Socialist Author and Propagandist, on the Looming Banking Collapse

New Zeal

Nomi Prins

Nomi Prins

This has been going around the net. Financial writer Nomi Prins with Greg Hunter of America Watchdog.

Prins gives an interesting run down over the corruption and looming collapse of the American banking system and says little that most conservatives would disagree with – except for the “JFK opposed the bankers” meme, which is routinely used by leftists to divert blame for Kennedy’s murder towards American bankers and the CIA, and away from the much more likely culprits, the Cubans and the Soviets.

Prins, a former investment banker with over a decade of experience in the financial sector… has run bond and derivative strategy groups at JPM/Chase in New York, Bear Stearns in London and most recently as Managing Director at Goldman Sachs in New York, from which she resigned in January of 2002.

Since that time, Prins has been actively picking the scabs off US capitalism from her vantage point on the far left.

In 2009 Nomi Prins was listed as an advisory editor of Against the Current, bi-monthly analytical journal of U.S. Trotskyite organization Solidarity.

In April 2002, Nomi Prins addressed Panel #26: “ENRON – Unnatural Disaster,” sponsored by the Union for Radical Political Economics at the Democratic Socialists of America organized Socialist Scholars Conference in Cooper Union, New York.

In 2007, Prins addressed the Left Forum (the successor to Socialist Scholars Conference) in New York on “Wage Stagnation, Growing Insecurity, and the Future of the U.S. Working Class.”

In April 2009, Prins addressed a Left Forum panel: “Nationalize the Banks! What Does it Really Mean?” with DSA member Leo Panitch.

Nomi Prins was a Senior Fellow of the New York based think tank Demos, a far left organization established by the KGB and Cuban intelligence linked Institute for Policy Studies.

Interestingly, a young obscure Illinois State Senator named Barack Obama was head hunted in 1999 to serve on Demos’ founding board.

It is not enough to verify the accuracy of information, it is also essential to find the source of the information and to identify the bias of its promulgator. Nomi Prins is part of the far left army attacking US capitalism. Her analysis and history is largely accurate. The danger lies in her solutions, such as “workers power’ and state control of banking.

Socialism and crony capitalism got us into this mess. Only true free market solutions will get us out.


PatriotPantry IBD GoFoods Free Sample

Comments

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYzSHw2kiw
    Hillary Clinton set up kidnapping and earlier preventing Boko Haram being Blacklisted.

  2. “It is not enough to verify the accuracy of information, it is also essential to find the source of the information and to identify the bias of its promulgator.”

    Puzzling claim. It seems to be endorsing the genetic fallacy, the faulty reasoning that the *source* of a claim is somehow relevant as to its truth or falsity.

    Now, the claim that Prins’ claims are largely correct does invite a deeper engagement with her proposed solutions. But notice that this is precisely what is missing in this analysis. Surely the thing to do, if one agrees with her factual claims but rejects her solutions, is to present a detailed critique of her proposals, ideally combined with some positive proposals of one’s own that seem feasible?

  3. “Prins gives an interesting run down over the corruption and looming collapse of the American banking system and says little that most conservatives would disagree with”

    “Her analysis and history is largely accurate.”

    So, you agree with her?

    • The point was that the author of this post seemed to– though then apparently rejected, with no reason offered, Prins’ solutions. And then appeared to endorse the genetic fallacy, which is bad.

      • Oh dear, I misread extinctplanet’s intention in his/her post. So my last post should not be construed as a response to his or her post. Maybe take it instead as a reiteration of a couple important points.

  4. ? Exactly what I said in my first post. The claim that “It is not enough to verify the accuracy of information, it is also essential to find the source of the information and to identify the bias of its promulgator” at least gives the impression that the source of a claim is somehow relevant as to its truth or falsity. Or, if this is not quite the genetic fallacy (for it is admitted that the claims are true, despite their source), it is at least suggesting something near to it that may not quite have a name– that somehow even though a claim is true, the source still, for some reason that isn’t quite made explicit, matters in some way that isn’t quite made explicit. To put the point simply, once it is admitted that claim P is true, why is it then necessary to stress who is saying P? Perhaps there could be reasons to do so, but these reasons are not made clear here.

Speak Your Mind

*