A Chit Chat with Republicans About the Stimulus

A Primer About Obama's Recovery Plan85

It has become very intellectually chic to chuck pot shots at the Recovery Program of President Obama. Of course, we expected the really “trailer park” fizzle from the vacuous, foaming mouths of the neo-cons. One female host, Tammy Bruce, actually called Michelle Obama “trash” on a network interview last week.

However, once we exclude the “drug addled gas bag,” the whining “pretty little mama’s boy,” and the ultra pious, self-appointed, "stalwart defender of The Church," we are still left with some unsettling whimpers arising from unexpected quarters -- quarters we had always previously assumed to be more rational.

There are comments that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Director of the White House's National Economic Council, Larry Summers, should be fired for lack of purity and effectiveness. That would be “lack of purity” from having been a Fed Bank President during the Bush bailout in Geithner’s case and from having been a Clinton advisor in Summers’ case, that would have been before he was President of Harvard University. All these comments can be immediately discharged because they are founded on the premise that what we are doing right now is, somehow, logically similar to something we have done before. Any hope of that happy serendipity betrays a frenzied dash for the refuge of history, hardly a behavior we would expect from the brave knights we have sent to kill the dragon.

The Treasury Secretary is a frighteningly intelligent man who has been seriously cautioned by the Obama White House to try to “de-accelerate” his speech enough so it can be captured on an ordinary, modern video camera during his interviews. Naturally, neo-cons -- being allergic to leadership of any type thanks to their toxic, soul consuming cynicism -- are quite uncomfortable with a man who constantly needs to concentrate on speaking more slowly so the rest of us can possibly follow him. Neo-cons like slow drawls so Southern that most Americans either won’t listen to them or can’t understand what is said. You know, ... southern ... coach ... pastor ... You know.

But some modern liberal pundits seem to be put off because they can’t understand it either. They think that the reason they can’t understand it is because what Geithner is saying isn’t even remotely similar to anything they have heard before, the lingering, predictably desperate test of validity for those who have found themselves unable to think. The most limited, self promoted, modern progressives don’t believe that anything can be progressive now if it hasn’t already been progressive before. Those talkative folks identify themselves by providing endless explanations of exactly who was at fault for almost everything that threatens their pretend, historical, progressive "status quo."

But this post is all about having a chit chat with Republicans. There are actually a few of them still visible who are so inebriated on the Kool Aid and so head strong that they continue to claim a tiny, forgotten patch of Bush Jr.’s, medieval fear mongering “high ground.”

If you have had a creepy, out of focus feeling while talking to these Republicans and other aging reactionaries about Obama’s plan, don’t blame yourself! The person standing before you in those conversations isn’t actually saying anything. What you are hearing are talking points! The actual words being uttered in such conversations have been “piped” down to eager repeaters by their “thought masters,” repeaters who, when considered generously, have nothing else to say besides more road weary talking points about the Stimulus Package, Socialism, abortion, gun control -- well, you already know the list of topics they prefer.

On to the water cooler.

Although MeanMesa usually avoids inserted diagrams and charts, please consider this following exception. Perhaps we can spend just a minute with this National Debt record as an introduction to a few points which might “flesh out” your conversational repartees.

click to enlarge

The large block of red at the far right of the diagram is an estimate of the accumulated deficit of the Bush Jr. autocracy. Politically unpopular spending such as the war in Iraq is, of course, omitted. However, the total of the eight year deficit since the Supreme Court appointed Bush Jr. amounts to roughly three trillion dollars. What might have been a rather lack luster disaster was converted into the present calamity by two large tax cuts which directed vast windfalls to the very richest Americans, and the utterly outrageous PHARMA written Medicaid Prescription Drug Plan, designed to channel boat loads of tax money to the “pill masters” of the pharmaceutical lobbyists. The PHARMA bill was passed at 3 AM in the House. The tie vote in the Senate was broken when the Vice President Pretender voted in favor.

