Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Economics, immigration, worker rights, and the global economy. Comprehensive coverage on Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace here.

Americans Lack Economic Literacy; Some Hold "Insane" Views on Stimulus Spending
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM.

OK, so most Americans have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the deficit. How are they when it comes to understanding stimulus efforts? Arguably, on this, they're even worse.

Rasmussen has a new poll showing a 51% majority believes canceling the economic recovery efforts would "create more jobs." Derek Thompson, flabbergasted, characterized these beliefs as "insane."

It's one thing to say that canceling the rest of the stimulus money would help our deficit. That's arguable, even if I think it's dead wrong, since the best way to help our deficit is to put people back to work when demand is nonexistent so that they (1) receive taxable income and (2) spend that taxable income on products to help other people's taxable income. [...]

The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html

So this is a crazy statistic, but I think it's important to ask why Americans think the stimulus is actually hurting job-creation.

It's a good question, and your guess is as good as mine. Chances are, it's not just one thing. Part of the confusion is likely the result of an electorate that doesn't quite understand the basics, and is therefore easily misled by the same people who got us in this mess. Part of it comes from a media that hasn't made much of an effort to explain the basics. And part of the problem has to be politicians -- one party believes Hoover was right about the Great Depression, and the other party is afraid to talk about how government spending and intervention prevented a wholesale economic collapse.

Regardless of the cause, the consequences of widespread confusion and ignorance can be, and may turn out to be, devastating. If most Americans believe government spending undermines job creation, and are convinced that short-term deficit reduction is more important than economic growth, they're more likely to vote for arsonists to put out the fire.

The surest way to make things even worse is to reward those who created the problem in the first place.

Yes Men Strike Again, Launch New Coke Brand Bottled Water Called 'Deception' [with Video]
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM.

The notorious and hilarious pranksters, The Yes Men have done it again. This time their target was Coca-Cola. The company bottles Dasani water, which is basically just tap water that you pay a whole lot more for. The only difference really is that then you have a plastic bottle, which 80 percent of people toss in the garbage instead of a recycling bin.

While Pepsi, which uses tap water for its Aquafina bottled water, has now caved to pressure and labeled their water as "public water source" -- Coke still refuses. So, the Yes Men teamed up with pressure group Corporate Accountability International and launched a faux Coke campaign for a new bottled water called Deception. Genius!

You can watch the video below (or here). My favorite part is when they actually run into a real employee from Coke. And click here to read more about Coke's bad track record when it comes to bottled water.

Why There Are More Than 1 Million Hungry Kids in the U.S.
Posted by Sarah Newman, Takepart on November 18, 2009 at 8:43 AM.

It's time to forget the inaccurate stereotypical image of America's hungry as long lines of mostly homeless men, winding down the block from a church's soup pantry entrance, waiting for their daily meal. The times have changed, drastically. The ongoing economic recession has slowly started to show limited signs of recovery on paper and on Wall Street, but these developments haven't reached millions of Americans. We live in an era with a 10 percent official national unemployment rate, coupled with rising costs of living and stagnant wages. Those shouldering the burden of this economic crisis are barely surviving. For many, they can't even afford basics for survival, such as food.

The Washington Post reported that the federal government's latest statistics show the number of Americans who are food insecure (they lack regular access to food) increased last year 49 million people and 17 million of them were children. More alarming is the increase in the number of children who were just plain hungry, which reached 1.1 million -- that's 21 percent of all households with children with low or very low (i.e. hungry) food security. Those waiting for a daily meal are people of all ages, races and geographic backgrounds.

Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack acknowledges that "poverty, unemployment, these are all factors," in the increase in hunger and food insecurity rates. The government report's author noted, though, "that most families in which food is scarce contain at least one adult with a full-time job, suggesting that the problem lies at least partly in wages, not just an absence of work."

