Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Thursday, November 20, 2014

The Economist: Ukraine's economy is in the toilet

"Few people know that Ukraine is the world’s most unequal country, if you look at wealth (not income). The second-most unequal is Russia," noted The Economist.

And few people know that Ukraine's Maidan Revolution was not about the Russian language, or even about signing an agreement with the EU. It was about systemic corruption and political cronyism that was slowly yet unstoppably choking the life out of the economy, chasing out foreign investment and the country's best and brightest, and depriving a whole generation of smart, ambitious young Ukrainians of any kind of future where their hard work and merit could better their station in life.  

Russia's president Vladimir Putin cannot let the Maidan Revolution succeed in stamping out corruption and reforming the economy. Now he is perfectly content to let Ukraine be a freezing economic and political basket case with a Russian-fomented "frozen conflict" in its eastern Donbas region.


By C.W.
November 20, 2014 | The Economist

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Skibinskiy: Russia - a 'failed, mafia state' - sees Ukraine's break as 'existential threat'

(HT: NK). Here are links to two blog posts (Part 1 and Part 2) by a Russian emigre Max Skibinskiy who works in Silicon Valley.  They're long so I'm going to highlight the best parts. Here's from Part 1, about Russia today [emphasis mine]:

Russia was and is a failed state. What is seen from the outside is just a facade imitating a functional country and government. High oil prices, residual infrastructure of USSR and internal mass propaganda machine maintained the illusion for more than a decade.

[...]   In simple terms, Russia is a mafia state. All the way from Moscow to regions and to small towns, everything is controlled by various mafia gangs. Police and judiciary are parts of most powerful gangs. They usually assist in extortion or theft of property earned by local small and medium size businessmen. Big business is subject to federal mafia clan wars.

The mafia-state formation is logical consequence of Russian economy: it is totally dominated by oil and gas revenues. Oil, gas and derivatives provide meaningful employment to about 1M people. Russian population is about 150M. How do they survive? The majority depends on various forms of government handouts.

With Russian-style oil production you don’t have to think, innovate or even hire smart people. All you have to do is to cash the check. Gazprom is ranked as one of the most grossly inefficient enterprises in the world. So what happens when a small, totally incompetent minority controls country-wide oil rent while the rest of 149 million people are a burden? The answer is obvious: that 1M would create a mafia state to keep the rest of 149M in check by means of police and judiciary abuse and mass propaganda.

Russian propaganda machine is vast, it now exceeds the one of Soviet Union. 

About the degradation of the Russian population:

The population at large is, statistically speaking, not very bright. Many are deranged from overuse of alcohol or drugs.  A big number are simply aging elderly rooted in USSR-centric mindset who never adjusted to the modern world.  Most of them do not “work” in the sense we understand full-time employment here: they occupy placeholder positions sponsored by the government. Being dependent their whole life on government help, they are psychologically unable even to think government can do something wrong.

About the Russian "brand":

I think we came to the end of the line with regards to Russia as a name, culture, a global brand. For the time being the country future is destroyed, police state is well-entrenched and the narrative for the brainwashed locals would be xenophobic tale of struggle with the “West”.

And here he finally gets to Ukraine:

The differences between “Ukrainian” and “Russian” people are cosmetic. [I certainly disagree, as did many of Max's readers, and he corrected himself in Part 2, basically saying Russians come from Kievan Rus', which is historically accurate and another reason Putin doesn't want to "lose" Ukraine. - J]  The distance between Kiev and Moscow is about same as Sacramento to San Diego. Even today, after all that happened, the most likely language you will hear on the streets of Kiev is Russian. So why Kremlin was so enraged about recent Ukrainian revolution? After all Ukraine has no natural gas or oil, there were no riches to divide, what was the fuss all about?

What happened is that first time in history, large group of ethnic “Russians” had overthrown a mafia clan in a popular uprising.  Until then, Ukraine was a satellite state, and exactly because it had no natural oil and gas, much larger portion of the population had to develop “creative class” skills rather than going to work for oil company or police enforcement. Then suddenly this social group had enough heft and popular power to overthrow local mafia don.

You can imagine the amount of terror it produced in the gang occupying Kremlin right now.  If was and still is an extensional threat to them, hence they pulled out all the stops to overthrow or destabilize a new government in Kiev, and at the same time whip out xenophobic mass-hysteria in a local population.

At this moment, Kremlin can not really stop. If Kiev government survives, it will fairly quickly unlock economic benefits of non-mafia, free economy. The large parasitic class living by bribes and extortion will be displaced: it will have the same effect as if base tax rate would suddenly drop by a double digit percentage. Next door, progressive Russians would quickly notice and spread information about growing prosperity and opportunity in a city next door. What was half million Euro-leaning progressives, would become a million, then few million: before long you can picture a Gaddafi-style demise for the Kremlin gang.

Kremlin is fighting for its own survival: supplying weapon system and military crew to a roaming criminal gangs [in Ukraine] is nothing for them in big scheme of things.

