Unpluggable Leak In Gulf Between You And Wall Street

(2PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)

Twenty months after the financial meltdown of 2008, the U.S. congress is moving ahead with its financial system reform. In the following weeks, the Senate and House bills will be combined. While many details are still to be ironed out around issues like derivatives and consumer protection, it is clear that the legislation will not break up the massive banks that are blamed with the crisis. President Obama says the legislation will ensure the U.S. taxpayers never again bailout Wall Street, but Public Citizen’s David Arkush says that until the banks influence on Capitol Hill is broken up or countered, there is no way to guarantee an end to bailouts.



Real News Network – May 29, 2010

Banks still the powerhouse in DC

David Arkush: Bank lobbyists outnumber reform lobbyists 11 to 1 on derivatives legislation alone

David Arkush is the Director of Congress Watch, a division of Public Citizen, which serves a dual role of monitoring lobbying activity, while lobbying as a consumer advocate. Arkush joined Congress Watch in January 2008 after working as a staff attorney at Public Justice, where he litigated civil rights, environmental, and consumer cases. He has lectured at Georgetown University, where he was awarded his Masters of Law in 2007. He graduated from Harvard Law in 2003, where he served as Managing Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

Kevin G. Hall, is the national economics correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Previously he served as Latin America correspondent. During his career he has reported from Mexico City, Saudi Arabia, Miami, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., for the Journal of Commerce and United Press International. He speaks Spanish and Portuguese.

14 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Edger on May 30, 2010 at 5:35 pm
      Author

    Neither did the containment box…

  1. They are the same.  Unfettered, unregulated greed is the propellant.

    This is what Capitalism looks like!

  2. …posted on TOD by David G. Mills, an attorney with 32 years experience in corporate law, including with Exxon Valdez.  He has great suggestions for the future of corporate, for-profit capitalism  click here for context and comment thread.

    David G. Mills on May 30, 2010 – 10:52am  

    I don’t think these questions can be effectively addressed until the US, Europe, and the rest of the world take a hard look at the structure of the for-profit corporation.

    I have been a lawyer for 32 years, and I have been litigating against for-profit corporations for the last 28. (Ironically, my first two years as a lawyer were on the side of the for-profit corporations — I spent my first two years with Exxon in its Houston litigation department before the Valdez incident. I still have Exxon stock and lat year purchased quite a bit of it for my retirement).

    But many of us are now beginning to realize that the present for-profit global model of corporations is the root of the problem. On the other hand, I am not for nationalizing large for-profit corporations either.

    But I think we need to start seriously considering changing to the non-profit corporation model for many of our big industries and at least allow non-profits to compete globally with the for-profits.

    I suggest a new paradigm — the global non-profit corporation, or something similar. Non-profits have worked well in the medical field where most hospitals are still non-profit. Maybe we need to scale up the concept of non-profits. (The term non-profit really is a misnomer as non-profit corporations do make a profit, but but they are required to “spend” their profits on the corporation itself and on the employees rather than distributing profits to shareholders).

    We need a corporate model that puts more emphasis on the regular employees of the corporation, on R&D, on reducing the impact of externalities, and on the long term not the short term. We need a new model that has less emphasis on limited liability and less emphasis on the profit of shareholders, especially the profit of a very few shareholders.

    As it stands now, the law requires mangers and directors to optimize profit at the expense of everything else. That concept just does not seem sustainable.

    Until we change the global corporate for-profit model, I don’t think there is much of a realistic chance of adequately addressing the questions you raise.

        emphasis mine

    • Edger on May 30, 2010 at 8:05 pm
      Author

Comments have been disabled.