I’m reading the book, “13 Bankers:  The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown.” I’m hoping to get some insight into our nation’s economic crisis.

The authors of this book are Simon Johnson and James Kwak.  Their book arrived just in time for the debate that is now going on in Washington about financial reform.

In today’s Huffington Post, Johnson has an article praising “three blistering speeches” by Senator Ted Kaufman (D., DE)  “cutting to the heart of the financial reform matter: the deregulation of finance has gone too far and big banks now need to be reined in; the continued prevalence of fraud among Wall Street’s biggest bankers; and why the administration’s proposed ‘resolution authority’ would do nothing at all to end the problems associated with Too Big To Fail financial institutions.”

I’m going to be working my way though the 280 pages of this book in the next few days and I intend of posting excerpts from each chapter.  Here are excerpts from the Introduction:

• Why did even the near-collapse of the financial system, and its desperate rescue by two reluctant administrations, fail to give the government any real leverage over the major banks?
• By March 2009, the Wall Street banks were not just any interest group.   Over the past thirty years they had become one of the wealthiest industries in the history of the American economy, and one of the most powerful political forces in Washington.
• The ideology of Wall Street — that unfettered innovation and unregulated financial markets were good for America and the world — became the consensus position in Washington on both sides of the political aisle.
  Wall street banks are the new American oligarchy — a group that gains political power because of its economic power and then uses that political power for its own benefit.
• In the United States, we like to think that oligarchies are a problem that other countries have.
• In 1998, it was part of the worldview of the Washington elite that what was good for Wall Street was good for America.
• The major banks gained the wealth and prestige necessary to enter the halls of power and sway the opinions of the political establishment, and then cashed in that influence for policies — of which derivatives nonregulation was only one example — that helped them double and redouble their wealth which bring the economy to the edge of a cliff, from which it had to be pulled back with taxpayer money.
  The government chose not to impose conditions that could reform the industry or even to replace the management of large failed banks. It chose to stick with the bankers it had.
• The largest , most powerful banks came out of the crisis even larger and more powerful.
• Congress appears likely to adopt some type of banking reform, but it is unlikely to have much b ite. … the core problem — massive powerful banks that are both “too big to fail” and powerful enough to tilt the political landscape intheir favor — will remain as Wall Street returns to business as usual.
• In 1983, Citibank, America’s largest bank, had $114 billion in assets, or 3.2% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).  By 2007, nine financial institutions were bigger relative to the U.S. economy than Citibank had been in 1983.  At the time of the White House meeting, Bank of America’s assets were 16.4% of GDP, JP Morgan Chase was 14.7% of GDP and Citigroup was 12.9% of GD
• The conditions that created the financial crisis and global recession of 2007-2009 will bring about another crisis, sooner or later.  … The alternative is to reform the financial system … a central pillar of this reform must be breaking up the megabanks that dominate our financial system and have the ability to hold our entire economy hostage.

In the 3rd Congressional District, Dr. Mark MacNealy is the Democrat who is challenging the incumbent Representative, Republican Mike Turner. Last evening, after the primary vote, there was a “victory” get-together by a group on enthusiastic MacNealy supporters at the Trolly Stop in the Oregon District.  Dr. Mark was unopposed in the Democratic Primary.

I think Dr. MacNealy has the potential to be a great candidate. He has an engaging intelligence and wit.  His is an attractive personality. Dr. Mark is a physician, a neurologist, 60 years old, living in Vandalia. He has volunteered many hours to help poverty patients.  Dr. Mark has the life experience that gives him not only an in-depth knowledge concerning health issues, but also insight into the overall challenges facing citizens in our district.

Dr. Mark told me that he is working many hours each day on fund-raising and has been having some good success. I didn’t ask how much has been raised.

Money is important in politics, but money is not everything.  Prior Democratic candidates, Dick Chema, and Jane Mitakides, who were defeated by Turner, both spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in their campaigns.  But their campaigns were ineffectual. These previous Democratic candidates never delivered a message that resonated with sufficient voters.

We make a mistake when we analyze why Carne, Mitakides and Chema failed by emphasizing how money corrupts the process and noting Turner’s cash advantage.  We must remember that it is the message that is of central importance, not money.

In 2008, I wrote, “To Defeat Turner, Mitakides Must Communicate A Compelling Reason For Change.” But, Mitakides failed to deliver a compelling message.

At the get-together, I spoke briefly with Dr. Mark’s campaign manager, Joseph Roberts, and expressed to him my conviction that election victory depends on Dr. Mark defining and delivering a convincing message.

I told Roberts that the campaign web-site is unclear, but the message in the web-site seems to be that Dr. Mark’s candidacy is all about creating jobs for the 3rd District. I said that, if Dr. Mark is contemplating putting job creation as the central message, in my judgment, that would be a bad idea.