An often overlooked aspect of the trillions which disappeared into pockets of Bush cronies has to do with the rest of the economy, you know, the part where we live. After the extraction, that sudden, purloined flatulence among the rich and mischievous found itself stranded with nowhere to go. When we speak of financial instruments such as securitized toxic mortgages, incredibly leveraged, shadow assets on the profit and loss books of all the investment banks we are presently rescuing, and other Wall Street Casino speculative doodads, we see the “new home” all these suddenly wealthy “businessmen” found for their less than legitimate good fortune.

What might have been expected as “risks” associated with such a move were gleefully buried under the cover of a dysfunctional Justice Department, a conveniently blind Security Exchange Commission (Remember Madoff? Enron?), ruthless gangs of well paid Federal Appointees and an overly protective Executive (Autocrat) who had already hit his management high point bankrupting professional ball teams and oil companies his father gave him.

The Independent Senator from Vermont noted this unusual development:
Not everyone has had a hard time during the Bush years: “The top 400 richest Americans have seen their personal wealth increase by $630,000,000,000 - $630 BILLION - since George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court in 2000.” (Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sept. 18, 2008)

The point? When this much of the economy’s liquid money was effectively removed, it caused a bit of a shortage. After that initial insult to the economy, when the reckless schemes which had absorbed all these dollars fell apart, it created even more of a shortage. The spending which normally fuels the US economy ground to a halt. No one had any money, and no one could borrow any.

Yes, of course, all these “genius investors” immediately started bellowing for a bail out from the Bush Jr. -- Paulson crime family, but they were able to loot only a paltry $350 billion before their sponsoring syndicate was run out of Washington. That left them hungry for more. Their eyes, naturally, turned greedily toward the Obama Stimulus Plan. If that legislation could be converted to even more tax cuts, then looted as it straggled through the Congress, they could be made whole by the tax payers, a veritable wet dream for any self-respecting neo-con.

The Obama plan replaces all that “missing” spending with Federal spending. It is clear that such a bold move is probably the only chance still on the table to avoid a repeat of the World Wide Great Depression of the FDR days. The amount of spending in that spending bill is, unhappily, astronomical. That would make it roughly the same size as the take that Bush Jr.’s fellow looters snatched during the eight years when frenzied high crimes were the constant currency of the day. The economy was supposed to tank after the Bush crime family was safely back in Texas, just in time to blame Obama for everything, but, as is usually the case for everything Bush Jr. dreamed up, it exploded prematurely.

When your Republican starts off with complaints about too much spending and out of control deficits, show him the chart. Agree with him -- in a condescending way -- that it really is too much spending and that the deficit it will cause really is too high. Tell him -- compassionately -- that we have already paid off the neo-con extortionists once while they were gang raping us the first time, but that we are willing to pay again to save the country.

Then walk away.

For a comprehensive explanation of the contents of the 2009 Stimulus Bill,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
and for an overview of the President's 2010 Budget, submitted to Congres in 2009,
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/

What the Bail Out Looks Like When It Saves Homeowners.

Is this the way it’s supposed to work? 60

The following fiction is a conversation between a foreclosing homeowner, Mr. Smith, and an agent from the newly created Federal Mortgage Correction Agency, FMC, Agent Brown.

“Mr. Smith, I’m from the Federal Mortgage Correction. I understand that you’re considering foreclosure for your home here. Maybe, if we review your situation, we can offer you an attractive alternative. Let’s see. The property in question is this house, 423 Elm Street, right?” FMC field agent Brown asked.

“That’s right. Ellen and I bought this place in August of 2005. I’m pretty sure that our adjustable rate mortgage can almost be considered a sub-prime at this point.” replied the homeowner, Mr. Smith.

“That’s actually not too important, Mr. Smith. The FMC is totally directed at the future. What we are trying to do is to help you and your family keep this house.” the FMC man answered reassuringly.

“But, aren’t all the banks wrecked after the President’s bail out got shafted by Congress?” Mr. Smith responded, dejectedly.

“No, a good number of the shakier ones went down, but there are a lot of good banks that are still in business. Along with you and your house, part of our job is to get this thing working again. That includes the responsible banks that were able to go through the meltdown and stay open. We can help them, too.”

“In fact, Mr. Smith, if we can get your mortgage repaired here, just about everyone will benefit.” FMC Agent Brown answered.

“Even if the outfit that lent us the money is one of the ones than went belly up?” Mr. Smith asked.

