by

Les Leopold: How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour by Nomi Prins

Sent to Dandelion Salad from Les Leopold

by Nomi Prins
Truthdig
May 23, 2013

It's Capitalism.

Image by eyewashdesign: A. Golden via Flickr

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour: Why Hedge Funds Get Away With Siphoning Off America’s Wealth
A book by Les Leopold

Les Leopold’s latest masterpiece, How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour: Why Hedge Funds Get Away With Siphoning Off America’s Wealth, is necessary, alarming and really funny. His talent for deconstructing complex financial terms and topics constitutes a public service. What he reveals in “How to Make,” in a sardonic and appropriately irreverent tone, is something more ominous.

We exist in a political-economic system that allows people who manufacture nothing and bet on everything to control the financial destinies of the rest of the population with impunity, and make stupendous amounts of money doing it. Because, as Leopold writes, “Making a million an hour means never having to say you’re sorry.”

[…]

via Truthdig
see

The Banking System In Short by Rudo de Ruijter

Michael Hudson: What is Debt Deflation?

Large Corporations Seek U.S.–European ‘Free Trade Agreement’ to Further Global Dominance by Andrew Gavin Marshall

2 thoughts on “Les Leopold: How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour by Nomi Prins”

  1. Pingback: Global Power Project, Part 1: Exposing the Transnational Capitalist Class by Andrew Gavin Marshall | Dandelion Salad

  2. Looks good.

    Speculative opportunism seemingly defines the character of the age, but we seem to be witnessing an accelerating rate of change due to the ever increasing power of feed-back, that is best understood as a fundamental biological process.

    We appear to be emerging into a public space that is highly experimental and heuristic; anarchic and anachronistic no-mans land where all times and all things become possible all at once, through the forces of organized commerce and rapid communication.

    How does Law and Governance enter into this fray? How do we consent to regulate and “police” the human world & manage risk, unless we agree about the moral terms of engagement and the rules by which they are determined?

    This is a critical challenge and a moral opportunity. Law has to be first agreed to in principle and accepted as a necessary concept, before we can proceed to elucidating its implications.

Comments are closed.