And here's what Silicon Valley can do to help Ukraine:
  • Help Ukraine. They have terrific outsourcing shops and consulting firms. Send them business if you can. Recent revolution would unlock even more creative force in this economically modest, yet energetic country. They are the first large group of ethnic “Russians” who become free on their own power and valor. To understand the scale of that achievement, here is the last group of Russians who were not ruled by khans, czars, communist chairmans or KGB generals: Free Novgorod Republic. That was over 1000 years go. Ukraine was a cradle of Russian civilization – they might become a source of its rebirth yet again.
  • Boycott anything and everything related to Russian government and associated banks and corporations. Any business you send to them only strengthen the regime. Your contract dollars will pay for next Buk missile.

Then in Part 2, here is what Max says about Ukrainians's and Russians' common heritage:

Ukrainian side, deservedly, had a lot of critique for calling Ukrainians “ethnic Russians”. It was interpreted as usual Russian chauvinism rejecting Ukrainian identity, language and rights as a sovereign nation. Ouch.

My apologies to Ukrainians. From a historical perspective I was referring to, the article would be unchanged if I were to say “Russia is populated by ethnic Ukrainians from Kievan-Rus“. inosmi.ru did astute and very subtle translation as “Russich”, which precisely the meaning I was trying to convey. Keep in mind, there is no English word I know for “Russich”, and if one exists, I’m sure last person around here who knew it left after he locked gates at Fort Ross after himself.

In Part 2, here's his take on economic sanctions against Russia:

At the same time, make no mistake: current Russian’s regime is ruthless, efficient and fully in control. It not going to change soon, especially with 81% popularity rating. It has no obvious weaknesses besides potential economic collapse from sanctions (and still would take 10 to 20 months  and resulting political change that might not be for the better at all). The ruling elite is not considering Russia their homeland: it is occupied territory with captive native population to be exploited for monetary gain which is to be squirreled away overseas. If country and it’s people would be irrevocably ruined by the process so be it: the elite and their children will just permanently move their European residences.

That is the key problem that makes sanctions such a blunt and imprecise weapon: until they include all extended families of the corrupt Russian government-industrial complex officials they are toothless.  If they do include them (and assets registered in the name of *all* their relatives) it will have big negative impact on EU/UK economy, and it becomes equivalent of nuclear weapon against Russian ruling class: they will have absolutely nothing to loose [sic], the whole purpose of their life (Western wealth) would be wiped out in an instant. In general, it is not a smart move to put a nuclear-armed power in that position.

And on how Kiev's techies are smarter than Moscow's:

Kiev is a cosmopolitan European capital with good climate and great people. Unlike Moscow, it much less infected with toxic poison of oil and gas revenues – here you got to work to make your fortune. I observed many times that when it comes to cutting edge technologies Ukranian and Kiev teams are far ahead of Russia as whole – and Russia is a pretty big place! The reason is simple: Kiev teams already compete, learn and grown on the world level – they wouldn’t get any contracts otherwise. Russian teams always have a fallback to easy low-competency contracts driven by oil and gas: they have much less pressure to become exceptionally good. That how global technology competition works.


Posted by Max
July 20, 2014 | The Vault of the Future

July 25, 2014

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

The GOP insurgent who heralded the Progressive Era and paved the way for the Tea Parties (Atlantic)

"He’s a fanatic," charged a corporate attorney, "and the way that man goes around spreading discontent is a menace to law, property, business, and all American institutions. If we don’t stop him here he will go out and agitate all over the United States. We’re getting him now; you’ll get him next. That man must be blocked."

"Yes," added an indignant banker, "La Follette will spread socialism all over the world."

Well, according to Glenn Beck, that's just what La Follette and others did in the early 1900s -- by starting the Progressive Movement.

In fact, the Progressives, who were born out of the corrupt 19th century GOP, saved capitalism and American democracy for almost a century. What do I mean? Let me quote myself from 2007:

Progressives wanted government to take action against rising economic inequality, discrimination against freed blacks, child labor, squalid living conditions and "slumlords," price discrimination and monopolies; high protective tariffs; and in general, gov't serving Big Business.

Progressive reforms included: breaking up trusts and interlocking directorates; new food safety standards (Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug Act); sanitation codes for sweatshops; reform of "reform" schools and prisons; workmen's compensation laws; use of the political referendum; direct election of U.S. Senators via the 17th Amendment (they called the Senate the "Millionaires Club" even back then!); regulation of the railroads through the 1903 Elkins Act and local public utilities commissions; and state corrupt-practices acts. They also campaigned for women's suffrage, the 8-hour workday, and prohibition, but weren't successful until the 1920s.

Sounds like a bunch of stuff straight outta Marx, huh?  In fact it's the America we know today, a country we wouldn't want to give up.

