Economist, journalist, Demos senior fellow and former investment banker Nomi Prins thinks that Obama’s new plan is not such a sweeping overhaul of the financial system, after all. She is the author of the forthcoming book It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street. Her latest article is an assessment of Obama’s reform proposals. It’s called “Obama’s New Economic Plan: The Good, the Bad and the Weak.”
It was just published in Mother Jones. She joins us here in our firehouse studio.
Before you comment on the whole plan that was laid out, this latest news. You used to work at Bear Stearns, and you worked at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs has just said that their staff can look forward to the biggest bonus bailouts in the firm’s 140-year history. How is this possible?
NOMI PRINS:
It is possible because our government has chosen to effectively give Goldman the money to do that, in a number of different ways. One is the $10 billion that it got through the TARP program, which both Goldman and the government want us to believe is the only bit of federal subsidy it has gotten, which is why, when it said it would pay back the TARP program, it was all this gesture of “we’re healthy, we’re good, we’re paying it back, we didn’t really need it,” but really they didn’t want government oversight attached to it, not that there was a lot.
The bigger amount of money that has gone to Goldman has come through $12.9 billion from the AIG bailout that went straight to Goldman, its biggest counterparty; $28 billion worth of FDIC-backed guaranteed debt, meaning the FDIC put up a program last fall, and it said, “For banks that deal with consumers”—not banks that deal with multibillion-dollar companies or investors, but people—“we will provide guarantees for debt,” which means that those companies can raise debt to help consumers cheaply. Goldman said, “Alright, fine, we’ll take some of that.”
And they took $28 billion worth of that, and they have up to $35 billion that they can take under the FDIC program that was never meant for a company like Goldman Sachs.
In addition, there is a ton of money, there are trillions of dollars at the Fed, not all of that went to Goldman, but that has secretly gone to a number of banks in the system, of which Goldman is one, for which the Fed refuses to disclose any information or any detail, which also goes into this. So when Goldman says—has the nerve to say, feels entitled to say—that it’s going to pay its bankers record bonuses after the travesty that it and other banks have created in the markets, it is on the back of federal subsidies that effectively come from our pockets.
JUAN GONZALEZ:
Well, I think you’ve made the point that the $780 billion-odd TARP money is only a small portion, that the actual federal support for the banking industry is about $13 trillion?
NOMI PRINS:
That’s exactly right. The media has constantly focused, and Wall Street has been very happy about this focus, on this measly—and I say “measly”—$700 billion worth of TARP money that Congress allowed to be allocated last October. And that money has gone out to a number of banks, including Goldman and JPMorgan and Bank of America, Citigroup and other banks.
But in addition to that, there have been over two-and-a-half trillion dollars’ worth of guarantees and other types of subsidies from the Treasury Department; over seven-and-a-half trillion from the Federal Reserve, which a lot has gone through the bank at—the New York Federal Reserve during the Tim Geithner period, when he was running it, as well as the Federal Reserve component in Washington; and then all these extra FDIC guarantees, which have the backing of the Fed and the Treasury Department.
So we’re talking about almost 13.6, actually, now—the count keeps going up every time I look at it—trillion dollars’ worth of subsidization of the banking industry. $700 billion is a part—it’s a big part, but there are so many more trillions, that just do not get the right coverage and the right perspective from the media, that exists, that are secret. Some are not. But it’s a lot, a lot of money. It could basically pay for every single mortgage in this country and healthcare and subsidizing student loans. So when it wants to, the government can come up with a way to subsidize what it wants to subsidize. It chose to subsidize the banking industry.
From a performance of “A Steady Rain”, a two-hander about down and dirty Chicago cops starring Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman that recently opened in NYC.
by Michael Wheeler
The question of how to avoid the beeping and blinging of the proliferation of modern technology within the confines of a performance space continues to gain attention on the heels of two highly bankable stars wrestling with the problem. In a post inspired by the incident on the Time Out New York: Upstaged website, Helen Shaw calls for the use of French cellphone jamming technology in theatres.
