“We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build services.” Mark Zuckerberg, his I.P.O letter.

As we all know, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are on the verge of a massive I.P.O. It may be the biggest sale of a stock in history. Mr. Zuckerberg says he does not think in terms of money, but I find that hard to believe. He and his brethren at Facebook pour an enormous amount of money into updating and changing how Facebook works.

The money to do that has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is advertising. In 2011, Facebook realized more than 3.2 billion dollars in advertising revenue. Reportedly, Google made more than ten times that amount, clocking in at an estimated 36.5 billion dollars. Facebook wants to reach that amount and to surpass it.

 “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected.” Mark Zuckerberg, from his letter attached to Facebook’s I.P.O filing.

Facebook has a very big lobbying effort in Washington and, now, even a political action committee that will allow its employees to contribute to political campaigns. The lobbying and the PAC put Facebook in the real world, not the rose colored glasses one it wants all its “friends” to believe it inhabits. This means that Facebook understands its power, its reach, its importance to advertisers, and its seemingly well-meaning effort to tie a socially fractured world together.

The Arab Spring became one with Facebook, and, throughout the world, Facebook, as a prince of social media, continues to help bring about change. So, despite my cynicism, Facebook can be a force for good. Does that outweigh how it captures and dominates so many lives? Does that mean that Facebook’s seemingly benign desire to kill anonymity and erase solitude is its hidden agenda. I believe Facebook’s scheme, to keep duping its unsuspecting “friends,” is nothing more than a clever way to make money. Time will tell if I am wrong.

Being one with each other is an ancient desire. In the past, people sat around a campfire. If Mr. Zuckerberg keeps expanding, he might accomplish his social mission and have the biggest campfire the world has ever known. However, all that Facebook is, and the bigger it becomes just by sitting in cyberspace as a beached whale, does not mean that I want to be Mark Zuckerberg’s friend. Really I do not. At 845 million friends and growing daily, I think he has enough friends and can easily do without me.

I sometimes will call him “Mark” because I am sure everyone else does, though I see that stories about him at times refer to him as “Zuck.” I do not think he will be insulted if I do not show him enough deference and reverence, both of which I am sure drive him to want to take over the world. At least on the Internet. His is a massive effort at social engineering, the likes of which the world has never seen. But it is not for me. I value what remains of my privacy. I am a fan of solitude.

Facebook is about traffic and the personal data it has on file for about half the world, those 845 million people, the majority of whom are women as women use the site more than men do. Facebook provides the data it collects to advertisers for money, lots of money. Mark, along with his friends and investors, will soon be among the richest people in the world. I am not against anyone making money, but somehow much of what Facebook preaches has the texture and smell of snake oil sold by small time and would-be Barnum’s in the Old West or the new Internet, simply an updated version of a carnival barker. Mark Zuckerberg is creating this new wealth based on smart algorithms that track every movement of usually unsuspecting and mostly innocent people and what he correctly assumes, I believe, is a world of people with fragile psyches.

Mark Zuckerberg’s great strength is that he understands that the world is a difficult enough place to navigate for many. That meme must come from inside his head. It is apparent, otherwise why would so many join Facebook without spending any money upfront. The masses do this everywhere Facebook lives, and they do it readily with hardly a whimper.

I can handle not being Mark Zuckerberg’s friend knowing that he and his ilk are working very hard to guide me into his fold and then keep me in it as he manipulates who I am and what I stand for, all in the service of whomever wants to advertise on his site. In his way, Mr. Zuckerberg has discovered a magic amulet that allows him to hypnotize the masses and to make them enjoy what he is doing to them, as they become willing partners in his cult of togetherness. I am on Facebook for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to be social. My latest count shows I have 160 friends, a paltry number compared to many who are my contemporaries, but frankly, almost too many for me to handle. I cannot imagine all these people in one room at the same time. It would put the Tower of Babel to shame.

“Facebook aspires to build the services that give people the power to share and help them once again transform many of our core institutions and industries.” More from Mark’s I.P.O letter.

I do not trust Mark Zuckerberg’s understanding of the past and his heady vision for the future. He created Facebook in a dorm room, hardly a place for deep philosophical thought. Eventually we will know if Mr. Zuckerberg and his cohorts are successful in transforming the world into a tolerant and accepting unBorg-like entity. But we should not be suckers when it comes to substituting sophomoric philosophy and self-aggrandizing for reality.

There is a world beyond Facebook where there is much more at stake than what we see on a Facebook page or on someone’s wall. So, Mark, friend or not, we are not nearly on the same page. 

Apple investors cheered yesterday when it was announced that their company has overtaken the giant corporation, Wal-Mart.

The two companies are part of two different markets, Wal-Mart is in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Apple in the NASDAQ. But measured by volume and marker capitalization, Apple has now become the biggest kid on the block.

When the bell rang to close the markets on Wall Street yesterday, Apple pulled one of its most amazing days. According to FinancialAdvisor.com:

In less than an hour, close to 2 million shares of Apple changed hands, as the price of the stock shot up to $227.73, bringing the market cap of the company to $206.5 billion.

Apple’s humble beginnings created a cult-like following that carried the company through many tough years. Apple continues to amaze critics who once believed the company would not be able to survive in a world dominated by Microsoft’s Windows systems.

iPod’s, iPhones, and Apple’s stylish and powerful computers have brought in billions in profits. Their newest product, the iPad, is expected to do just as good.

Many credit the company’s success to Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO, who is said to be in better health these days according to a recent segment on NPR’s Marketplace.

Wal-Mart’s model of selling cheaper products and paying their workers low-wages, had allowed it to reign on Wall Street for years. Even at times when the economy was in a recession, Wal-Mart investor’s always profited. But with Apple’s rise to the top, perhaps some investors will want to go a little more high-end by acquiring Apple stocks.

Still, it’s too premature to count out Wal-Mart as a leader on Wall Street. But for now, Apple has one more reason to celebrate.

Editor’s Note: Please follow Dolores M. Bernal on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post to stay updated on all of our articles.

Illustration By Ben Heine

Collective bargaining is democracy. Free enterprise fundamentalist claim we can’t afford democracy in the workplace of a competitive world market. The reality is that we cant afford not to organize against concentrated wealth at the top of this economy and its downward pressure on incomes and culture for the rest of society.

We’ve stood by and watched over the years as the proud social mooring of our union culture that mirrors democratic principles of self actualization through collective prosperity, not at it’s expense, has dissolved. Our society is divided in a thousand ways that couldn’t exist in communities that value the common heritage of labor above having easy access to Wall-Mart’s cheap slave labor imports on every street corner.

Unions today represent more than merely a way to negotiate for better wages and benefits and resolving grievances. The critical power of unions are their ability to transform communities. They constitute schools of democracy in a world today, where there are many claims of democratic process but little evidence that collective decision making is actually taking place.

Look for example at the difficulty in getting our health care system reformed. Everyone seems to agree (but the people that can afford to have lobbyist running all over Washington) that more choice and competition through something like a public option for downward pressure on cost is needed. Even Warren Buffet characterized private industry profiteering through medical blackmail as a “tapeworm” slowly killing American productivity. But there’s more than one tapeworm draining America of it’s wealth there are many, each competitively driven to leech more than the other.

Unions are on the front line defending our democratic values. They are the premier institution of a free, democratic society, promoting democracy in the workplace, as well as economic and social justice and equality. If labor’s goal is the shifting of power from a concentrated few back to a majority then unions must lead the democratic struggle throughout our society not just Washington. It means building grass roots democratic unions and moving beyond a strategy of just lobbying the status quo and instead, demonstrating an alternative to free enterprise fundamentalism on the ground.

In a recent interview Bill Moyers asked Richard Trumka how to make unions relevant again:

Richard Trumka: But one of the things that we have to do, and I think in the past we haven’t done a good enough job at this. We’ve expected young workers who are working in a different type of economy to change the way that they make a living to fit our model. Right now, we’re in the process of changing our model so that we fit the way they make a living.

Workers used to get one job– take my dad. My dad went to work in– well, my grandfathers went to work in a coal mine. My dad and his two brothers went to work in the same coal mine. I went to work in the same coal mine. My dad was there 44 years in the same coal mine. People don’t do that now.

They’re going to be in two, three, four, five, six, seven places. So, we have to be able to accommodate them. Our model has to say, “We can help you. And- in the way you’re making a living.” Not say to them, “Well, figure out a way to stay 44 years at one place and we’ll help you.” So, it’s up to us, and we’re changing. And we’re working real hard at it. And we’re reaching out to young people. And we’re reaching out into the community. And we’re building allies and it’s starting to have some effect, real fast.

Most, if not all, researchers acknowledge “human capital” as a key element in driving economic growth. Factors that lead to fewer years of education and training will have negative consequences for years to come (Delong, Golden, and Katz (2002). Families struggling financially often delay continuing education, perpetuating a downward spiral of economic mobility. A recent survey revealed that 20 percent aged 18-29 have left or delayed college(Greenberg and Keating 2009). Another survey (CollegeInvest 2009) in Colorado found that 25 percent of parents with children in two-year colleges had planned on sending their kids to four-year college prior to the economic downturn.