“Elect me, and I will bring jobs to the region,” to me, is not credible.  Without some specific proposal, the promise to create jobs is really meaningless. And, as I see it, there is no sensible proposal for job creation that a congressional candidate can make. The promise to create jobs, therefore, to me, just sounds like so much political speak and, I feel, if pushed as a central message, will quickly brand Dr. MacNealy as just another politician seeking to say whatever will get him elected.

Mitakides tried to emphasize jobs in her 2008 campaign. This is what I wrote, in a post addressed to Jane, at the time:

I saw a bumper sticker that says, “Jane = Jobs.” But isn’t Turner in favor of jobs as well? He is also in favor, no doubt, of apple pie and motherhood. In a debate, if asked about his record about jobs, Turner would certainly be able to muddy the issue. Hasn’t he helped bring jobs to Wright Patterson Air Force Base? Can’t he take credit for bringing some new businesses to the region?

If you assert that “Jane equals jobs,” the burden of explanation falls on you. If you have a plan to create jobs, it is not indicated on your web-site, and if “Jane equals jobs” is shown to be basically an empty slogan, your case for change is ruined. The point is, even for those paying attention, I don’t think it is likely that the issue of jobs will be sufficiently compelling to bring enough voters to your candidacy. And the other issues/goals you state in your web-site, I fear, have the same problem.

I would like to be part of an energized campaign that would send Dr. MacNealy to Washington.  After all, in 2008 I wrote, Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Let’s Throw The Bum Out

In Dr. Mark, I feel, the messenger should be the message.  Voters in the 3rd District, of both parties, want to send someone to Washington of integrity, intelligence, empathy — a person experienced in diagnosing and solving problems, a person who is dedicated to making the system work.  The message:  Dr. Mark is the problem solver, not a partisan loyalist.  Mike Turner is the politician — a willing participant in a political machine, — showing little inclination for independent thought or action.

Here is the diagnosis I would encourage Dr. Mark to make:  Our democracy is in trouble. The failure of our economy, the failure to create jobs is a system failure.  Our system of democracy is failing and we need representatives dedicated to making democracy work.

These thoughts about system failure should be backed up with a specific plan of how Dr. Mark will conduct himself as congressman to make the system of democracy in the 3rd District more robust, more healthy.  I’m wondering if he could use the words of a physician to good end, and compare the body politic with the body human.

Dr. Mark, for one thing, I feel, should outline a specific plan that will show how he will spend the $1.3 million allocated, each year, for congressional work in Ohio’s 3rd District.  He should demonstrate his creativity and thoughtfulness in the details of an organizational plan that he should propose, as part of his election contract with voters in the 3rd District. He should show an organizational structure, as demonstrated in a proposed office budget, that would contrast markedly from the one used by the current crop of professional Washington insiders and politicians, ie., Mike Turner.   Mike Turner already has a record of how year after year he has chosen to spend this $1.3 million.

Last year, I wrote, and was ignored, Advice For Gary Leitzell And David Esrati: Make The Campaign All About Democracy, System Structure

And here I give a summary of several previous articles:  If We Are To Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself

Written By Mike Bock

Interesting article in Common Dreams, “This Oil Ride,” by Linh Dinh, gives a quick history of oil, ala, British Petroleum. Of the disaster in the gulf, Dinh writes, “The raped earth spewing what we’ve been demanding so relentlessly for over a century now. A monstrous ecocide, this is too fitting an end to our reckless oil ride.” Here is an excerpt :

• 1861-The first major oil well in the world in Pennsylvania.
• 1908-The Anglo-Persian Oil Company discovered oil in Iran. Later known as British Petroleum, in 1954.
• 1913Ford Motor Company perfected the assembly line.
• 1927-The Turkish Petroleum Company struck oil in Iraq — the biggest shareholder, British Petroleum.
• 1933-In New Jersey, the first drive-in theater opened.
• 1944-The G.I. Bill helped returning veterans to buy homes,
• 1953-The C.I.A. orchestrated a coup against the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, after he had nationalized British Petroleum.
• 1956-President Eisenhower began the largest public works project in history, the Interstate.
• 1963-The C.I.A. orchestrated a coup against Abdul Karim Kassem of Iraq. Kassem had begun nationalizing foreign oil companies i.e., British Petroleum.
• 1990-The Gulf War ignited. Eyeing Kuwait’s rich oil fields, Iraq attacked its tiny neighbor. Iraq was bankrupt after its eight-year-long war with Iran. During this previous conflict, the U.S. openly backed Iraq even as it sold weapons to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
• 2000-Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would now only accept euros, and not dollars, for its oil exports. This prompted the U.S. to invade 18 months later.
• 2009-Thanks to the U.S. invasion, British Petroleum could do business again in Iraq after 37 years.
• 2010-Floating 5,000 feet above the ocean floor, a British Petroleum rig was drilling 30,000 feet into the earth’s crust when it exploded, then sank over its drill hole. 210,000 gallons a day are spilling as I’m writing this, and they won’t be capped any time soon. This is no tanker breaking up, my friends, but the raped earth spewing what we’ve been demanding so relentlessly for over a century now. A monstrous ecocide, this is too fitting an end to our reckless oil ride.