Says Wolraich in The Atlantic  of La Follette:

If "Fighting Bob" were alive today, he’d be howling in the Capitol. A hundred years before the Tea Parties, Senator Bob La Follette of Wisconsin was the original Republican insurgent. In the early 1900s, he led a grassroots revolt against the GOP establishment and pioneered the ferocious tactics that the Tea Parties use today—long-shot primary challenges, sensational filibusters, uncompromising ideology, and populist rhetoric. But there was a crucial difference between La Follette and today’s right-wing insurgents: “Fighting Bob” was a founding father of the progressive movement.

Git yerselves edumacated and read on!....


By Michael Wolraich
July 22, 2014 | The Atlantic

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Russia's corrupt resource economy behaves opposite Western expectations

It runs absolutely counter to our Western intuition and sense of justice, but as Vladislav Inozemtsev points out, Russia's corrupt officials actually benefit in times of global economic crisis, both in terms of their personal wealth and public support.

Concludes Prof. Inozemtsev in this op-ed in the Moscow Times [emphasis mine]:

Today's Russia is not a normal country. A significant portion of people who can adequately assess the situation either left the country or are leaving it right now. Many entrepreneurs sold their businesses to bureaucrats and pulled money out of the country, realizing the futility of their labors.

[...]   Of course, the problems are piling up — so sometimes they will come out. But both the speciality of Russia's situation and its difference from these in democratic market economies lies in the fact that the first alarm signals will sound when it will be too late to react. We will probably see a repetition of the dramatic events of the late 1980s — but, of course, this may not happen for awhile. Time during which economic problems will not preoccupy the Russian president — leaving him free to surprise the world once and again with his political follies.

It's well worth reading in its entirety to understand today's very strange Russia!


By Vladislav Inozemtsev
June 24, 2014 | The Moscow Times

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Theologians: U.S. campaign finance system is unjust

[HT: NPR]  Just in case any of my Judeo-Christian conservative friends actually care what their Judeo-Christian theologians think...

... They agree that America's pay-to-play political system with unlimited political contributions is unjust. Here's the report's conclusion [emphasis mine]:

How can religious teachings help us shape a more just role for money in the American political system? What kind of theological principles should be applied to the problem? The ten theologians introduced in this volume offer many compelling candidates: Heed the voice of the poorest Americans. Develop a theology of corporations. Remember that justice requires a multiplicity of voices and fair economic outcomes – not just fair procedures

With $6 billion running through our election cycles and many more dollars spent on lobbying, it is time for people of faith and moral commitment to get more involved in reforming the role of money in American politics. We are called to apply the teachings and wisdom of our religious traditions. We are called to raise our voices and offer constructive action for a more just political system.

I've said it before: if we could fix campaign finance, most of America's intractable political problems would take care of themselves, because the majority usually knows what's best -- the One Percent just doesn't let them get their way most times.


June 2014
Auburn Theological Seminary

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Stop forcing Ukraine into a 'West vs. Russia' narrative?

I have a lot of sympathy with where writer Oliver Bullough is headed here.  Indeed, the Euro-Maidan movement started in 2013 as an internal struggle against endemic corruption, lies and bad governance, personified by President Yanukovych's regime and his ruling Party of Regions, whose sole mission, sans anything resembling an ideology, was to consolidate power from the presidency down to the level of every village in Ukraine.

Writes Bullough:

This is what the revolution is about: Ukrainians trying to wrest control of their country from the oligarchs of Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk and elsewhere who – with help from east and west – have robbed them for 23 years. The left should be cheering them on.

The east against west story does have one beneficiary: the Kremlin. In Ukraine Moscow is trying to preserve a crooked regime against the wishes of Ukrainians who want to live with dignity, because the old ways made it money. It also fears a united and stable Ukraine would join Nato. That's why Russia is sheltering Yanukovych, and threatening not to recognise the elections on 25 May. Russia is deploying its propaganda apparatus to present this as an ideological struggle rather than a mercenary one. RT, the channel formerly known as Russia Today, addresses the outside world, while state television channels bombard Russian-speakers with denunciations of the "fascists" in Kiev.

But let's not forget that Yanukovych was always "Putin's man" in Ukraine, starting in 2004 when Putin bankrolled Yanukovych's presidential campaign and Putin spoke out against the Orange Revolution.  And Yanukovych's "power vertical" was a direct emulation of Putin's regime in Russia.

Secondly, the Ukraine conflict quite openly ceased being an internal Ukrainian struggle the moment Russian troops left their Crimean bases in February 2014 and took over the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in southern Ukraine.  

Thirdly, now less openly but still quite actively, Russia is supporting, arming and coordinating the actions of pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine (aka Donbass).

Having said that, I believe, as Bullough is trying to say, that internal corruption and bad governance are still at the heart of this crisis.  If Ukraine's new government can truly tackle corruption, then they will have addressed the main grievance of most of Ukraine's population, and win a respect and legitimacy that no government has enjoyed since Ukraine's independence. 

(The language issue is a red herring; people in Kyiv and Lviv speak Russian freely everyday without a thought of suffering persecution; this is just a Russian-inspired media lie.)