Not only does this drop in attendance and student engagement compound the current economic difficulties of this recession it plants the seeds of hardship for the next generation and impedes social cohesion around cultural values that results ultimately in higher incarceration rates, lower volunteerism, poor health etc. (Baum and Pa-yea (2005).

To begin addressing these myriad challenges of educational opportunity, economic mobility, strengthening a culture of democracy and social cohesion. The National Labor College – an accredited institution that offers blended learning programs- announced plans recently to establish a new online service that will bring high-quality degree programs to the AFL-CIO‘s 12 million members and their families. The College for Working Families, will build on existing distance learning curricula to combine the advantages of online learning with resources of labor unions to provide programs suited to the needs and interests of members.

The Princeton Review, Inc. and its subsidiary, Penn Foster Education Group, Inc. leading providers of post secondary educational services, will partner with the National Labor College to form the new College for Working Families — which is expected to grow on a historical scale.

Illustration By Ben Heine

“Expanding good jobs is a top priority for the AFL-CIO and to achieve this, workers’ skills and knowledge must match the role of employers in a changing job market,” Trumka said. “This new online education venture demonstrates our strong commitment to playing a significant role in ensuring that quality education for America’s workers and their families remains affordable and accessible. We believe this is one of the best ways to retain and grow good jobs in this country.”

The College programs will enable working adults to build on their prior training and experience, notably in formal and informal learning provided through union- and industry-sponsored training programs,as well as through local institutions, particularly community colleges.

“In the course of their work union members gain a wealth of knowledge,” Trumka said. “The College for Working Families will be able to leverage an intimate understanding of the nation’s organized workers to provide efficient, effective programs leading to a range of academic degrees that will support the increasing need of working men and women and their families to expand their knowledge in an affordable and assessable manor”

National Labor College President William Scheuerman said “We underwent an extensive process to identify a partner with deep experience helping working Americans achieve their educational goals,” he said. “We were particularly impressed with Penn Foster’s demonstrated expertise in providing high-quality student services and support, elements that we consider essential to the success of this ambitious undertaking.”

“It is critical that the American workforce can be successfully educated and retrained without driving tuition costs beyond the point of affordability,” explained Michael Perik, The Princeton Review’s President and CEO. “We are confident that, through this partnership, we can help ensure that the students who enroll in the College will have a successful learning experience and will contribute in important ways to the growth of the American economy.”

Not only does the College for Working Families address many immediate economic and educational shortfalls, it demonstrates a trending, reemergence of a forgotten American tradition of partnering for-profit institutions with nonprofit to build a more sustainable model for our collective economic future prosperity.

Which do you think is a better way forward?

Editor’s Note: Please follow Wes Rackley on Twitter and The News Junkie Post for all of our updates.

It is almost one year since President Obama took office, the expectations were high not only in America but across the world. In that time frame, President Obama’s approval rating has gone down by 20 percent in the polls as more people realized that he didn’t have a “vision for changing the world”, but instead has become the manager of a declining Empire.

During the 2008 campaign, President Obama had built what appeared to be a solid and unprecedented base of progressive Democrats. This support from the left is the only reason he had the upper hand over Hillary Clinton during the primaries. This segment of the electorate has been disappointed for a while by the Obama administration, but is now starting to be outright angry as most are coming to the obvious conclusion that the candidate for change has become the President of  more of the same.

In one year, the Obama administration has not delivered on most of the lofty goals and promises made during the campaign. The health care bill, which was the main focus of the administration for a full year, will likely pass this week-end but has been completely gutted of the public option, and is mainly a  nice Christmas present for  insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry.

During a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, President Obama gave himself the grade of B plus. I would be curious to know what grade someone like Tom Hayden would give President Obama. Hayden recently wrote in an oped piece for the Nation that he was going to strip the Obama sticker off his car. Hayden’s statement captures accurately the growing frustration on the left.

On Climate Change

President Obama called the Copenhagen Accord a “meaningful agreement”, yet it is a complete meaningless non binding deal which the US and China imposed on the EU and the poor developing countries. Lunumba Di-Aping the chief negotiator for the G77, a group of 130 developing countries, called it “nothing short of climate scepticism in action” and added that “Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush”.

Even so President Obama is not the only one to blame for the Copenhagen fiasco, the US and China have the lion  share of  the responsibilities  for derailing what should have been a binding deal. Furthermore, in the final stage of the negotiations in Copenhagen the small countries were excluded and denied a voice, as if President Obama, despite his early claim of multilateralism, had  fully embraced the bullying unilateral diplomatic tactics of the Bush administration.

