1. Donald Trump: "I grab them by the pussy"
2. Both Campaigns Enthusiastically Violate Ban on
Super PAC Coordination,
3. WikiLeaks Dumps Excerpts From Paid Speeches Hillary
Clinton Sought to
4. Democracy’s Debt Ladder
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, October 9, 2016.
is a crisis log with 4 items and 4 dotted links: Item 1
is this time not a text but a nice, funny and bitter video by Bill
Maher, made after it became known Donald Trump said (in 1995) that
because he is famous he starts kissing any woman he wants, and he also
(in his own words) "grabs them by the pussy"; item 2
is about the complete decline of all standards in the U.S.
elections; item 3 is about WikiLeaks' (so far
small) dump of excerpts from Hillary Clintons superbly paid
speeches to very rich bankers; and item 4 is about
an interesting interview with Michael Hudson, with whom I partially
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click/reload twice or more
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working.
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!)
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that
for many months now.
1. Donald Trump: "I
grab them by the pussy"
The first item today is a video by Bill Maher of which the
theme is what I shall call
Trump's Presidential Slogan:
For this is what Donald Trump said, in
1995, on tape, about - "non-fat, attractive" - "chicks": He immediately
starts kissing them and he grabs them by the pussy, which he
all can do because - he says - he "is famous".
He also said more and it is all interestingly discussed here:
I think this is a better discussion,
and also a more honest one, than most of the discussions about the same
subject that I have read; it also contains contributions by a real
billionaire (Mark Cuban); and it takes only 11 minutes.
Then again, I do have one remark: In a sense, I agree with Bill
Maher, who asks himself "every week: Is this really
happening?!", for what Trump shows is the campaign of an insane
- crazy, mad - person.
But I should add that I have been
saying now for nearly seven months (since March 14) that it is my psychologist's
judgement that Trump is really not sane.
And this - "I grab them by the pussy" - is what you get from
the insane presidential candidate from the Republican Party.
So while I agree in one sense with Bill Maher's remark, I add that I
probably am less amazed than many:
This is the presidential candidate of the Republican Party:
Donald Trump, who - from his own taped words - "grabs" any attractive
woman (married or not) "by the pussy", because he can do so
because he "is famous". Or so he said.
Indeed, by now I have a question, also considering Trump's fondness for
Why should I not extend my judgement on Trump's mind to the
minds of his supporters, given that
they support an insane candidate who
thinks he can "grab" any attractive woman (married or not) "by
the pussy"? 
And this is a recommended video.
2. Both Campaigns Enthusiastically Violate Ban on Super PAC
Coordination, Watchdog Says
The second item is by Jon Schwarz on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
In another noble, doomed attempt to
encourage the Federal Election Commission to enforce campaign
finance law, the Campaign Legal Center filed complaints Thursday
Clinton, and several Super PACs supporting them for illegal
The Campaign Legal Center is a
nonpartisan Washington, D.C., nonprofit that frequently files such
complaints — including one based
Intercept’s reporting — on which the FEC then generally
takes no action.
The FEC’s coma-like state is due to the
ferocious opposition of its three Republican members to almost any
restriction on money in politics. The FEC has six members, and by law
no more than three can be from any one political party, so on
many significant votes the commission deadlocks 3-3.
Based on the CLC’s current complaints,
it’s difficult to say whether the Trump or Clinton campaign more
joyfully violates campaign finance rules.
I say, though indeed I am not
amazed. But I didn't know what is said in the above about the FEC.
But first, let's move back a little:
Several 2010 court decisions, including
Citizens United, made it possible for Super PACs to raise and
spend unlimited amounts of money supporting candidates for federal
office. The Supreme Court determined that this would not “give
rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” so long as
Super PACs’ expenditures were truly independent — i.e.,
not coordinated with candidates’ campaigns.
But after years of inaction by the FEC,
campaigns have realized that this restriction can be ignored. And
now both the Trump and Clinton campaigns are coordinating with
Super PACs in the same way your hands coordinate with your brain.
For its part, the Trump campaign has
saved a great deal of money by simply not paying key staff and letting
Super PACs pick up the bill instead.