However, if the new government cannot manage to make Ukraine less corrupt, or says one thing and does another, then it risks the wrath of a second "Euro-Maidan"... but one that could be much more violent and chaotic, and set off a true civil war.... 

Hopefully Ukraine's self-serving and often puerile politicians understand what's at stake, and will do what's right and necessary to pull the country back from the brink of dissolution!  


By Oliver Bullough
May 19, 2014 | Guardian

Monday, March 17, 2014

Russia reveals its desired outcome in Ukraine

I translated the following article from Russian to English.  For all you who thought that the U.S. and the EU were "meddling" in Ukraine's affairs, what do you call this?  

Indeed, Russia is dictating a complete reformation of the Ukrainian state, under implicit threat of arms.  

Russia wants a weak, corrupt Ukraine that will not abide European norms and values.  This old strategy is known as "divide and conquer."  


By Aleksandr Gundlah
March 17, 2014 | 15Minut

The Russian Foreign Ministry calls on an international group of "aid to Ukraine," which should turn Ukraine into a non-aligned federation without the Crimea with two official state languages.

This is stated in the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which voiced Russia's proposal.

Russia has once again assured that it is not involved in the situation in Ukraine, which "is the result of a deep crisis of the Ukrainian state that led to the polarization of society and acute exacerbation of antagonism between different parts of the country."

To overcome this "internal conflict" Russia proposes to create a support group for Ukraine.

Russia suggests that this group should implement the agreements of February 21 and surrender "illegal weapons", the release of buildings and streets [from occupation by activists], and investigations of deaths in Kyiv.

And "without delay to convene by a decision of the Verkhovna Rada [national parliament of Ukraine] of a constitutional assembly, with equal representation of all Ukrainian regions to prepare a new federal constitution."

This constitution, according to Russia, should establish a federal system of Ukraine, its military and political neutrality, the state status for the Russian language, human rights of all minorities, the election of local authorities and non-interference in the affairs of the church.

Foreign Minister even told how a constitution should be adopted -- by a national referendum .

After that Russia wants general and local elections for "the legislative and executive authorities in each subject of the [new] federation."

Separately, Russia insists that the group should "recognize and respect the right to determine its own destiny Crimea according to the results of the free will of its population in the course of the 16 March 2014 referendum."

Again Russia proposes that the new territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine will be guaranteed by Russia, the EU and the U.S. according to a UN Security Council resolution.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

On Ukraine's burgeoning revolution


As I wrote before, the U.S. should leave the hard work of national liberation to those nations who would be liberated. What I meant was, we cannot "gift" the fruits of a struggle like that to a nation that has never known what real liberty and self-governance are about. They won't accept it; they won't make the most of it.

I said this in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan, but it could apply in some ways to today's war -- yes, it's a war for liberation -- in Ukraine. And Ukraine is the key to Europe.

For more than two months protesters in Kyiv, Ukraine waited in the ice and snow for some compromise, some negotiations with the corrupt, Russian-ass-licking government of President Viktor Yanukovych about an Association Agreement with the EU that he had promised and negotiated toward and then a week before signing in Vilnius... reneged on.

(Read here: "Myths about the Association Agreement – setting the facts straight" from the European Union Delegation in Ukraine.)

Meanwhile, the so-called political "opposition" representing the pro-EU protesters, a troika of party leaders, failed to achieve any results; they only shouted speeches and slogans to the crowds freezing and standing stalwart on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square).  

After the Kyiv police attempted to clear Maidan and beat several protesters and journalists without punishment, and after Ukraine's Verhovna Rada (national parliament) passed a series of unconstitutional laws on January 16 to outlaw protests and free assembly, free speech in the media, free use of automobiles, restrictions on social media, allowed police to search homes without a warrant, put new burdens on NGOs, etc., the protesters had had enough. The protesters literally chased off the "Big 3" and went after the Cabinet of Ministers (the highest government executive body) and the Rada.

(Left to right) Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Tyahnybok and Arseniy Yatsenyuk


From there it turned into armed conflict on the main streets of Kyiv. As of today, that conflict has spread to at least 12 other regions (oblasts) of Ukraine, where protesters have seized government buildings and are declaring their separation from Yanukovych's central government.  


So far, 12 oblasts of Ukraine plus the Kyiv City Administration have been seized by the people.

Starting in November 2013, the opposition has somewhat naively called for the U.S. and EU to impose sanctions on Ukraine and revoke visas and freeze bank accounts of government officials. They haven't realized that international sanctions take months if not years to put in place; and the West does not go freezing accounts willy-nilly. Anyway, sanctions have never ousted a corrupt or dictatorial regime from power; it's usually the average citizens who suffer.

The protesters -- we can call them freedom fighters now -- are a small, active minority. (But aren't all successful revolutions carried out by an active minority?) In trying to overturn the last election, let's be honest, they are acting un-democratically. But in terms of recognizing Ukraine's democracy is broken, and neither the corrupt courts nor the State-controlled media can stop violations of Ukraine's constitution by the ruling Party of Regions, they are acting in the true best interests of liberty and democracy. 

