Friday, March 16, 2012

Author illustrates why copyright math is bogus

By Stephen C. Webster - RAW Story
Friday, March 16, 2012

Giving a recent TED Talk, author Rob Reid, creator of the online music subscription service Rhapsody, illustrated for the audience exactly why so-called “copyright math” is almost completely bogus.

“Copyright math” is a term used for the extrapolations published by groups like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), or the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which lobby Washington for tougher laws on copyright infringement by claiming exorbitant financial and job losses due to online piracy.

Of course, it’s hard to claim those losses when so many executives are seeing their largest salaries ever, with box office profits continually spiraling higher.

Yet in 1999, the content industries got together to lobby for an “improvement” to copyright law that put a $150,000 price tag on every single act of infringement, and Washington granted their wish.

“Now when this law first passed, the world’s hottest MP3 player could hold just 10 songs, and it was a big Christmas hit — because what little hoodlum wouldn’t want a million and a half bucks-worth of stolen goods in his pocket?” Reid asked, using copyright math to illustrate the absurdity of their claims.

“These days, an iPod classic can hold 40,000 songs… Which is to say, eight billion dollars worth of stolen media, or about 75,000 jobs,” he deadpanned. “Now you might find copyright math strange, but that’s because it’s a field that’s best left to experts.”

Both the MPAA and the RIAA have weighed in heavily on other nations’ copyright laws in recent years, facilitated by the Obama Administration. They also recently brokered a deal with all the major Internet providers to set up network operators as the de facto copyright police, who will begin spying on customers to detect piracy later this year.

This video is from TED Talks, published Thursday, March 15, 2012.

Goldman Sachs Takeaway: Fix Our Financial System or Get Ready for the Next Horrific Collapse

Only an overhaul in our broken banking and financial system will prevent the next collapse. Goldman Sachs' misdeeds are merely a symptom of a much bigger problem.
By Marshall Auerback, AlterNet
Posted on March 15, 2012

Greg Smith's mea culpa about Goldman Sachs should not come as a surprise to anybody who has a remote connection with the financial services industry. But to suggest that the allegations made by Mr. Smith are unique to  Goldman Sachs' culture is ludicrous. They are symptomatic of a much broader problem embedded in Wall Street culture as a whole.  Goldman Sachs' major sin was being more astute at exploiting this system than most of its competitors.

The toxic derivatives sold to what employees of  Goldman Sachs derisively referred to as "muppet" clients (since when was being a "muppet" such a bad thing?) were certainly neither a trend unique to GS, nor was it a recent phenomenon. The truth is that this activity has been embedded in Goldman' Sachs' culture since the days when Robert Rubin was co-CEO of the company and advocated GS taking proprietary positions (trading for its own account), even if it meant betting against their clients.

Goldman Sachs was a successful company and success tends to breed imitation. Eventually, everybody on Wall Street was doing the same shitty business.  Goldman Sachs, for example, wasn't the only one selling these toxic mortgage products, which helped to blow up the world's global economy in 2008, but they were smart enough to hedge them.

Why is all this so dangerous? Think of the recently deceased James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows thesis, which he largely used as his model for "blue collar" crime. Wilson thought that it was necessary to tackle even small signs of crime and decay in a community in order to prevent larger, more system criminal activity from emerging. You see a broken window, you go after the culprit. In the elite white collar crime context we have been following the opposite strategy of that recommended under the theory.

As the economist/criminologist Bill Black recently noted in a piece discussing Wilson's theory, the whole story of the past two decades has been that we have persistently excused those in finance who persistently break the windows. Indeed, we have praised them and their misconduct.

But as Black has noted, "The problem with allowing broken windows is far greater in the elite white collar crime context than the blue collar crime context. The squeegee guys make tiny amounts of money and are hated and politically powerless. The mediocre financial CEO who engages in accounting control fraud because it is a 'sure thing' causes the bank to report record (albeit fictional) profits and becomes wealthy and politically powerful. He uses his wealth to make charitable and political contributions that make him far harder to sanction. He claims that any crackdown on him is 'class warfare' by 'neo-Bolsheviks'."

Incredibly, the Department of Justice, the press, and the economic profession persistently ignore those who become wealthy by breaking windows, communities, and economies. In fact, they are lionised by no less than our President, who once termed both Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon "pretty savvy businessmen." Yes, and Al Capone was a pretty savvy businessman -- who just happened to be sloppy on his tax returns.

Realistically, what is required is a wholesale shift in our banking culture. In the old days, a banker “hedged” his credit risk by doing (shock!) CREDIT ANALYSIS. If the customer was deemed to be a poor credit risk, no loan was made. But if the loan was made, and turned out to be profitable, both lender and borrower made money, which is how banking should work.

It goes back to a point I have made many times: Creditworthiness precedes credit. You need policies designed to promote job growth, higher incomes and a corresponding ability to service debt before you can expect a borrower take on a loan or a banker to extend one. And, as the economist Hyman Minsky used to point out, in the old days, banking was a fundamentally optimistic activity, because the success of the lender was tied up with the success of the borrower; in other words, we didn’t have the spectacle of vampire-like squids betting against the success of their clients via instruments such as credit default swaps.

The main problem is that “finance” simply became too big. At the peak it captured 40 percent of all corporate profits (it recovered that share by the beginning of 2010 thanks to the bail-out and “creative” or even fraudulent accounting), and about a fifth of value-added to GDP. Interestingly, we find the same phenomenon in 1929, when finance received 40 percent of the nation’s profits. Apparently that represents a practical maximum and thus a turning point at which the economy collapses.

Perhaps of equal importance, finance virtually captured government, with Wall Street alumni grabbing an unprecedented proportion of federal government positions that have anything to do with the financial sector—including Treasury—under three consecutive presidents (from Clinton through Obama). It is not surprising that Wall Street gets deregulation when it wants, and that in spite of the scale of the current financial crisis—which has wiped out an estimated $50 trillion in global wealth—there has been no significant reform to date.

Real reform will likely have to wait for another collapse. When it comes, it will wipe out even more wealth, and will bring on even more intolerable suffering. Looking at today's situation that context, Greg Smith's letter is interesting, but ultimately it will be a sideshow unless it wakes us up to the bigger picture. The entire system demands overhaul.

We're Each Carrying Our Own Internal Toxins

Friday, March 16, 2012 by Maine Morning Sentinel
by Denis Thoet




Dinosaurs: small brains, big bodies. Extinct.

Humans: Large brains, small bodies. Not extinct. Not yet, anyway.

Our large brains, however, have created a world bathed in chemicals, engineered foods, plastic environments with poisons that surround us and invade all parts of the natural world -- and our own bodies.

We are bringing in those poisons through our mouths (food and contaminated liquids), our noses ("fragrances" and polluted air) and our skin (cosmetics, scented shampoos and moisturizers).

It took a meteor strike 65 million years ago to wipe out the dinosaurs, after they had a pretty successful run for about 250 million years. Humans, on the other hand, have been around for only 4 million to 5 million years, and our meager evolutionary run is now meeting a big obstacle: We are not able to metabolize the last 100-plus years of petroleum-based chemical pollution of the earth and of ourselves:
  • Nitrates, chemical fertilizers and herbicides used in industrial farming overflow into our waterways and oceans.
  • Oil-based chemicals saturate our food, the containers that hold that food, our furniture and carpeting, our cleaning agents, our "lawn care" products, our kids' toys, our cooking utensils and pans.
  • Manufacturing, particularly paper making, pours millions of toxics into the air and water yearly.
  • Unused medicines get dumped into our waterways and reappear in our drinking water.
Dinosaurs didn't have the luxury of observing their demise. We do.

We are participating in it with every purchase of plastic-coated junk, every bite of industrially produced "food," every application of lawn products that poison the ground, the insects and the birds that feed on the insects -- and ourselves. No one is forcing us to buy this stuff.

I'm not overstating our situation. Read What's Gotten into Us? Staying Healthy in a Toxic World, by McKay Jenkins (2011). Shortly into the book, Jenkins writes about a 2006 study of 13 Maine people and the toxins in their bodies.

The study tested for a handful of toxic chemicals: phthalates (softening plasticizers added to baby toys, shower curtains, drinking water bottles); flame retardants (applied to electronic devices, furniture, draperies, carpeting); perfluorinated chemicals (called Teflon, and used to coat cookware and in food packaging for things such as microwave popcorn), and bisphenol A (a hardening plastic additive in baby bottles and the lining of canned food). It also tested for dangerous metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic.

All of the participants had lived in relatively rural environments all their lives. Some were high profile, such as Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), former state Sen. Dana Dow, and Hannah Pingree, then-majority leader of the Maine House of Representatives.

Surprisingly, Libby was at the top of the list. Of the 71 chemicals tested for, he had 41 in his body. Despite his rural and organic lifestyle, he had the highest number of flame retardants.

Dana Dow, a furniture dealer who applied flame retardants to the furniture he sold, had the highest levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and Teflon compounds. And Pingree, of North Haven Island, had high levels of mercury in her body.

Another surprise was the results of tests on a mother and daughter, Violet and Laura Lee Raymond. Laura Lee, then 28, was confident she would have a much lower rate of toxins than her mother. She was raised in Fort Kent -- about as rural as you can get in Maine.

"Laura Lee Raymond had higher levels of toxins than her 51-year-old mother," Jenkins wrote. "She had high levels of mercury and arsenic." Arsenic does occur naturally in parts of the groundwater in Maine, and Raymond thought possibly the mercury in her body came from her liking for sushi.

