Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

Getting to a situation where you can get a third party to win by 2012 is impossible.

Let's just flip all the seats everywhere to keep 'em on their toes. Republicans representing liberal constituents, Democrats representing conservative ones, nothing can go wrong!

 

[empty vessel]

I'm just asking that you articulate yourself a bit better. Give me something real to cling on to.

You aren't asking for that at all.

 

[sh4mike]

Do you really think that the people want lower taxes for the wealthy and for corporate dollars to have even more influence in politics or for the people in Wall Street who set this recession into motion to go unpunished? Then why is it that all these things have come to pass over the last several years, independent of citizens' wishes or how they vote?

1) Regarding "the people wanting lower taxes for the wealthy," that's trickle-down economics with the assumption that these policies support job creators. A large conservative contigency suscribes to this philosophy. Are you suggesting that few people believe in this theory? What percentage of Americans subscribe to this theory in your opinion?

2) Regarding corporate dollars in politics, campaign financial reform is something that most Americans stand behind. It's difficult because politicians who run on that platform don't want to be hypocritical by taking funds to get elected, and that lack of air time hurts their electability. Tough call. I'd like to see the Supreme Court handle it.

3) Regarding people on Wall Street who set this recession into montion going unpunished, please provide specific examples of what intentional harm was done. Who intentionally created the recession? How did they accomplish this given all the banking regulation? In my understanding, the OCC and Federal Reserve were confident that the banking models which labeled the "toxic assets" as being high-quality were flawed due to bad statistical models.

It was a mathmatical error by the insurers (principly AIG) that was propogated worldwide due to asset securitization. When the bubble burst, AIG and other insurers couldn't cover their loses and couldn't pay off their bank creditors. Some banks that could not cover exposed losses went under, other banks feared contagion and stopped lending to increase their capital reserves, and the Fed stepped in with TARP to loosen inter-bank liquidity and avoid a financial system collapse.

Regarding TARP, RSTEIN is correct in that all the money was repaid by the banks plus interest, e.g. the taxpayers made a nice profit. How do you respond to this?

The Fed stepped in with TARP and rescued AIG because it has some smart folks who understand world markets better than the average citizen. When they acted, it was unpopular but deemed to be worth the political risk. Indeed, even if the Fed "listened to the people" by refusing to participate, and if the financial system collapsed as a result, then "the people" would have blamed the Fed for not doing enough.

It's a damn hard job to represent people who don't understand (and have no desire to understand) the complexities of the international politics and finance. People like black and white, good and evil -- it's more soothing. It's easier to label the Fed and Wall Street as evil, and put all the blame on evil people who must be punished. It's much harder to feel satisfied living in a difficult economic environment due to a few stupid decisions, a few bad statistical models, and poor federal oversight -- none of it intentional.

 

[sans_pants]

Maybe you're right, after all. Maybe I'm blind. Let me show you the world I live in. Please tell me how I'm misguided.

I get up. Have coffee, eat toast. Say hello to my wife. Take my son and my dog out for a stroll. Go to work. Earn a living. Come home, eat dinner, play some Gears of War. Read a book, do some more work. Go to bed. Along the way I spend less than I earn, put some money away for retirement, and therefore keep myself ahead of 99% of the population. Again, that's not a goal, just a byproduct of our system. Just math.

At any point during my day I have the opportunity to do almost anything I want to. I can drop everything and pursue a Masters degree. I can stop working and go on welfare. I can change jobs. I can be a politician. I can divorce my wife and marry a man. I can join the military. I can go go Occupy Wall St. I can go to Starbucks and enjoy a coffee. I can protest against Starbucks. I can explore 99% of the world. Or I can stay at home not have to interact the world. I am free. I am not controlled by a corporation. I am not controlled by a corporate class.

How is your day different?

Everyday I wake up, search for a job. I find none, despite a college degree. So I do some freelance writing for pennies, eat less than 3 dollars worth of food a day if I'm lucky, and fret about how I will pay my student loans off. I can't do any of the things you can, and its not because I'm stupid or lazy. But even if it was, I don't blame people for being stupid because not everyone can be smart.