This is a hard truth to swallow, especially for outsiders who cling to the norms and values of the West, revere the sanctity of fair elections, and oppose violent means to achieve political ends.





What I know, and what you should know, is that Ukraine's government has been employing violence for years now against its citizens. Armed groups of thugs backed by government officials routinely raid successful businesses, forcing owners to sell out at firesale prices. Citizens are regularly arrested and held without charges by police, where they are beaten and intimidated, sometimes dying in custody, or leaving as vegetables. Land is simply taken from its owners and new land titles drawn up for cronies. Corrupt officials selectively enforce the law. Bureaucrats demand tributes for the most trifling government services. Its parliament and executive posts, down to the smallest district, are filled by those willing to pay for the job. 

An investigation by the police of a real crime, a decision by a judge, a slot in a preschool, a bed in a hospital, a univesity diploma -- are all contingent upon bribes, and it's not hard to find out the asking price. [See my Update below to see what I mean, in a Ukrainian business leader's own words - J].

And all this has gotten worse since Ukaine's peaceful "Orange Revolution" in 2004.

Ukraine is smeared with corruption from end to end: from pro-European West to the pro-Russian East, North to South, from the hospital where children are born to the cemetery where they are buried, and everything in between. 

What's worse, everybody admits it. The ruling Party of Regions' supporters, the politically apathetic, the so-called opposition parties -- everybody. There is not even a pretense of disagreement on the sad facts of life in Ukraine.

It is a country that is coming to a screeching halt due to bad governance and corruption. Ukraine's economy has been in and out of recession since the 2008 financial crisis. Its state finances are an ongoing IMF-bailout basket case. Foreign direct investment is drying up. Ukrainian enterpreneurs are closing their businesses, and those who can are moving their assets and families abroad. 

This is what the freedom fighters have recognized: Ukraine is too far gone for elections to fix -- elections that would probably be rigged anyhow. Moreover, the opposition parties are only marginally better than the ruling party, controlled by competing clans of oligarchs. The sickness in Ukraine goes deep, down to the roots. That is why the freedom fighters want to tear up the the system and start over. 

As I said, Westerners don't like to tell others to use violence to solve their problems. ("Do as I say, not as I do.")  But so far -- violent opposition is working. Finally President Yanukovych has called for negotiations. Personally I'm doubtful those negotiations will lead to anything that will please the protesters. But we'll see. For now, the only lesson is that violence is the only language this two-time convicted thug of a president understands and respects. 


Protester Mikhail Gavrilyuk: stripped, beaten and humiliated by 'Berkut' special police in Kyiv

As somebody who loves Ukraine and admires the bravery of those fighting for liberty, I am conflicted. But I know that, realistically, the U.S. or EU will not agree to come and save them; and morally, it is not the place of outsiders (including Vladimir Putin's Russia!) to decide Ukraine's fate.  

We can offer moral support. We can tell them their struggle is just. We can remind them that many of our countries were born in the blood of revolution. Maybe further armed conflict and bloodshed are inevitable, I don't know yet. Nevertheless, we Americans especially should not be so quick to scold those brave Ukrainians risking their lives to secure their compatriots' inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Glory to Ukraine! To the heroes glory!

UPDATE (26.01.2014): Last night the opposition rejected President Yanukovych's power-sharing offer with Arseniy Yatsenyuk (as new PM) and Vitali Klitschko (as new deputy PM). Not only that, protesters in Kyiv seized Ukrainian House (former House of Lenin) on European Square, located strategically between Maidan and Grushevskogo street where most of the clashes are taking place: "Ukraine opposition turns down president's power-sharing offer."

UPDATE (26.01.2014): Anne Applebaum, who's supposed to be an expert on Eastern Europe and the former USSR, seems slow on the uptake in her latest WaPo op-ed, "Ukraine shows the ‘color revolution’ model is dead." See what I mean:
... once Ukrainians realize that the ideal of the color revolution is dead and the West has no tools to revive it, there may be consequences. If peaceful demonstrations don’t work, after all, some may logically conclude that it’s time to use violence. Ukrainians have indeed constructed violent resistance movements more than once in the past century.
First of all, nobody in Ukraine's opposition ever believed the U.S.-Russian construct about colored revolutions financed and organized by outsiders. (I was there for the Orange Revolution and I know the colored revolution theory is hooey: nobody "trained" or paid hundreds of thousands of people to stand out in the freezing cold for weeks and start loving each other and their country, just like nobody is pulling their strings now.) So there is nothing for Ukrainians to "realize;" only the Anne Applebaums of the Western media and diplomatic corps. Indeed, the hardcore protesters on Maidan realized weeks ago that violence must be met with violence, so Applebaum's fretting is moot. Maybe Applebaum is pretending violence hasn't happend because it so offends her Western sensibilities, and because the escalating conflict -- now a burgeoning revolution -- rejects America's conceit that it somehow has a handle on events in that part of the world?... Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