As I have said several times (I don't know
how many, for the simple reason that I wrote, since September 1, 2008, more
than 1350 files on the crisis, and
there is a lot
more in them than I recall, although my memory is still quite good): In
my opinion, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was certainly political
i.e. not really legal, and it may have been corrupt (although
that is less likely).
It was political for the simple reasons
that allowing unlimited amounts of money to support candidates is corrupt
and cannot fail to be seen as corrupt: It gives most of the power to the
richest, who then can use their riches to corrupt anybody else.
There is considerably more on Trump, which
I skip (you can read it by clicking the last of the above dotted
links), whille I only quote this short bit on Clinton:
The approach of the pro-Clinton Super
PAC Correct the Record has been more sophisticated, though not by much.
Here is the - sad, but true - conclusion
of the article:
Yes indeed. And once you've cleared the way
for massive corruption by the rich, as the Supreme Court did in
2010, that is what you're going to get: Massive corruption
by the rich.
Nevertheless, both Republicans and
Democrats are acting rationally if their primary objective is to win
the presidential election rather than follow the law. If its prior
actions are any guide, the FEC is unlikely to vote on the
Campaign Legal Center’s complaints until long after the election is
over; it will then probably deadlock 3-3, taking no action; and if it
does take action and issue fines, the penalties will likely be
minuscule and easily handled by each party’s biggest, billionaire
This is a recommended article.
3. WikiLeaks Dumps Excerpts
From Paid Speeches Hillary Clinton Sought to Bury
The third item is by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:
starts as follows:
Excerpts of Hillary Clinton's paid
speeches to Wall Street institutions, divulged by WikiLeaks
late on Friday, show why the Democratic presidential nominee was reluctant
to have them publicized
during her primary
battle against populist rival Bernie
In the lucrative speeches, for which she
was paid some $225,000 a pop, Clinton signaled support for a plan that
would lower corporate tax rates while raising the Social Security age;
admitted she was out-of-touch with regular Americans; explained how
politicians "need both a public and a private position;" and embraced a
strong pro-trade position that could conflict with remarks she's made
on the campaign trail.
Let me start by saying that paying a
politician nearly a quarter million dollars per speech = major
corruption, regardless from who pays it or who receives it.
Anybody who receives for a speech of an hour five
times the average income earned in a year is corrupt
- and this did not even consider that those paying her (and her
husband) already received
extremely much - in terms of deregulation after deregulation - from her husband, and are evidently counting on just
the same from her.
And the points that are mentioned above
are all pro rich, anti non-rich policies, and they also are remarkably
dishonest (with "politicians" that "need
both a public and a private position" - which
seems equivalent to saying "publicly, I speak for the non-rich; privately,
as soon as I am nominated, I'll decide for the rich").
Here is some more:
In one revealing excerpt, from a 2014
speech at a Goldman Sachs-Black Rock event, Clinton discussed being
"kind of far removed" from the struggles of the middle class, saying:
I am not taking a position on any
policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even
anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I
never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there
really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain
about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class
upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care.
We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved
up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now,
obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the
economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I
haven't forgotten it.
Hillary Clinton is - somewhat - right: Before 1980, the economy
was rigged as well (despite her not seeing any evidence), but it was
considerably less rigged for the rich and by the rich
than it has been since 1980.
while she "had a solid middle class upbringing.
We had good public schools. We had accessible health care", she doesn't mention that her husband, while he
was president, deregulated nearly
all the legal underpinnings of Hillary's youthful advantages.
But she is quite honest about "the economic"
"fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy",
although she "forgets" to add that these "economic fortunes" were put
together by the bankers, who also rewarded Bill Clinton
with many speeches of an hour or less, for five times the
average yearly income, which quickly gained him at least
$120 million dollars.
Hillary Clinton on her ideal economy:
On more than one occasion, she spoke of
how bankers should take a leading role in shaping financial
regulations, saying in 2013, "the people that know the industry better
than anybody are the people who work in the industry."
And on trade, Clinton told a Brazilian
bank in 2013: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade
and open borders...We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of
barriers to market access and to trade."
This translates (I think) as follows: 'I
want the bankers to decide what is good for the bankers, and I want the
rich to be as unregulated as is possible, so that they can get even
richer even faster, all without any regulations whatsoever: There must
be no protectionism of the poor and the non-rich.'
