As has been pointed out on our forum, the parasite classes are not confined to the state sector. They can be found in the private sector as well. Actually, though, this is a state-owned bank – even if it is not under direct state control. Arguably, therefore, it is part of the state sector.

Perhaps more to the point, it is a corporate ... a status common to state and private sectors, where there is no morality or sense or right and wrong. Everything is justified if there is a "procedure" for it, and there can be no wrong as long as the rules were obeyed – never mind who made the rules, or whether they are right.

View full article here

When let loose, there is no boundary to human greed and the plotting for self-enrichment through others' money. What would it be like at the really high level?

So, with this in mind and especially as the matter was covered extensively when it began way back in May, I read elsewhere that Dominique Strauss-Kahn been released. Way, way back in May, I put forward the notion that he was set-up for removal from the IMF and that the case would not come to trial because the basis of the plot would be revealed - the tie-ins of the IMF, Cyrus Vance, Sarkozy etc are so well dissected that they could hardly not be brought up at any trial, so there was no trial.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1009243&start=120

Let's have a closer look at the possibility of a set-up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

- argues that "It is possible that Strauss-Kahn eliminated himself and saved Washington the trouble. However, as a well-travelled person who has often stayed in New York hotels and in hotels in cities around the world, I have never experienced a maid entering unannounced into my room, much less when I was in the shower."

He notes that "Strauss-Kahn, upon arriving at JFK airport for his scheduled flight, discovered that he did not have his cell phone and telephoned the hotel, the scene of the alleged crime. It boggles the mind that anyone could possibly think that a person fleeing from his crime would call the scene of the crime, ask about his left behind cell phone, and tell them where he was" and "It has not been revealed how the authorities knew Strauss-Kahn was on a flight to France. However, by arresting him aboard his scheduled flight just as it was to depart, the authorities created the image of a man fleeing from a crime. "

Then "in rapid succession, reeking of orchestration, a French woman steps forward and declares that a decade ago she was nearly raped by Strauss-Kahn. This was followed by Kristin Davis, the Manhattan Madam of the prostitute who did in Eliot Spitzer before he could get the banksters on Wall Street, stepping forward to announce that one of her call girls refused to service Strauss-Kahn a second time because he was too rough in the act.

With hunting season opened, any woman whose career would benefit from publicity, or whose bank account would bless a damage award, can now step forward and claim to have been a victim or near victim of Strauss-Kahn. "

Additionally, "one of the most striking (anomalies) is the confirmed reports in the French and British press that a political activist for French President Sarkozy, Jonathan Pinet, tweeted the news of Strauss-Kahn’s arrest to Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor for Sarkozy, before the news was announced by the New York police. Pinet’s explanation for how he was the first to know is that a “friend” in the Sofitel Hotel, where the alleged crime took place, told him. Is it merely a coincidence that the men assigned the task of removing the Strauss-Kahn threat to French President Sarkozy’s re-election had a clued-in friend in the Sofitel Hotel? Did the police clue-in the “friend” before they made the public announcement? If so, why?"

The 'why' is that "Strauss-Kahn had emerged as a threat to the establishment. Polls showed that as the socialist candidate, he was the odds-on favorite to defeat the American candidate, Sarkozy, in the upcoming French presidential election. Perhaps it was only electoral posturing to help defeat Sarkozy, but Strauss-Kahn indicated that he intended to move the International Monetary Fund away from its past policy of making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich. He spoke of strengthening collective bargaining, and of restructuring mortgages, tax and spending policies in order that the economy would serve ordinary people in addition to the banksters. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation needed to be restored to financial markets and implied that a more even distribution of income was required. "

"No high-ranking figure who was serving the establishment would be destroyed on the basis of the word of an immigrant maid living in a sub-let apartment in a building for aids victims. The very notion that the US establishment craves justice to this extent is a total absurdity."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=24875

If I recall correctly, DSK repackaged the IMF's rescue plan for Ireland with much less onerous conditions but this was scuppered by Timothy Geithner and 'austerity' (wholesale transfer of assets to international banks) was re-imposed. DSK really made some powerful enemies, so they used his 'baggage' to eliminate him.

I think I blame the pension funds.
Corporate looting starts with the canard that senior managers say, "If I left and started my own business I could be making £X in a few years", companies fall for it and award salaries that entrepreneurs sweat blood to achieve.
The majority of blue chip shares are held by Funds of one sort and another and they don't block such pay-rises because it filters over to the non-exec. director fees (cushty).
Some council decides it needs a corporate manager so stumps up the corporate going rate. Then all the other little madams (of all sexes) start deciding that they're 'worth it' too.

Certainly, it seems harder to scale it back down than it was to start it off in the first place. The system appears to be out of control.

Appears to be?

As somebody who worked for an agency as a temp in the financial industry, I would like to point out that temporary staff can be cheaper than permanent staff. There are no recruitment costs, they don't have the company benefits such as a pension and healthcare, and the company can evaluate an employee as a temp before offering them a permanent job so there is less risk that they are unsuitable.

£2,000 a day doesn't even sound like that much for a company as big as RBS.

However, whether a state-owned bank should morally be employing agency staff is another matter entirely

Surest sign that the storm approaches. Prior to every great upheaval in history the scale of looting becomes such that even the most stay-at-home recognise that something is very wrong. Nothing much has changed since the "sub prime" crisis, water was thrown on the (derivative bomb) fuse but it was only ever a temporary reprieve.

On the up side, sophisticated looters will have to riot outside the bank alongside their victims. Cry me a river.

Something very similar happened in the USA with the rise of the 'Celebrity CEO'.

A company chooses a new CEO on the basis of a meteoric career in another company and a few feature articles in the financial press. They press all the currently fashionable buttons.

They are retained on their own terms and allowed to set their own pay and pretty much the board loses control. They do as they please including touring the globe with an entourage like rock stars. They develop a network of external directorships which often involve a clear conflict of interest, and seem to form part of a cozy club.

They certainly have presence and are not afraid to make changes. At the top it looks like daring strategy, at the bottom it looks like throwing the pieces in the air and hoping they land in a formation which makes sense, but every time they throw the pieces in the air, a few more are broken. Shareholders are dealt with by keeping a few large institutional shareholders sweet by dubious means. The daring changes and acquisitions are seen first by the bottom and then by all levels as a smokescreen for incompetence. Stories start to circulate, with justification, that the meteoric rise wasn't quite what the financial glossies would have us believe. Eventually they have to go, but it can't be achieved without a $50 million pay off, which seems like a lot but in the scheme of things is a bargain price to be rid of them. They make out like bandits.

Much of it seems to be to do with following fads and allowing rewards for taking measures which make things look good in the short term. It amounts to rewarding incompetence and bad behaviour handsomely.

I can't see anything wrong with paying $100 million to someone who has over 4 or 5 years genuinely turned round a large company, new products, expanding business, higher profits... There's something fundamentally wrong with paying that kind of money to someone who screws up.

As for local government in the UK, I believe a lot of the problem is allowing it to become so complicated and expensive. Its functions have expanded enormously over the past few decades and most of the additional functions are not worth doing, It's really the fault of the central government and the EU that we have to pay for the armies of outreach officers and awareness programmes.