UPDATE (26.01.2014): Lately, I'm reading about quickly unfolding events in Ukraine so you don't have to. This op-ed on a Ukrainian news site really struck a chord. I think it tells those not familiar with Ukraine most everything they need to know about why these protests are happening -- indeed, why conflict with the corrupt government has been years in the making. It's by a banker who says he manages 1,000 employees in the southern "pro-Russian" port city of Odessa. Here's my translation of part of his article, "Why I go to Maidan and Grushevskogo:"
1. In the first place for my family. I want my children to grow up in Ukraine and not "Little Russia" [historically, a condescending, imperialist Russian term for Ukraine - J]'; I want them to be told at school about European, not post-Soviet, values; I want them to go to university for knowledge and new contacts, and not for teachers/bribe-takers to issue them grades; I want my children to work in any international organization in any country, and not dream to be state bureaucrats. I do it for the future. 
2. Second, for my country. It is my inner conviction that the current regime is criminal. We are not a monarchy, and I, as a citizen of this country, want to have the right, the instruments and the opportunity to change the government in this country. Anybody who takes away these instruments from me and my fellow citizens, anybody who limits our freedom, is my enemy. I am ready to fight this enemy by all means available. 
3. Finally, for myself. I do not want to be afraid. I am a cultured adult, and on the inside I'm disgusted to think that I should be afraid to go to a public hospital, afraid to contact the police, afraid to go to court. It's disgusting to think about bribery and "Untouchables" in my favorite city. About the Range Rovers of police chiefs, and Mezhigorie [President Yanukovych's palatial presidential residence -- "lawfully" leased to him at taxpayers' expense - J]. 
UPDATE 1 (28.01.2014): From CNN: "Ukraine's parliament scraps anti-protest laws, Prime Minister resigns," and President Yanukovych accepted PM Azarov's resignation.

UPDATE 2 (30.01.2014): The U.S. is considering financial sanctions against members of President Yanukovych's government, and does not rule out sanctions against leaders of Maidan, if they can be shown to be involved in violent action by activists: (Reuters): "Exclusive: U.S. readies financial sanctions against Ukraine: congressional aides".

UPDATE 3 (30.01.2014): Good article in Al Jazeera on the militancy of the protesters by the Kyiv Post's long-time editor Brian Bonner: "Ukraine front-line fighters dig in for escalating battle with government". Is it OK to call them revolutionaries yet??....

UPDATE 4 (20.02.2014):  Ukraine's revolution is still going, now looking more like a civil war. Western regions like Lutsk, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Zhytomyr, Cherkassy and Ternopil are in open revolt, forcing pro-government officials to resign, burning Interior Ministry and Security Service (KGB) buildings, burning buses emptied of "titushki" (hired thugs) headed for Kyiv, etc., etc.. For its part, Berkut and Interior Ministry troops are using live ammunition, snipers, stun grenades and deadly force on the streets of Kyiv. Dozens of people have been killed and hundreds wounded.  

Today President Yanukovich and the opposition leaders agreed to a "truce," but the looks on Kyiv's streets don't seem peaceful.  The truth is that nobody is in control of the situation. The U.S. has imposed visa bans and the Congress and Senate are writing bills to impose targeted sanctions on Ukraine. (Reuters): "Ukraine president agrees to truce with opponents as U.S. imposes visa bans." 

UPDATE (22.02.2014): Too much happening! Yesterday President Yanukovych and the opposition agreed on an interim government, and a return to the 2004 constitution. Today, the Verhovna Rada (parliament) voted on a new speaker, voted Yanukovych out of office (!), voted for new presidential elections in May, voted on a new Interior Minister (the old one has fled), voted no-confidence on the Prosecutor General (who has fled), and voted to free opposition leader Yulia Tymoschenko from jail. President Yanukovych says he's not leaving, called the protests a Nazi coup. He was in Kharkiv today, where pro-Russian deputies from the East and South gathered to strategize and show their strength. Meanwhile, his palatial mansion with infamous "golden toilet" has been taken over by pro-Maidan forces; it was like a state park, with families touring the grounds in the hundreds. (CNN):  "Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych says he's not leaving."  Notably, hardcore activists have not left Maidan, have not taken down their barricades, and are continuing to "guard" many administrative buildings!

UPDATE (23.02.2014): Here's a pretty comprehensive update of the last few days from the New York Times: "Archrival Is Freed as Ukraine Leader Flees." Pretty ominous quote ending the article:
“Nobody wants to end up owning all the problems that Ukraine faces,” said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, “the country is bankrupt, it has a terrible, broken system of government and insane levels of corruption.”
The big question for many and yours truly, what will the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol do now? A delegation of about 100 deputies and officials from Crimea attended a meeting Saturday in Kharkiv with Party of Regions and Communist Party members, where they declared they would take control locally of ensuring the constitutional order.  Over the past few weeks, the speaker of Crimea's supreme council (parliament) Konstantinov has been making noises about independence for Crimea, and/or joining Russia. Today the Verhovna Rada (parliament) of Ukraine is asking the new Interior Minister what he's going to do about burgeoning separatism. So the threat of civil war is not over. Mostly it depends on the resolve of Crimea's (former) ruling Party of Regions members to risk the wrath of Kyiv.... But their political power is on the line, and they may be willing to risk anything to hold onto power, especially if Russia will throw in with the South and East of Ukraine.