This report begs the question: how are these people surviving? The federal government isn't able to fully fill this gap. Their anti-hunger programs such as food stamps, school lunches and/or WIC (Women, Infant and Children) only serve about 50 percent of those in need. This is where we all come into the picture. It turns out that last year, 4.8 million households used private food pantries, up from 3.9 million the previous year. Private food pantries rely on people like you and me to survive.

Feeding America, a leading hunger-relief organization, has had increased demand over the past year, coinciding with the report's findings. The organization, which has a network of 200 food banks, provided food to 25 million people last year. Most of these volunteer-run places are refuges to people who would otherwise go hungry. With the increased demand, more support is needed. Wherever you live in the U.S., whether it's a big city, small town or suburban community, there are hungry people who need your help. This is a problem that can be solved but it requires all of our participation as a volunteer, donor and/or advocate. Let's make sure that all of America is fed today.

Goldman Sachs Plays at Giving Back to the Little People
Posted by Joe Costello, Archein on November 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM.

Goldman Sachs announced it was giving the little folks $500 million spread over five years, because as CEO Lloyd Blankfein says, "We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret,” and...wait for it.... “We apologize." If only all the boys sitting behind bars for sticking up a 7-11 knew all they had to do was apologize and give back a pittance of that they stole. All would be forgiven.

The Financial Times states the 500 million to be tithed to small businesses is "2.3 per cent of its estimated bonus and salary pool for 2009" and the yearly amount "is equivalent to a good trading day at Goldman. In the third quarter, the bank had 36 days in which traders made more than $100m." What would the small business person do without its Wall Street benefactors?

Last fall, Goldman was "gifted" $14 billion from the American taxpayer with the Fed and Treasury's fraudulent payment of AIG's worthless derivatives. I wonder if that's what Mr. Blankfein means by they "participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret," or maybe that's something else? But a tithe is supposed to be ten percent, so they're about billion short. Better, if they were made to payback the entire 14 billion and broke into a couple dozen pieces.

Hundreds Converge on Goldman Sachs DC Headquarters
Posted by Staff, SEIU on November 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM.

This is a press advisory from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Washington, D.C. -- Today, hundreds of workers, clergy members, community leaders, and other taxpayers converged on the Washington, D.C. headquarters of Goldman Sachs to demand the bank put an end to multi-billion dollar bonuses, reject the Too Big To Fail Doctrine, and use their anticipated $23 billion bonus pool to help families facing foreclosure. Taxpayers also called on Congress to take immediate action on real financial reform.

"Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs have rightfully earned the leading role in the story of 'all that is wrong with Wall Street,'" said George Goehl, Executive Director of the National People's Action. "Now is the time for them to start making amends for past transgressions. A good first step would include showing a little holiday spirit by directing a significant portion of their estimated $23 billion-dollar bonus pool to a fund to prevent foreclosure. It's the least they could do."

Today's demonstration was the latest in a series of national mobilizations launched last month as 5,000 taxpayers from 20 states converged on the American Bankers Association convention in Chicago to demand Wall Street and big banks stop fighting reforms that would protect our families from the next economic crisis.

"Companies like Goldman Sachs seem to love their company more than their country," said Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union. "And in the name of maximizing profits and their huge bonuses, they will foreclose on our homes and take jobs from our families while short selling America without a second thought. The $23 billion dollars Goldman is planning to pay out in bonuses could prevent every single expected foreclosure in America in 2010."

After sharing personal stories illustrating Goldman Sachs' continued refusal to help in America's economic recovery, taxpayers attempted to deliver a letter requesting a meeting with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein to discuss their demands. This is the third time taxpayers have requested such a meeting and their requests continue to go unanswered as Blankfein continues his media tour preaching his firm's devotion to doing "God's work."

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Zombie Lies Don't Die ... WSJ Spins Discredited Claim that Programs for the Poor Caused Housing Crisis
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM.

A November 13 Wall Street Journal op-ed claimed that loans made "under the pressure of" the Community Reinvestment Act helped to "fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen." The claim that affordable housing initiatives were responsible for the housing crisis is a widely discredited myth.

