Up for a laugh?

https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/720259227067920385

Seems like Sanders also flipped Missouri:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280168960

And now he is.

I have no doubt he's on the take in some way or another and I'd be surprised if he wasn't laundering money through offshore accounts. However, Poroshenko is right there on the list and given how the German media has been pro Poroshenko/Yatsenyuk, having Putin on the cover of this story is just the icing on the cake.

That said, I don't really care about the officials or, generally speaking, the high profile cases. The fixers are more interesting, including the individuals set up as fake directors on dozens if not hundreds of shell companies -- a perfect entry into the network. Sueddeutsche has already provided graphs of how many shell companies large German banks have created through MossFon. In the lead, as you will have guessed, is Deutsche Bank, as always when we're talking shady business.

The fact that a German lawyer by the name of Jürgen Mossack co-founded MossFon might motivate same folks to at least dig deeper into MossFon, which would be a start.

Not a single North American citizen, apparently.

You know who isn't on that list either? Vladimir Putin.

You know whose name and face made it into most of the headlines about the Panama Papers? Vladimir Putin.

Makes my blood boil.

Let me quote the Grauniad: "While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data."

Translation: no worries, chumps, we'll keep your tax evasion hidden good and proper.

Maybe WikiLeaks will come to the rescue at some point and publish the raw data.

Edit: As Craig Murray puts it, Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak

Cheers, mate. But I don't think that one is going anywhere...

Hadn't seen it, nor read about it. Corbyn seems to be getting more comfortable taking the floor, which is great.

However, all those recent mentions of sound finance and balanced budgets worry me. Just last week, McDonnell made a whole assortment of statements that sound awfully deficit hawkish. "Iron discipline", "economic credibility" -- that's the language of people who use market/economic constraints as a disguise for policies that can often be described as plain old class warfare.

Looking at their economic advisers, it sounds like Wren-Lewis rather than Stiglitz or Mazzucato.

Super Tuesday!

MoA has a great, short piece on Clinton's role in the destruction of Libya, which includes this gem, which I had totally forgotten.

The way things are looking with regards to her e-mail server, all the shit she's desperatly trying to hide will either kill her campaign directly or it'll provide Trump with all the fuel he'll need to bury her in 10 seconds flat. Open every speech with a call for the Clintons' indictment, both of 'em.

Would be interesting to watch the establishment Dems drive the corpse of their party off a cliff as a means to push Hillary, only to have her then be reduced to a toupé for Emperor Donald, First of his Name. And by interesting I mean horrifying.

If you really want to add some fuel to your, shall we say, "dislike" of HRC, have a look at this. It's an excerpt of Thomas Frank's new book "Listen, Liberal!". Afterwards, you might have to reassure yourself that HRC is, in fact, not a creation of John Cleese's or Terry Jones'.

Edit: I should probably have provided an appetizer.

"For poor and working-class American women, the floor was pulled up and hauled off to the landfill some twenty years ago. There is no State Department somewhere to pay for their cell phones or to pick up their day-care expenses. And one of the people who helped to work this deed was the very woman I watched present herself as the champion of the world’s downtrodden femininity."

I'm not sure if it's worth spending time on. A bunch of high-profile economists running a smear campaign against a low-profile colleague whose results indicate just how poorly managed the economy is under their guidance -- almost as arcane as it is irrelevant.

It only intrigues me to see Operative K at the receiving end of some well-deserved flak. And it intrigues me to see celebrities of the orthodoxy lash out not just against heterodox economists, but also orthodox economists who merely run the numbers. Cracks and fissures, hold the line at all cost, etc.

Small indicators of future things to come, maybe...

Did you follow any of that wierd Krugman/Friedman/CEA feud over the last few days?

If not, nevermind.

But if you did, take a look at Bill Black's latest on the matter. Both Bill Black and Jamie Galbraith had already torn Operative K a new one over this, yet Bill just keeps on pounding. It's quite brutal, and supremely entertaining.

I just love open conflict between heterodox economists and defenders of the orthodoxy.

Did you see this one?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intenti
onal-destruction/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns

"Error"...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/seal-rides-on-the-back-of-a-whale-on-the-nsw-south-coast-20150916-gjo732