“Let’s talk about your mortgage. You originally financed through Nationwide Mortgage Finance, here in River City, right?” Agent Brown began.

“That’s right, but they went out of business.” Mr. Smith continued.

“I know. But your mortgage wasn’t really in Nationwide, Mr. Smith. It had been ‘bundled’ and sold to a finance firm in Arlington. They packed it up and securitized it and a lot of other mortgages, then sold them to a company called Shelby and Barsh. S and B is out of business, but they weren’t holding your mortgage when they failed. Most of their assets, including your mortgage, were sold on ahead to an investment banking company called Mazzara which was held by a sovereign wealth trust in the UAE. That is where your mortgage is right now.” Agent Brown explained.

“They pretty much told me that when I spoke to the Mortgage Help Line, but they didn’t know the details. Our problem got started when we tried to refinance.” Mr. Smith complained. "We listed it for sale, but that went nowhere."

“Right, Mr. Smith. That is where we come in. I have our records of the history of that first mortgage here. Let’s go over the numbers and make sure that they are accurate.”

“You purchased the home at its appraised value in August of 2005 for $229,500. You made a $14,500 down payment. Your mortgage for the balance of $215,000 ran 48 months at 5.25% until it reset at 6.75% this year. Your mortgage payments at 5.25% were $1966 a month. You have a good record of making those payments until just recently.”

“When your rate reset, you were looking at $2430 a month, and you tried to refinance. The appraisal on your refinance dropped to $188,000 so the best loan you could get was going to short your mortgage payment around $500 a month. I assume that is when you decided to foreclose.” Agent Brown offered, checking his file.

“That’s right. We pretty much went from owning a $229,000 house at 5.25% to owning a $188,000 house with a 6.75% rate on a $215,000 mortgage. We made those payments for four months through the summer, but we just couldn’t keep up. It seems like everything else went up at the same time.” Mr. Smith explained.

“Is the Federal Mortgage Correction going to buy this house for us? I mean, how does that work? Ellen and I have thought about every possible way we could keep this house, but we came up with nothing.” Smith asked.

“Well, Mr. Smith, FMC isn’t going to buy your house for you. That isn’t exactly how the bailout works. What we can do is make it so you can stay in it with a mortgage payment you can afford. To accomplish that we can offer a two pronged solution.

“First, we can take some of the $700 billion, track down whoever holds your mortgage and make them an offer. Naturally, they would like to get all $215,000 that was financed in the first place. That is not going to happen. They are going to get to start talking to us at the current $188,000 appraisal, but from there, they will have to decide what it’s worth to them to not wind up owning your foreclosed house. I would estimate that this mortgage can be purchased from them for around $165,000 or so.”

“After we obtain the house, you and the FMC will have to arrive at a new mortgage agreement. That is the second prong. We never wanted to be in the mortgage business, so we’re already out of our comfort zone. The interest on your new mortgage is going to have to compensate us for our investment and our trouble. In our favor, we can make a little money. In your favor, you can have a solid thirty year mortgage at market rates -- a mortgage with a payment you can live with -- but you’re not going to get the money your mortgage holder lost getting out of your foreclosure. We’re the ones who did the heavy lifting on that account, and we will get that money. Your new mortgage will make it possible for you to pay for the house and settle with us.”

“Our purchasing muscle and the foreclosure threat knocked $23,000 off the appraised value you were trying to refinance. Your new mortgage with us will be for the appraised value of $188,000 and that figure will determine your mortgage payments. The outfit in UAE will have purchased a discounted copy of your $215,000 original mortgage and wound up with $165,000. Compared to worthless, toxic paper, which is what it was before we bought it, they will probably feel like they did the best they could have expected.”

“All the details of this agreement will have to wait until you get through the mortgage application process, but they will probably wind up looking about like what we have discussed. Can we make this deal?” the Federal Mortgage Correction agent asked, smiling.

What in the world could be better than bailing out bankers?

Melt-Down?

The Non-Economic Analysis of What Just Happened.

The endless story of the primary and secondary models? 59

If you are George Bush, you have presented the primary model which argues that the national economy is going to meltdown any moment. You have also produced a secondary model which should propel the primary model to your desired results. The secondary model was the first dismal failure. Its increasing odor has now drawn the primary model into the swamp with it.