From Edward Pinto's Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks -- loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.

From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, "Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements."

The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?

[...]

Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals.

The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates-to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991-resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.

Now this history may repeat itself as many of the same community groups are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments. Are we about to set the stage for another catastrophe? [The Wall Street Journal, 11/13/09]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Goldman Sachs Report: Watered-Down Senate Health Bill a Windfall for Big Insurance
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Goldman Sachs (in the course of performing “God’s work“) did a report analyzing the impact of health reform on Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Humana. While Stein concludes that insurers would profit from undermining health care reform, the report also points out that a more “centrist” version of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) legislation would lead to the highest “aggregate revenue growth” for the insurance industry:

Should lawmakers further water-down the SFC bill, the industry will stand to profit, the report implies, suggesting that the “bull” case scenario is a reform package that brings in millions of new government-subsidized customers without requiring the industry to pay any new taxes. Industry revenue would grow 6.9% from “more moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan or as a result of changes prior to the major implementation in 2013,” the report states. The report therefore suggests that the insurance industry may actually prefer watered-down reform over nothing. The Wonk Room has more. (Chart courtesy of FDL)

Politico Trivializes Rape by Gov Contractors, Spins Franken Amendment as Partisan Attack (Obsenity-Laden Rant Alert)
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on November 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM.

Here is why I dislike the American Political Insider Press, and by "dislike," I mean, "want to toss into a vat of shark-infested sulfuric acid." It is because of this class of thing from The Politico.

When Al Franken ran for the Senate last year, the former “Saturday Night Live” star had to reassure skeptics that the fierce partisan attacks he lobbed at Republicans as an author and radio host wouldn’t define his style as a legislator. 

But because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims. 

The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts. 

Only in the god-blighted shitworld of the horrible fuckassed American Political Insider Press is it possible to even fucking think for a motherfucking minute that it's Playing with Partisan Dynamite to argue that the American government should not negotiate expensive contracts with companies that shield rapists. What the fuck? What the motherfucking fuck?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

After 5 Weeks, 3 GOP Filibusters and 200,000 Americans Running Out of Bennies, Obama to Sign Unemployment Extension
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM.

The good news is, President Obama will sign a measure today to extend unemployment benefits for at least 14 weeks for people out of work. It's money well spent -- it helps struggling people, and the investment tends to be stimulative -- and with new, discouraging job numbers, the timing is right.

"Given the employment situation and the general bang for the buck you get from unemployment insurance, that's probably the most sensible of the stimulative policies to extend," Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said.

The bad news is, it took far too long to get the common-sense bill through Congress. The measure stalled in the Senate for weeks, and while GOP lawmakers dithered, about 200,000 people who are looking for work lost their benefits.

We talked a couple of weeks ago about why Republicans were forcing delays, and Kevin Drum summarized what transpired on the Senate floor yesterday.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Unemployment Hits 10.2 Percent, Economy Sheds 190,000 Jobs
Posted by Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research on November 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM.

The unemployment rate crossed 10.0 percent for the first time since early 1983, hitting 10.2 percent in October. The establishment survey showed the economy losing another 190,000 jobs, with most of the job loss in construction and manufacturing.

The October unemployment rate is still below the 10.8 percent peak reached in December of 1982, but the workforce is considerably older now and in age cohorts where workers are less likely to be unemployed. If the workforce had the same age distribution as in 1982 but current unemployment rates for each age cohort, then the unemployment rate would be more than a percentage point higher. The 10.7 percent unemployment rate for men is 0.6 percentage points higher than the 10.1 percent peak in 1982. This is consistent with the massive job loss in construction and manufacturing.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Meet Some of the People Who Have Jobs Thanks to Obama's Recovery Act
Posted by Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, AlterNet on November 4, 2009 at 11:46 AM.

640,329

That figure represents the number of jobs that have been created or saved so far through the Recovery Act, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.

But the true significance of this number lies in the people behind it.