She is both puzzled, and angry, about the results, however, since she has always followed a healthy lifestyle.

"You kind of go through these phases. You're in denial, then you get freaked out. Then you go through a hypervigilant phase," Raymond said. "I got rid of my microwave, got rid of my nonstick pans. I was really hypersensitive about what was going into my body." And she was surprised by people's reactions.

"People come up to me and say, 'Oh my God! I read about you! You're toxic!'"

Her reaction: "If I'm toxic, you're toxic, too!"

That's the key to all of this. We are all toxic, regardless of whether we get tested.

Since I was born in 1944, I could probably add toxins such as Strontium-90 from the above-ground nuclear testing that went on until 1962, or the pesticide DDT, which didn't get banned until the '70s.

And these toxins that we all have are not going away. Not until we stop producing them, and even then we're stuck with what we've got.

Despair You Can Believe In

Just Do Something
by ROB URIE
In ways that will have long-term consequences for most Americans, the policies of economic and political subjugation of the last forty years, particularly of the 2000s, are being carried forward into this decade by an economic and political elite protected and supported by the Federal government. Apparent from the relative calm of the polity is that most people have no idea what the implications of current policies are.

Two examples before diving deeper: the student loan crisis and the policing tactics around the G-8 Summit, recently moved from Chicago to Camp David at Barack Obama’s request. The student loan crisis is generally framed as the case of students who graduate from four-year colleges being unable to find jobs to repay the loans they took out to attend college. The policing tactics, which according to polls are supported by a majority of Americans, are framed as tools to keep order in the face of a permanent group of malcontents intent on forcing their agendas on honest civil servants pursuing the people’s business. The facts tell a different story.

In 2008 the Federal government took over the student loan business from corrupt private lenders as a stealth stimulus that had the added benefit of creating a sub-class of permanently indentured citizens, debt slaves if you will. These loans have funded the massive expansion of for-profit schools that do little in the way of actual education because a majority of their students attend for a few semesters but never graduate. As for helping people find jobs, the U.S. is four years into the third “jobless recovery” in as many decades—there are no jobs for the class attending for-profit trade schools.

With about $1 trillion in student loans outstanding, the question is: what is the government doing? Three answers occur—the first is that the Obama administration is gutting the public education system by shifting resources away from it to the overwhelmingly corrupt for-profit education system. (This isn’t an elite conceit—the public Community College system has successfully supported the portion of the population that wouldn’t have attended four-year colleges with technically oriented education for decades). The second is that student loans, under the impossible-to-get-out-of terms that exist, create a class of people economically subjugated to the point of remaining politically complacent and compliant. The third is that it supports an economic predator class that satiates itself on the economic misery of others.

Lest these seem like empty conspiracy theories—Mr. Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan cut his eyeteeth shifting resources from public education to for-profits schools in Chicago. Second, the onerous terms that force repayment of student loans under all circumstances were well known before the Obama administration chose to take over and expand the business in 2008. Third, were the bank bailouts not evidence enough, the recent 50 state Attorney’s General mortgage “settlement” formally institutionalizes economic predation without recourse (see www.nakedcapitalism.com archives for details).

And Fourth, the recently passed bill signed by Mr. Obama, H.R 347, loosens language around one of a long list of laws designed to make protest illegal in the U.S. The bill reduces the burden of proof required to prosecute protesters who knowingly or unknowingly enter an area protected by the Secret Service or areas and events designated as protected by the Federal government. The best that the ACLU and other legal liberties organizations could say about the bill is that the U.S. was already a police state before the bill was passed.

But my point is not that the U.S. is rapidly becoming (has long been) a police state. My point is that increasingly institutionalized economic predation against U.S. citizens combined with advanced police state powers will make life even more untenable for some fair number of us in coming years. Even if one bought the “law and order” rationale for expanding the police state, the institutionalization of economic predation creates a tiered society where socially destructive behavior receives support and protection from the state while all efforts to end it face the full wrath and repressive power of the state.

For a nation founded on slavery and genocide against the native population, progress is apparently now being measured in terms of how technologically sophisticated the mechanisms of predation and repression can be made. Every American should educate her/himself on the so-called mortgage settlement for insight.

Briefly, the offices of the 50 state Attorneys General who signed the settlement were individually paid large sums of money for doing so. The settlement supposed to be paid by the banks will instead be paid out of a taxpayer funded bailout fund (HAMP) and by non-bank investors (pension funds, etc.). The banks received blanket retroactive immunity for taking very large numbers of houses from people when they had no legal basis for doing so. Because there was no legal sanction for doing this, economic predators, including the banks that just “settled,” now know officially that no acts of economic predation in the future, no matter how egregious, will be prosecuted. And Obama administration officials like Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan have been sent forward to actively misrepresent the terms of the settlement.

But again, my point here is not that institutionalized economic predation is being supported and protected by the Federal (and state) government. It is that the nexus of economic predation and police state powers has, and will increasingly, destroy the lives of a very large group of Americans. Black, brown and native Americans, along with poor whites, have long been subject to these conditions and have long seen themselves on the wrong side of police power. What has changed is the reach up the socio-economic order deep into the middle class.

Lest readers still be incredulous as to the scale of what is happening, half of the car loans made since the bailouts of the auto companies in 2008 have been sub-prime (the same proportion that led to the crisis). Briefly, Democrat Barack Obama forced tiered wages on autoworkers that has those who build the cars earning half as much as they previously would have while leaving the wages and bonuses of those who make the auto loans untouched. Subsequently, half of the loans made have been to people who are economically marginal (sub-prime) and at risk of not being able to repay them. The executives at the auto companies are once again paying themselves tens of millions of dollars in annual compensation for having rendered their workforces impoverished and their customers at risk of permanent debt servitude.

On the policing side, in anticipation of a rowdy G8 Summit in Chicago Rahm Emmanuel, Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago, has continued the practice of recent decades of making all effective protest illegal and subject to heavy legal sanction. Put another way, the patricians of predator capitalism (G8 attendees) are being held remote and protected from the victims of their policies with increasingly restrictive and oppressive police powers. Moving the G8 summit from Chicago to Camp David only increases the impunity that remoteness from social / political consequences brings.

To tie this together, in recent decades the Federal and state governments of the U.S. have facilitated and protected a system of institutionalized economic predation and have built out increasingly intrusive and restrictive police powers to maintain it and to crush resistance. With the economic crisis of 2008 the government at various levels took direct control of an increasing proportion of the means of economic predation and has demonstrated that it will use its power, including creating new and enhanced laws, to force compliance with the often patently illegal terms of public and private creditors under the full coercive and repressive apparatus of the state.

Last, accept this trajectory of despair or do something. A few (tens of thousands) malcontents including labor unions, Occupy Wall Street, immigrant rights groups, artists, musicians, the unemployed, the foreclosed upon etc. plan to celebrate another set of possibilities on Mayday, May 1st 2012. If no march or celebration is scheduled for your town, make one happen. In New York, we meet at Union Square at 4:00 PM and march at 5:00 PM.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Corporate Win, Loss for the 99%: U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Takes Effect

Thursday, March 15, 2012 by Common Dreams
“Just how damaging this deal is to the 99 percent in both countries has been repeatedly revealed"

The U.S.- Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) takes effect today, and is being met with heated protests over the deal's rewarding the interests of big business while crushing the 99%.  Messaging that the agreement will create jobs has been slammed as "some rosy fantasy" fabricated by multinational corporations.

The deal means that almost 80 percent of U.S. exports of industrial products to Korea are now duty-free and nearly two-thirds of U.S. exports of agricultural products to Korea are now duty-free.

Agence France-Presse reports:
The agreement was originally signed in July 2007 but was approved by the US Congress only last October, after a partial renegotiation to address US auto industry complaints.

South Korea's parliament approved it last November despite vehement protests from opposition lawmakers, one of whom exploded a tear gas canister in the assembly.

Critics say the deal is lop-sided and serves big business at the expense of South Korea's farmers and service industries.
"This is a lose-lose deal that will destroy jobs in both countries."

PressTV reports that thousands gathered in Seoul hours before the agreement officially went into effect to protest the agreement:

About 1,200 activists rallied in downtown Seoul on Wednesday, chanting slogans against the deal and demanding the resignation of President Lee Myung-Bak.

The rally, which was also attended by members of major opposition parties, came hours before the agreement came into force at midnight local time.

Protesters said the deal would crush South Korea's economy and hurt people's livelihood. They also complained that it would damage the country's farming and service industries by flooding the market with cheaper imports.

The activists vowed to keep protesting until the government nullifies the agreement.

Public Citizen writes that the trade deal was rushed to beat the Korean parliamentary elections in April and notes that polls showed the elections would "elevate a political party that has vowed to terminate the pact unless the 'investor-state' enforcement system is altered."

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, stated that the KORUS is a bad deal for "99%" in both the U.S. and South Korea:
“Just how damaging this deal is to the 99 percent in both countries has been repeatedly revealed from this latest disgrace of trying to outrun the democratic accountability of Korea’s election to the White House, notably canceling a public bill-signing ceremony after the FTA was passed here. By rushing the implementation, the Obama administration is trying to cement in the extreme NAFTA-style corporate investor privileges that candidate Obama pledged would not be included in his trade agreements and that a large majority of Korea’s parliament also opposes.”

While U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement today, “Starting today, Korea’s doors are wide open for Made-In-America exports that will support well-paying jobs here at home," research from the Economic Policy Institute in July of 2010 shows that KORUS will bring a loss of 159,000 American jobs:
Unlike USITC’s [U.S. International Trade Commission's] forecast of a small positive impact, EPI’s research shows it will increase the U.S. trade deficit with Korea by about $16.7 billion, and displace about 159,000 American jobs within the first seven years after it takes effect.


