How You Can Tell That Naked Capitalism Threatens Influential People

This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 387 donors have already invested in our efforts to shed light on the dark and seamy corners of finance. Join us and participate via our Tip Jar or another credit card portal, WePay in the right column, or read about why we’re doing this fundraiser and other ways to donate, such as by check, as well as our current goal, on our kickoff post. And read about our current target here

The last two weeks, including this fundraiser proper, show how important your contributions are to this site’s independence. One of the things we pride ourselves on is that we aren’t hostage to tribal or partisan loyalties. We look at things through a lens of “Does it work? Does it produce good outcomes?” And we define “good outcomes” in terms of broader social impact, not the interests of the wealthy and powerful. And we are particularly hard on people who peddle products or policy proposals that fall short of that standard, particularly if they know, or should know, better.

On one of our fundraising posts, an anonymous Washington insider listed some of the practices and organizations that we had examined unsparingly over the last year. He included the Occupy Wall Street group Strike Debt, whose Rolling Jubilee project had gone to ground after raising over $600,000 and repeated promises of “full transparency.” Even though we usually focus this kind of scrutiny on much bigger targets, we’ve been involved in several Occupy initiatives and sport the Occupy banner. We find it troubling when Occupy-related activities invoke the name of Occupy for its PR value and then fail to live up to the principles that the movement represents.

The insider’s post elicited this remark in comments from David Graeber, the well-known author of Debt: The First 5000 Years:

David Graeber says:
October 7, 2013 at 9:40 am
And we at Strike Debt will be preparing a detailed exposé of EXACTLY how she spends every penny of it.

“Pseudo-corruption: indeed

That’s awfully thuggish but unless Graeber has friends at the NSA, it’s an empty threat. Even if he could get this information, it would only show how bare bones this operation really is. Needless to say, readers pilloried Graeber’s mudslinging.

And most importantly, Graeber’s not a good faith response to legitimate criticisms and concerns. Rolling Jubilee’s replies to our questions were and remain evasive, legalistic, and incomplete. Now they may redeem themselves with their promised November release of their financials and the information about the debt purchases they say they have made. But the jury remains out.

We also got a call to my landline at 6 PM the Friday before last that forwarded to my cell. It went pretty much like this:

Screen shot 2013-10-08 at 8.08.16 PM

Male voice: Is this Susan Webber?

Me (assuming this is telemarketing): Who is this?

Male voice: [garbled]

Me: I’m sorry, I’m having trouble hearing you.

Male voice (loud and annoyed): O-R-I-N Kramer. Does that ring a bell?

Me: Yes.

Male voice (still in loud and annoyed voice): Is this a good time to talk. (Note even though the form was of a question, his tone was that this was not a question but a demand)

Me: I’m in a grocery store.

Male voice (even more annoyed): Oh, you’re busy. Well, I’M busy too.

Me: If you’ve like to continue this discussion, you can find my e-mail address on my website.

Kramer was no doubt responding to this post, which had published that Friday morning. It mentioned his role in pushing New Jersey pension funds into risky investments in 2006 and 2007, which among other things, led to $115 million in Lehman-related losses. A key section:

Oh, and who is Orin Kramer? He’s the epitome of the problem Taibbi focuses on in his piece, the politically connected hedgie. His firm, Boston Provident, manages hedge funds. He was under consideration to be the #2 at Treasury under Jack Lew. Here’s what we wrote when his name was mooted:

And as for the real reason for Kramer being on the short list, it’s undoubtedly due to his being a monster bundler for Obama. I’m clearly behind the times; I thought fundraising payoffs were limited to ambassadorships and heading organizations like the Export-Import Bank. Now I infer you can buy yourself a seat at the table. In 2008, the New York Observer called him “King of the New York Obamasaurs“. In 2012, WNYC listed Kramer as one of only two New York bundlers who had raised more than $500,000 for Obama for 2008 and 2012. And this was as of February 2012!

Now I don’t like getting angry calls or comments any more than any of you do. But the reason I get them is that this blog has a savvy and influential audience. You matter not only in terms of numbers, but many of you are influencers in your personal networks and in social media. You see and some of you participate in the sometimes heated debates we have in the comments section in our collective effort to find out where the truth lies and what we can do to hold people in power more accountable. And the fact that NC has an engaged and discerning readership is why we’ve been able to attracted talented and like-minded writers. The fact that people like Graeber and Kramer get defensive and try to shut me down isn’t because of me. It’s because of you, of the size and sophistication of this audience. And I know you have my back.