This turn off your cellphone (and Ipod) reminder video actually does double-duty, serving as an online media publicity tool for use on their website and on Facebook, which works just fine for CTP’s mostly-teen audience base.
Last year, Manitoba Theatre Centre (MTC) took this problem on by using the carrot instead of the stick: For every performance they had with no interruption by a cellphone, they donated $5 to the Actor’s Fund of Canada on behalf of that evening’s audience.
What do you think the solution is? Should we jam the airwaves, make clever videos that are integrated with the production, or offer incentives? What about people who leave their phone on silent, but vibrate? What about on silent, but causes the display to light up like a flashlight? Or is this whole conversation entirely too stuffy and we should all just learn to relax and accept the occasional interuption?
Daniel Karasik is Artistic Director of Tango Co. He wrote and stars in THE CROSSING GUARD, playing at the Tarragon Theatre Upstairs October 7-17, presented by Tango Co. in association with Peanut Butter People.
Chart above from the 2009 TAPA stats report shows “Use of New Media and Social Networking Media Among TAPA Members”
by Lindsay Schwietz
The Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts (TAPA) announced their findings for their TAPA Stats Report Phase Two on Monday September 21st at City Hall. After examining data from the 92 performing arts companies who filled out their extensive online questionnaire, TAPA is optimistic about the results and the future of performing arts in Toronto.
THE GOOD
Single ticket sales are up with 2.4 million tickets sold in 2007/2008.
Theatre for Young Audiences is growing, with more than 90,000 kids being reached through performance in the 2007/08 season.
The number of theatre productions has increased – 1,140 occurring in 2007/08, compared to 762 productions in 2004/05.
An increase in subscriptions – close to 13,000 more paid subscribers since 2004/05.
78% of TAPA members surveyed are optimistic about the future.
THE BAD
Only 28% of the theatres surveyed sell subscriptions to their season –the bulk of the increase is from the larger companies who do have subscriptions. Indie theatre is not booming.
Although 95% of those surveyed have a website, 79% of them have no idea the statistics of who is using their website. Only 37% of them have online ticketing.
THE UGLY
Part-time non-artistic personnel are down 13% from 2005/2006 statistics. Although theatres are potentially relying more on volunteers, that doesn’t bode well for the next generation trying to get work in a theatre office or their foot in the door of an organization.
The total number of artistic and non-artistic jobs is down 1625 from 2005/06.
The most troubling set of statistics is that the total number of performances increased over a period where the total number of staff plummeted. These numbers will be helpful to convince politicians and funders of the immense contribution performing arts make to Toronto’s economy, but they aren’t indicative of particularly good circumstances for staff working on the front lines or those hoping to break into the industry.
The Ontario all candidates meeting is this Sunday September 20th, 7pm @ the newly helmed Buddies in Bad Times Theatre, 12 Alexander Street, Toronto. Don’t take advice from the Indie Caucus. If you are a member of CAEA in good standing, go and learn for yourself who will best advocate for the type of theatre and practices you would like to see develop in Canada.
Chris Hanratty
I’ve been a CAEA member since 2004, and in that time I’ve worked under almost all of the contracts that Equity prescribes. Having worked primarily within the independent theatre community – and therefore under the ITA, the Indie, the Co-op Policy and the Fringe waiver – I am particularly attuned to the needs of artists who are making and producing independent performance work. Independent theatre is the driving force behind a strong sense of theatre community and is the starting point for many theatre artists, but the needs of this community are under-served and under explored by Equity.
As a CAEA Ontario Council member, I would like to help artists spend less time on the business side of being an artist and more time being an artist, by reviewing and revising the process, protocols and agreements to better reflect our needs. I would work with Equity and the independent theatre community to build and foster a stronger, more cohesive, relationship. The recent closing of Equity Showcase Theatre and the near-closing of the Western Office also strengthened my resolve to ensure that the voices of independent theatre artists are clearly a part of the decision making process. On Council, I would strive to put the Association back into the hands of its members.