Writing on The Hill today, Chun Jung-bae, member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea and member of the Supreme Council of the Democratic Party of Korea, reiterates that job creation from KORUS is "some rosy fantasy" and "is a fabrication of multinational corporations."

There is some rosy fantasy that the pending U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement will create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs in both countries and strengthen and expand the U.S. relationship with Korea. This is a fabrication of multinational corporations that have no allegiance to either country. As a member of the Korean National Assembly, I would like to set the record straight: In reality, the deal is lose-lose. [...]

[T]his trade deal will have a negative impact on the middle-class in the U.S. and Korea. This is a lose-lose deal that will destroy jobs in both countries. How can that be? The deal is expected to increase the overall U.S. trade deficit, which would lead to net job loss in the U.S. But it is the deal’s low domestic content requirement that would encourage both U.S. and Korean corporations to offshore jobs to low-wage countries.

Christine Ahn and Albie Miles have written on the devastation the agreement would bring to Koreans:
The Korea FTA is the latest in a long history of aggressive U.S. foreign policies toward Korea that have significantly undermined Korean farmers. The current FTA will further erode Korea’s agricultural sector and food security while contributing to its environmental degradation through reduced emission standards and potential exposure to contaminated U.S. beef and transgenic crops. With this FTA, Koreans also stand to lose their national healthcare system as U.S. financial services and pharmaceutical firms await the opportunity to use the Investor to State Dispute (ISD) mechanisms to sue governments for infringing on their right to profit.

Ahn and Miles also reported that the trade agreement may mean more genetically modified food going to South Korea:
It's also unclear how much the FTA has been used to dismantle South Korea’s 2000 genetic engineering (GE) labeling law and undermine its commitment to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international supplemental agreement to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The Cartagena Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from risks posed by transgenic organisms resulting from biotechnology. Under the protocol, developing nations can restrict and/or label GE organisms to protect their biodiversity and/or public health if inadequate scientific evidence guarantees that a product is safe. The FTA negotiations overturned Korea’s 2000 GE labeling law that had largely kept transgenic imports out of Korea’s food supply. In 2007, the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization hailed the conclusion of the Korea FTA for “providing additional market access opportunities in Korea for U.S. biotechnology companies.” It specifically lauded the U.S. agricultural negotiator for ensuring “that trade of biotech-derived crops, foods, and feeds continues without disruption.” Despite widespread opposition to GE foods in Korea, transgenic imports no longer have to be labeled.

The FTA lifted the floodgates for massive imports of GE foods and feedstock, namely U.S. GE corn. In February 2008, less than a year after the ag-biotech deal was signed, the Korean Corn Processing Industry Association purchased 697,000 metric tons of U.S. GE maize, the first major GE shipment destined for food use to arrive in Korea since 2000. Korean approvals of GE imports have since skyrocketed. By February 2008, Korea had approved 102 transgenic organisms for import as feed or food, 70 percent from U.S. firms Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical.

U.S. Military Unveils New Crowd Control Heat Ray: "You're Gonna Feel It"

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 by Common Dreams
Marine Col: "I think our forces will figure out the many different applications that it would have.”


The U.S. military has unveiled its newest approach to crowd control, the Active Denial System, a heat ray that sends out a high-frequency electromagnetic ray. People hit with the ray feel an intense, unbearable heat. The military touts the ray's "far-ranging" capabilities and is looking at "many different applications" for its possible use.

Marine Col. Tracy Taffola said at the public unveiling of the system at a U.S. Marines base near Washington, D.C.:
"You're not gonna see it, you're not gonna hear it, you're not gonna smell it: you're gonna feel it."
* * *

In a video to demonstrate the new weapon, USFORCESTV explains that the heat ray "boasts a reach far beyond any other non-lethal system" -- a reach of "about 7 footballs fields."

The video shows various volunteers quickly running away from the heat ray, a situation unlikely to be available when the ray is aimed at a large crowd or if protesters are penned in in some way, as was witnessed by the pepper-spraying of Occupy protesters by police officers at very close range.




* * *


The Globe and Mail reports:
The Pentagon has been experimenting with killer beams for decades. A laser so powerful that it can destroy nuclear-tipped missiles shortly after launch has been mounted in a much-modified Boeing 747 and is being tested. [...]
Various development versions of the heat ray have been tested for years. One was sent to Afghanistan – but never used – in 2010. Police departments have shown interest.

* * *

David Pugliese adds this comment from Marine Col. Tracy Taffola foreshadowing far-ranging use of the weapon:
“It could be used across the military spectrum of operations, perimeter security, crowd control, entry control points. You name it. I think our forces will figure out the many different applications that it would have,” Tafolla said.

Enviro Groups Fear "Dangerously Misguided" Plan to Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes

Thursday, March 15, 2012 by Common Dreams
Company insists plan is "environment-friendly," that genetic modification is "a well-understood, safe technology"


The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District is having a town hall meeting tonight about a plan to release genetically modified mosquitoes in order to control the population of Aedes aegypti, the mosquito responsible for the spread of dengue fever.

While the company behind the plan, Oxitec, insists the plant is "environment-friendly," that genetic modification is "a well-understood, safe technology" and that there would be "no permanent change to the wild mosquito population," environmental groups say the plan is "dangerously misguided" and that the company has hidden the fact that the genetically modified mosquitoes could have high survival rate in wild.

* * *
From Oxitec's Q&A for Key West (pdf):

What exactly is the Sterile Insect Technique (“SIT”)?
The Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) is an environment-friendly, species-specific method of insect control, which has been described as “birth control for insects” SIT has been used very successfully in agriculture for over 50 years.

SIT works by releasing sterile insects of a target species. The sterile males compete with the wild males for female insects. If a female mates with a sterile male then it will have no offspring, thus reducing the next generation's population. Repeated release of insects can eventually reduce the insect population to very low levels or zero and hence reduce the damage or spread of disease.

Is Oxitec’s mosquito genetically modified?
Yes.

Is genetic modification inherently bad or dangerous?
No. Genetic modification allows scientists to combine genes or DNA segments in a precise and calculated manner, to achieve a desired outcome: it is a well-understood, safe technology and there is nothing inherently dangerous about the process. This combining, or recombining of DNA segments leads to another name for the same technique – recombinant DNA technology and hence recombinant insulin, recombinant vaccines, etc; genetic engineering is another. GM/recombinant/GE approaches are regularly used, for example, in the production of pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines, new medical approaches (gene therapy) in industry (production of enzymes) and in new biofuel approaches.
  • It is an environmentally friendly approach. No toxic chemicals are used in our approach. The sterile mosquitoes released will only mate with their own species; so off-target effects are minimised; this is far better specificity than an insecticide. “Off-target effects” are effects on species other than the intended target, in this case Aedes aegypti; in other contexts this might be called collateral damage. The potential indirect effects, e.g. the ecological consequences of successfully suppressing the target population, appear minimal and are discussed further below.

What are the likely impacts on the environment and on humans?
The main impact on human health will be to reduce the number of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes that can spread dengue. 
There is no permanent change to the wild mosquito population and therefore unlikely to have any impact on the environment compared to the currently used alternatives.

Once the sterilised mosquitoes have mated with the wild female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, what happens to them? Do they just die off? 
Yes. Aedes aegypti is a relatively short-living species. Adult males can live up to around 10 days in the wild. In the laboratory, under ideal conditions, they can live a bit longer, even in extreme cases only up to a month.

* * *


Statement from Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch: GE Bug Makes Floridians Part of Oxitec’s Grand Experiment

“We cannot stress strongly enough how dangerously misguided this application is. Oxitec hopes to use the neighborhoods and precious ecosystem of the Keys as their private, for-profit laboratory. The shame of it is, the company has no evidence the GE mosquitoes will even work in their stated aim of controlling Dengue fever. This feels much more like Oxitec testing its living, breeding technology than a serious attempt to control disease, and the people of Florida deserve protection. 
“The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany said in February that the ‘risk assessment’ conducted in advance of the release of Oxitec’s GE mosquitoes in another country has been ‘scientifically deficient’ and made ‘questionable pivotal scientific assertion[s]’. This is simply not good enough, and we strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration to decline the application. 
“We are also aware that Oxitec is hoping to conduct a similar outdoor experiment in the UK next year with their GE version of the diamondback moth, which attacks crops like cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and rapeseed (canola). What impacts will such an experiment have on the birds that eat the moth? What happens to people if they inadvertently eat eggs this GE insect lays on the crop? How will they get the insects back if something goes wrong? 
“There are better, safer ways to control Dengue and agricultural pests – we don’t need expensive GE insects. Oxitec badly needs FDA approval to keep their finances flowing. This is why the company downplays any concerns raised, but those concerns are still there and growing with time. The Federal Government must step in and prevent this unnecessary and risky trial.”

* * *


Friends of the Earth U.S., GeneWatch UK and Third World Network: Company conceals evidence that genetically modified mosquitoes may have high survival rate in wild

A confidential internal document obtained by civil society groups shows genetically modified mosquitoes described by their manufacturer, UK company Oxitec, as “sterile” are in fact not sterile and their offspring have a 15 percent survival rate in the presence of the common antibiotic tetracycline. 
Eric Hoffman of Friends of the Earth U.S. said: “The fact that Oxitec is hiding data from the public has undermined its credibility. Oxitec’s assertions cannot be trusted. Trials of its mosquitoes must not move forward in the absence of comprehensive and impartial reviews of the environmental, human health and ethical risks. Such trials must also await the establishment of a clear and well designed regulatory framework, which does not yet exist.”

