Besides the obvious conflict of
interest here (corporate interests shaping the public
sphere), this is precisely the group
that pushed derivatives back in the early 90s:
Have the interests behind
the G30 changed fundamentally between their report on derivatives
in 1993 and their report on financial stability that came out last
week? I would suggest that specific details have changed, but
that the fundamental interests are essentially the
same: fashioning public policy around huge corporate
agendas. Any word from Obama on
this? Probably not, since he has
appointed many of them to key roles in leading a recovery.
And even if
they start pushing
legitimate regulation now, what good is it if the regulators are bought
and paid for? What good is it if the new President is surrounding
himself with the very people who created this mess? Why does
there have to be blatant conflicts of interest
everywhere we turn? And citizenry is ever quick to
invoke the inherent negativity of it all, even when very good solutions
are being offered up.
Solutions abound, yet they are not
implemented. Why?
Bernays has the answer.
* Derivatives are
often compared to betting on a sporting
event. Just imagine what a wonderful development this was for
those in the loop! For you and I, however,
these
instruments are ticking time bombs. Maybe
that’s why Warren Buffett calls them “financial weapons of mass destruction.” These
instruments are highly complex, unregulated and nearly
impossible (by design) for credit rating agencies to
evaluate, allowing large financial institutions to move debt off their
books and avoid taxes by pooling their debt
with other financial institutions. In a nutshell, smoke and
mirrors paint a pretty picture, and create money outside the normal
central bank liquidity rules. Just another form of "easy
money".