Contrast these reaction with some others who’ve gotten heat on this blog. When we said we were dubious of the idea of Elizabeth Warren running for Senate, and though she had better ways to deploy her talents and high profile than by hitching her star to the Democratic party machinery, she called to have an off the record conversation about her thinking. I still was not persuaded by some of her arguments, but the fact that she treated a skeptic’s views seriously is a sign of deliberate decision-making and genuine commitment to trying to do the right thing. We also roughed up Neil Barofsky on one of his SIGTARP reports, contending that he pulled his punches. We’ve since established a friendly working relationship; he even endorsed our fundraiser last year.

What Graeber and Kramer seem unwilling to look at is that belief in their own good motivations doesn’t give them a free pass. Savanarola, who executed people he deemed to be heretics, was also convinced of his good intentions. What matters is how your intention is reflected in your actions – walking the talk. And it’s sad but revealing to see that when some of these actions look questionable, rather than taking questions and criticism as useful, the recipients go on the attack rather than examine their behavior. So I hope you’ll support the site in various ways, including financially for who are able to do so, to help us stand firm when we get pushback.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Krialynne

    I’m 59, living with my adult disabled son and recently laid off so I’m afraid I can’t afford any more than $5.00.

    Please know that no one appreciates what you do more, even though they may be in a position to contribute more.

    Keep up the astounding work.

  2. Fiver

    I’m particularly engaged by one piece of Yves’ story.

    This is no longer “Government”. It’s a free-for-all screw-over that will not stop until they hit a financial, political or geopolitical mine that leaves them with no ass left to cover. Looks to me over the last couple of decades like the “radicals” have been far more right than wrong, and “conspiracy” ought to now denote another word for “governance”.

    No comment on Graebner.

    1. Fiver

      Just realized my fist sentence was partially clipped. The portion of Yves’ piece I refer to is the apparent purchase by a hedge fund of the #2 slot at Treasury.

    2. Niall

      This is no longer “Government”. It’s a free-for-all screw-over that will not stop until they hit a financial, political or geopolitical mine that leaves them with no ass left to cover.

      This is Government, but not as we’ve been taught to know it.

      Much like modern Economic theory ignores money, concepts like Capitalism and Communism essentially ignore how the state actually operates. The state is the entity which runs the country on behalf of everyone. But like all human institution it is run by people, and with so much at stake, people do not live up to expectations.

      The state in reality is an enormous honey pot — the largest purse in the land — to which the ambitious, avaricious, and yes unscrupulous are drawn like so many flies. Individuals, and groups perform what amounts to a lobbyist’s Dance of the Seven Veils before the government and institutions; Argument, rhetoric, networking, persuasion, propaganda, flattery, and money are all used to elicit favour from the government and institutions of the day. The best performers are rewarded with contracts, tax-breaks, monopolies, exemptions, and even tacit promises of immunity.

      The result is what I like to call the “semi-private” sector. Companies, businesses, even industries which are nominally private; but the majority — or all — of whose income comes directly from or at the expense of the public purse. These companies could not remain profitable or powerful without political favours and connections to and support of the state that these bring. It goes without saying that the profits of these semi-private companies come at the expense of the rest of us.

      This all happens because the state is run by human beings who are subject to temptation and guile, and because there are no checks in place to put restrictions on such behaviour. There will always be those willing to dance the seven veils to win favour and fortune, and there will always be officers of the state willing to watch the dance. What is needed is someone to put a stop to the dancing, and the watching, and to put the state back to the work running the country.

      Graeber and Kramer have probably made their fortunes not because of any technical ability they possess, but because of the favour of the state they have managed to win. Certainly, this winning took effort, but the reward for that effort is men running companies poorly, or inappropriately, and through state favour being immune from the consequences of their actions. This outcome is ultimately self-destructive for the state and society which permits it.

      1. John Halle

        “Graeber (has) probably made (his) fortunes not because of any technical ability they possess, but because of the favour of the state (he has) managed to win.” Wow, hallucinogenics available here are abundant and powerful it seems. Bravo!

      2. Foppe

        (It can be helpful to look up who you are talking about first, before spending time to write a post of this length.)

      3. Fiver


        I take your point(s), but must insist that this is not a case of “ever thus”, as we in the “West” have the concrete experience of roughly a quarter century of much better government during the post-War period until the Vietnam War entered its more intense phase in the latter ’60’s, culminating in Nixon’s unilateral move away from gold, and Kissinger’s deal to institute the “petro-dollar”.

        Oh, there were lying, looting bastards then too, but they were far fewer in number, avoided the sunlight like the plague, and operated on a scale of criminality that would not make it into print today, such is the enormity of the collapse of standards of conduct over the past 3 decades. Someone like Bernie Madoff, or Tim Geithner, or Jamie Dimon would’ve been impossible in 1965. Cripes, Nixon was impeached for a “dirty trick” while Obama each Tuesday signs death warrants for State murder anywhere on Earth, in secret, without recourse, or offers blanket pardons to known war criminals – nope, I’d say this isn’t normal, it’s diseased.

  3. PaulArt

    Listen Yves, don’t waste time on people like Graeber and Kramer. People who take advantage of this precious thing called human faith – they are worse than parasites and scumbags. You are a threat to them because you refuse to take advantage of the platform and visibility you have now built. They on the other hand are all and only about converting their public persona into $$$. Screw them.

  4. John Halle

    It’s obvious that NC does excellent work, including its piece on Strike Debt which, while perhaps a bit overly critical, was useful. That said, the characterization of Strike Debt as “a powerful interest” is absurd as is the comparison of David Graeber, a radical anthropology professor, with Orin Kramer, a sleazy Wall Street influence peddler. So is the criticism of Strike Debt as excessively secretive coming from a website whose two main contributors post under pseudonyms and which boasts that those wanting to find out about its internal operations could only do so if “they had friends at the NSA”. By all means, NC deserves to be supported financially, but I must say that this pitch rubbed me the wrong way.

    1. diptherio

      I think you’re reading between the lines a little too much on this one. Yves clearly states her reasons for criticizing Strike Debt, and it isn’t because they are “powerful interests” (article headline notwithstanding). She states that her criticism is directed at them because they have used the Occupy name for PR but have failed to live up to Occupy’s ideals (namely, transparency), and that they should know better. Ol’ Orin and his ilk are the “powerful interests” referred to in the headline.

      I think the point is that Yves doesn’t pull any punches with her analysis, even if the targets of said analysis are members of “our side”.

      And I have to wonder if that was really David Graeber, or someone using his name as a sock-puppet. If it was the real Graeber, I hope he’s embarrassed by his childish outburst.

      1. Yves Smith Post author

        1. I checked the e-mail supplied with the Graeber comment. It shows up only 2-3 places on the Web but it is the same e-mail address, so I am highly confident it is him. Plus he’s lashed out at people who’ve criticized Occupy tactics and initiatives in the past (big argument over a post that ran at Daily Kos on black bloc tactics in Oakland, for instance), so this sort of remark is not inconsistent with his modus operandi.

        2. Before Graeber made his remark in comments, I was cc’d on an e-mail among Rolling Jubilee people where they discussed how I was “full of shit” and they were trying to “investigate” me. This sort of threat is Mafia-like, as Graeber’s was. Even if this group is not objectively powerful (as in is connected strongly to the elites who run government and large private sector entities), they clearly think they can hurt me and intend to. So they believe that they have, or can get, the media/PR reach to wield power. And Graeber himself has conducted Twitter wars that have been pretty over the top.

        I didn’t want to unpack the headline, it is clearly meant for Kramer, but it actually does apply in a small way to Strike Debt/Rolling Jubilee. Their activities did get picked up by the MSM (the Times, IIRC the LA Times, and some other national news outlets). The Strike Debt/RJ people probably at a minimum hope they can damage my credibility with journalists, who read if not refer to my work (there’s a weird de facto rule among MSM outlets not to credit blogs even if they were first to be on a story).

    2. JCC

      “coming from a website whose two main contributors post under pseudonyms”… Pulease!

      You might try wikipedie if you don’t know Yves Smith’s real name… or just read the post.

      Attacking the messenger with a ridiculous ad hominem makes your complaint a little silly.

    3. Lambert Strether

      Had you given consideration to actually reading Yves’s critique? The issue is promises of transparency that SD/RJ made and then did not keep. When Yves pointed this out, the responses fell into three categories. From SDers: (a) We don’t have to keep our promises; (b) we don’t have to keep our promises yet and (c) tu quoque. Since tu quoque with respect to promises made is both factually false and logically irrelevant, I’m very surprised to see a fine analyst like you adopting it.

      Another way of saying this is that if you think a governance model where you collect $600K — not chump change to a lot of us — promise transparency, and then go dark for six months is prefigurative politics, or good practice, or good branding for Occupy, good luck with that. Maybe they’re going to end up doing exactly what they promised they would do — this time — and everything’s going to be jake. I certainly hope so. Meanwhile, defensive, thuggish, pissy, and logically and factually false responses are not confidence builders and don’t help their cause. Or Occupy’s.

  5. Ned Ludd

    Elizabeth Warren, on single-payer health care (video):

    Interviewer: But you do support single-payer, do you not?

    Warren: No, what I’ve got right now…

    Interviewer: You’ve written repeatedly that you have, have you not?

    Warren: Oooooh. I think you need to go back and take a look…

    Interviewer: I have a paragraph: “The most obvious solution would be universal single-payer health care. Single-payer care would also free families from dependence on an employers’ plan and make certain everyone is covered whether or not…” You wrote that with a co-author.

    Something to keep in mind before trusting anything she says.

    1. tyler

      Warren campaigned on raising the estate tax and then voted to repeal or reduce it. She’s full of shit, but whatevs – that just means she’s a politician.

    2. Teejay

      Ned, do you know who did that interview or where/when it took place? I’d like to see it in its entirety.

      1. Ned Ludd

        The interviewer is Jim Braude. Video of the entire interview is here, and it appears it was broadcast on June 29, 2012.

        Warren repeatedly evades questions. One technique she uses is to affirm something Braude said (that is peripheral to the question), and then to change the topic. She does this when asked about the public option. She does it again when caught lying about her past support for single-payer health care. Braude has called her out before for being evasive.

  6. David Lentini

    To PaulArt:

    I think Yves’s point is that many of the people who are doing so much to wreck civil society these days are more narcissistic than consciously criminal. An important function of NC is to remind everyone that nobody’s shit smells like roses, which is why we need reliable information and analysis as well as the courage to speak truth to power.

    Don’t forget: “Meritocracy” begins with “me”.

    1. David Lentini

      I forgot to a comment.

      To John Halle:

      I think Yves’s point was not to compare Graeber with Kramer—certainly not the severity of their sins—but to demonstrate that NC will go after bullshit coming from both ends of the political spectrum. The comment about Graeber is especially important, since the <=1% will jump on every error and scam in the name of "Occupy" to smear the movement.

  7. Foppe

    Yves: I understand that David’s response irritated you (it did me), especially given SD’s response to your legitimate inquiries (I found them very disappointing as well, as you may or may not have seen when you linked to their response at the time), but I’m not really sure it makes sense to call him ‘important/influential’ (or corrupt) in the same way Kramer is. (You sort of raise the suggestion via the combination of the title of the post and discussing him side by side with Kramer in the last para.)
    That aside, it might be useful to point out that Graeber is treasurer for RJ.

    1. aletheia33

      OMG, he’s an anthropologist who writes about money, not as bad as an economist, but still.
      this explains a lot of why SD is so inept in its financial activities.
      he deserves our appreciation for taking on a tough job that no one else probably wanted.
      brilliant as he seems to be, his ego appears to be a bit inflated. it will be interesting to see how that plays out in the Occupy movement. oh wait…

      1. Foppe

        Was this really intended as a reply to my post? Because if so, I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

        1. aletheia33

          sorry, just a bit of snark on learning that DG is treasurer of SD. your comment deserves better.

  8. Conan, What is best in life?

    Bush-league peculator Kramer trying to be a big swinging dick was your funniest post since that time Rubin wanted to cuddle. The thought of Kramer flexing in his most awesome manner, trying to make Yves give a crap while she’s squeezing avocados, that’s comedy gold. Perhaps you could share more of the transcript next time we’re down and need a laugh.

  9. Eeyores Enigma

    Graeber has done an enormous amount of good work laying out the core issue that underlies all of what is wrong in the world today…DEBT MONEY.

    He has also gotten down and dirty with the masses in an attempt to change things.

    He has done way more than others here who point fingers.

    He certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

    IMO his main beef with NC is being convicted in a hack court of the blogosphere.

    1. AbyNormal

      “He certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt”

      a wealthy family member of mine feels the exact same about Jamie Dimon…their defense: after all money begets money


    2. Clive

      No, Eeyores, I’m sorry but I could not disagree more.

      I’m a trustee of a charity. Which means that I get to spend other people’s money. That money is given to the charity on the basis of what it sets out as it’s charitable purpose. Even within that broad purpose, I have a duty to spend it wisely.

      If one single penny of that money got spent on something that was not in the minds of the people who donated it when they handed it over, my conscience would not let me sleep at night.

      If anyone asked me what the money had been spent on, I’d be able to tell them and justify it. If they said “hey, that doesn’t sound right to me” I would never just stonewall them and I would put myself in their shoes and try to be objective. If they had a valid point, I’d take it.

      I am not Mr. Amazing or anything. If you’re doing the right thing, these questions are not difficult to answer. The fact that they’ve not been answered is, therefore, to me, a bit whiffy.

      If you take people’s money purporting to be with charitable intent, you owe them some basic explanations about what’s happened to it. That’s not some kangaroo court in action, that’s just plain decent behaviour.

    3. just_kate

      In addition to the solid post from Clive above I would also like to point out the obvious fact that in this day and age there is NO EXCUSE for not being able to live up to a stated intent of transparency. A ton of off the shelf software makes tracking and reporting of numbers super easy so its not like all their volunteers have to maintain, organize and coordinate information using paper ledgers. Sheesh.

    4. JTFaraday

      I don’t know. If I were DG and thought I deserved the benefit of the doubt, when YS came calling I might be inclined to see it as an opportunity to seek counsel.

      But he didn’t do that. So, then it looks like either he does have something to hide OR that he’s in over his head–as he almost surely is here– and doesn’t want to admit it, either due to ego OR due to his general thesis that The People can do everything for themselves and they don’t need finance or other legalistic or bureaucratic experts to do things for them.

      Seeking help from a finance expert undoes his whole anarchist thesis, and leaves him participant in the whole finance extortion racket.

      So, who can say? Especially if they still put everything to a vote.

      1. Lambert Strether

        Not so much the project itself, but the later putative justifications for failure to make promised disclosures remind me of this episode from the South Sea Bubble:

        An unknown adventurer started the scheme that showed, more completely than any other did, the utter madness of the people. It was entitled “company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.”

        That’s the logical culmination of “We don’t have to keep our promises” and “we don’t have to keep our promises yet.”

  10. Joe Rebholz

    Yves said:

    “One of the things we pride ourselves on is that we aren’t hostage to tribal or partisan loyalties. We look at things through a lens of “Does it work? Does it produce good outcomes? And we define “good outcomes” in terms of broader social impact, not the interests of the wealthy and powerful.”

    So this blog through its posts, comments, and links is documenting the defects, absurdities and contradictions of our present systems —economics, finance, law, trade, business, politics, government, …

    But it also proposes possible changes, improvements, …

    Some commenters after reading about a possible solution for something, for example MMT or different financial regulations, moan and groan that it can’t be done and that the writer is wasting their and our time. What such critics miss is that one way our systems can be changed is for those with the ability to change them to realize that the systems need to be changed and that there are changes they could make that will improve things.

    If no one writes about the defects and no one writes about positive changes, then those who claim that there is no alternative will be right. Naked Capitalism documents the deficiencies, the absurdities, the unjustness and documents possible solutions. Most other media just goes along with the official views.

    So, as the ideas and knowledge spreads far and wide from NC (and its links) the probability of meaningful change in a good direction increases. No human system is static. They all evolve. Things will get better or worse or both. NC is working in the direction of better. If we support NC we are helping this process.

  11. Fiver

    After re-reading this piece, the comments, and reflecting on how much attention Graebner has garnered, I think it’s worth pointing out that this fellow’s work ought to be treated with the same sort of skepticism and critical thinking as any work deemed “ground-breaking” by enthusiasts. I’m reminded of a book I thought was fantastic, by a fellow from Princeton who wrote “The Origins of Consciousness in The Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind”, a truly original theory of the evolution of the “self” in history. Now, I still think it was a great book, but has anyone else read it?

    1. craazyman

      yes, I read it when I was getting my NFL, GED from the University of Magonia and drinking beer in bars at night.

      It was quite original indeed and, like many books of its type, its value (at least to me) came as much in its illumination of historical events, cultures, patterns of thought, methods of organization and overall operating philosophies and literatures as in its central thesis.

      The central thesis was quite creative indeed and very thought provoking. But is it true? Ehhh, I don’t know. Probably not. But still, the book was a fine and shining light into the darkness and that’s pretty good by itself.

      Also Julian Jaynes was a heavy drinker and it’s quite a testament to his capacity for writing that he actually wrote the book at all.

      I’ve often valued books not for their primary thesis but for the ancillary and incidential illuminations they offer. I did very much respect Dr. Graeber’s book DEBT, primarily for its historical sweep and the stories it told that I didn’t know about how societies thought about money and debt thousands over thousands of years. And how people thought about money and debt thousads of years ago in terms that are so contemporary they could be written now. That made quite an impression on my mind.

    2. archer

      You probably didn’t intend to go in this direction, but despite the kudos Graeber’s book has gotten in a lot of quarters, it turns out it’s got a lot of inaccuracies. Even though the point that is most widely cited from his book, that the origins of money that are widely taught in economics texts are a bunch of hooey, he apparently has a significant number of other errors for a work that presents itself as scholarly but addressed to a mainstream audience.

      DeLong credited Graeber for being right on the money story but there is also some material in it that is apparently not even close to correct. Some of them errors, which were first picked up by third parties rather than DeLong, are howlers. Graeber says, for instance, that Apple was “founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s.” And Graeber gets very aggressive in response. This is only a partial list of the DeLong posts:

      If you can read only one, read the last one.

      1. Foppe

        Please don’t make the mistake of taking delong seriously; he glommed on to the ‘apple mistake’ to write a number of posts in which all he does is criticize minor stuff, while he has nothing to say about the books main theses, which he wants to ignore, and which he wants his readers to ignore. That’s what the personal campaign is all about. He’s done this sort of thing before (character attacks when he doesn’t want to have to deal with theories he feels threaten his way of life, or the legitimacy of his theoretical position as a neoclassical). See here from another example from a few years ago, where he tried to go after David Harvey, and failed.

        All of the Henry Farrell links refer to a book symposium that was held on Crooked Timber, where Farrell wrote an essay that was full of straw men positions that he attributes to DG. In the ‘review’ Farrell basically ignored all of the references Graeber offered for his remarks about the US and the dollar and a tribute system, and suggests that Graeber just made his argument up out of whole cloth, after which Farrell attacks DG for presenting such a ‘ludicrous’ theory. Graeber (imho quite correctly) felt that the essay was hateful, wrote a response that explained Farrell’s argument was idiotic, and attacked him for being so petty. This was received badly by Farrell’s friends at CT, who closed ranks and suggested that Graeber was wrong to think Farrell’s review was petty and hackneyed. It was, of course, but friendship meant more to them than intellectual honesty.

        Please don’t mistake the fact that DeLong can make strong assertions about something, and that he sounds really confident when he makes them, for DeLong being correct.

      2. annie

        All one needs to know about DeLong, economist, is that he defended Greenspan to the very end.
        See his review of A.G.’s last book in LATimes Book Review.

  12. EmilianoZ

    I don’t know that we should crow about losing someone like Graeber. He’s the most interesting thinker we’ve had lately. And ultimately he’s on our side.

    I think we could accept him with his little quirks. He seems to be intensely loyal to a small bunch of anarchists. This was demonstrated by his ugly spat with Chris Hedges. I can live with that. Take his ideas, reject his tactics.

    I will miss his guest posts.

    Calling a “powerful interest” is weird.

  13. TC

    Savanarola… I’ll bet that contrast went over like a bed of nails.

    And since Senator Warren is a reader…
    1). Please run for U.S. president in 2016, and
    2). NO NO NO to Yellen (payback’s a bitch, Barack).

Comments are closed.