 

[Jak140]

1) Regarding people wanting lower taxes for the wealthy, that's "trickle-down economics" and "supporting job creators." A large conservative contigency suscribes to that philosophy. Are you suggesting that few people believe in these theories?

2) Regarding corporate dollars in politics, campaign financial reform is something that most Americans can stand behind.

3) Regarding people on Wall Street who set this recession into montion going unpunished, please provide specific examples of what intentional harm was done. Who intentionally created the recession? How did they accomplish this given all the banking regulation? In my understanding, the OCC and Federal Reserve were confident that the banking models which labeled the "toxic assets" as being high-quality were flawed due to bad statistical models.

It was a mathmatical error by the insurers (principly AIG) that was propogated worldwide due to asset securitization. When the bubble burst, AIG and other insurers couldn't cover their loses and couldn't pay off their bank creditors. Some banks that could not cover exposed losses went under, other banks feared contagion and stopped lending to increase their capital reserves, and the Fed stepped in with TARP to loosen inter-bank liquidity and avoid a financial system collapse.

Regarding TARP, RSTEIN is correct in that all the money was repaid by the banks plus interest, e.g. the taxpayers made a nice profit. How do you respond to this?

The Fed stepped in with TARP and rescuing AIG because it has some smart folks who understand world markets better than the average citizen. When they acted, it was unpopular but deemed to be worth political risk. Indeed, even if the Fed "listened to the people" by refusing to participate, and if the financial system collapsed as a result, then "the people" would have blamed the Fed for not doing enough.

It's a damn hard job to represent people who don't understand (and have no desire to understand) the complexities of the international politics and finance. People like black and white, good and bad -- it's more soothing. It's easier to label the Fed and Wall Street as evil, and put all the blame on evil people. It's much harder to feel satisfied living in a difficult economic environment due to a few stupid decisions, a few bad statistical models, and poor federal oversight.

1. Why not take a second to consider that polls show that 80% of Americans want taxes on millionaires increased, including a majority of Republicans and people who self identify as Tea Party members.

2. So you admit that this is true and yet laws continue to move in the opposite direction. How exactly is the peoples' will being represented here?

3. It's kind of tough to uncover all of the wrong doing when we currently have a system that relies on financial companies to self-report what they've done wrong instead of having independent investigation. Not to mention the abhorant practice of many regulators eventually being hired by the same banks they are supposed to be investigating and vice-versa and how poisonous this sort of cross-pollination is to blind justice. But even with all this, we know for a fact that there were people who knew the morgage backed secerities were toxic, dumped them, and even tried to profit from knowledge of that fact. Why aren't these people in jail?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true

Yes, TARP made money because it was invested by banks at the bottom of the recession (a moron could have used billions of dollars in loans to make money under those same circumstances), why couldn't a similar program have been used to help home owners as well and not just the people who took advantage of them? Regardless, I never expressed an opinion on TARP, so I'm not sure why you even bring this up in response to me.

 

[sh4mike]

1) Why not take a second to read the front page of most news organizations the past couple of days -- Obama and the Democrats are trying to institute a supplemental tax on millionaires. Then go back to your original response that triggered my rebuttle.

What was voter sentiment a few years ago? Now see the swing in sentiment today, and you'll notice that elected officials have responded. Democracy in action. So...what's your problem with the system again?

2) Because "the people" don't vote for the politicians who don't take contribution cash and consequently aren't on TV. If "the people" vote for the guy with the most advertisements, then they deserve what they get.

"Laws moving in the opposite direction?" Evidence please.

3) Help home owners? Like the Fed driving down long-term interest rates through Operation Twist, which a few days ago pushed 30-year mortgage rates below 4% for the first time in history. Or the Fed backing losses for 90%+ of the mortgage underwriting since the collapse because banks would have to price rates too high for the risk. These actions have boosted existing home prices, helping all existing home owners with their equity position and capacity to refinance to better terms. Or HAMP or 2MP which are incentives paid to banks to lower repayment terms. How many more examples would you like here?