I have watched this unfold with the other politics wonks on my favorite web site. Comments and posts which had previously only infrequently amounted to more than a few paragraphs now present multipage quotations about who did what, when they did it and what the results were. The least interesting but probably the most educational are accounts of past legislation, particularly Senator McCain’s endless penchant for deregulation following his rehabilitation to the neo-cons after the Keating Five problem.

Rest easy, dear visitor. This post is all about models not history. Those energized web posters mentioned above can either establish a compelling argument for the culprit in this mess, or at least, wall paper the entire affair with their too-easily-copied-and-pasted quotations. (If you still have an appetite for more of that stuff, visit my favorite after you finish here.

http://www.thomhartmann.com

and on to the forums “Domestic Politics” and “Economics.” It’s all there waiting there for you.)

Now to the models. A quick description might be in order. The primary model of any communication defines the essence of it, the question, the answer etc. The secondary model defines the mechanism of its transmission. In a sense, the primary model is the message; the secondary model is the massage.

Primary models have the foundational quality of being about something. Secondary models, on the other hand, deal entirely with the business of communicating the primary model. Both are critically important aspects of communication’s effectivity as one of the pillars of human affairs.

Concerning the proposition of Mr. Bush’s inflammatory warning about the economy, no one I’ve encountered can confidently say whether or not the threat he describes is real. That state of affairs, for example, decries his track record of secondary models in rather harsh terms. Yes, we know what his initial proposition contains, however, the secondary model he employed to manipulate us into action is, frankly, insulting. As such, it is nothing new.

So, what exactly is this secondary model we are looking at here? That is, of course, the secondary model as we see it, not the “lipstick” version rolling around the House Committee Hearings.

It’s suspiciously intriguing that, like the last one, this one began on 9/11.

The Secondary Model:

The President approaches the nation breathlessly communicating an immense threat. No one has any particular way of knowing any more about the threat than they did the last time he did this Once more, we only seem to know what he and his cabinet appointees are telling us about it. Now come the questions.

Do we trust this man? Has he told us the truth before? Has he always acted sincerely in our interests? Does it turn out that our idea about his judgment could bear the facts that came out later? Like last time?

Did he tell us the truth about the threat? Did he know about it earlier than when he told us about it? Is he telling us everything he knows now? Is he telling us enough so we can make a reasonably good decision about what to do? Or, is it like last time?

The “when” became a rather “pregnant” issue with the last threat he told us about. Did this new threat of his just “pop up out of the blue” without warning? Like last time?

The President has told us that we must act fast, and by “act” he means that we should do what he suggests we do, fast. Like the Patriot Act. Like the Military Force Authorization. Like the pharmaceutical bill. Right away, please! We have to do everything right away or face the dire consequences? Of course. It’s urgent. If we are foolish enough to wait, to think about it, all will be lost!

We can think about it later. This is a lot of our money. We’ll have time to think about it while we are paying it back.

Do we trust this man with even more of our money? Has he done a good job with the money we have given over to him in the past? Has he told us what he bought with it? Who got it? Where it is now?

Then, of course, there are the experts. They are the ones who know all abut this. Why it is urgent. Why it is worth so much. What happens if they don’t get it. Have we had good results with his experts in the past? With Donald Rumsfeld? With Carl Rove? With House Speaker DeLay? Does this President show us his good judgment in picking his experts? Do we think that, somehow, he has started to do better? Did we trust those people? Should we have trusted them? Like last time?

The expert here is Treasury Secretary Paulson. The company that is getting discussed as the next corporate fatality of this mess is called Goldman Sachs. Treasury Secretary Paulson used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs. He apparently has $630 million dollars worth of Goldman Sachs stock in his personal fortune.

Should we trust him? Has he always done a “good job” in the past? Was he as surprised as the President when this just suddenly happened? Would he have come up with the same plan if Goldman Sachs weren’t tanking with the other investment banks?

All of this is the secondary model. These unfortunate men have started this sales effort with utterly derelict credibility. The taxpayers they are trying to convince are already exhausted, injured and, deservedly, suspicious. They are afraid. The first issue of this secondary model was to frighten them further. Like last time?