UPDATE (25.02.2014): The Western media is not picking up on it yet, but the rumor is that President Yanukovych, who is now a wanted man, is hiding in Sevastopol under the protection of the Russian Naval Fleet. On Sunday the mayor of Sevastopol resigned and the people tried to nominate a Russian citizen (!) as their new mayor. If Russia is going to make trouble in Ukraine -- the bad, bad kind, Georgia-style -- it will probably start in Sevastopol, where its fleet is based, where many residents are Russian citizens and/or very pro-Russian....

Monday, July 22, 2013

JPMorgan Chase: The 'good' TBTF bank?

Remember when I pointed out that JP Morgan -- the "good" Wall Street bank -- was paying 20 percent of its annual net profits in fines and litigation?

Here we have Matt Taibbi pointing out that JP Morgan just recently paid another $1 billion to the FERC for manipulating energy prices in California and Michigan.

And let's keep in mind, this was the settlement price.  That means, whatever JP Morgan did, it was much worse than $1 billion.

Taibbi reminds us that, "In the three-year period between 2009-2012, Chase paid out over $16 billion in litigation costs," or 12 percent of Chase's net revenue over the same period.

What kind of bank, what kind of business, can allow itself to do that?  Only a corrupt and broken business, that's what.  Break up the TBTF banks!


By Matt Taibbi
July 18, 2013 | Rolling Stone

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Big chart explains byzantine campaign finance regulation

Long-time readers (all three of you) know that campaign finance is one of my pet issues. If we had shorter, publicly financed campaigns, a whole slew of "unsolvable" political problems would solve themselves, because then politicians would have to pay attention to us voters, not campaign contributors and lobbyists who pay for favors.

Critics who call the U.S. tax code complex should take a look below at our Byzantine campaign finance system!  

And for the record, let me say again that the IRS was correct to pay special attention to groups applying for tax-exempt status with "tea party" in their name. That's party as in political party, as in political activity.  I for one refuse to wink at their open deceit like our stupid tax laws do.


By Sunlight Foundation 
May 17, 2013

The controversy over the Internal Revenue Service's handling of applications for non-profit status from Tea Party groups has put a spotlight on a subject with which we at the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group are all too painfully familiar: The migraine-producing complexity of the nation's campaign finance system. To shed some light on the ongoing debate, we've decided to share what we know.

As often is the case with systems worthy of Rube Goldberg, it's easier to draw than to describe.



The graphic above shows why its so hard to track campaign money: Those who raise it report to one (or more) of three federal agencies, depending on how they raise the money, how they spend the money and how much of it they spend and raise.

The starting point for understanding what different kinds of organizations that spend money on politics can and cannot do is the Internal Revenue Code, which contains several sections defining different types of tax exempt organizations and outlining what these organizations can and cannot do if they are organized under a certain section of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 527, for example, defines in some 3,500 words what a political committee is, what types of its income are exempt from tax (contributions, transfers from other 527 committees), what sort of expenditures it can make, and what its tax exempt purpose is ("influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors, whether or not such individual or electors are selected, nominated, elected, or appointed").

But it doesn't end there: In addition to the Internal Revenue Code's definitions, these these organizations are regulated by federal law and state laws. For example, the Internal Revenue Code does not require nonprofits organized under section 501(c)4 to disclose their donors to the public. But the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act called for such groups to disclose their donors if they ran "issue ads" (ones that mention a candidate without saying "vote for" or "vote against him--the FEC has a fuller definition here; it's worth noting it took a 2012 court ruling to force the Federal Election Commission to apply this rule).

Further complicating the picture: Organizations under one of the categories listed above can form sub-organizations under another category. For instance, a labor union or trade association can spawn a 501(c)4, a super PAC and a traditional PAC. Many major givers operate under three or four guises, making the financial influence they exercise over elections especially difficult to track.

Understanding who reports what to whom when is complicated, but here are some general guidelines of what federal agencies are involved in overseeing these organizations, their regulatory authority and the disclosures they require:

Internal Revenue Service

  • Regulates organizations for compliance with tax law.
  • Requires a limited number of 527s--those that do not register with the Federal Election Commission or a state election authority--to disclose information, including initial notices (form 8871), periodic reports of their fundraising and spending (form 8872), an annual information return (form 990) and a tax return if they have taxable income of more than $100 (form 1120-POL). Groups organized under section 527 that file with the Federal Election Commission or state election boards are not required to file with the IRS, unless they have more than $100 in taxable income.
  • Regulates nonprofits organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. These include social welfare organizations like Crossroads GPS (section c4), labor unions like the AFL-CIO (section c5) and trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (section c6). Nonprofits file an initial application for tax exempt status (form 1024) and annual information returns (form 990). They disclose information on grants they make to other organizations, their boards of directors, salaries of their five highest paid employees and amounts paid to their five biggest outside contractors. They do not disclose information on donors.
  • Nonprofits that lobby to influence legislation must disclose the amount expended on lobbying on their 990 forms.