 

[RSTEIN]

So essentially, you fail to recognize how privileged you are compared a large swath of the US population and have been arguing under the assumption they that they have the same privileges you have.

No, I recognize my situation very clearly.

My situation is the result of chance and circumstance. Two years ago I was unemployed. Before my previous job I was a telemarketer. Before that I worked in a factory. All while having two fancy degrees.

My fortunes have risen and fallen with the economy. There is no corporate elite controlling my life. No corrupt politician has been pulling the strings. I look out the window and it's clear I live in a democracy. Not a perfect world, but the best we've managed to find so far.

 

[Zabka]

Regarding TARP, RSTEIN is correct in that all the money was repaid by the banks plus interest, e.g. the taxpayers made a nice profit. How do you respond to this?

The Fed stepped in with TARP and rescued AIG because it has some smart folks who understand world markets better than the average citizen. When they acted, it was unpopular but deemed to be worth the political risk. Indeed, even if the Fed "listened to the people" by refusing to participate, and if the financial system collapsed as a result, then "the people" would have blamed the Fed for not doing enough.

It's a damn hard job to represent people who don't understand (and have no desire to understand) the complexities of the international politics and finance. People like black and white, good and evil -- it's more soothing. It's easier to label the Fed and Wall Street as evil, and put all the blame on evil people who must be punished. It's much harder to feel satisfied living in a difficult economic environment due to a few stupid decisions, a few bad statistical models, and poor federal oversight -- none of it intentional.

I really wish the Paulites hadn't latched on to Occupy Wall Street. Their beliefs just don't jive with what most of the people are out there for. The Fed's existence shouldn't be a part of this argument, although keeping it clean of illegal influence definitely should.

Yes TARP worked and saved the banks, preventing an economic collapse, but most people wanted it to go further. They want the banks broken up, they want the banks influence on the government reduced, they want the government to help all the homeowners, pension funds and 401ks that got fucked by the banks.

And to think that the crisis was purely unintentional is nuts. It doesn't take a genius to know that bundling bad loans, chopping them up and reselling them with a AAA rating is a retarded idea. Being willfully ignorant doesn't mean you aren't guilty of fraud. That's like getting into a car crash and saying "It's not my fault, I was drunk!"

And there's evidence that banks knew the mortgage backed securities were bad. For example:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/wall-street-subprime-crisis_n_739294.html

 

[BobsRevenge]

1) Why not take a second to read the front page of most news organizations the past couple of days -- Obama and the Democrats are trying to institute a supplemental tax on millionaires. Then go back to your original response that triggered my rebuttle.

2) Because "the people" don't vote for politicians who aren't on TV enough because they didn't take contribution cash. If "the people" vote for the guy with the most advertisements, then they deserve what they get.

"Laws moving in the opposite direction?" Evidence please.

3) Help home owners? Like the Fed driving down long-term interest rates through Operation Twist, which a few days ago pushed 30-year mortgage rates below 4% for the first time in history. Or the Fed backing losses for 90%+ of the mortgage underwriting since the collapse because banks would have to price rates too high for the risk. These actions have boosted home prices. Or HAMP or 2MP which are incentives paid to banks to lower repayment terms. How many more examples would you like here?

2. "the people" can't help it. If a politician can't reach out to the voters they can't get votes. Money buys momentum and momentum wins elections. Human nature has to be accounted for in law, politics, and the financial system. It's the best way to get things to work fairly.

People shouldn't be punished with a shitty government just because it's easy to manipulate populations when you buy influence. If you allowed it unconditionally there wouldn't be a decent government on this earth.

I really wish the Paulites hadn't latched on to Occupy Wall Street. Their beliefs just don't jive with what most of the people are out there for. The Fed's existence shouldn't be a part of this argument, although keeping it clean of illegal influence definitely should.

Yes TARP worked and saved the banks, preventing an economic collapse, but most people wanted it to go further. They want the banks broken up, they want the banks influence on the government reduced, they want the government to help all the homeowners, pension funds and 401ks that got fucked by the banks.