Author, activist and founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, reacted by the following statement after the political compromise, known as the Copenhagen Accord, was brokered by the US, Brazil, South Africa and China.

“This is a declaration that small and poor countries don’t matter, that international civil society doesn’t matter, and that serious limits on carbon don’t matter. President Obama has wrecked the UN and he has wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it is at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon hen-house without any oversight,” wrote 350.org’s McKibben.

The already weak climate change’s House bill will go to the Senate in the Spring, it is unlikely to lower carbon emissions much but it will lower our expectations on anything effective getting done to cut carbon emissions. The Republicans will call climate change a “hoax”, and a lot of Democrats  will do their best to please the coal industry and the oil companies.

On the Recession and Wall-Street

Lately we keep hearing from the Treasury and the Feds that the recession is over, and that we have already started an economic recovery. The road of recovery is very good for Wall Street; the two Indexes are back up and banks executives are getting ready to pick up some large bonuses in their Christmas stockings. Why should they be rewarded for collapsing the US economy? Because the system is rigged in their favor. As soon as President Obama was in office he followed in the foot steps of George W. Bush and continued the biggest transfer of public funds to the private sector in history.

The transfer was conducted under the jurisdiction of TARP.  The TARP funds had very few string attached to them, and were given to financial institutions deemed too big to fail. The justification and official goal of TARP was to give the economy a boost by unfreezing credit available to the consumer. But because the banks were not obligated under TARP to lend  back a substantial amount of the money, they kept credit as tight as possible.

The Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is Times Magazine’s person of the year. It is hard to understand why considering he was at the helm of the Federal Reserve and didn’t see the global economic collapse coming. But again, lets put things in perspective Adolf Hitler won the distinction twice and Stalin once. The Obama administration, under Treasury Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke, succeeded at  saving Wall Street from a financial precipice at the expense of  giving a life line to Main Street.

On Main Street unemployment is at record high, Americans are losing their houses to banks making no attempt to help by working with them to restructure their loans. During President Obama’s first year in office the rich are still getting richer, the middle-class is becoming poorer and some poor are literally becoming homeless.

President Obama had a unique opportunity to reform a catastrophic so called “free market” system, which reward speculation and create economic bubbles. Once again he did not take the necessary steps to apply real reforms, but instead kept Ben Bernanke at the Fed and hired former Goldman Sacks’ executive Tim Geithner to head the treasury. In this instance, expecting people such as Bernanke and Geithner, which fully belong to the culture of Wall Street, to crack down on their very own system is like asking somebody to think outside the box while knowing they are living inside the very same cozy box.

President Obama was elected at an exceptional time of history, in very difficult circumstances. Because of it, President Obama had  the opportunity to be a transformational President, but instead of  being the inspiration and the driving force of what could have been a peaceful revolution he followed in the foot steps of  his predecessors for the past 60 years and became the CEO of America Empire Inc.

Part two of this article will be  focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan and the peace process in the Middle-East.

To follow Gilbert Mercier on Twitter click here.

In the expectation of tougher regulations from the Obama administration, most banks and credit cards companies have discretely made abrupt change to numerous rules. From lowering the balance available to their clients, even the one always making payments on time, to raising interest rates for no justifiable reason except that they can. What a lot of  people do not understand  when they apply for a credit card, and sign a contractual agreement with a financial institution, is that the institution lending them the money has the power to change the terms at any giving time with almost no legal recourse.

I want to give you a concrete example here. Like most people I do have credit cards, and even so I mainly use my American Express cards, which are more like debit cards because the full balance is due every month, I also have a Master Card with Chase Bank.

During the financial euphoria when banks & credit cards companies were literally throwing what appeared to be free money at consumers, I took the bait and accepted one of their countless promotional check offers, locked at a very attractive 3.99 percent rate, in order to pay off a higher interest rate credit card.

Now, keep in mind that I have always made my payments on time, and I usually pay more than the required minimum payment. In the last 3 months Chase changed not one but two rules on me. First, I was informed that the credit available on the account was reduced by 3,000 dollars, OK, I can understand that, and I was not planning to use it anyway. The second strike from Chase was different in nature, and not acceptable. To my surprise, when I opened my last statement the minimum payment required by Chase was 3 times the amount of the one of the previous statement. I picked up the phone to get some clarification and was told that Chase had just increased the minimum payment from 2 percent to 5 percent of the balance owned on the card. The person on the phone told me that I had received a notification in June, she also added that if I had difficulties making the new payment something could be worked out. I was eager to find out the nature of Chase’s proposal. The proposal in question was yet another perfectly legal scam: I could pay less, but it would mean that they would not have to honored my 3.99 percent promotional rate, it would jump to 7.99 percent.