This is yet another ill conceived notion greenlit by short-sided, profiteers which will cause damage we don't know how to fix.--jef

The Myth of the Rational Market

Making the Rich Richer and the Country Poorer
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

One of the great economic myths is that markets are rational. Not a day passes without this myth being disproved scores of times, but the myth persists.

For example, on March 14 Bank of America/Merrill Lynch reported that “yesterday US markets started the day off with a strong rally after the solid retail sales report. . . . tailwinds are helping boost global equity markets today.”

The “solid retail sales report” for February consists of a 1% nominal gain. That is, the increase is not deflated by the month’s inflation rate, which will be released on March 16. In other words, if very much of the 1% nominal gain in retail sales is due to higher prices, the inflation adjusted gain will not be statistically significant. The “rational market” took off without waiting to find out whether the gain was real.

Moreover, as statistician John Williams has established, the official Consumer Price Index (CPI) understates inflation. If an honest measure of inflation was used, retail sales could be in negative territory.

The “rational market” loves deception as long as it provides an excuse for equities to rise. The Federal Reserve’s focus on “core inflation,” which does not include rising food and energy prices, allows Federal Reserve officials to maintain that the inflation rate remains below target. By pretending that there is no inflation, the Federal Reserve continues to support banks with near zero interest rates while depriving savers and retirees of interest income. With no income from savings, people are forced to consume their capital. Thus, the Federal Reserve’s policy makes bankers richer and the country poorer.

Meanwhile, those whose old age security is based on pensions are confronting insecurity. Many with private pensions were harmed by the financial crisis. Those dependent on Social Security and Medicare are finding that these programs are being blamed for budget deficits caused by multi-trillion dollar wars of choice. Those expecting pensions from state and local governments are finding that governments are unable to make good on underfunded pension benefits.

State and local governments counted on a growing economy and rising consumer incomes to provide the tax base to make good on underfunded pensions. These governments did not foresee that US corporations would destroy their tax base by moving manufacturing, engineering, IT, research and design jobs overseas. The absence of growth in real incomes for the vast majority of the people and the capture of productivity gains by capital at the expense of labor have added to the budget woes of most state and local governments.

John Rauh at Northwestern University estimates that the unfunded obligations of state and local governments amounts to $4,400,000,000,000, an amount that is within the ballpark of Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes’ estimate of the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Money that could have saved Americans’ pensions instead was allocated to profits for armament corporations and to advance Israel’s territorial hegemony.

When the Occupy Wall Street movement says that Washington rules for the benefit of the 1%, OWS is not far off the mark.

A Toxic System

An Inside Glimpse Into the Nefarious Operations of Goldman Sachs
by DARWIN BOND-GRAHAM

Goldman Sachs employee Greg Smith’s very public resignation, replete with a pointed letter published in the New York Times yesterday, has landed upon the investment bank like a bomb. Slamming a “toxic and destructive environment” within Goldman Sachs, Smith says the firm’s internal culture has devolved to the point where the entire staff not only tolerates, but expects workers at all levels, from senior partners to associates, to pursue nothing but ever-more sophisticated means of “ripping their clients off.”

Apologists for the financial sector —including the editors of the major business newspapers and television networks— predictably have shot back with a flurry columns and reports, mostly designed to discredit the former vice president by making fun of Smith and his concerns. If you strip away the ad hominem layers to these responses though, the core problems raised by Smith remain, and the reaction of the business press seems all the more absurd, for Goldman’s pesky turncoat isn’t saying anything that’s news to the public: Goldman Sachs is characterized by a toxic culture of greed? Stop the presses!

There is much more to be said about Goldman Sachs’ derivatives operation, however, and Smith’s provocative resignation provides an opportunity because he was working in the belly of it.

At the center of Smith’s critique are derivatives, the arcane financial instruments that transformed the world’s splintered national economies and regional banking systems into a single, if complicated, global system. Evangelists of derivatives claim they have made new heights of economic growth, trade, and prosperity possible. Critics have pointed out since the beginning of the derivatives boom in the 1980s how perfectly suited they are to fraud and systemic catastrophe via the greed of the few and the powerful.

Derivatives, many close observers have reminded us, were at the center the Enron meltdown, the demise of Long Term Capital Management, the Asian Financial Crisis, and most recently the Great Recession and its various flares, from the housing bubble that exploded from junked collateralized debt obligations, to the current Greek debt imbroglio and the credit default swaps haunting the background. In each case, and many less-known fiascos, derivatives traders in Wall Street’s leading banks played key roles either as the major villains, or enabling partners in vast crimes of information, leverage, and risk. Time and again we find derivatives at the center of scandalous greed. Now we have a high-profile banker denouncing not just some bad apples in his firm, but the firm’s entire culture.

There’s a deeper and more disturbing truth still further below the surface though. To get there it’s instructive to know a little more about Goldman’s derivatives operation, and the wider industry of which Goldman is a small part.

Who are the clients on the receiving end of Goldman’s “toxic and destructive” tendencies? Many times the victims have been other corporations, industrial firms with less sophisticated and perhaps naive financial officers. Quite often though the victims of Goldman’s derivatives operation have been cities, counties, and local government agencies. A key client category for derivatives has been large local governments and agencies that issue hefty sums of long-term debt.

Goldman, and the handful of other global banks that dominate the derivatives industry, sold local governments on the idea that a particular set of derivative products could provide wondrous solutions to hedge against the risks inherent in issuing long term debt. The banks claimed that interest rate swaps could shield counties, cities, and agencies from possible spikes in floating interest rates attached to their bonds. Thus many governments agreed to complex, multi-decade deals involving the swapping of payments on fictive amounts of money associated with real debt. In no time at all interest rate swaps became the single largest category of derivatives, dwarfing all others.

Today interest rate swaps make up 82% of the total market in derivatives, measured by total notional amounts. This is partly the result of governments all over the world entering into interest rate swaps, agreeing to tie cash flows to trillions of notional dollars. What’s key is that none of this has required duplicity or reckless greed on the part of bankers at Goldman Sachs or other firms. Let’s be clear; this is a structural transformation of capitalism on a global scale, and it has sucked up all corporate and government entities into the new logic of hedging and efficiency. That a few powerful financial corporations have placed themselves in strategic positions to benefit from this structural shift should come as no surprise.

In California’s Bay Area multiple governments have come to find themselves on the paying end Goldman’s derivatives department where apparently traders referred to clients as “muppets.” The most obvious example is the city of Oakland where a chronic budget crisis has led to the shuttering of schools and cuts to elder services, housing, and public safety. Oakland signed an interest rate swap with Goldman in 1997. The terms of the deal, revised once in 2003, were typical of interest rate swaps except that Oakland’s financial officers, based on this author’s research and impressions, seem to have agreed to a somewhat higher fixed rate obligation than most other cities that signed swap deals for similar amounts of debt with comparable ratings. Oakland partly did this, I am guessing, to receive upfront payments of roughly $5 and $10 million from Goldman Sachs, cash that the city wished to have on hand immediately. The bank seemed eager to do this because the original terms, and renegotiated terms in 2003, were much to its favor. It would earn the $15 million back, and then some over the twenty-four year life of the swap.

Across the Bay, Goldman Sachs signed an interest rate swap agreement with the San Francisco International Airport in 2007 to hedge $143 million in debt. Today this agreement has a negative value to the Airpot of about $22 million, even though its terms were much better than those Oakland agreed to. The Airport, like Oakland, must now pay millions each year to Goldman Sachs until the agreement expires, or until the floating LIBOR interest rate rises enough to offset the net balance of payments. Goldman sold derivatives up and down California and across the United States to cities, counties, and agencies, promising them a means of reducing debt payments over the long haul.

Business press pundits who are now slamming Smith say it’s absurd to expect that Goldman Sachs was doing anything less than trying to make money off these deals, and that counter-parties to the firm’s dealings knew well what they were signing up for. This mischaracterizes the entire problem, however, and threatens to steer the conversation into a narrow, and politically irrelevant one about whether Goldman Sachs is or isn’t a den of fraud.

When governments signed up for interest rate swap deals with Goldman Sachs they certainly did know that the bank would be making money off the agreement, first in the form of up-front fees, and then off of savings produced by the pairing of comparative advantages in debt markets that interest rate swaps are designed to achieve. If you don’t understand that last point, don’t worry. What it means simply is that Goldman Sachs sold interest rate swap products to governments by promising to both protect a government against interest rate volatility, and to also likely reduce the overall long-term cost of borrowing money. It was supposed to be a win-win game.

The truly impressive thing about the whole derivatives market is that it is supposed to ratchet up the efficiency of the entire global economy, making dollars go much further, protecting all parties from volatility, transcending previous market barriers and smoothening flows of cash… at least in theory. The theory seemed to be working in the 1990s and through most of the 2000s. Goldman didn’t have to convince anyone of this for the results were plain to see.

That is hasn’t panned out in practice, that the whole derivatives-based economy nearly collapsed in 2008 and continues to falter, isn’t so much the result of Goldman’s toxic culture of greed as it is the outcome of a much more troubling feature of our economic system. While I agree with Smith’s observation —which is important because it’s based on insider knowledge— that Goldman Sachs is an especially predatory corporation, I see a larger pattern of power relations embodied in the new economy, structured as it is by derivatives, that isn’t based on any specific firm’s internal culture or corruption, or the supposed naivety and stupidity of financial officers in government and less profitable sectors of the economy.