Does anybody else worry that this might not be what it is presented to be? I guess we are pretty much done with George Bush’s judgment. That leaves us stranded in an unpleasant place where we have been before, stranded with only our judgment -- our intuition. Since we have no facts, we can only try to do better than we did last time.

How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

The one week plan to get rich quick,
or
at least boost your trust fund. 57

Monday: Buy a bank with your trust fund.
Tuesday: Deposit $99,999.00 in you account.
Wednesday: Leverage all assets by a factor of thirty, securitize and sell.
Thursday: Rob the bank.
Friday: Show up and withdraw your FDIC guaranteed deposit.
Saturday and Sunday: Hide the money, complain about over-regulation and the Democrats.
Next Monday: Shop for another bank.

Why Not Revisit 9/11 Seven Years Later?

Messages and lessons we must not neglect.
The 9/11 Attack seen through the eyes in three faces. 56

On the seventh anniversary of the attack of 9/11, 2001, only the most callous can avoid the inevitable mix of both consolation and cause. There were causes which precipitated the attack. There were causes which precipitated the responses to it. Are we finally, after seven years, prepared to examine this again in the cold -- and far less emotional -- light of the present day?

Perhaps the clearest view can be expressed by attempting to place ourselves in the momentary place of players far closer to the event. Let us indulge ourselves with speculation as to the thoughts of three people. First, of course, ourselves; next, a nondescript, common citizen of Baghdad and, finally, Osama Bin Laden.

As we watched the catastrophe in New York and, minutes later, at the Pentagon, we took the moment to invest in an uneducated but comforting question. “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?”

We have a certain sickening feeling when we recall the answer to that question, an answer which seemed to fulfill all the requirements of common sense and non-nutritious nationalism. “They hate our freedom.” That “sickening feeling” can, more constructively, be called objective remorse. After all this time we have come to know much more about why that attack was possible, and probably, even inevitable.

There were reasons which explained it, but now we realize that those were reasons we had never considered. Our intellectual curiosity, prior to the attack, was never sufficient to explore just exactly what we had done to them, or, at least, what we had done to them as it appeared through their eyes.

The matter called me to revisit the chilling admonition of a certain Marine officer. He said, “If you find yourself in the midst of a shooting match, and, if you have no clear idea of why the other guy is shooting at you, that is, no idea of what he wants, leave. You have no business there.” My conclusion: “If those are the facts of the moment, the matter has no meaning and no possible constructive outcome.”

Next, a visit -- some months after 9/11 -- to Baghdad. “Shock and awe,” evaluated by the military command of Sadam Hussein’s army had one interpretation, possibly a tactical one, devoid of very much legitimate or popular social politics. “Shock and awe” interpreted by the man walking home in the streets of that distant city has another. Unavoidably, we must assume that he had certain questions in his mind as he ran for his life. “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?”

Finally, we stop over for a moment in some chilly cave, the uncomfortable refuge of the perpetrator and planner of the attacks in New York and Washington. Osama Bin Laden is not wondering “Why is this happening? Why are ‘they’ doing this to us?” at all. He has either had reasons or made reasons to answer those questions already. His reasons and his answers had already served to inspire all those young men who were willing to sacrifice everything to carry out his deathly mission in the United States.

Could there have been more to that remote conversation and planning than a “hatred of our freedom?” Did the “wrongs and injuries” that convinced those boys of the necessity of this, amount to something more substantial? Something we missed in the history of our own behavior? Or, at least, something we had assiduously avoided ever noticing?

Here in the United States, we were not allowed to even offer a conjecture that their suicidal passion had any meaning whatsoever. Far be it from us to even speculate, much less investigate, the possibility that we found ourselves involved in an exchange of consequences instead of a crazed act of psychopathic killing frenzy.

History makes its future concrete not from sand and cement, but from details and subtleties. It also makes strange bed fellows. It pays wages to the unlikely in currencies which have value only as a result of their moment of existence. Through this dark chapter, the least deserving, that is, Bin Laden and his counterpart, George Bush, have reaped unanticipated, synergistic extra profits.

Osama Bin Laden had little interest in military success. His satisfaction came from the fear he created. Injuring the United States, for him, could be far more substantial if he could degrade our Constitution and our social fabric. He, undoubtedly, celebrated in whatever way was correct to his religion, when the Americans made “shock and awe” over Baghdad, a serendipitous and unplanned extra benefit to his initial ambitions with the jet liners.

George Bush, likewise, was handed a birthday cake without a birthday. Those falling buildings could be converted by his servant, Carl Rove, into political octane of a stratospheric quality he never imagined. Out came “cut and run” and “stay the course,” all hypnotic invitations to endorse his oil wars and his morbid, domestic machinations and propaganda. If his rich friends made their fortunes drilling out petroleum made by ancient swamps, Bush made his by ruthlessly harvesting the unexpected opportunities of this modern moment.

9/11 calls us to our own inner thoughts. What, exactly, have we as individuals concluded about the facts of this tragic matter? Are we able, or, are we willing, to attempt to examine the unmanipulated reality of this whole affair, now, with clearer heads seven years later?

Perhaps, we are simply too busy or too shallow or too comfortable in this current cess pool of nationalistic drivel and fear. Perhaps, we will need to repeat what we have done previously, experience more “baffling” consequences of it, before we are motivated to consider changing ourselves and our national behavior. This improved destiny will probably never be the result of our fear. It will much more likely be an honest return from our rediscovered honor.

Business Management: Disaster Capitalism

Levee Maintenance as a Real Estate and Redistricting Strategy
Finding Business Opportunities in "Natural" Disasters 34


“Okay, class. Let’s get started. This is Management 102, Principles of ‘Levee Maintenance as a Real Estate and Futures Strategy.’ I assume that all of you were in the Management 101 section last semester ‘Levee Maintenance as a Real Estate and Political Redistricting Strategy.’ This second section builds on the redistricting successes on New Orleans with an enlarged study of the implications of managed levee maintenance in the mid-west.”

“In the first semester we studied the opportunities for political redistricting and consolidation made possible by various disasters, perhaps most notably, Hurricane Katrina. The relocation of large numbers of minority Democrats from the New Orleans political landscape has rehabilitated that area into a much more favorable electoral profile based on the higher income Republican voters whose real estate assets, generally located on higher ground, retained their full pre-storm value through the storm surge flooding.”

“As we hinted early on during this opportune disaster, phase two of Katrina is beginning to unfold literally as we speak here today. Capital opportunities to acquire abandoned real estate are opening up daily. Other properties, those with ownership now clouded by the financial collapse of the previous owners, are now on the market at extremely discounted prices, making them very attractive real estate acquisitions.”

“To recap semester one’s presentation, those with sufficient capital resources to profit from the economic collapse of the previous property owners will now find themselves able to expand their property portfolios with greatly discounted real estate prices in a community environment controlled by conservative forces willing to limit what had become, essentially, an out-of-control welfare state. Semester one’s exploration of disaster capitalism is a necessary prerequisite to semester two’s analysis of the many faceted opportunities made possible by similar levee failures in the midwest.”

“The opportunity arising from the flooding in Iowa and Missouri indicates a marked difference in preparation from the more simple case we saw in New Orleans. In the Katrina case, capital was able to enjoy its advantage as an enduring resource that, so to speak, either escaped or outlasted the destructive aspect of the disaster. Of course, the value of the discounted real estate purchases made possible by the misfortune of the previous owners was enhanced by the harvesting of federal resources to rehabilitate the levees. Naturally, a similar ‘extra’ windfall will become available to the opportunists working in the midwest.”

“However, the Iowa and Missouri business model maximizes itself in a number of other, quite notable ways, all ultimately falling to the advantage of its planners. Contrary to the Louisiana model where capital need to be already in place when the disaster opportunity developed, the Iowa and Missouri model actually generated its own venture capital as an intrinsic element of the disaster when considered as a whole picture.”

“So, let’s examine exactly what was the design of this brilliant disaster investment mechanism that functioned so profitably in the case of the midwestern flooding. A seemingly coincidental structure of economic conditions had been carefully groomed prior to the actual disaster opportunity to make its outcome into a ‘perfect storm.’ I think it is safe to say that all of you as students would have to agree that it was, in fact, one of the most outstanding market manipulations since the days of the Robber Barons.”