What the banks and credit cards companies are doing to all of us as consumers is plainly unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. So far the lack of action of the Obama administration has been positively puzzling. President Obama took office in January, since then nothing has really changed with the way Wall Street and the banks do business. The issue of setting up tough regulations on financial institutions   should have been the top priority of his domestic agenda.

At the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, France, Germany & Britain will present a united front to fight for tough international regulations on banks it will hopefully push the Obama administration in the right direction. Americans should not be at the mercy of bankers & lenders.

After hearings with Bank Of America’s Ken Lewis and Fed Chairman’s  Ben Bernanke a few weeks ago, it was the turn of  former Treasury Secretary & ex-Goldman Sachs executive  Hank Paulson to be on the hot seat in front of  Congress.

In his opening statement, Hank Paulson was defiant, arrogant & ” proud ” of his handling of the financial meltdown that took place at the end of 2008. Paulson stated:

“ I served as Secretary of  The Treasury from July 2006 to January 2009. During my tenure the world experienced a financial crisis unprecedented in our lifetimes. The crisis presented a relentless series of novel challenges that required swift, innovative and dramatic responses. I am proud to have been among the many public servants- in the Congress and at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the OCC and other agencies of the government- who came together to confront these challenges, and to prevent a far more damaging meltdown of our financial system.”

After this fictional & self indulging recollection of how proud he was about his role in dealing with the financial crisis, Paulson stood his ground and  refused to recognise any deception, failure or even mistake from his part. Paulson then gave a time line of his version of the events.

” On September 15, 2008, Bank Of America entered into an agreement to acquire Merrill Lynch. On November 26, 2008 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve approved the merger. The shareholders of both firms ratified the merger on December 5, 2008. On December 17, 2008, Mr. Lewis called me and told me that Bank Of America was considering exercising the Material Adverse Change ( or MAC) clause to terminate the Merrill Lynch acquisition. I recognized the danger that the potential dispute arising from invocation of the MAC clause would pose for Bank Of America, for Merrill Lynch, and for the economy as a whole, and that evening, at my request, Mr. Lewis met with Chairman Bernanke, me, and other Federal Reserve and Treasury officials to discuss the matter.”

This is likely when the ” discussion ” tone took a turn similar to the one of the Sopranos or the Godfather, when Paulson and Bernanke took their ” shot guns ” out to make Lewis an offer he just could not refuse.

As expected, Chairman Kucinich did not buy Paulson self rightousness and went after him with a vengeance in his statement. He stated:

” Nothing in Mr. Paulson’s testimony today justifies the government’s decision to ignore evidence that Bank Of America withheld information from its shareholders about mounting losses at Merril Lynch before the crucial vote on December 5- a potential illegal act. I have seen no justification for the government to override recommendations of professional staff at the Fed for greater accountability of Bank of America’s top executives. Yet, that is precisely what Mr. Paulson & Mr Bernanke did.”

By Gilbert Mercier, NEWS  JUNKIE  POST

Yesterday, Goldman Sachs posted a record profit ($3.3 Billion) for the last quarter. Most of us are still struggling with the most severe global economic crisis since the Great Depression, and are wondering how it is even possible. Americans and Europeans are still losing their jobs at record speed, the real estate market is still declining, yet financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs are thriving.

Goldman Sachs is not alone. For the rest of the  banking sector’s major players on Wall Street and in London it is even better than “business as usual,” they are hiring. their profits are soaring and of course they will pay their top executives outrageous bonuses.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that even the investment division of Bank of America, which includes the once critically troubled Merrill Lynch, is expected to post a profit this year.

In the UK, at the government controlled Royal Bank of Scotland, profits are projected as well. The CEO running the bank since November 2008 is reported to get a $16 Million a year pay compensation.

Apparently, we did not learn anything at all from the financial crisis. Banks and other financial institutions are back to their pre-crisis mentality with a vengeance. In the US, with the TARP public money, billions of dollars were injected into private institutions such as Goldman Sachs. It seems that they made good use of the public funding for their own financial gains.

A unique opportunity to change the world economic system was squandered. The very same financial structures & institutions are still calling all the shots despite the fact that they created the mess in the first place.

The financial “Masters of the Universe” are back (they never left) with a vengeance and have exactly the same “philosophy” then before, that is: ‘Greed is good’.