Federal Election Commission

  • Administers and enforces federal election law.
  • Oversees candidate committees, political party committees, political action committees and independent expenditure-only committees--also known as super PACs. All these types of committees are organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code; because they disclose information to the FEC, they do not file disclosures with the IRS.
  • Requires that these political committees file periodic disclosures of their donors, expenditures, loans received and outstanding debts. Committees can choose either monthly or quarterly disclosures.
  • Requires disclosures of independent expenditures--that is, spending on advertising, get-out-the-vote or other activities that aim to either elect or defeat a candidate for federal office. These expenditures must be reported within 48 hours until 20 days before an election, when they must be reported within 24 hours. Anyone making an independent expenditure must file a report: 501c organizations, 527 political committees, individuals and for-profit corporations. Both 48 and 24 hour reports require disclosure of the candidate or candidates supported or opposed, the amount spent, the payee or payees, but do not disclose donations.
  • Adjusts for inflation the limits on the size of donations individuals can make to candidate, party and political action committees (but not super PACs, which can take contributions in unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations--including 501c4 nonprofits that don't disclose their donors--and labor unions).
  • Investigates violations of federal election law.

U.S. Department of Labor

Requires some labor unions (those that have private sector or federal employees, including U.S. Postal Service workers) to disclose information on the amount spent on political activities, including itemized spending. Labor unions that represent state and municipal employees are not required to file annual reports with DoL.

Not on the chart, but also peripherally involved in the regulation of political funding and disclosure, through the requirements it imposes on television advertisers:

Federal Communications Commission

Requires all organizations that purchase advertising on television, radio and cable outlets to disclose to the station, in a filing available for public inspection, to disclose the name of the organization, its officers, the amount spent and other information about the ad buy. Generally, these disclosures are only available to review at the offices of the stations, though in 2012, the FCC required the four biggest broadcast outlets in the 50 largest markets to post the disclosures--known as the station's political file--online at the FCC website. Sunlight makes this records readily searchable via our Political Ad Sleuth tool.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Taibbi: 'TBTF' bill faces opposition from...S&P?!

In the bizarro world of high finance, the ostensibly conservative ratings agency Standard & Poor's has come out against the bipartisan Brown-Vitter "TBTF" bill in the Senate Banking Committee that would "elegantly" eliminate, according to Matt Taibbi, the Too Big To Fail problem by requiring any bank with more than $500 billion in assets to keep about 15 percent of its capital in reserve, so as not to require a government bailout if their risky investments fail.  

Here's S&P excuse during Senate testimony:

Under our methodology, we would potentially no longer factor in government support if we believed that once large banks are broken up, we would not classify these banks as having high systemic importance.

Here's Taibbi's response to that:

S&P writes about having to factor out the implicit government backing of big banks as though that would be a bad thing. But if implicit government support is the only thing keeping the ratings of these companies even as high as they are now, that means they really should be rated lower, in a true free market.  And Standard and Poor's is, what – against admitting that?  It's nuts.

On the other hand, the Brown-Vitter TBTF bill is supported by the Independent Community Bankers of America, that is ostensibly sick and tired of borrowing at higher rates and having a constant institutional disadvantage compared to Wall Street banks. 

If the voting public continues to pay attention to the TBTF problem then we'll win, because both the far Left and far Right and everybody in between supports ending TBTF, ideologically. But if we get distracted, then the TBTF lobbyists and the corrupt institutions like S&P will cut and gut this bill in the Senate. They don't mind sounding absurd and hypocritical to protect their advantages with the status quo.  

Stay tuned, everybody!....

UPDATE (05.04.2013): For those who are interested, here's a summary from my man Ritholtz of the Brown-Vitter 'TBTF' bill:

  • Stricter capital requirements on megabanks, defined as institutions with over $500 billion in assets.
  • Six U.S. banks — JPMorgan Chase., Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Wells Fargo — meet the TBTF criteria.
  • Eliminates risk-weights as part of a capital assessment (less reliance on unreliable ratings).
  • Does not rely on ratings agency grades.
  • Removes off-balance-sheet assets and liabilities as different class — they are treated as if they were on-balance sheet.
  • Requires derivatives positions to be included in a bank’s consolidated assets.
  • Requires capital cushion that a bank hold be liquid.
  • Mandates capital measures be more transparent.
  • Eliminates Basel III as a regulatory requirement.
  • Restores competition to industry by removing competitive disadvantages mega banks have over smaller and regional community bankers.


By Matt Taibbi
May 1, 2013 | Rolling Stone: