If money buys votes and legislation, as everyone is claiming it does, it’s not free speech but effectively bribery.

Until we get the money out of the decision / legislative process and let it be idea driven we will always have laws favoring those with the most money and therefore clout – legal bribery.

Until we reform the lobbying and campaign system – TERM LIMITS will go along way to solving some of these problems.

Term limits? If the problem is legalized bribery, term limits are irrelevant. Terms limits would mean that staffers and members would move more quickly from Congress to the institutions that lobby Congress. Fewer incumbents would mean greater reliance on campaign contributions.

Cramdown was a commonsense proposal to help individuals whose difficulties were not of their own doing. It is a strange thing that in a hyper-individualist culture like ours, individual woes can be so easily made invisible.

Accountability is a word applied by those on top to those beneath them. You know, the Brits put this into law back in the 50s when they passed a law saying ministers could not be held accountable for the actions of their ministry or inferiors.

We need more than phone calls. Turning some of the blog analysis of things like cramdown into a conventional white paper, then getting individuals affected to present to congressional staff might be workable – constituents having detailed discussions in either field offices or in DC. We make use of our strength – smart people with progressive ideas, then follow up with individual staffers personally.

It is going to be difficult to claim this stuff is really hard if the people are effectively educating congressional staff.

cramdowns are an especially difficult issue, because there isn’t the public support already out there and it’s difficult to explain how it would help all (or most) of us. that public support would have to be developed if we want politicians to pay attention.

but there are a couple of other progressive policies that either do have public support (single payer instead of insurance centered health care) or would be easy to explain to generate that support (carbon tax-and-rebate instead of cap-and-trade).

health care and climate change are two really big issues. my suggestion is we make them central to our fight

how is the credit card bill looking?

Thanks masaccio.

One of the things we have to do is put a face on the GOP operatives at the Mortgage Bankers Associatiuon and the American Bankers Association.

MBA has an open site and you can they’re all ex GOP. Need to be a member of the ABA to get that information.

Progressive and pragmatic ideas do not have a workable launching point. When we come up with a good policy, like cramdown, that doesn’t easily fit into the conventional wisdom, we don’t have a way to make our idea understood. …Even the current administration thinks financial issues are too hard to be dealt with in the public arena, which makes me wonder why so many people want us to handle our own investments to prepare for retirement and educating our kids. All of the financial people in this administration come out of Wall Street and giant banks. Public discourse on the economy is trivial: stock market cheerleading and CEO worship. The people who are sucking the life out of the nation are in charge.

For a number of reasons, I grew up as a (female) math avoider assuming that I was too dumb to take calculus.

Wow, what a big mistake!
I do think that math is not often well taught, and we don’t pay enough to people who teach it well.

I caught on to math as an adult — and the trigger for me was being able to visualize it. I happened to encounter a phenomenal math instructor, who started us out like this:

(Scowling, disapproving, scary tone of voice)
“What’s 1/2 of 1/3 of 1/8th? Answer within one minute!”

I was quaking and shuddering as my mind started running circles and I started doing that old conversion thingy from 5th grade (”2 and 3 go into 6, but 8 doesn’t… 8 doesn’t go into 12… I’ll have to use 24 as the bottom fraction…”)

Then, he walked to the board and drew a square.
Then, he drew 3 lines horizontally (to divide the square into fourths).
Then he drew a line vertically in the middle (to divide the square into eighths).
Then he colored in one of those eight squares.
Then, in that colored eighth, he divided it into three.
Then, he darkened one half of one of those ‘thirds’.

Then, he extended ‘hatch marks’ out from that darkened 1/2 of 1/3 of 1/8th — and we could see at a glance that he had 1/48th of the original square.

No calculations.
We could see the proportions and relationships ‘at a glance’.
We could see how tiny that 1/48th was ‘at a glance’.
We could then fill in all the other ‘48ths’ by filling in the rest of the original box with lines.

He did this in under 30 seconds.
Then he turned, smiled, and cheerfully said, “Math is NOT all that hard.”

Math should be more drawing.
And fewer scary looking numbers.

I hope that this makes some kind of sense for whoever reads it.

If someone had VISUALIZED the relationships and ratios for Congress, I’ll be this piece of legislation would have passed.

I have found in more than one instance that people can snow me very easily with words.

Every single time that I’ve insisted that I draw out the relationships or ratios, I’m more confident that I know what the hell I’m talking about.

I also have an agreed-upon ‘visual’ for reference.
It’s also easy to catch errors this way — if I’d miscalculated that original 1/2 of 1/3 of 1/8 and erroneously thought it represented a twelfth, or a twenty-fourth, and if it formed the basis of further calculations (like interest rates over time), then my error would rapidly compound.

Progressives should draw more ;-)))))))))

Many people still seem interested.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..99099.html

Do you know how to do that and get the white paper noticed?

Well, we live in an extremely complex society.
What we need are more people like massacio and Ian Walsh and Glenn Smith who explain things very clearly.
And also, who believe that ‘normal people’ are smart enough to make good decisions if we have good information.

I’d hate to lose some good electeds who have years of background information and ‘expertise’; although I sympathize with your frustration (hugely!), it’s a bit superficial IMHO.

What we need are more smart, well-informed electeds who are confident enough to insist that people explain things well, and have the integrity and courage to admit when they’re confused. And the chutzpah to call out lobbyists who try to snow them.

Good point. Most people can learn if they are taught in a way that is meaningful to them. Suppose someone handed you a set of financial statements for a company like Bank of America. If you don’t have experience in reading them, it would probably be daunting.

But I regularly link to financial statements and point to specific things in them, and will do more in the future. I intend to start putting in page references, and if I don’t, please point that out in comments, that’s how I learn to do it. If you want to learn about financial statements, you can start by clicking through and reading. I think most people will catch on pretty fast. It isn’t rocket science, it’s really just learning to read past the jargon to the numbers.

the only way i can think of is if there is a very large number of citizens demanding it – and backed up by a majority of citizens already in favor. iow, we have to do the work to persuade our fellow citizens.

anyway, that’s why i think single-payer and tax-and-rebate are the fights we should be having. but i’m not much of a writer or a speaker.

Wow!!
That sounds very helpful and useful.

FWIW, I was just playing around with (Mac software) “Numbers” last week — like MS Excel, it has links between columns for numbers, and pie charts. Change a number in Line 10, and that ’slice of the pie’ becomes a greater, or smaller, slice in response.

Things make sense to me that way.
If I have to look at long lists of numbers, the only way that I can stand it is to make them ‘look like something’, and it’s sometimes surprising to find out what those numbers actually do ‘look like’.

I can look at a list of numbers and roughly visualize their relationships.
But if I see them in a pie chart (as parts of a whole), or as comparisons (in a bar chart), then I’m more confident.

The problem is making sure the correct chart is used for the data — but for that, I rely on tips from Edward Tufte’s outstanding ideas ;-)))

I think the big mistake in the cramdown fight was not using it to bring the issue of bank and lender fraud to the table. The argument is still about people “buying houses they couldn’t afford” rather than “customers were shafted by shady lenders.”

The point to make is “what are the banks afraid of? Why don’t they want judges to get a look at these mortgages?” This is real and valid. My sister-in-law got a judge to look at the mortgage for the house her ex bought during their custody fight and the judge was shocked by it. Unfortunately, his remarks are sealed, but we should be finding out more of what happened, not destroying people’s lives to protect their lender’s secrets.

I should have mentioned that visualization is the technique mathematicians use to gain insights into theoretical work. I had to quit math when I hit the wall: I couldn’t imagine how to picture the spaces we were studying, and the professor spoke math with a heavy Japanese accent, so I couldn’t get the hang of it.

It isn’t rocket science, it’s really just learning to read past the jargon to the numbers.

Yes. But I rather strongly suspect that there are some banksters who’d like us all to believe that it is rocket science.

From my personal experience, it’s my very strong hunch that people will actually be surprised at HOW easy it is to catch on – and once they do, they may be a bit irritated at whoever wanted to keep them in the dark.

Good businesses, IMHO, focus on trying to be clear with customers. If only to protect themselves from unrealistic expectations, but also to build relationships. And empowering people is good business, IMHO.

Excellent point. We know that a large number of mortgages are fraudulent. See, that’s why policy people need help figuring out how to present their ideas.

The nation’s economy can not be fixed without cramdowns. Basically, the Senate went with a handful of corrupt banksters over the dire needs of nearly 10 million American families. There is no framing in the world that could undo such a decision. And let’s be real here. The Senate action reflects the Obama Administration’s own view. So it is even less surprising.

Obama and the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, have chosen the bankers over us. Nothing short of angry mobs beating down their doors are likely to change their minds, and I doubt even these would.

I wrote essentially the same thing in Glenn Smith’s post about healthcare. The needs of Americans are the last thing on the minds of our leaders. Insurance companies, banks, Big Pharma, HMOs, these are the only real constituents our political elites recognize. That is the real lesson progressive and all other ordinary Americans should learn from what Obama and the Congress are doing.

great point, ROTL.

It isn’t just the fraud which was both massive and pervasive. It is that cramdowns would establish prices for bank assets which if extended across banks’ portfolios would show that they are insolvent. At the same time, the banks are still counting on dumping these on the government (through Geithner’s giveaway programs) at inflated prices. So why would they agree to anything less, even if it does help out homeowners and the larger economy?

If 2 or 3 people did this in 20 or 30 districts (mostly congresspeople involved in finance) I think it would get noticed pretty fast. Especially if we passed on information about which staff we spoke with to each other.

Here’s a possible scenario:

I talk with staff in Senator Lugar’s office, spend 5 minutes doing a synopsis of why cram down is the right thing to do, leave documents that go into greater detail along with a commitment to follow up to discuss the whitepaper. You do the same with a Congressman. We both document who we talk with, when we’ll follow up, etc. When we follow up we mention that “Staffer X in Congressperson’s office is also looking at this” and suggest they might talk.

I’m brainstorming. It seems like we can use our advantages in communication this way.

I used Lugar as an example because I have spoken with his staff in DC about finance issues in the past about NQ stock option compensation expensing, saying it was ludicrous to report underwater options as an expense. If Sun had actually had the expense they carried for the options I’d been issued, well I’d have at least $150k. Sun did get the hit to their earnings back when I was RIF’d and options expired, but it really made no sense to take that hit at the time.

Yes, I don’t think that it’s any accident that Einstein, Roger Penrose, and Mandelbrot were/are superb visualizers.

And because all these formulas are really about change over time (i.e., they are all ‘functions’), the best aids are probably video and animation tools.

I think that’s what’s actually needed is some kind of ‘Bank/Viability’ ratio, like the one developed by Ben Fry to show the relationships between Salary VS Performance for baseball teams. By clicking along the ‘timeline’ at the top of this graphic, you can watch the relationships between performance and salary change over the baseball season. If anyone has done one of these for banks, I don’t know about it.

Thinking of you, freep, and Keith Olbermann today.

Marie Roget was a delight whenever she showed up around these parts!
Be well.

I think that’s what’s actually needed is some kind of ‘Bank/Viability’ ratio

Texas Ratio? A google search shows some videos… I haven’t watched them so can’t say if they’re any good.

I still say the basic lesson is, “Next, the Senate.” That’s where the problem is.

Yeah, financial statements aren’t that difficult, it’s just the jargon and the length. I “learned” how to read them 10 years ago and I can still do it, it just takes me longer than it does someone who’s practiced at it.

Yup, the business of America is business (but not your business.)

The nation’s economy can not be fixed without cramdowns. Basically, the Senate went with a handful of corrupt banksters over the dire needs of nearly 10 million American families. There is no framing in the world that could undo such a decision. And let’s be real here. The Senate action reflects the Obama Administration’s own view. So it is even less surprising.

Obama and the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, have chosen the bankers over us. Nothing short of angry mobs beating down their doors are likely to change their minds, and I doubt even these would.

I wrote essentially the same thing in Glenn Smith’s post about healthcare. The needs of Americans are the last thing on the minds of our leaders. Insurance companies, banks, Big Pharma, HMOs, these are the only real constituents our political elites recognize. That is the real lesson progressive and all other ordinary Americans should learn from what Obama and the Congress are doing.

Hugh’s comment is so important that I felt it could use a second.
Here lately, I’ve even been loath to sign petitions, wondering if the gods on Mount Olympus are laughing when they read our puny little wishes and desires. ( if they do)
Now, Salazar has rejected protecting polar bears in the “interests” of the “interests”.
Our government has become a malignant boil on the body of this country, and we’re here drowning in “hope”.
The only way out I see is going to be helping each other and growing what food we can.

Do you think Lugar’s people would read a White Paper?

Picked up & modified from last night’s Cramdown thread …

Wild West Capitalism and the Law of Fully Intended Consequences

I’ve long since retired the old hacksaw of invoking the law of unintended consequences to justify diagnoses and treatments that have emerged since the Great Unraveling of mid-2007 became too systemically life threatening to cover up any longer.

At every turn, the interests that made this catastrophe inevitable have pressed for expansive government restitution to themselves for their crimes against others.

These incentives only look perverse from a public policy and societal good perspective. They make perfect sense when the goal is to preserve and enhance private power and financial control in a system that, for the real economy, is collapsing under the weight of financial manipulation, geometric wealth disparity & governmental complicity unknown since the Gilded Age. The much vaunted sanctity of contract has nothing to do with keeping interest rates lower or expanding credit for borrowers. Neither did the bankruptcy code changes in 2005. It’s about expanding and redirecting campaign contribution flows for the greatest effect.

Watching Geithner, Kardashian etal. pushing the stress test fraud on Charlie Rose confirms one thing: the electorate may have thought last November represented a generational choice between substantive change and a continuation the failed policies of the past eight years. Obama’s new adminstration with healthy majorities in both houses of congress was sold as the trifecta key to realigning our priorities and resources.

So far, the inverse movement of the financial markets and real economy indicate otherwise.

As frustrating as this is, it is not a paradox. It’s a scorecard that clearly shows which interests are prevailing in this crisis.

We need concrete steps that alter 1) the outcome goals, 2) the process rules, and 2) the method of keeping score, i.e. we need a game changer.

masaccio, do you know the story of clinton’s support of the bankruptcy bill? elizabeth warren tells it in this interview:

http://globetrotter.berkeley.e…..-con0.html

bottom line, understanding the issue and it’s importance did not prevent her from voting for it. that story may be of use to your thinking now.

.
Finish flushing out the Repukelickin’s and get rid of the DINOs. This is corporatism vs, democracy, bare naked. If the current Dem leadership can’t sell that in THIS climate, they have to go, too.

Take control of your local Democratic Party organization. Work from the ground up to reform the Party. Otherwise, the corps will simply shift ALL their bribes to the Dems, and shut us out.
.

masaccio wrote:

How many people, including some of our commenters, said that it wasn’t fair to people who were paying their mortgages if other people could reduce their obligations by filing bankruptcy.

Did anyone ever look into the Constitutionality of treating a first home different than other homes and other kinds of debt?

Health care reform is being worked on now.

The credit card bill is part of the larger ‘financial industry regulations’ reform. The Fed walked away from it, so Congress has to do something. There are other regulations bills they need to write too, on banking, non-banking financial institutions, super regulator, mortgage lending and perhaps a few other things.

One of the best things about math I ever saw was a PBS show where a famous-school-math-prof was giving a lecture to a class of about 100. Every so often the lecture would be paused and a video explanation of things was presented. It was much better than any prof could demonstrate with just a chalkboard. It was really great movie-like graphics with motion, color and explanation.

People don’t all learn exactly the same way. Some do better while moving around, some sitting, some reading, some listening, some watching. Having the capability of reaching more students by matching their learning styles could be useful.

Computer-aided education can bring a lot of this kind of thing to students if we enable it.

That is really interesting. In her defense, Clinton did insert some language protecting women in divorce settings.