage to the economy."