The Rubin Con Goes On

ROBERT Rubin is a liar, a greedy pig who continues his campaign of deception of the American people and his corruption of politicians and the political system in his quest for more money and power. If anything, he should be facing criminal charges and fines for his role in causing this recession and profiting from it. Fareed Zakaria must have been neutered recently, I thought he was a better journalist than he showed himself to be in this interview.....as a matter of fact, he should just retire from journalism and become a full time political prostitute like so many of his colleagues...at least we would then know what to expect from him. Also note rubin's role in removing a honest and effective official from a government financial regulatory body so he and his cabal could commit their financial crimes against the nation and compare that with the current campaign by wall street and the financial community against getting Elizabeth Warren appointed and approved to head the CFPB.
 
The corruptions of journalism were on full display when CNN's Fareed Zakaria turned to Robert Rubin this past Sunday for advice on how to fix the financial crisis that he, as much as anyone, caused (full video below). I was trapped on a treadmill in front of an overhead television and unable to turn the thing off in time to avoid this assault on my mental and physical health.
As a result I was forced to hear Rubin, Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, insist that he always favored regulating toxic derivatives and is therefore not at all responsible for the ensuing economic meltdown. He was responding to the sole critical question from the CNN host, who quoted a question by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "Did all the senior members of the [Obama] economics team have to be protégés of Robert Rubin, the apostle of financial deregulation?" Unfortunately, Zakaria just rolled over when his guest simply lied in response:

"First of all, I am not the apostle of financial deregulation. Quite the contrary. On derivatives ... I developed a deep concern about the systemic problem that was created. When I was back at Goldman Sachs, it was a concern I had ... a concern I had when I was in government. And in fact, when I wrote my book in 2003, I was so concerned about it that I actually included that discussion in there."

Zakaria ended the show recommending it as his book of the week: "He wrote a great memoir that covered his two distinguished careers, both ... on Wall Street and in Washington. ... It was written with Jacob Weisberg, a great writer, the editor of Slate, and the two men weave a compelling tale that has many lessons for today."
To be charitable, I will assume that Zakaria has not actually read that book, which omits any discussion of the radical deregulation legislation that Rubin ushered through Congress and got the president to sign. Bill Clinton is on record stating that he got bad advice from Rubin and his handpicked successor, Lawrence Summers, on derivatives regulation: "On derivatives, yeah, I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take it," Clinton told ABC News last April 10.
Rubin and Summers were responsible for forcing Brooksley Born out of the Clinton administration because as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission she had the temerity to suggest regulating the mortgage-backed securities that eventually proved to be so toxic. Instead, Rubin and Summers pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Clinton signed into law in his last month in office, categorically exempting those suspect derivatives from any government regulation.
By then, Rubin had moved on to a $15-million-a-year job at Citigroup, which became a prime exploiter of the subprime housing market. As a result of its massive involvement with toxic securities, Citigroup, with Rubin in a leading role until early 2009, had to be bailed out by the federal government with a $45 billion direct investment and a guaranteed Fed protection for $306 billion in potentially toxic assets.
Citigroup, a merger of the old Citibank and Travelers insurance company, was made legal only by the Financial Services Modernization Act, which Rubin backed while treasury secretary. Then, in one of the most egregious conflicts of interest in U.S. history, he went to work for the new bank, which took advantage of the changes in the law to buy up the infamous subprime lenders, beginning with Associates First Capital. The Economist magazine wrote of that purchase that "it extends Citi's already huge credit card operation to a lucrative new niche (price insensitive, if default prone, borrowers)" and questioned whether investors would see Citi's bold new venture "as something smart, such as 'evolved credit extension,' or something seamy such as loan-sharking."
Rubin was a major proponent of the firm's seamy expansion into the mortgages that proved to be toxic, and by 2007 Citigroup was the second-largest subprime servicer, after the only slightly more infamous Countrywide. As the New York Times pointed out on Nov. 22, 2008, after a decade of flattering portraits of the man, finally acknowledging Rubin's role in Citi's disgrace: "The bank's downfall was years in the making and involved many in its hierarchy, particularly [CEO Charles O.] Prince and Robert E. Rubin, an influential director and senior adviser."
There is much more, and I haven't even touched on Rubin's shameful role in Enron's shenanigans. Enough said, though, to question not only Zakaria's journalism but, far more important, Barack Obama's leadership in first turning to Rubin as a key campaign adviser and then putting his disciples in charge of the U.S. economy.

