According to this article in the New York Times, the baillout money that was ostensibly given to the banks to jumpstart the economy or forestall a collapse, etc, by opening up the credit spigots is not in fact, being used for that purpose.
It’s being transferred directly to the bankers.
I am, shocked, shocked!
But while the uproar has swayed much of the public to Johansson's defense at a time when #genAI is increasingly under scrutiny, this may not quite be an open-and-shut case should she decide to sue . Read the breakdown from @M_F_Rose in her latest article:
The release of @OpenAI's new digital assistant "Sky" stirred controversy after actress Scarlett Johansson alleged that the company had infringed on her rights by using a soundalike voice of hers after she'd declined to voice it herself.
Just saw @MargotSusca fantastic interview with @adamconover about the death of local news at the hands of hedge funds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N21YfWy0-bA A theme I have written about *a lot*. Like this blog post from 2018: https://wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/we-need-to-fix-the-news-media-not-just-social-media-part-i/ This has been a long time in the making.
I wrote yesterday on the terrifying escalation of antisemitism in Canada, citing events just over past week. Now there is more: last night a firebomb attempt at a Vancouver synagogue. Daily antisemitic incidents is who we are now.
https://www.jewishvancouver.com/important-community-updates-may-20-2024
https://x.com/mgeist/status/1796233336203194446
Amazing.
I’m having trouble understanding what reason Paulson would have for:
1) Handing out money to banks so that they can acquire each other.
2) Telling congress and the american people that the money will be used directly for loans when he intends and knows otherwise.
I guess I don’t understand of the ways of high finance and government, because the only thing I can think of is that Paulson is just a lame duck crook who is setting up select buddies to be operating institutions that are too big to fail. Then they can engage in any promiscuous behavior they want without fear of failure, because the government will have to rescue them.
In my ignorance, I’m inclined to think that “too big to fail” means “too big to exist”, and that we ought to be breaking up these institutions. It seems to me that the economic reasons for ever-larger corporations — as for example, Coase’s Law — simply do not apply indefinitely. I believe the size of these institutions has grown long past the point where further increase is good for the economy. There may be short-term benefits for the shareholders IFF the firms use their size to exercise non-free-market (mob) advantages. But even that is not sustainable. I think the increase in company size is really only good for the executives.
Howard,
You and I have both described this whole financial situation as a Ponzi scheme, which is now collapsing.
Its originators and early investors made lots and lots and lots of money — Paulson himself made hundreds of millions.
The public was told we needed to ante up $700B in order to protect the little guys who got ruined when the house of cards got ruined. But now we see that the money is going to the big guys who got ruined when the house of cards collapsed.
I have a hard time seeing the large financial institutions as anything other than mafias. When I see Hank Paulson, I see Tony Soprano.