People like Thalia Williams. Thalia is a single mother of a 3-year-old son, in Brooklyn, NY. "Construction is something that I wanted to do for a long time," she said. "I had no way of knowing how to get into this field because I always heard it was a man's world."

Now, thanks to an organization that is able to expand and recruit women using Recovery Act funds, Thalia has a job weatherizing homes in New York.

Watch her story here.

Thalia is just one of thousands of people who are finding jobs, hope, and opportunity in the clean-energy economy.

Their stories show the true return on investment that America’s communities are reaping from Recovery Act funding. (You can see more stories from the growing green economy on Green For All’s Green Economy Roadmap).

With just over one-quarter of the Recovery funds paid out, the jobs and opportunity created will only grow in the coming months.

In addition to creating jobs in the short term, the Recovery Act is proving to be an essential jumpstart to the clean-energy economy, seeding new programs and expanding successful models across the country.

But the Recovery Act was primarily meant to stabilize our economy in the midst of a sweeping recession, and most funding from the Act will end by 2011. To build a thriving, healthy economy for future generations, we need long-term investment and policies.

Congress now has the historic opportunity to provide that long-term stability, and build on the foundation laid by the Recovery Act through climate and clean-energy legislation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over Vote for Impunity for Contractors
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.

Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.

One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Good News Everyone, The Economic Crisis Is Over! (Right?)
Posted by Allison Kilkenny, True/Slant on October 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM.

Good news, everyone: The economic crisis is OVER!

Kind of. Today's New York Times reports

The United States has emerged from the longest economic contraction since World War II.

The nation's gross domestic product [GDP] expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the quarter that ended in September, matching its average growth rate of the last 80 years, according to the Commerce Department.

If life still sucks for you: you're still unemployed, depressed, broke, homeless, or scraping by on food stamps, don't worry. You're not alone. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 58 percent of people said they see the country as being on the wrong economic track.

There's always been a weird disconnect between official economic figures like GDP, "third quarter growth," and average citizens' lives. Basically, things can look great on paper, while low and moderate-income people suffer. It's almost like the official record keepers have no idea what life is like for the guy working the graveyard shift in South Side Chicago.

This is not a new problem. Economic indicators like GDP may work swimmingly in lecture hall theories, but they ignore many factors important to the well being of a society, such as health care or life expectancy.

For example, 80 percent of Americans have reported feeling stressed about the economic downturn. The stress affects women the most, who report increases in symptoms like irritability, anger and fatigue. These kinds of economic downturn byproducts have untold consequences on family, workplace, and societal stability.

This stress can also manifest as insomnia. In West Virginia, the AP reports that nearly 1 in 5 West Virginians said they did not get a single good night’s sleep in the previous month. For West Virginia, a state that ranks at or near the bottom of the nation in several important measurements of health, including obesity, the insomnia epidemic may have its roots in the economy, says Dr. Ronald Chervin, a University of Michigan sleep disorders expert. Chevin says financial stress and odd-hour work shifts can play roles in sleeplessness.

However, insomnia isn't measured in GDP. This disconnect was large enough to attract the attention of economists like the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who is trying to come up with a new, broader definition of prosperity. In an interview with Bloomberg, Stiglitz said:

GDP has increasingly become used as a measure of societal well-being and changes in the structure of the economy and our society have made it an increasingly poor one ... So many things that are important to individuals are not included in GDP.

In the model they unveiled, the academics recommend including other factors, such as sustainability and education.

Even the guy who invented the GDP, the late Russian-American economist Simon Kuznets, knew his system had significant shortcomings. He once said, "The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income."

It’s true. Fancy lab room words that seemed benign at the time, like "derivatives" and "sub-prime mortgages," had unforeseen, terrible consequences on average citizens' lives. Similarly, the specialized jargon of "GDP" and "third quarter growth" exist on different planets from the rest of us. While the students at the University of Chicago's Department of Economics say one thing, it appears as though the opposite is happening in our backyards ... again.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

An Early Halloween Scare: Immigration Agents Attacking Workers' Rights!
Posted by Amy Traub, DMI Blog on October 30, 2009 at 3:54 AM.

In our recent report on immigration policy and the middle class, I made the case that the exploitation of undocumented immigrant workers threatens to drive down wages, benefits and working conditions for middle-class workers and low-income Americans striving to earn a middle-class standard of living. The solution, I argue, is to provide a path to legal status for the undocumented immigrants: this would maximize the economic benefits undocumented workers, consumers, and taxpayers already bring to the nation and help ensure that exploitation doesn't harm the rest of us.

Unfortunately, that's not the direction the country is going. Instead, a new study by researchers from the AFL-CIO, American Rights at Work and the National Employment Law Project documents a decline in the enforcement of labor standards at the same time the nation has experienced an immigration crackdown in the workplace. The result only worsens workplace exploitation. As the study points out:

"The single-minded focus on immigration enforcement without regard to violations of workplace laws has enabled employers with rampant labor and employment violations to profit by employing workers who are terrified to complain about substandard wages, unsafe conditions, and lack of benefits, or to demand their right to bargain collectively... ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency] actions have created incentives for shady employers to continue hiring and abusing undocumented workers, since the deportation of their employees may excuse those employers from complying with labor laws."

It's fitting that the report was released a week before Halloween, since it's full of frightening stories of immigration agents - or local police enforcing immigration law - intervening in ways that facilitate workplace abuses. We read of ICE helicopters hovering menacingly above picket lines; immigration agents who came promptly to arrest workers who had complained about workplace safety; and one story of a worker suffering from a horrific workplace injury, swept up by immigration agents as he entered the courthouse to press a workers' compensation claim. His employer, apparently delighted that he might not have to pay for an injury caused by his business' negligent practices, called out: "I'm sending you back to Mexico... I have no use for you now." If that's not haunting, I don't know what is.

One quibble: the authors offer suggestions for more thoughtful enforcement of both immigration and labor laws, but these horror stories call for bolder solutions. An overhaul of immigration and labor laws would be a better solution still.

Oil Tycoon: Our Troops Died ... We're "Entitled" to Sweet Contracts in Iraq!
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on October 23, 2009 at 10:48 AM.

After all that, it looks like the Iraqis are cutting some big deals to develop their massive oil wealth -- but with the mushy Europeans and the damn Chi-coms!

Iraq's Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani told a Washington conference on Wednesday that his government was happy with the energy auction it held earlier this year. The auction was the first chance for foreign oil firms to compete for Iraqi oil since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

BP and the Chinese oil company CNPC were the only firms to win a contract in Iraq's bid round this summer, the first chance for foreign oil firms to compete for Iraqi oil since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Seven other oil and gas fields failed to attract bidders on the terms Iraq offered.

But a consortium headed by Italy's ENI (ENI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research) said last week it signed a deal to develop the giant Zubair field for a remuneration fee of $2 a barrel. At Iraq's oilfield auction in June, the consortium refused to go below $4.40 a barrel.

Another consortium headed by Exxon is still in the running for one project, but that doesn't mollify hedge-fund gazillionaire -- and natural gas honcho -- T-Boone Pickens. He's none-too-happy:

Oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens told Congress on Wednesday that U.S. energy companies are "entitled" to some of Iraq's crude because of the large number of American troops that lost their lives fighting in the country and the U.S. taxpayer money spent in Iraq.

[...]

"They're opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world ... We're entitled to it," Pickens said of Iraq's oil. "Heck, we even lost 5,000 of our people, 65,000 injured and a trillion, five hundred billion dollars."

[...]

"We leave there with the Chinese getting the oil," Pickens said.

Nothing new -- In August T-Boone called on the administration to "demand" oil contracts from Iraq before considering a withdrawal ($$). But it is an unusually brazen admission that many energy bigs did in fact consider "blood-for-oil" to be a straightforward deal.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »