tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7508080945594230000..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Why no arrests of Banksters yet in 2008 collapse?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36341939744778374142010-04-07T20:46:42.635-07:002010-04-07T20:46:42.635-07:00"Eric said...
Did Paulson do this on his own..."Eric said...<br /><br />Did Paulson do this on his own? I seem to remember Congress getting involved. You want to prosecute him because he convinced Congress to do something he would benefit from?<br /><br />Sure. But there's nothing criminal about conflict of interest as long as it's disclosed."<br /><br />Wrong. Conflicts of interest can be illegal. Government employees are forbidden from making decisions on behalf of the government that effect businesses or interests in which they have a stake. The Office of Government Ethics specifically warns civil servant employees away from these situations, and federal empolyees have been convicted for this kind of thing. This guy, for instance:<br /><br />http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/08/courtney-stadd-exspace-florida-board-member-is-tried-on-selfenrichment-charges.html<br /><br />"How so? Do you always refuse to sell things to clients because you don't think the purchase is a good idea? Companies hedge their positions all the time - I don't find this the least bit surprising. Do the time frames match up, and were they actually advising clients to buy CDOs at the same time they were betting the other way? Or were they just providing CDOs to institutions that requested them?"<br /><br />Yes, they did both concurrently.<br /><br />"What an odd way to phrase that. Executives don't pay themselves. They're paid by the board. I don't begrudge anyone for getting paid as much as he can convince someone else to pay him, as long as there isn't fraud involved. If there was actual accounting fraud, then sure, prosecute.<br />The stockholders of these companies set up a system, through their representatives on the boards, that rewarded risk-taking. To the extent they got burned because executives went for the risky 25% profit vs the safe 15% (or whatever), I don't feel the least bit sorry for them."<br /><br />Nonsense. I own stock. How much say do I have over executive pay? None. If I did, I'd vote for hiring some cheap CEO from India who'd do the job for a twentieth of the price; let those bastards get their jobs outsouced - let's see how they like it. The board members are often creatures of the CEO and beholden to them. Are you really so naive as to believe all that good corporate governance crap?<br /><br />"Maybe. That all depends on what his advice is during the treatment and whether or not I refused to listen to take it."<br /><br />Oh, bullshit. You would have no problem with your doctor betting that you would die? Libertarians are really full of it.<br /><br />But, hey, sell on, oh libertarian super-man. Sell that drunk one for the road while your at it. Sell your own goddamned mother into white slavery for all I care. For Rand's sake, don't let anything interfere with selling.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49661099489974179222010-04-07T16:33:28.862-07:002010-04-07T16:33:28.862-07:00For a start, how about Henry Paulson. As Treasury ...<i>For a start, how about Henry Paulson. As Treasury Secretary he used his authority to funnel billions of dollars to AIG, so that they could pay the debts they owed to Goldman-Sachs (or to put it more accurately to cover the bets that G-S made with it's bookie, AIG.</i><br /><br />Did Paulson do this on his own? I seem to remember Congress getting involved. You want to prosecute him because he convinced Congress to do something he would benefit from?<br /><br /><i>Paulson had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, and at the time he still owned something like $ 600 million in stock in that company. Isn't that at least a conflict of interest?</i><br /><br />Sure. But there's nothing criminal about conflict of interest as long as it's disclosed. Again, Paulson didn't just get a checkbook and start writing checks to his friends from an unimaginably large treasury account. If people go to jail for the AIG bailout you need to make room for 538 of them.<br /><br /><i>Or about the executives at Goldman-Sachs, which packaged and sold CDOs as investments to thier clients while at the same time taking hedge positions which in effect were bets against them. Isn't that at least a betrayal of their fiduciary responsibilities.</i><br /><br />How so? Do you always refuse to sell things to clients because you don't think the purchase is a good idea? Companies hedge their positions all the time - I don't find this the least bit surprising. Do the time frames match up, and were they actually advising clients to buy CDOs at the same time they were betting the other way? Or were they just providing CDOs to institutions that requested them?<br /><br /><i>Would you trust a doctor whom you payed to treat you for an illness, and who also took out a life-insurance policy on you?</i><br /><br />Maybe. That all depends on what his advice is during the treatment and whether or not I refused to listen to take it.<br /><br /><i>What about the executives at many other companies Bear-Stearns for example, who payed themselves enormous bonuses for wrecking their companies. Was not that a breach of fiduciary trust, both by them and by the corporate boards which let them do it.</i><br /><br />What an odd way to phrase that. Executives don't pay themselves. They're paid by the board. I don't begrudge anyone for getting paid as much as he can convince someone else to pay him, as long as there isn't fraud involved. If there was actual accounting fraud, then sure, prosecute.<br /><br />The stockholders of these companies set up a system, through their representatives on the boards, that rewarded risk-taking. To the extent they got burned because executives went for the risky 25% profit vs the safe 15% (or whatever), I don't feel the least bit sorry for them.<br /><br />I <i>would</i> like to see the system set up such that I, as a taxpayer, don't have to provide a whole bunch of money to keep everything from coming apart. But it's not at all clear to me there was much in the way of illegal activity. People made decisions based on the incentives the system offered. The fact that the system is fundamentally flawed is something I blame Congress for, not the bankers.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82330554528798961692010-04-07T07:41:28.523-07:002010-04-07T07:41:28.523-07:00The last time i checked making a bad business deci...The last time i checked making a bad business decision is not a crime. Taking on bad risks is not a crime. Thus why are we talking about locking people up for? Oh i see the usual Jew-haters claim because it would be "anti-Semitic". Thanks for admistting that Gentiles are not smart enough to work in finance. My ego has gone sky high.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70923341647596505092010-04-06T21:28:49.933-07:002010-04-06T21:28:49.933-07:00"The problem is the lawmakers, not the banker..."The problem is the lawmakers, not the bankers."<br /><br />I will now go bang my head against the wall, good night.AmericanGoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00865892490752172185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75938807810675317732010-04-06T21:27:20.984-07:002010-04-06T21:27:20.984-07:00"Clever guys on Wall St. would probably find ..."Clever guys on Wall St. would probably find ways to outsmart not-as-clever civil servants."<br /><br />FALSE.<br /><br />The truth is, there is no banking sector trying to outsmart the government regulators.<br /><br />There is no big business trying to "work in the grey zone of the law", while government employees are trying to catch them.<br /><br /><br />These are the same people, the elites.<br /><br />They switch positions between the government, business "consultant" or lobbyist at will.<br /><br />Best example - try to count all Goldman Sachs (cannot say "ex" here) in US government positions, including regulatory positions.AmericanGoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00865892490752172185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31527688022772629632010-04-06T20:45:54.919-07:002010-04-06T20:45:54.919-07:00"Eric said...
Name names. Who would you char..."Eric said...<br /><br />Name names. Who would you charge with a crime, and what, specifically, are the charges?"<br /><br />For a start, how about Henry Paulson. As Treasury Secretary he used his authority to funnel billions of dollars to AIG, so that they could pay the debts they owed to Goldman-Sachs (or to put it more accurately to cover the bets that G-S made with it's bookie, AIG. Paulson had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, and at the time he still owned something like $ 600 million in stock in that company. Isn't that at least a conflict of interest?<br /><br />Or about the executives at Goldman-Sachs, which packaged and sold CDOs as investments to thier clients while at the same time taking hedge positions which in effect were bets against them. Isn't that at least a betrayal of their fiduciary responsibilities.<br /><br />Would you trust a doctor whom you payed to treat you for an illness, and who also took out a life-insurance policy on you? <br /><br />What about the executives at many other companies Bear-Stearns for example, who payed themselves enormous bonuses for wrecking their companies. Was not that a breach of fiduciary trust, both by them and by the corporate boards which let them do it.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39782248715153084542010-04-06T17:08:56.149-07:002010-04-06T17:08:56.149-07:00'The government, especially under Obama, would...'The government, especially under Obama, would love to have a few scalps in Wall Street.'<br /><br />Lloyd, I am quite surprised that you are frequenting the same blogs...sj071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14614925895501659572010-04-06T15:25:22.020-07:002010-04-06T15:25:22.020-07:00You're certainly right about legal leeway. I&...You're certainly right about legal leeway. I've seen the Supreme Court extrapolate from the Constitution whatever the hell they think ought to be in it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57955219765333663202010-04-06T12:46:01.133-07:002010-04-06T12:46:01.133-07:00That assumes your unsupported assertion is accurat...<i>That assumes your unsupported assertion is accurate. How do you know that killing white collar criminals has no deterent effect?</i><br /><br />Because the place is no less corrupt than it ever was. You would expect those kinds of purges to have even a little temporary effect on the number bureaucrats that have to be paid off, but from what I can tell it doesn't. Either the people who get executed aren't a perceptible part of the problem, or their rivals pick up the slack before the bodies are cold.<br /><br /><i>If I may speak for the rest of the unwashed, it certainly does give me a thrill. The same thrill as when a serial rapist is imprisoned, or some dude who murdered a couple of people gets a lethal injection. It is the thrill of knowing we live in a society of laws where crime is punished.</i><br /><br />Oh, I have no problem prosecuting people for legitimate criminal behavior. It's not clear to me that's what we're talking about. The government, especially under Obama, would <i>love</i> to have a few scalps in Wall Street. But failure, in and of itself, isn't illegal.<br /><br />Name names. Who would you charge with a crime, and what, specifically, are the charges?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7003116118097994862010-04-06T10:03:06.626-07:002010-04-06T10:03:06.626-07:00Further, to Anon. of 4/05, who wrote that "th...Further, to Anon. of 4/05, who wrote that "the lawmakers were (and still are) owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers" -<br /><br />Blaming business for corrupting politicians is like blaming the patrons of a bordello for corrupting the whores.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62523008848419111782010-04-06T09:55:49.776-07:002010-04-06T09:55:49.776-07:00Anon. of 4/04, the policies you describe as "...Anon. of 4/04, the policies you describe as "in the past" are still being followed by the FDIC with small- and medium-sized failed banks. I know of four operating in just my own county that have been liquidated in just this manner. The FDIC's funding for coverage of these losses - something like $26 billion through the end of 2009 - is not supplied by the taxpayer, but by insurance premiums charged to banks as a percentage of their insured deposits.<br /><br />It is largely "too big to fail" institutions that have been "bailed out." The Troubled Assets Relief Plan (TARP) has been much misrepresented in the press and consequently misunderstood. TARP monies were forced on many banks that didn't need and didn't want them (e.g., J.P Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo). The terms were quite advantageous to the government and most of the money placed with commercial banks has been repaid, with interest. Even the bad banks, such as Citi, have proven profitable for the government, which has reportedly realized $8 billion on its investment in Citi.<br /><br />Why does no one say anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The two GSEs, which hold over half the residential mortages in the United States, have sustained losses of $141 billion from the fourth quarter 2008 through the fourth quarter 2009. Congress removed the ceiling on federal bailout of the GSEs at the end of 2009, and some authorities predict that their total losses will top $400 billion. All of this will be a net loss to the taxpayer, unlike the operations of FDIC.<br /><br />The managements of the GSEs are answerable to their own special regulatory agency and to Congress, which repeatedly pressed them to loosen their credit standards. The Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, and the current administration's head of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, in 2002 produced a study at the behest of Fannie Mae purporting to show that the likelihood of loss to the taxpayer from the GSEs was disappearingly small. <br /><br />If anyone is to be pilloried for the collapse, it ought to be executives of the GSEs (e.g. Franklin Raines), politicians who encouraged loosening their credit standards (e.g., Barney Frank and Chris Dodd), and "economic advisors" like Stiglitz and Orszag who compliantly turned out propaganda for them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28053794264592203332010-04-06T07:45:58.999-07:002010-04-06T07:45:58.999-07:00>Meanwhile the white working class is left with...>Meanwhile the white working class is left without a party dedicated to advancing their interests.<<br /><br />Maybe <a href="http://american3p.org/" rel="nofollow">A3P</a>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65866639353980284912010-04-05T23:59:18.380-07:002010-04-05T23:59:18.380-07:00China arrests and shoots about a thousand people f...<i>China arrests and shoots about a thousand people for corruption every couple years. It doesn't make China less corrupt; it just means only connected people are allowed to be corrupt.</i><br /><br />Hmm, so you prefer the current US system where even unconnected people are corrupt?<br /><br />That assumes your unsupported assertion is accurate. How do you know that killing white collar criminals has no deterent effect? It seems to me that the sort of person who can plan and execute a moderately sophisticated fraud is just the sort of person who considers the noose in his calculations of net present value.<br /><br /><i>And secondly it doesn't work. [Punishing white collar crime] is a pretty common tactic throughout the world, because it gives the masses a little thrill.</i><br /><br />If I may speak for the rest of the unwashed, it certainly does give me a thrill. The same thrill as when a serial rapist is imprisoned, or some dude who murdered a couple of people gets a lethal injection. It is the thrill of knowing we live in a society of laws where crime is punished. Even Ivy League educated criminals are not special snowflakes above the judgment of man. The same thrill you got when Eliot Sptizer got caught whoremongering.robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50226004234078339082010-04-05T17:33:57.005-07:002010-04-05T17:33:57.005-07:00Now, shooting is probably a little much, but why n...<i>Now, shooting is probably a little much, but why not imprison a few 8-figure per year bank officers? That will put a little fear in future banksters. That will make them cautious about exploiting loopholes they find in regulations.</i><br /><br />This is a really stupid idea, for two reasons. The first is it flies in the face of any notion of the rule of law. You put people in jail for breaking the law, not for taking advantage of stupidity in the law.<br /><br />And secondly it doesn't work. This is a pretty common tactic throughout the world, because it gives the masses a little thrill. China arrests and shoots about a thousand people for corruption every couple years. It doesn't make China less corrupt; it just means only connected people are allowed to be corrupt. The same thing will happen here - the only people who don't walk will be the ones who didn't donate last election.<br /><br />Anyway the crisis was primarily spawned in Washington, not Wall Street. If you're looking for hides to nail to the wall Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would be a good place to start.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35422086334824799062010-04-05T15:55:59.071-07:002010-04-05T15:55:59.071-07:00Certain levels of failure should probably be crimi...Certain levels of failure should probably be criminal no matter how well-intentioned and innocent the people involved were (in this case: not very).<br /><br />But since our political classes are, at best, unindicted co-conspirators, nothing much will happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58437375946012797742010-04-05T14:50:25.626-07:002010-04-05T14:50:25.626-07:00Debunking Michael Lewis’ Subprime Short Hagiograph...<a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/debunking-michael-lewis-subprime-short-hagiography.html" rel="nofollow">Debunking Michael Lewis’ Subprime Short Hagiography</a>Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48893873638863585452010-04-05T14:42:27.029-07:002010-04-05T14:42:27.029-07:00Michael Lewis is running cover too, apparently. I...Michael Lewis is running cover too, apparently. I'll post the link if I find it again.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25786955982568913232010-04-05T14:39:57.922-07:002010-04-05T14:39:57.922-07:00Ah, but process crimes and technical federal felon...Ah, but process crimes and technical federal felonies are for people who defy prosecutors' or police authority. Usually little people who we never hear about; Martha Stewart was exceptional in profile, not in the substance of the case. Bankers may crossed a few legal lines (though I wouldn't count on it), but they haven't actually defied any prosecutors or refused to roll over on a plea deal, so they're safe.Dave R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23572045939305607752010-04-05T14:38:39.286-07:002010-04-05T14:38:39.286-07:00"Would Hitler have arrested Nazi thugs?"...<i>"Would Hitler have arrested Nazi thugs?"<br /><br />If you're going to invoke Hitler and the Nazis as examples of evil, be sure to say that Stalin and the communists were also evil. Otherwise, Svigor will get upset.</i><br /><br />Ah, I see. Because I complain about the total absence of proportionality on the issue, I have to be the only guy unable to take advantage of the Nazis' bad name (something I do on a regular basis when it suits my purposes).<br /><br />A lose-lose proposition for me. Thanks Fred, you're a swell guy.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85356874653016477912010-04-05T14:38:39.287-07:002010-04-05T14:38:39.287-07:00Obama should declare some bankers "terrorists...<i>Obama should declare some bankers "terrorists", round them up in the middle of the night, and ship them to Gitmo </i><br /><br />Have you read Taibbi's<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32906678/looting_main_street" rel="nofollow"> Looting Main Street?</a><br />"That such a blatant violation of anti-trust laws took place and neither JP Morgan nor Goldman have been prosecuted for it is yet another mystery of the current financial crisis. 'This is an open-and-shut case of anti-competitive behavior,' says Taylor, the former regulator. ...<br /><br />"Last year, when Jefferson County, staggered by the weight of its penalties, was unable to make its swap payments to JP Morgan, the bank canceled the deal. That triggered one-time "termination fees" of — yes, you read this right — $647 million. That was money the county would owe no matter what happened with the rest of its debt, even if bondholders decided to forgive and forget every dime the county had borrowed. It was like the herpes simplex of loans — debt that does not go away, ever, for as long as you live. ...<br /><br />"The destruction of Jefferson County reveals the basic battle plan of these modern barbarians, the way that banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have systematically set out to pillage towns and cities from Pittsburgh to Athens."Victoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06823851448364528821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10960530657926258322010-04-05T14:35:25.055-07:002010-04-05T14:35:25.055-07:00Apparently many of them have left the country, but...<i>Apparently many of them have left the country, but if Steve's commenters are right they should be showing up in Israel any day now. I mean, isn't it obvious?</i><br /><br />I see. So over in Iceland, I suppose there are guys posting lists of names of Jewish banksters in America and using them to justify the argument that Icelanders are not to blame for the Icelandic financial crisis? Moreover, you agree with them?Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31311616617272373172010-04-05T14:14:12.439-07:002010-04-05T14:14:12.439-07:006. Teaser rates should be criminal.
Except that,...<i>6. Teaser rates should be criminal.</i> <br /><br />Except that, as <a href="http://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=anti-usury+site%3Aisteve.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Steve has pointed out repeatedly</a>, exactly the same, ah, "folks" will be behind the opposition to any proposed laws which would seek to forbid teaser rates.<br /><br />PS: Some of you naive, doe-eyed apologists really need to spend a little time at Zero Hedge [and you also need to familiarize yourselves with the work of Matt Taibbi & Michael Lewis - there's a good overview of it all <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2348280/posts" rel="nofollow">here</a>].<br /><br />These SOBs knew precisely what they were doing in 2007/2008/2009, and they hit paydirt in doing it.<br /><br />PPS: And I suspect that I'm being charitable in calling you naive, doe-eyed apologists, but I doubt that Komment Kontrol is going to allow me switch gears and question what might be your true motivations in this discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52646450465245638362010-04-05T13:00:12.222-07:002010-04-05T13:00:12.222-07:00I'm more concerned with the fact that nothing ...I'm more concerned with the fact that nothing has been done to ensure this won't happen again.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12958739146458211852010-04-05T12:55:47.945-07:002010-04-05T12:55:47.945-07:00"... that's the problem, they didn't ..."... that's the problem, they didn't violate any laws." Consider some quotations from Michael Lewis, author of the "Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine":<br />1. People see what they are paid to see.<br />2. Now they are playing not just with shareholder money but with taxpayer money.<br />3. The vast majority of the insane behavior was perfectly legal.<br />4. One of the big changes in American life over the past twenty-five years is the extension of credit to people who previously had trouble getting it.<br />5. The lender ... didn't bear the risk of the loans not being paid.<br />6. Teaser rates should be criminal.<br />The ratings agencies, the big accounting firms, and the major brokerage houses rewarded their top people for taking our taxpayer scalps ... the Iroquois made the mistake of using tomahawks instead of law books and vajazzle accounting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72460923605390700302010-04-05T12:51:14.713-07:002010-04-05T12:51:14.713-07:00I assumed from the start that the "collapse&q...I assumed from the start that the "collapse" wasn't a collapse at all, but some kind of blackmail payment. I don't know what the information was, but the smell is unmistakable.<br /><br />Under that assumption, the blackmailers certainly aren't going to suffer in any way, because that would undo the whole purpose of the payment.Polistrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09594313902571823549noreply@blogger.com