Finally, this is from WikiLeaks on what is
on Twitter that it had published just "1% of the #PodestaEmails so
far. Additional publications will proceed throughout the election
I say. I
am certainly curious. O, and why do I think you have to vote
for Clinton and not for Trump if I think both are
pro-rich liars and deceivers? Because Trump is mad, and his
plans are considerably more unbalanced, crazy, untested and wild than
is a recommended article.
The fourth and last item today is by Michael
Hudson (<- Wikipedia) on Washington's Blog and originally an
interview on The Real
News Network (<- Wikipedia):
This starts as follows:
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to The
Real News Network. I’m Kim Brown, in Baltimore. With the worst of the
great recession, supposedly, behind us, economic analysts still see
signs that we’re not yet completely out of the woods. A new report
released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund shows that some
banks in the United States and Europe may not be strong enough to
survive another downturn, even with States assistance.
Actually, as Michael Hudson will explain,
"the great recession" is not "behind us", at least if we are
not rich. Indeed, here he is:
HUDSON: We are not in a recovery
and we’re not really in a traditional recession. People think of a
business cycle, which is a boom followed by a recession and then
automatic stabilizers revive the economy. But this time we can’t
revive. The reason is that every recovery since 1945 has begun with a
higher, and higher level of debt. The debt is so high now, that since
2008 we’ve been in what I call, debt deflation. People have to pay so
much money to the banks that they don’t have enough money to buy the
goods and services they produce. So there’s not much new investment,
there’s not new employment (except minimum-wage “service” jobs),
markets are shrinking, and people are defaulting. So many companies
can’t pay their banks.
I mostly agree though I must start with
saying that while I have read hundreds of books on economy the
last 50 years, I don't think economics is a real science, and
my proof is very simple: Almost no economist predicted 2008.
It was a false model. So really, we’re at the end of long cycle that
began in 1945, loading the economy with debt. We’re not going to be
able to get out of it until you write down the debts. But that’s what
the IMF believes is unthinkable. It can’t say that, because it’s
supposed to represent the interest of the banks. So all the IMF can say
is to wring their hands over the fact that the banks won’t make money
even if there is a recovery. But there really
isn’t a recovery, and no signs of it on the horizon, because people
have to pay the banks. It’s a vicious circle – or rather, a downward
So next I translate what Hudson said to my terms (which
probably are not quite adequate to what he is saying, but then
he also seems to have been leaving a few things out):
First, there is not much investment in the West, because (i)
people and companies have to pay back enormous amounts of money to the
banks, and also because (ii) the last 35 years very many
factories and companies have taken the chances offered to them by deregulations, and effectively
moved to the Third World, where wages are very much cheaper
than in the West.
Second, most of the deregulations
that were the main feats that the politicians produced over the
past 35 years (!!)  were in favor of the
banks and in favor of the rich, and were against
the non-rich, and this is also the main reason there is no
recovery for the non-rich: They - about 90% of the total population
- have been effectively moved out of the class of (rich and
very rich) people who can be fairly certain that they will
profit from the economy.
And indeed those who did profit from the economy since 1980
have been the rich and the very rich, and no one else (see your
statistics on income inequalities... - in fact, here are
two of them:)
... and these and only these folks profited so much because the rules have
been deregulated on purpose to
make only the rich and the very rich richer.
Then there is this on Europe (where I live):
BROWN: Michael, the IMF report says that
in the Eurozone, if the Eurozone governments could help banks dump
their bad loans, it would have a positive effect on bank capital. What
would be the effect on consumers in the EU economy, at large, if banks
were able to just dump these bad loans?
HUDSON: Its really very simple
mathematics. You have to abolish pension plans. You have to abolish
social spending. You have to raise taxes. You have to have at least
fifty percent of the European population emigrate, either to Russia or
China. You would have to have mass starvation. Very simple. That’s the
price that the Eurozone thinks is well worth paying. It’s the price
that it thought Greece is worth paying. To save the banks, you would
have to turn the entire Eurozone into Greece.
You’ll have to have the governments sell
off all of their public domains; sell off their railroads, sell off
their public land. You’ll essentially have to introduce neo-feudalism.
You’ll have to roll the clock of history back a thousand years, and
reduce the European population to debt slavery. It’s as simple a
solution as the Eurozone has imposed on Greece. And it’s a solution
that the leaders and the banks are urging for responsible economists to
promote for the population at large.
I say - which I say because I don't
quite believe it. More precisely, I agree
with Michael Hudson that the rich, the banks, and the politicians all
(with extremely few politicians excepted) serve the exclusive ends of
the rich (to whom most of the politicians belong, although they will lie), and I also
agree that this will continue until the rich, the banks, and
hopefully the politicians collapse in another and deeper crisis.
What I disagree about is the extent
to which this will continue. That is, I am quite prepared to accept
that what the rich and their politicians really want is "to abolish pension plans (..) to abolish social spending
(..) to raise taxes" [and] "to have at least fifty percent of the
European population emigrate, either to Russia or China." But I don't think there will still be a
European economy while pension plans are abolished like social
spending, and while "at least fifty percent of the European population
I think it is much more likely
that the European economy collapses before the above results
And here is Hudson on what I call the
forces of neofascism:
The reasons I call the rich, the banks and
the vast majority of all politicians forces of neofascism are
precisely that (i) everything has been arranged (mainly
through deregulations of laws
that protected everyone, that have been moved forward and
forward for 35 years now) to make ONLY
the few rich grow richer, at the costs of the many poor, while also
(ii) "every government, from the Obama
administration right through to Angela Merkel, the Eurozone and the
IMF, promise to save the banks, not the economy"
(which they promise to the bankers rather than to the
populations they wish "to see disappear").
HUDSON: To save the banks from making
losses that would wipe out their net worth, you’ll have to get rid of
Social Security. It means that you’ll essentially have to abolish
government and turn it over to the banking system to run, with an idea
that the role of governments is to extract income from the economy to
pay to the bondholders and the banks.
When you say “paying the banks,” what
they really mean is paying the bank bondholders. They are basically the
One Percent. What you’re really seeing right now in the IMF report, in
this growth of debt, is that One Percent of the population owns maybe
three-quarters of all this debt. This means that there’s a choice:
either you can save the economy, or you can save the One Percent from
losing a single penny.
Every government, from the Obama
administration right through to Angela Merkel, the Eurozone and the
IMF, promise to save the banks, not the economy.
Finally, here is Hudson on the present state of the economy (in the
HUDSON: We’re still in the
collapse that began after 2008. There’s not a new collapse, there
hasn’t been a recovery. Wages for the ninety-nine percent have gone
down, steadily, since 2008. They’ve gone down especially for the bottom
twenty-five percent of the population. This means that they’ve gone
down especially for Blacks and Hispanics and other blue-collar workers.
Their net worth has actually turned negative, and they don’t have
enough money to get by.
I agree that "[t]here’s
not a new collapse, there hasn’t been a recovery",
but I rather observe that since 1980 the ninety percent
have not gained anything, while the 1% or perhaps the 10%
if you also count the well-off who effectively support and protect the
rich and very rich, have gained a great lot (the very rich) or
a little (the well-off): See the above graphics.
Also, while I may be a little less pessimistic than Michael
Hudson, I do hope for another collapse, and the sooner the
better, although I probably will not survive that, because I am very
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
 In fact, I will
if Trump becomes the next president of the USA.
 I have quite a few times explained why
I haven't voted (in Holland) since 1970: Because I had then
decided (based on a considerable amount of reading in the Dutch
Acts of Parliament) that almost all politicians excel in precisely one
respect: They are all enormous liars. I think I
was and am quite correct, and like to add a video reference to: George
Carlin Doesn't vote
Then again, I like to add that if I were American, I would
vote this year, and namely to help keep out the madman Trump,
for he doesn't just lie: He is insane.
(And I am a psychologist, who knows quite well what insane people are
 Incidentally, I don't mind much
being poor, and I have some reserves though not many. Also, I do not
need to be pitied (if there are some who pity others, in these times
where personal profits and personal wealth are so dominant): I am 66,
and while my life was quite heavy (and much more heavy than
that of nearly all other Dutchmen: See M.E.)
my guess is that those who are 30 or 50 years younger than I am will
have a much harder life than I had. (And I am quite
glad now that I don't have children because I am ill since I was 28, which also is
the only reason
I am poor, since my degrees are excellent).