Consider the fact that Goldman Sachs isn’t even the biggest fish in the pond, nor is it profiting the most from the blizzard of derivative products that structure the capitalist economy today. Of the five financial corporations that “dominate in derivatives,” as the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency puts it, Goldman Sachs ranks fourth, behind by Bank of America, Citibank, and far behind the absolute king of derivatives, JP Morgan Chase.

In February JP Morgan Chase let slip that it cleared $1.4 billion in revenue on trading interest rate swaps in 2011, making these instruments one of the bank’s biggest sources of profit. According to some reports, JP Morgan Chase made billions more in 2008 and 2009 when the financial crisis and federal response combined to make floating-to-fixed interest rate swaps into extremely profitable assets for the banks on the floating side of the deal. Similar things can be said for Mogan Stanley, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Bank of New York, and the dozens of smaller interest rate swap peddlers currently profiting from direct transfers of public dollars.

Are all these banks poisoned by toxic cultures of greed? Surely there are similarities in the internal cultures of large banks, and greed and a little sociopathic ability to profit from another’s loss is a professional asset in these sorts of organizations. In contemporary corporate culture the euphemism for this is “competition.”

Toxic culture and greed, or “competitiveness” if you prefer, in the investment banks isn’t a sufficient answer to why derivatives have become the foundation of today’s global economy, however. The criminal activities of some bankers driven by these more pervasive cultures can’t explain the economic crisis and the vast injustices that are being perpetrated still in the name of “economic recovery.” The interest rate swap crisis stinging local governments and enriching the banks is a case in point.

The windfall of revenue accruing to JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and their peers from interest rate swap derivatives is due to nothing other than political decisions that have been made at the federal level to allow these deals to run their course, even while benchmark interest rates, influenced by the Federal Reserve’s rate setting, and determined many of these same banks (the London Interbank Offered Rate, LIBOR) linger close to zero. These political decisions have determined that virtually all interest rate swaps between local and state governments and the largest banks have turned into perverse contracts whereby cities, counties, school districts, water agencies, airports, transit authorities, and hospitals pay millions yearly to the few elite banks that run the global financial system, for nothing meaningful in return. These perfectly legal cash flows measuring globally in the hundreds of billions, from the public to the banks, dwarf anything that is the result to fraud.

Back when the economy was in a “normal” stasis of growth, the early and mid-2000s, interest rate swaps and other derivatives promised security against risk, and a new vista for capitalism and public finance. Tellingly, when the crisis struck, swaps were allowed to become a one way flow of funds from the public to the banks. This shadow bailout for the banks has done considerable damage to already cash-strapped local governments suffering from declines in tax revenues and federal aid.

Whether Goldman Sachs is or isn’t an organization gripped by a toxic culture isn’t all that important when one considers the destructive impact that derivatives have had, and continue to have upon society. Capitalism as it functions today is completely dependent upon derivatives. Interest rates swaps are the single largest type of derivative, measured by notional amount, because they achieve an integration of different national, regional, and sectoral financial markets into one global financial system. It’s in the genetics of the project of financial globalization, fueled by derivatives, that the real problem lies, not in the internal culture of Goldman Sachs, or the illegal behaviors of some bankers across many firms. The real crime lies in perfectly legal and legitimated activities whereby a few powerful corporations design a system that puts the welfare of the world’s vast majority at grave risk. It’s the system that’s toxic. Goldman Sachs merely operates well within the toxicity.

Nevertheless, Greg Smith’s effort to pull back the curtain on one of the most nefarious and powerful corporations in history is most welcomed, especially for the deeper conversations it can stoke about the origins of the current crisis.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

The bank has defrauded everyone from investors and insurers to homeowners and the unemployed. So why does the government keep bailing it out?
by: Matt Taibbi ~ Rolling Stone

Illustration by Victor Juhasz
At least Bank of America got its name right. The ultimate Too Big to Fail bank really is America, a hyper-gluttonous ward of the state whose limitless fraud and criminal conspiracies we'll all be paying for until the end of time. Did you hear about the plot to rig global interest rates? The $137 million fine for bilking needy schools and cities? The ingenious plan to suck multiple fees out of the unemployment checks of jobless workers? Take your eyes off them for 10 seconds and guaranteed, they'll be into some shit again: This bank is like the world's worst-behaved teenager, taking your car and running over kittens and fire hydrants on the way to Vegas for the weekend, maxing out your credit cards in the three days you spend at your aunt's funeral. They're out of control, yet they'll never do time or go out of business, because the government remains creepily committed to their survival, like overindulgent parents who refuse to believe their 40-year-old live-at-home son could possibly be responsible for those dead hookers in the backyard.

It's been four years since the government, in the name of preventing a depression, saved this megabank from ruin by pumping $45 billion of taxpayer money into its arm. Since then, the Obama administration has looked the other way as the bank committed an astonishing variety of crimes – some elaborate and brilliant in their conception, some so crude that they'd be beneath your average street thug. Bank of America has systematically ripped off almost everyone with whom it has a significant business relationship, cheating investors, insurers, depositors, homeowners, shareholders, pensioners and taxpayers. It brought tens of thousands of Americans to foreclosure court using bogus, "robo-signed" evidence – a type of mass perjury that it helped pioneer. It hawked worthless mortgages to dozens of unions and state pension funds, draining them of hundreds of millions in value. And when it wasn't ripping off workers and pensioners, it was helping to push insurance giants like AMBAC into bankruptcy by fraudulently inducing them to spend hundreds of millions insuring those same worthless mortgages.

But despite being the very definition of an unaccountable corporate villain, Bank of America is now bigger and more dangerous than ever. It controls more than 12 percent of America's bank deposits (skirting a federal law designed to prohibit any firm from controlling more than 10 percent), as well as 17 percent of all American home mortgages. By looking the other way and rewarding the bank's bad behavior with a massive government bailout, we actually allowed a huge financial company to not just grow so big that its collapse would imperil the whole economy, but to get away with any and all crimes it might commit. Too Big to Fail is one thing; it's also far too corrupt to survive.

All the government bailouts succeeded in doing was to make the bank even more prone to catastrophic failure – and now that catastrophe might finally be at hand. Bank of America's share price has plunged into the single digits, and the bank faces battles in courtrooms all over America to avoid paying back the hundreds of billions it stole from everyone in sight. Its credit rating, already downgraded to a few rungs above junk status, could plummet with the next bad analyst report, causing a frenzied rush to the exits by creditors, investors and stockholders – an institutional run on the bank.

They're in deep trouble, but they won't die, because our current president, like the last one, apparently believes it's better to project a false image of financial soundness than to allow one of our oligarchic banks to collapse under the weight of its own corruption. Last year, the Federal Reserve allowed Bank of America to move a huge portfolio of dangerous bets into a side of the company that happens to be FDIC-insured, putting all of us on the hook for as much as $55 trillion in irresponsible gambles. Then, in February, the Justice Department's so-called foreclosure settlement, which will supposedly provide $26 billion in relief for ripped-off homeowners, actually rewarded the bank with a legal waiver that will allow it to escape untold billions in lawsuits. And this month the Fed will release the results of its annual stress test, in which the bank will once again be permitted to perpetuate its fiction of solvency by grossly overrating the mountains of toxic loans on its books. At this point, the rescue effort is so sweeping and elaborate that it goes far beyond simply gouging the tax dollars of millions of struggling families, many of whom have already been ripped off by the bank – it's making the government, and by extension all of us, full-blown accomplices to the fraud.

Anyone who wants to know what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about need only look at the way Bank of America does business. It comes down to this: These guys are some of the very biggest assholes on Earth. They lie, cheat and steal as reflexively as addicts, they laugh at people who are suffering and don't have money, they pay themselves huge salaries with money stolen from old people and taxpayers – and on top of it all, they completely suck at banking. And yet the state won't let them go out of business, no matter how much they deserve it, and it won't slap them in jail, no matter what crimes they commit. That makes them not bankers or capitalists, but a class of person that was never supposed to exist in America: royalty.

Self-appointed royalty, it's true – but just as dumb and inbred as the real thing, and every bit as expensive to support. Like all royals, they reached their position in society by being relentlessly dedicated to the cause of Bigness, Unaccountability and the Worthlessness of Others. And just like royals, they spend most of their lives getting deeper in debt, and laughing every year when our taxes go to covering their whist markers. Two and a half centuries after we kicked out the British, it's really come to this?
***
Bank of America started out in San Francisco in 1904 as an emblem of American capitalism. Founded by a first-generation Italian-American named Amadeo Giannini – it was even originally called the Bank of Italy – the bank set out to serve immigrants denied credit by other banks, and it was instrumental in helping to rebuild the city after the devastating earthquake of 1906.

But like many of the truly bad ideas in history, the present-day version of Bank of America was the product of a testosterone overdose. The concept of an overmassive, acquiring-everything-in-sight, bicoastal megabank was hatched in the terminal inferiority complex of a greed-sick asshole – actually two greed-sick assholes, both of them CEOs of Southern regional banks, who launched a cartoonish arms race of bank acquisitions that would ultimately turn the American business world upside down.

The antagonists were Hugh McColl Jr. and Ed Crutchfield, the respective leaders of North Carolina National Bank (which would take over Bank of America) and First Union (which turned into Wachovia), both based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Obsessed with each other, these two men transformed their personal competition into one of the most ridiculous and elaborate penis-measuring contests in the history of American business – even engaging in the garish Freudian spectacle of vying to see who would have the tallest skyscraper in Charlotte. First Union kicked things off in 1971 by erecting the 32-story Jefferson First Union Tower, then the biggest building in town – until McColl's bank built the 40-story NCNB Plaza in 1974. Then, in the late Eighties, Crutchfield topped McColl with the city's first post­modern high-rise, One First Union Center, at 42 stories. That held the prize until 1992, when McColl went haywire and put up the hideous 60-story Bank of America Corporate Center, a giant slab of gray metal affectionately known around Charlotte as the "Taj McColl." When asked by reporters if he was pleased that his 60-story monster overwhelmed his rival's 42-story weenie, McColl didn't hesitate. "Do I prefer having the tall one?" he said. "Yes."

For a time, this ridiculous rivalry between two strutting Southern peacocks was restrained by the law – specifically, the McFadden-Pepper Act of 1927 and the Douglas Amendment to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. These two federal statutes, which made it illegal for a bank holding company to own and operate banks in more than one state, were effectively designed to prevent exactly the Too Big to Fail problem we now find ourselves faced with. The goal, as Sen. Paul Douglas explained at the time, was "to prevent an undue concentration of banking and financial power, and instead keep the private control of credit diffused as much as possible."

But these laws didn't sit well with Hugh McColl. To him, size was everything. "We realized that if we didn't leave North Carolina," he explained later in his career, "we would never amount to anything – that we would not be important." Note that he didn't say the ban on expansion prevented him from turning a profit or earning good returns for his shareholders – only that it put a limit on his sense of self-importance. So McColl and his banking minions set out to break down the interstate banking laws. First, in 1981, they used a legal loophole in Florida law to buy a bank branch there – evading the federal ban on out-of-state owners. Then, following a Supreme Court decision in 1985 that allowed banks to cross state lines within a designated region, he and Crutchfield went on a conquering spree worthy of a Mongol horde, buying up a host of banks in other Southern states. McColl, a silver-haired ex-Marine who would eventually be celebrated for bringing a "military approach" to his business, went to ridiculous lengths to play up the manly conquest aspect of his bank's merger frenzy, rewarding key employees with crystal hand grenades. By 1995, McColl had acquired more than 200 banks and thrifts across the South, while Crutchfield had snapped up 50.

A few years later, after Congress repealed most of the barriers to interstate banking, McColl took over Bank of America, realizing his dream of creating what one trade publication called "the first ocean-to-ocean bank in the nation's history." Later, after McColl retired, his successors kept up his acquisitive legacy, buying notorious mortgage lender Countrywide Financial in 2008, and using some of the $25 billion in federal bailout funds they received to acquire dying investment bank Merrill Lynch. Both firms were infamous for their exotic gambles and their systematic cutting of regulatory corners – meaning that the shopping spree had burdened Bank of America with a huge portfolio of doomed trades and criminal conspiracies.

But to McColl, it was all worth it – because he would never have been important if he hadn't also been big. "I have no regrets about building it large," he said in 2010, when asked if he considered all the monster consolidations a mistake in light of the crash of 2008. "I may have some regrets about not building it larger."

This deeply American terror of not always having the absolutely hugest dick in the room is what put us in the inescapable box called Too Big to Fail. When the bailouts were dreamed up to save Bank of America, the government was essentially committing public resources to preserve this lunatic spending spree – which means two successive presidential administrations have now spent nearly half a decade and hundreds of billions of tax dollars defending the premise that Hugh McColl should always be allowed to have the "taller one."

And why? The rationale for allowing that merger spree in the first place was based on a phony assumption: that big banks would somehow be more efficient and more profitable than small ones. "The whole premise of a Citibank or a Chase or a Bank of America is wrongheaded," says Susan Webber, an analyst who writes one of the most popular and respected financial blogs under the pseudo­nym Yves Smith. "Studies consistently show that after a certain size threshold, bank efficiency taps out. In fact, it turns out that all those cost savings the banks were supposed to enjoy from being bigger were actually based on cutting corners and fraud."

And man, what a lot of fraud!
***
In the end, it all comes back to mortgages. Though Bank of America would ultimately be charged with committing a dizzyingly diverse variety of corporate misdeeds, the bulk of the trouble the bank is in today arises from the Great Mortgage Scam of the mid-2000s, which caused the biggest financial bubble in history.

The shorthand version of the scam is by now familiar: Banks and mortgage lenders conspired to create a gigantic volume of very risky home loans, delivering outsize mortgages to dubious borrowers like immigrants without identification, the unemployed and people with poor credit histories. Then the banks took those dicey home loans and sprinkled them with bogus math, using inscrutable financial gizmos like collateralized mortgage obligations to rechristen the risky home loans as high-grade, AAA-rated securities that could be sold off to unions, pensioners, foreign banks, retirement funds and any other suckers the banks could find. In essence, America's financial institutions grew vast fields of cheap oregano, and then went around the world marketing their product as high-grade weed.

The holy trinity of Bank of America, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch represented the worst conceivable team of financial powers to get hold of this scam. It was a little like the Wall Street version of Michael Bay's nonclassic Con Air, in which the world's creepiest serial killer, most demented terrorist and most depraved redneck are all thrown together on the same plane. In this case, it was the most careless mortgage lender (the spray-tanned huckster Angelo Mozilo from Countrywide, who was named the second-worst CEO of all time by Portfolio magazine), the most dangerous mortgage gambler (Merrill, whose CEO was the self-worshipping jerkwad John Thain, the ex-Goldman banker who bought himself an $87,000 area rug as his company was cratering in 2008) and the most relentless packager of mortgage pools (Bank of America), all put together under one roof and let loose on the world. These guys were so corrupt, they even shocked one another: According to a federal lawsuit, top executives at Countrywide complained privately that Bank of America's "appetite for risky products was greater than that of Countrywide."

The three lenders also pioneered ways to sell their toxic pools of mortgages to suckers. Bank of America's typical marketing pitch to a union or a state pension fund involved a double or even triple guarantee. First, it promised, in writing, that all its loans had passed due diligence tests and met its high internal standards. Next, it promised that if any of the loans in the mortgage pool turned out to be defective or in default, it would buy them back. And finally, it assured customers that if all else failed, the pools of mortgages were all insured, or "wrapped," by bond insurers like AMBAC and MBIA.

It sounded like a can't-lose deal. Not only did the bank offer a written guarantee of the high quality of the loans it was selling, it also promised to buy back any bad loans, which were often insured to boot. What could go wrong?

As it turned out, everything. From tits to toes, the mortgage pools created, packaged and sold by Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America were a complete sham: worthless and often falling apart virtually from the day they were delivered.

First of all, despite the fact that the banks had promised that all the loans in their pools met their internal lending standards, that turned out to be completely untrue. An SEC­ investigation later found out, for instance, that Countrywide essentially had no standards for whom to lend to. As a federal judge put it, "Countrywide routinely ignored its official underwriting guidelines to such an extent that Countrywide would underwrite any loan it could sell." Translation: Countrywide gave home loans to anything with a pulse, provided they had a sucker lined up to buy the loan.

How did they make these loans in the first place? By committing every kind of lending fraud imaginable – particularly by entering fake data on home loan applications, magically turning minimum-wage janitors into creditworthy wage earners. In 2006, according to a report by Credit Suisse, a whopping 49 percent of the nation's subprime loans were "liar's loans," meaning that lenders could state the incomes of borrowers without requiring any proof of employment. And no one lied more than Countrywide and Bank of America. In an internal e-mail distributed in June 2006, Countrywide's executives worried that 40 percent of the firm's "reduced documentation loans" potentially had "income overstated by more than 10 percent... and a significant percent of those loans would have income overstated by 50 percent or more."

"What large numbers of Countrywide employees did every day was commit fraud by knowingly making and approving loans they knew borrowers couldn't repay," says William Black, a former federal banking regulator. "To do so, it was essential that the loans be made to appear to be relatively less risky. This required pervasive documentation fraud."

So what happened when institutional investors realized that the loans they had bought from Countrywide were nothing but shams? Instead of buying back the bad loans as promised, and as required by its own contracts, the bank simply refused to answer its phone. A typical transaction involved U.S. Bancorp, which in 2005 served as a trustee for a group of investors that bought 4,484 Countrywide mortgages for $1.75 billion – only to discover their shiny new investment vehicle started throwing rods before they could even drive it off the lot. "Soon after being sold to the Trust," U.S. Bancorp later observed in a lawsuit, "Countrywide's loans began to become delinquent and default at a startling rate." The trustees hired a consultant to examine 786 loans in the pool, and found that an astonishing two-thirds of them were defective in some way. Yet, confronted with the fraud, Countrywide failed to repurchase a single loan, offering "no basis for its refusal."

And what about that ostensible insurance that Bank of America sold with its bundles of mortgages? Well, those policies turned out not to be worth very much, since so many of the loans defaulted that they blew the insurers out of business. If you went bust buying bad mortgages from Bank of America, chances are, so did your insurer. At best, you two could now share a blanket in the poorhouse.

Many of the nation's largest insurers, in fact, are now suing the pants off Bank of America, claiming they were fraudulently induced to insure the bank's "high lending standards." AMBAC, the second-largest bond insurer in America, went bankrupt in 2010 after paying out some $466 million in claims over 35,000 Countrywide home loans. After analyzing a dozen of the mortgage pools, AMBAC found that a staggering 97 percent of the loans didn't meet the stated underwriting standards. That same year, the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, a trade group representing firms like AMBAC, told Bank of America that it should be repurchasing as much as $20 billion in defective mortgages.