“What were these exceptional conditions which enabled our disaster opportunists to make such an astounding profit? Referring to your class handout, you can follow the items on the list provided.”

“First, of course, was the necessity of having in place unmaintained levees. Unlike other, more provocative advantages, the Federal oversight failure of this particular feature was neither very visible to the public nor representative of any sort of priority, even from those who would be most effected by its failure. Those substandard levees, literally waiting to fail, can be considered a ‘feed stock resource’ in the grander scheme of things. They were literally just sitting there quietly waiting to become a magnificent profit maker in the right setting.”

“There was some legislative influence required to sustain these inadequate levees as an unavoidable consequence of rational spending policy with respect to infrastructure. Other than that minor expense, knee jerk neo-con economics had reduced the levee maintenance funding to such a low level that little else was needed.”

“Second, there was an additional passive resource available even before the flooding. The largest corporate agricultural concerns already held huge corn stockpiles from their routine business operations. Adding to this potential resource, the financial side of these same agribusiness giants had a higher than usual position in the commodity futures thanks largely to the growing ethanol industry, world wide food prices in general and as a hedge against the constantly devaluing dollar.”

“Any opportunity to increase the tangible value of these resources would amount to an immediate profit for these corporations. Because, unlike the Katrina opportunity, the midwestern flooding was a disaster arriving much more gradually (although quite predictably), the financial resources of the large corporations could be directed at, for example, placing corn futures in a synchronous profit posture at the exact same time the water began to rise.”

“Third, thanks largely to the beginning effects of Global Warming, UN and other purchasers of famine relief commodities had already driven prices very high as they attempted to counter drought impacts in a large number of global populations. In this, a valuable asset of previous legislative influence, wisely purchased in the Congress by agribusiness lobbyists several decades ago, required that American contributions to such a relief effort be purchased at prevailing prices on the domestic market. Since that time global starvation has consistently remained a very positive influence on domestic grain commodity futures possibilities.”

“Fourth, the result of aggressive corporate agricultural competition in the market had already left many of the farms destined to be inundated at the very brink of failure even without the disaster. The economic impact of the flooding disaster was very correctly seen as an opportunity to apply the large capital advantage gained from participating in the grain futures market directly to the purchase of these discounted real estate assets which became available as the previous owners failed.”

“Once again, as was the case in the post-disaster real estate harvest following Katrina, any interested parties with sufficient financial resources encountered an opportunity to purchase real estate at a discounted price, an ‘extra’ benefit of the initial disaster.”

“Fifth, once the disaster had been realized by the population, the Congress could be easily persuaded to spend significant Federal resources to rebuild the levees, possibly even adequately, but in any event, far more adequately than before. This reconstruction and improvement, all financed at Federal expense, began to raise agricultural land values even before the water had receded. As the new owners of this real estate, the corporate profit was further enhanced.”

“And, there we have it. By capitalizing on these five well defined areas of opportunity, all made possible by prevailing conditions and the flood disaster itself, corporate agricultural interests once again were able to maximize the financial opportunities of what we call ‘disaster capitalism.’ The obvious expertise of the current administration in orchestrating such subtle advantages for their corporate sponsors speaks very highly to their business acumen in an unregulated or Federally irresponsible disaster opportunity.”

“There are domestic voices which are quite critical of the ‘meat handed’ approach this same government has taken with respect to energy opportunities. However, we must differentiate manipulations in places such as Iraq in favor of oil interests from the more direct disaster opportunities we have been discussing. The Iraqi adventure required the resources to create the opportunity for a disaster opportunity by first creating the disaster. Although very profitable and productive for the oil interests, these examples from the midwest show the opportunities inherent in other, more spontaneous disasters.”

“The assignment for tonight is to describe a potential disaster opportunity and, applying these same principles, formulate a means to profit from it. Points will be given for extensive use of premeditated Federal infrastructure neglect, and points will be deducted for humanitarian considerations which adversely effect the net capital profits. Confusing or misleading media management will be a plus.”

“Class dismissed.”