Richard Lee
My name is Richard Lee and I am an actor, fight director, sound designer and independent theatre producer. I’ve been an Equity member since 2001.
The things I’d like to see improved in our association is the way in which we deal with artists from diverse backgrounds. I’d like to find positive active ways to promote and encourage the casting of diverse artists. Canada is a multicultural society and I think it would be great to see the stages of our theatres reflecting our country’s diversity in full.
Having worked as a producer of independent theatre, I would like to see our association keep up with the various diverse practices of creating theatre. Many independent companies are evolving the way they create theatre and I feel that we, as an association, need to grow the ways in which we engage these companies. By doing so, we continue to ensure and foster safe working conditions within these unique models of practice.
I am also interested in seeing better encouragement from our association in member driven projects. Supportive understanding of the spirit of creation within our membership encourages the growth of our industry, and thereby leading to more awareness of theatre in the community at large and more opportunities for members in the long run.
The world is ever evolving and changing, and we as an association must be aware of these changes and be proactive in our approach when working with all of Equity’ s partners. I am looking forward to serving on council, to be one of the voices of our association and to work together on all fronts to find ways to engage our audience and to raise awareness of the great theatre that is being made in Canada.
Brendan Healy is the new Artistic Director of Buddies in Bad Times Theatre
Okay, this week was supposed to be exclusively Indie Caucus related material only, but it’s not everyday that a genuine local indie director takes over a major theatre. It’s also not everyday that an important new theatre-related blog is launched. And well the two together…
My reason for running for the Equity’s Ontario CPAG is this: A few years ago a decision was made by Equity to withdraw funds from Equity Showcase. As most independent theatre people in Toronto know, Showcase was a vital rehearsal resource to Equity artists in this city. That incident, as well as concerns about the handling of indie contracts by the staff and current council at Equity, was a wake-up call for me. I was forced to consider a more proactive involvement with Equity. I believe member/creators risk losing a voice at our Association if we succumb to apathy when important decisions are being made on our behalf. I am going to fight for Equity member/creators in the GTA to receive equal and fair treatment by our Association.
Vinetta Strombergs
I am running for the Ontario CPAG as a result of attending the AGM where the large turnout was primarily due to a pressing issue affecting members who are trying to create original theatre in tough economic times. I have served previously on Council and the National Executive and also chaired the Directors and Choreographers Committee. I believe my experience and perspective will be useful in ongoing discussions related to developing new agreements that do not undermine our existing collective agreements but also recognize our need to practice our artform and create theatre that reflects our individual passions and talent. Creating theatre is as important to our artistic development as taking classes to improve our skills. We are not just actors, directors and stage managers, some us are also creaters and therefore become producers. We need to examine the distinctions Equity makes when dealing with its own members in this regard. Even though Equity is a national organization, I think we can take into account regional differences in the same way that we recognize opera and ballet agreements are different from theatre and Stratford is different from Shaw. I would also like to explore new ways of cutting down excessive paperwork without jeopardizing security and accountability.
Aaron Willis
I am an actor, director, and Equity member since 2003. As a member who creates and produces theatre at the independent level, I am running for Ontario CPAG to help represent the voices of artists who, in order to bring their work to the stage, often take on a multitude of production responsibilities over and above the creation of their art.
Independent theatre artists who are members of CAEA and who attempt to create and mount our own work often find ourselves in an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with our own Association. If we are to continue generating new work, nurturing the development of new and diverse artists on our stages, and ensuring the viability of young theatre companies, it is essential that all members of CAEA who have a vested interest in these things make their voices heard, or risk decisions being made on our behalf without our input. We must be transparent about the frustrations and obstacles that we face, and we must continue to recommend and advocate for new models of engagement that more accurately & adequately reflect the evolving needs of the artists. These models of engagement must be as innovative as the work being created.
As your CPAG representative I intend to stand for the voices of those CAEA members who, despite the countless obstacles, bravely continue to create and produce their own work when no one else will. These member-creators not only provide constant work opportunities for other Equity members, they are the life-force of independent theatre in this city, and across the country.