• The Recession
• Citibank

THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY NUTS ARE ALL UP IN ARMS OVER THE POST AMERICAN WORLD

THIS is so typical of the racist, tea-bagging right wing political fanatics, and it is pathetic. I received this e mail from a right winger who can't be bothered to do a little research and find out the truth because it is easier to be fed this kind of bullshit from the likes of glenn beck and fox 'news'. People who have forgotten how to use their minds, or who are too lazy to, are the real threat to our great country. But anyway, check this out, laugh at the stupidity of it, and click the header to go to the posting on Snopes and see the Wikipedia write up about the book, and if you are really interested click the link below to go to Newsweek and read  an excerpt from it.First the email from the neo-con nut jobs......

This photo will stun you

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address  list, in three days, all people in The United States of America  would have the message. I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.________________________________________________________________ THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND CURL YOUR HAIR The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World,  and it was written by a fellow Muslim.   "Post"   America  means the world After   America !  Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal.  We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !  The Post-American World From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Post-American_World The Post-American World   Author Fareed Zakaria Country United States Language English Subject(s) Current affairs, international relations, globalisation Genre(s) Non-fiction Publisher W. W. Norton & Company Publication date May 2008 Media type Print (Hardcover & Paperback), Audiobook Pages 292 pp. ISBN ISBN 039306235X (10) & ISBN 9780393062359 (13) OCLC Number 181139415 Dewey Decimal 303.49 22 LC Classification CB161 .Z34 2008 The Post-American World is a non-fiction book by Indian American journalist Fareed Zakaria. It was published in hardcover and audiobook formats in early May 2008 and became available in paperback in early May 2009. In the book, Zakaria argues that, thanks to the actions of the United States in spreading liberal democracy across the world, other countries are now competing with the US in terms of economic, industrial, and cultural power. While the US continues to dominate in terms of political-military power, other countries such as China and India are becoming global players in many fields. The book peaked at #2 on the The New York Times non-fiction hardcover best-seller list and at #47 on the USA Today Top 150 Best-Selling Books list. Reviewers commented that Zakaria's writing was intelligent and sharp, yet accessible to general audiences. A few reviewers also wrote that the book was similar to an extended essay with journalistic style writing. Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Synopsis 3 Style and comparisons 4 Publication and sales 5 Reception 6 References 7 External links [edit] Background At the time of publication author Fareed Zakaria was a 44 year old married man living in New York City and working as an editor for Newsweek International. Zakaria had immigrated to the United States from India during his university career. He graduated from Harvard University with a Ph.D. in political science in 1993 after earning a B.A. from Yale University. He worked as the managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine before accepting the editor position at Newsweek. Labeled a liberal hawk,[1] Zakaria's political views have shifted from supporting Reagan's pro-democracy agenda to Clinton's pro-market stances and to the point where Zakaria felt that the US was "unstoppable".[2] In subsequent years, he watched as other countries set records for the tallest building, largest factory, largest refinery, and richest person. Meanwhile, he watched the US get bogged down in Iraq. In 2003, his book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, in which he examines the necessary conditions for liberal democracy to survive, was published. While he initially supported US intervention in Iraq, Zakaria criticized the Bush Administration's methods of nation-building and for trying to force Iraq into a liberal democracy without the preconditions of economic liberalisation and rule-of-law.[2] Over the next few years, Zakaria developed his theory on shifting global power as he contributed or wrote articles profiling emerging national powers and participating in economic forums and organizations.[3][4] [edit] Synopsis The content is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter introduces the thesis of the book: that a 'post-American' world order is emerging in which the United States of America will continue to be the most powerful nation but its relative power will be diminished. He believes that there have been three power shifts in the last 500 years: a shift of power to the West during the Renaissance, a shift of power to the US making it a superpower, and now a shift to several surging countries, especially China and India, and to non-governmental organizations. Zakaria believes that international organizations are not adapting well to emerging challenges and that there is too much focus on problems arising from potential market failures or general crises (e.g. terrorism) at the expense of focus on problems stemming from success (e.g. development causing environmental degradation, or rising demand creating high commodity prices). The world is moving from anger to indifference, from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism. The fact that new powers are more strongly asserting their interests is the reality of the post-American world. It also raises the political conundrum of how to achieve international objectives in a world of many actors, state and nonstate. Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World, pages 36–37. The second and third chapters examine factors that led to the current power balance. Power shifted to the West because it fostered trade with foreign peoples and developed superior labour productivity per capita. Power shifted to the US because of its strong democracy and capitalist market. Zakaria argues that the success of the US in promoting free market capitalism and globalization has led to power being dispersed to several other countries. Economies have been surging for decades, in part due to large new players entering the global market place. He compares this era's economic growth to the economic surges of the 1890s and the 1950s which also saw new players become global powers. At the same time, Zakaria sees attitudes in the US becoming insular and distrustful of foreigners. The fourth chapter focuses on China. Its strategy of small, gradual reforms have allowed it to quietly modernize. It has become the second most powerful nation, but still unlikely to match the US for decades to come. China's strengths include a philosophy that reflects Confucian ideals of practicality, ethics and rationalism. Its non-combative foreign policy is more appealing, most notably in Africa, over interventionist Western-style policy that demands reforms in other countries. China's weakness, though, is a fear of social unrest. The fifth chapter focuses on India. Contrasted to China, India has a bottom-up democratic political system constantly subject to social unrest but which only results in few politicians losing an election. Its political system is characterized by strong regionalism — often placing high priority on regional interests rather than national. Zakaria lists India's advantages: independent courts that enforce contracts, private property rights, rule of law, an established private sector, and many business savvy English-speaking people. The sixth chapter compares the American rise to superpower status and its use of power. He draws parallels between the British Empire in the 1890s and starting the Boer War with the US in the 2000s and starting the Iraq War. The difference between them is that the British had unsurpassed political power but lost its economic dominance, whereas the US, in the 2000s, had huge economic power but faltering political influence. Zakaria defends the US from indicators that suggest American decline but warns that internal partisan politics, domestic ideological attack groups, special interest power, and a sensationalistic media are weakening the federal government's ability to adapt to new global realities. The final chapter outlines how the US has used its power and provides six guidelines for the US to follow in the 'post-American world' envisioned by Zakaria. Zakaria's guidelines for the US in the 'post-American world' Guideline Notes 1 Choose Choose priorities rather than trying to have it all 2 Build broad rules, not narrow interests Recommit to international institutions and mechanisms 3 Be Bismarck, not Britain Maintain excellent relations with everyone, rather than offset and balance emerging powers 4 Order à la carte Address problems through a variety of different structures (e.g. sometimes UN, sometimes NATO, sometimes OAS) 5 Think asymmetrically Respond to problems (e.g. drug cartels, terrorists, etc.) proportionately and do not respond to bait (i.e. small attacks meant to draw attention) 6 Legitimacy is power Legitimacy creates the means to set agendas, define crises, and mobilize support [edit] Style and comparisons The Post-American World, at 292 pages long, was described as "a book-length essay"[5] and a "thin book that reads like one long, thoughtful essay".[6] Written with an optimistic tone, it features little new research or reporting, but rather contains insights and identification of trends.[5] The reviewer for the The Wall Street Journal described the tone as "infectious (though not naive) sunniness...but without Panglossian simplicity".[1] The American Spectator reviewer noted that the prose had a journalistic style[7] while the reviewer for The Guardian noticed the writing sometimes displayed "news magazine mannerisms".[8] Zakaria's view on globalisation was said to be similar to journalist and author Thomas Friedman.[9][10] Friedman reviewed The Post-American World and called it "compelling".[11] The review in American Conservative compared this book with Rudyard Kipling's poems "Recessional" and "The White Man's Burden", both written at the height of British power and warning against imperial hubris.[12] The American Spectator review listed it as adding to similar themed books, comparing it to Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West (1918), Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History, Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987), and Robert Kagan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2008).[7] Kagan labeled The Post-American World as "declinist";[13] however, Martin Woollacott of The Guardian labeled Zakaria an exceptionalist.[8] The Commentary review added the works of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama to the list of comparisons and suggested there is now a sub-genre of books that consider the decline or demise of American hegemony.[14] CLICK THIS LINK TO GO TO NEWSWEEK AND READ AN EXCERPT OF THE BOOK http://www.newsweek.com/2008/05/03/the-rise-of-the-rest.html