Some of these institutional investors were at least partial accomplices to their own downfall. In the boom era of easy money, financial professionals everywhere were chasing the lusciously high yields offered by these bundles of subprime mortgages, and everyone knew the deals weren't exactly risk-free. But ultimately, Bank of America was knowingly selling a defective product – and down the road, that product was bound to blow up on somebody innocent. "A teacher or a fireman goes to work and saves money for their retirement via their pensions," says Manal Mehta, a partner at the hedge fund Branch Hill Capital who spent two years researching Bank of America. "That pension fund buys toxic securities put together by Wall Street that were designed to fail. So when that security blows up, wealth flows directly from that pension fund into the hands of a select few."

This is the crossroads where Bank of America now lives – trying to convince the government to allow it to remain in business, perhaps even asking for another bailout or two, while it avoids paying back untold billions to all of the institutional customers it screwed, the list of which has grown so long as to almost be comical. Last year, the bank settled with a group of pension and retirement funds, including public employees from Mississippi to Los Angeles, that charged Bank of America and Merrill with misrepresenting the value of more than $16 billion in mortgage-backed securities. In the end, the bank paid only $315 million.

In the first half of last year, Bank of America paid $12.7 billion to settle claims brought by defrauded customers. But countless other investors are still howling for Bank of America to take back its counterfeit product. Allstate, the maker of those reassuring Dennis Haysbert-narrated commercials, claims it got stuck with $700 million in defective mortgages from Countrywide. The states of Iowa, Oregon and Maine, as well as the United Methodist Church, are suing Bank of America over fraudulent deals, claiming hundreds of billions in collective losses. And there are similar lawsuits for nonmortgage-related securities, like a revolting sale of doomed municipal securities to the state of Hawaii and Maui County. In that case, Merrill Lynch brokers allegedly dumped $944 million in auction-rate securities on the Hawaiians, even though the brokers knew that the auction-rate market was already going bust. "Market is collapsing," a Merrill executive named John Price admitted in an internal e-mail, before joking about having to give up pricey dinners at a fancy Manhattan restaurant. "No more $2K dinners at CRU!!"

In the end, says Mehta, Bank of America's fraud resulted in "one of the biggest reverse transfers of wealth in history – from pensioners to financiers. What the 99 percent should understand is that Wall Street knowingly inflated the bubble by engaging in rampant mortgage fraud – and then profited from the collapse of their own exuberance by devising a way to shift the losses to countless pension funds, endowments and other innocent investors." The assembled worldwide collection of swindled pensioners and unions and investors is a little like the crowd that storms the basketball court in the Will Ferrell movie Semi-Pro when the home team's owner welshes on his promise to hand out free corn dogs if the score tops 125 points. Corn dogs, Bank of America! Where are the freaking corn dogs!
***
Incredible as it sounds, owing practically everyone in the world billions of dollars apiece is only half of Bank of America's problem. The bank didn't just flee the scene of its various securities rip-offs. It also made a habit out of breaking the law and engaging in ethical lapses on a grand scale, all over the globe. Once your money ends up in their pockets, they just slither off into the night, no matter their legal or professional obligations.

Case in point: With all those hundreds of thousands of mortgages the bank bought, it simply stopped filing basic paperwork – even the stuff required by law, like keeping chains of title. A blizzard of subsequent lawsuits from pissed-off localities reveals that the bank used this systematic scam to avoid paying local fees. Last year, a single county – Dallas County in Texas – sued Bank of America for ducking fees since 1997. "Our research shows it could be more than $100 million," Craig Watkins, the county's district attorney, told reporters. Think of that next time your county leaves a road unpaved, or is forced to raise property taxes to keep the schools open.

But the lack of paperwork also presented a problem for the bank: When it needed to foreclose on someone, it had no evidence to take to court. So Bank of America unleashed a practice called robo-signing, which essentially involved drawing up fake documents for court procedures. Two years ago, a Bank of America robo-signer named Renee Hertzler gave a deposition in which she admitted not only to creating as many as 8,000 legal affidavits a month, but also to signing documents with a fake title.

Yet here's how seriously fucked the financial markets are: Even the most vocal critics of Bank of America consider the mass, factory-style production of tens of thousands of fake legal documents per month not that big a deal. "Robo-signing is like focusing on Bernie Madoff's accountant," quips April Charney, a well-known foreclosure lawyer who has spent large chunks of the past two decades in battle with Bank of America.

Robo-signing is not the disease – it's a symptom of Bank of America's entire attitude toward the law. A bank that's willing to commit whole departments to inventing legal affidavits might also, for instance, intentionally ding depositors with bogus overdraft fees. (A class action suit accused Bank of America of heisting some $4.5 billion from its customers this way; the bank settled the suit for a mere 10 cents on the dollar.)

Or it might give up trying to win government contracts honestly and get involved with rigging municipal bids – a mobster's crime, for which the accused used to do serious time, back when the bids were for construction and garbage instead of municipal bonds, and the defendants were Eye-talians in gold chains instead of Ivy Leaguers in ties and Chanel glasses. We now know that Bank of America routinely conspired with other banks to make sure it paid low prices for the privilege of managing the moneys of various cities and towns. If the city of Baltimore or the University of Mississippi or the Guam Power Authority issued bonds to raise money, the bank would huddle up with the likes of Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley and decide whose "turn" it was to win the bid. Bank of America paid a $137 million fine for its sabotage of the government-contracting process – and in an attempt to avoid prosecution, it applied to the Justice Department's corporate leniency program, essentially confessing its criminal status: As plaintiff attorneys noted, the application "means that Bank of America is an admitted felon." Think about that when you hear about all the bailouts the bank has gotten in the past four years. A street felon who gets out of jail can't even vote in some states – and yet Bank of America is allowed to receive billions in federal aid and dominate the electoral process with campaign contributions?

Some of the bank's other collusive schemes are even more ambitious. Last year, the bank was sued, alongside some of its competitors, for conspiring to rig the London Interbank Offered Rate. Many adjustable-rate financial products are based on LIBOR – so if the big banks could get together and artificially lower the rate, they would pay out less to customers who bought those products. "About $350 trillion worth of financial products globally reference LIBOR," says one antitrust lawyer familiar with the case. "Which means," she adds in a striking understatement, "that the scale of this conspiracy is extremely large."

What's most striking in all of these scams is the corporate culture of Bank of America: These guys are just dicks. Time and again, they go out of their way to fleece their own customers, without a trace of remorse. In classic con-artist behavior, Bank of America even tried to rip off homeowners a second time by gaming President Obama's HAMP program, which was designed to aid families who had already been victimized by the banks. In a lawsuit filed last year, homeowners claim they were asked to submit a mountain of paperwork before receiving a modified loan – only to have the bank misplace the documents when it was time to pay up. "The vast majority tell us the same thing," says Steve Berman, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "Bank of America claims to have lost their paperwork, failed to return phone calls, made false claims about the status of their loans and even took actions toward foreclosure without informing homeowners of their options." The scheme allowed the bank to bleed struggling homeowners for a few last desperate months by holding out the carrot of federal aid they would never receive.

Even when caught red-handed and nailed by courts for behavior like this, Bank of America has remained smugly unrepentant. As part of an $8.4 billion settlement it entered into with multiple states over predatory lending practices, the bank agreed to provide homeowners with modified loans and promised not to raise rates on borrowers. But no sooner was the deal signed than the bank "materially and almost immediately violated" the terms, according to Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. It not only jacked up rates on homeowners, it even instituted a policy punishing any bank employee who spent more than 10 minutes helping a victim get a loan modification.

The bank's list of victims goes on and on. The disabled? Just a few weeks ago, the government charged Bank of America with violating the Fair Housing Act by illegally requiring proof of disability from people who rely on disability income to make their mortgage payments. Minorities? Last December, the bank settled with the Justice Department for $335 million over Countrywide's practice of dumping risky subprime loans on qualified black and Hispanic borrowers. The poor? In South Carolina, Bank of America won a contract to distribute unemployment benefits through prepaid debit cards – and then charged multiple fees to jobless folk who had the gall to withdraw their money from anywhere other than a Bank of America ATM. Seriously, who hasn't this bank conspired to defraud? Puppies? One-eyed Sri Lankans?

Bank of America likes to boast that it has changed its ways, replacing many of the top executives who helped create the mortgage bubble. But the man promoted from within to lead the new team, CEO Brian Moynihan, is just as loathsome and tone-deaf as his previous bosses. As befits a new royal, Moynihan defended a plan to gouge all debit-card users with $5 fees by citing his divine privilege: "We have a right to make a profit." And despite the bank's litany of crimes, Moynihan seems to think we're just overreacting. After all, he gives to charities! "I get a little incensed when you think about how much good all of you do, whether it's volunteer hours, charitable giving we do, serving clients and customers well," he told employees last October. Then, addressing would-be protesters: "You ought to think a little about that before you start yelling at us."

In sum, Bank of America torched dozens of institutional investors with billions in worthless loans, repeatedly refused to abide by contractual obligations to buy them back, evaded hundreds of millions in local fees and taxes, pushed tens of thousands of people into foreclosure using phony documents, ignored multiple court orders to stop its illegal robo-signing, and exploited President Obama's signature mortgage-relief program. The bank fixed the bids on bonds for schools and cities and utilities all over America, and even conspired to try to game the game itself – by fixing global interest rates!