This week we turn over our website to The Indie Caucus (IC), which Praxis Theatre is a member of. The IC (as no one has ever referred to it) is a TAPA committee formally announced at the 2007 AGM for the Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts (TAPA). It was created to provide a forum for companies to work together through the many challenges that face indie theatre in Toronto.
There is no formal membership to the IC. It is open to any TAPA member who self-identifies as an “indie” company. The IC makes decisions based on a consensus model that is inclusive to the desires of all who regularly attend meetings, and to date we have held three public town hall sessions to receive as much feedback as possible from the community about our proposals.
Unfortunately, the IC has been bogged down in 3 years of what can only be described as stonewalling by CAEA. Our attempts to come up with solutions to the problems posed by the myriad of problems the antiquated agreements they require us to use have sucked up a massive amount of volunteer hours thus far. The IC was supposed to be about working together to find to solutions to all sorts of theatre producing things: marketing, ticketing, outreach, budgeting, etc.
We’re really bored with this situation and are excited to move on to working through other challenges. A full chronology of our incredibly frustrating journey is available on the Facebook group created to communicate with likeminded artists on this topic: Artists for a New CAEA Agreement.
We definitely hit a wall when a 96-1 vote at CAEA’s last AGM to support our proposals was widely ignored by the organization. (They can do that?) Reform from the inside seems the only hope at this point as the desires of CAEA membership seems to be having little discernable effect on policy.
This week, ballots for Equity elections will be mailed to all members in good standing. Don’t throw that ballot in the garbage! Since there was only a 28% voter response from the general membership in the last Council election your vote can definitely make a difference.
The Indie Theatre Caucus at TAPA would like to independently endorse the following candidates for Ontario Council and CPAG:
Ontario Equity Councillor:
Chris Hanratty & Richard Lee
Ontario CPAG
Mark Brownell, Aaron Willis & Vinetta Strombergs
These are all Equity member/creators who have actively participated in Indie Caucus activities over the past three years. All understand and are publicly supportive of the issues surrounding small independent theatre in this country. We also recommend that all members from across the country check out all of the candidate statements in your region on the Equity site by clicking here:
It is quite apparent from many of these statements which candidates support indie issues and which do not. Later this week: We hear from the Indie Caucus candidates on why they deserve your vote!
The recent BC budget called for a 90% cut to arts and culture, while most industries averaged out at 7% cutbacks: From $47.8 million in 2008/09 to $3.75 million in 2010/11. It is not hyperbolic to refer to this as utterly devastating. Within a year, many organizations will cease to exist. Looming over this “arts-pocalypse” as Globe and Mail critic Kelly Nestruck first referred to it on Twitter, is the Cultural Olympiad occuring in BC as part of the upcoming Olympic Winter Games.
The dilemna seems clear: The lead up to the games is the only time cultural leaders will have any leverage with the government. They, along with some of the best talent from across the country, are required to entertain the whole gosh-darn planet in a few of months. Afterwards it seems they will be expendable and dispensable, which is a thesis heavily supported by the provincial budget.
But who wants to mess up the Olympics? Many artists have worked their whole lives to arrive on a stage as bright as this. Almost everyone in the arts knows someone who has an amazing opportunity they wouldn’t otherwise have due to the Cultural Olympiad.
How to handle this situation will certainly require a sophisticated response from BC artists. It’s a mean-spirited position to put an entire industry and community in. There has been quite a bit of action on the Facebook Group: Organizing against Campbell’s cuts to the arts. Within days it has skyroceted to almost 2500 members and looks to be a central hub for information on this topic.
Are we really going to have one of those ridiculous national “Does art matter?” conversations again? What do you think should be done? How can the rest of Canadian artists support those in BC? One day everything on this website will be about art and how much fun it is to make it!
“After the years and years of weaker and waterier imitations, we now find ourselves rejecting the very notion of a holy stage. It is not the fault of the holy that it has become a middle-class weapon to keep the children good.”
Recent Comments