So what does the government do about a rogue firm like this, one that inflates market-wrecking bubbles, commits mass fraud and generally treats the law like its own personal urinal cake? Well, it goes without saying that you rescue that "admitted felon" at all costs – even if you have to spend billions in taxpayer money to do it.
***
Bank of America should have gone out of business back in 2008. Just as the mortgage market was crashing, it made an inconceivably stupid investment in subprime mortgages, acquiring Countrywide and the billions in potential lawsuits that came with it. "They tried to catch a falling knife and lost their hand and foot in the process," says Joshua Rosner, a noted financial analyst. It then spent $50 billion buying a firm, Merrill Lynch, that was rife with billions in debts. With those two anchors on its balance sheet, Hugh McColl's bicoastal dream bank should have gone the way of the dinosaur.

But it didn't. Instead, in the midst of the crash, the government forked over $45 billion in aid to Bank of America – $20 billion as an incentive to bring its cross-eyed bride Merrill Lynch to the altar, and another $25 billion as part of the overall TARP bailout. In addition, the government agreed to guarantee $118 billion in Bank of America debt.

So what did the bank do with that money? First, it sat by while lame-duck executives at Merrill paid themselves $3.6 billion in bonuses – even though Merrill lost more than $27 billion that year. In all, 696 executives received more than $1 million each for helping to crash the storied firm. (The bank wound up hit with a $150 million fine for its failure to inform shareholders about the Merrill losses and bonuses.) Bank of America, meanwhile, paid out more than $3.3 billion in bonuses to itself, including more than $1 million each to 172 executives.

In fact, the real bailouts of Bank of America didn't even begin until well after TARP. In the years since the crash, the bank has issued more than $44 billion in FDIC-insured debt through a little-known Federal Reserve plan called the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. The plan essentially allows companies whose credit ratings are fucked to borrow against the government's good name – and if the loans aren't paid back, the government is on the hook for all of it. Bank of America has also stayed afloat by constantly borrowing billions in low-­interest emergency loans from the Fed – part of $7.7 trillion in "secret" loans that were not disclosed by the central bank until last year. When the data was finally released, we found out that, on just one day in 2008, Bank of America owed the Fed a staggering $86 billion.

That means that when you take out a credit card or a mortgage or a refinancing from Bank of America, you're essentially borrowing from the state; the "private" bank is simply taking a cut as a middleman. "For banks, the cost of capital is the key to success," says former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. "So by lowering their cost of capital to almost zero, the Fed has almost guaranteed that the banks will make big profits."

Another public lifeline is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant, nationalized mortgage lenders. Need to make some cash? Toss a bunch of home loan applications onto a city street, then sell the resulting mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, which are basically a gigantic pile of public money guarded by second-rate managers. Just like the state pensions in Iowa and Maine and Missis­sippi, Fannie and Freddie were targeted for sales of toxic mortgages, and just like those entities, they have sued Bank of America, claiming they were suckered into buying more than $30 billion in shitty securities. But unlike those other suckers, Fannie and Freddie continued to buy crap loans from Bank of America even after it was clear they'd been hoodwinked. Last year, the bank created more than $156 billion in mortgages – nearly $38 billion of which were bought by Fannie. Having the government as an ever-ready customer, standing by to buy mortgages at full retail prices, has always been an ongoing hidden bailout to the banks.

But even the government has its limits. In February, Fannie announced it would no longer keep blindly buying mortgages from Bank of America. Why? Because the bank, already slow to buy back its defective mortgages, had gotten even slower. By the end of last year, the government reported, more than half of all the crappy loans that Fannie wanted to return came from a single bad bank – Bank of America.

But if you think that Fannie cutting off the bank is good news, think again. If it can't get the money it's owed from Bank of America, it'll just go begging to the Treasury. Fannie has already asked for $4.5 billion to cover losses this year – and if Bank of America doesn't pony up, it'll have to reach even deeper into our pockets, making for yet another shadow bailout to the firm.

It gets worse. Last fall, some of the bank's biggest creditors and counterparties started to get nervous about the mountain of toxic bets still sitting on Merrill Lynch's books – a generation of ill-considered, complex, exotic derivative trades, bets on bets on bets on shaky subprime mortgages, sitting there on the company balance sheet, waiting to explode. Nobody felt good lending Bank of America money with that dangerous shitpile lying there. So they asked the bank to move a chunk of that mess from Merrill Lynch onto Bank of America's own balance sheet. Why? Because Bank of America is a federally insured depository institution. Which means that the FDIC, and by extension you and me, is now on the hook for as much as $55 trillion in potential losses. Black, the former regulator, calls the transfer an "obscenity. As a regulator, I would have never allowed it. Transferring risk to the insured institution crosses the reddest of red lines."
***
But by far the biggest bailout to Bank of America has come via the sweetheart deals it cut to settle the massive lawsuits filed against it. Some of the deals, which were brokered by the Justice Department and state attorneys general, allowed the bank to get away with paying pennies on the dollar on its mountains of debt. Worst of all was the recent $26 billion foreclosure settlement involving Bank of America and four other major firms. The deal, in which the banks agreed to pay cash to screwed-over homeowners in exchange for immunity from federal prosecution on robo-signing issues, was hailed as a big multibillion-dollar bite out of the banks. President Obama was all but strutting over his beatdown of Wall Street. "We are Americans, and we look out for one another; we get each other's backs," he declared. "We're going to make sure that banks live up to their end of the bargain."

In fact, the government has a lousy track record when it comes to enforcing settlements. The foreclosure deal arrives on the heels of an $8.4 billion investor settlement, whose provisions Bank of America had already been accused of violating, raising rates and abusing homeowners as soon as the deal was struck. The bank also violated a previous settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, illegally slapping $36 million in fees on struggling homeowners after specifically agreeing not to do so. So Bank of America's reward for blowing off its previous settlements for mistreating homeowners was to get another soft-touch deal from the government, which they will presumably be just as free to ignore. Why? Because while state officials have ultimate enforcement authority over the foreclosure settlement, the early enforcement reviews will be handled by "internal quality control groups." In other words, Bank of America itself will be grading its own compliance!

Even if Bank of America coughs up its share of the $26 billion settlement, the deal is woefully inadequate to address the wider fraud that went on in creating and pooling mortgages. "It's like handing a box of tissues to someone whose immune system has been destroyed by AIDS," says Rosner. "It doesn't come close to addressing the scale of the problem." Many Wall Street observers think that without the waiver from federal prosecution provided by the settlement, Bank of America would have faced billions in lawsuits for robo-signing offenses alone.

Oh, and one more thing, since we're talking about avoiding bills: Bank of America didn't pay a dime in federal taxes last year. Or the year before. In fact, they got a $1 billion refund last year. They claimed it was because they had pretax losses of $5.4 billion in 2010. They paid out $35 billion in bonuses and compensation that year. You do the math.

And here's the biggest scam of all: After all that help – all the billions in bailouts, the tens of billions in Fed loans, the hundreds of billions in legal damages made to disappear, the untold billions more of unpaid bills and buybacks – Bank of America is still failing. In December, the bank's share price dipped below $5, and after being cut off by Fannie in February, the bank announced a truly shameless plan to jack up fees for depositors by as much as $25 a month – what one market analyst called a "measure of last resort."

The company reported positive earnings last year, with net income of $84 million, but analysts aren't convinced. David Trainer, a MarketWatch commentator, switched his rating of Bank of America to "very dangerous" in part because its accounting is wildly optimistic. Among other things, the bank's projections assume a growth rate of 20 percent every year for the next 18 years. What's more, the bank has set aside only $8.5 billion for buybacks of those crap corn-dog loans from enraged customers – even though some analysts think the number should be much higher, perhaps as high as $27 billion. Because more lawsuits are so likely, says Mehta, it's "virtually impossible to decipher if Bank of America requires more equity, or even another tax­payer bailout."

But the only number that really matters is this one: $37 billion. That's the total bonus and compensation pool this broke-ass, state-dependent, owing-everybody-in-sight bank paid out to its employees last year. This, in essence, is the business model underlying Too Big to Fail: massive growth based on huge volumes of high-risk loans, coupled with lots of fraud and cutting corners, followed by huge payouts to executives. Then, with the company on the verge of collapse, the inevitable state rescue. In this whole picture, the only money that's ever "real" is the fat bonuses the executives cash out of the bank at the end of each year. "Fraud is a sure thing," says Black. "The firm fails, unless it is bailed out, but the controlling officers walk away wealthy."

The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill approved by Congress last year was supposed to fix the problem of Too Big to Fail, giving the government the power to take over and disband troubled megafirms instead of bailing them out. "The way to cut our Gordian financial knot is simple," MIT economist Simon Johnson wrote in The New York Times. "Force the big banks to become smaller." But few in the financial community believe that will ever happen. "If Bank of America crashes, the first thing that would happen is Dodd-Frank would be revealed as a fraud," says Rosner. "The Fed and the Treasury would ask Congress for a bailout to 'save the economy.' It's the worst-kept secret on Wall Street."

In a pure capitalist system, an institution as moronic and corrupt as Bank of America would be swiftly punished by the market – the executives would get to loot their own firms once, then they'd be looking for jobs again. But with the limitless government support of Too Big to Fail, these failing financial giants get to stay undead forever, continually looting the taxpayer, their depositors, their shareholders and anyone else they can get their hands on. The threat posed by Bank of America isn't just financial – it's a full-blown assault on the American dream. Where's the incentive to play fair and do well, when what we see rewarded at the highest levels of society is failure, stupidity, incompetence and meanness? If this is what winning in our system looks like, who doesn't want to be a loser? Throughout history, it's precisely this kind of corrupt perversion that has given birth to countercultural revolutions. If failure can't fail, the rest of us can never succeed.