And to think that the crisis was purely unintentional is nuts. It doesn't take a genius to know that bundling bad loans, chopping them up and reselling them with a AAA rating is a retarded idea. Being willfully ignorant doesn't mean you aren't guilty of fraud. That's like getting into a car crash and saying "It's not my fault, I was drunk!"

And there's evidence that banks knew the mortgage backed securities were bad. For example:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/wall-street-subprime-crisis_n_739294.html

Goldman also kinda gamed the system by pulling their money out of AIG's bad investments at a pace they knew would bring them to bankruptcy and get the government to intervene so they could get out of bad investments and make money on the government response. They have a ton of political influence and were able to guide the response in a way that got the banking system massive profits.

 

[sh4mike]

They want the banks broken up, they want the banks influence on the government reduced, they want the government to help all the homeowners, pension funds and 401ks that got fucked by the banks.

And to think that the crisis was purely unintentional is nuts. It doesn't take a genius to know that bundling bad loans, chopping them up and reselling them with a AAA rating is a retarded idea. Being willfully ignorant doesn't mean you aren't guilty of fraud. That's like getting into a car crash and saying "It's not my fault, I was drunk!"

And there's evidence that banks knew the mortgage backed securities. For example:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/wall-street-subprime-crisis_n_739294.html

People's 401Ks were fucked by the banks? Hrmmm, my 401K was in stable market funds and cash. Perhaps you mean those folks who bet on equities -- and "bet" is the right word there. Dow peaked around 14.5K during the boom years, right? Not sure if 11K is "fucked," but that's gambling for you.

"Purely unintential" is a bit of a stretch. It's more about assignment of risk. AIG was insuring the assets, so banks had loose underwriting because of mortgage insurance. The credit agencies were going off flawed bank and insurance models for default risk. These models have oversight from the OCC and Fed, which both dropped the ball on accounting for contagion risk.

I think the question at hand is, do you believe that there was a widespread "get rich quick before our evil plans destroy the economy" philosphy among the major banks? I vote no, based on what I've read.

The Huffington article does not contradict what I'm writing here. Yes, many bank underwriters would look at the broker-originated business and suspect that many of these customers would have trouble making their payments. But operations looks to Risk Management, and their models said the losses were acceptable given mortgage insurance (MI). The MI models were the primary flaw in the securitization package, which is why AIG payments will never be fully recouped. They really messed up. But it was bad modeling by a couple of really smart PhDs, who thought they could fully account for contagion risk. They were wrong, and the entire system collapsed.

So again, go back to that question -- was it all an evil plot? No, it was a few bad decisions that ballooned in the face of easy money, corporate greed, and individual/consumer greed. Flip those properties, Mom -- we'll be rich.

 

[Jak140]

1) Why not take a second to read the front page of most news organizations the past couple of days -- Obama and the Democrats are trying to institute a supplemental tax on millionaires. Then go back to your original response that triggered my rebuttle.

What was voter sentiment a few years ago? Now see the swing in sentiment today, and you'll notice that elected officials have responded. Democracy in action. So...what's your problem with the system again?

2) Because "the people" don't vote for the politicians who don't take contribution cash and consequently aren't on TV. If "the people" vote for the guy with the most advertisements, then they deserve what they get.

"Laws moving in the opposite direction?" Evidence please.

3) Help home owners? Like the Fed driving down long-term interest rates through Operation Twist, which a few days ago pushed 30-year mortgage rates below 4% for the first time in history. Or the Fed backing losses for 90%+ of the mortgage underwriting since the collapse because banks would have to price rates too high for the risk. These actions have boosted existing home prices, helping all existing home owners with their equity position and capacity to refinance to better terms. Or HAMP or 2MP which are incentives paid to banks to lower repayment terms. How many more examples would you like here?

1. My response was to your question about what percentage of Americans would like higher taxes on the wealthy. I responded and you changed the subject. What would you say the chances of the people's will being done in this regard under the current elected congress, BTW?

2. So essentially you are saying that if the people are manipulated into submission, they are still the ones who wield the power? And yes technically Citizens United is a ruling on existing law (a ruling that overturned decades of precedent no less), but I'm not here to argue semantics.


3. Sure, ignore the relevant point I made and single out a side comment about TARP (which I didn't even mention in my original argument in the first place). I'm not going to argue (and haven't) that the government has done nothing for homeowners, but I can guarantee that all the bankers who benefitted off these people's misery and the TARP are doing a lot better than the thousands who still have underwater home loans.

No, I recognize my situation very clearly.

My situation is the result of chance and circumstance. Two years ago I was unemployed. Before my previous job I was a telemarketer. Before that I worked in a factory. All while having two fancy degrees.

My fortunes have risen and fallen with the economy. There is no corporate elite controlling my life. No corrupt politician has been pulling the strings. I look out the window and it's clear I live in a democracy. Not a perfect world, but the best we've managed to find so far.

You still fail to recognize how your fortune is a large part of why you feel so free, and the lack of a living wage, access to a good education, and a stable job is why so many do not.

 

[sh4mike]

2. "the people" can't help it. If a politician can't reach out to the voters they can't get votes. Money buys momentum and momentum wins elections. Human nature has to be accounted for in law, politics, and the financial system. It's the best way to get things to work fairly.

People shouldn't be punished with a shitty government just because it's easy to manipulate populations when you buy influence. If you allowed it unconditionally there wouldn't be a decent government on this earth.

Goldman also kinda gamed the system by pulling their money out of AIG's bad investments at a pace they knew would bring them to bankruptcy and get the government to intervene so they could get out of bad investments and make money on the government response. They have a ton of political influence and were able to guide the response in a way that got the banking system massive profits.

2. Something I've heard often is "American democracy is incredible flawed, but it's also the best system in the world." What's your recommendation? =)

I'd like to see the Supreme Court declare limitations on campaign proceeds, rather than having incumbent politicians continuously vote these measures down. It'll be dealt with eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Responding to your Goldman quote on "kinda gaming" the system, do you have any evidence of widespread illegal activities across the organization? Any?

 

[BobsRevenge]

2. Something I've heard often is "American democracy is incredible flawed, but it's also the best system in the world." What's your recommendation? =)

I'd like to see the Supreme Court declare limitations on campaign proceeds, rather than having incumbent politicians continuously vote these measures down. It'll be dealt with eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Responding to your Goldman quote on "kinda gaming" the system, do you have any evidence of widespread illegal activities across the organization? Any?

My recommendation would be to introduce an amendment to reinstate limits on campaign contributions (and expand them). If the supreme court is going to call it unconstitutional, fucking make it constitutional! :lol

The banks had a major seats at the table during the discussions, and former employees and friends in high positions on the government side. They guided the response to benefit them at the cost of potentially directing substantial relief towards the middle and working class that were the ones actually getting fucked. It isn't any less wrong even if it is legal.

 

[Zabka]

Pretending there wasn't any predatory lending, handwaving the billions of dollars in damage done to our economy as the result of a few bad formula, and ignoring that banks courted investments from state pension funds is intellectually dishonest.

The banks knew the whole system was fucked long before the public did.

Responding to your Goldman quote on "kinda gaming" the system, do you have any evidence of widespread illegal activities across the organization? Any?

https://sites.google.com/site/disclosuredelta/

The bank might be taking all these hideous, completely irresponsible mortgages from beneath-gangster-status firms like Countrywide and selling them off to municipillities and pensioners – old people, for God’s sake – pretending the whole time that it wasn’t grade-D horseshit. But even as it was doing So, it was taking short positions in the same market, in essence betting against same crap it was selling. Even worse, Goldman bragged about it in public. The mortgage sector continues to he challenged,“ David Viniar, the bank’s chief financial officer, boasted in 2007. "As a result, we took significant markdowns on our long inventory positions, … However, our risk bias in that market was to be short, and that net short position was profitable.” In other words, the mortgages it was selling were for chumps. The real money was in betting against those same mortgages.

“That’s how audacious these assholes are,” says one hedge-fund manager. “At least with other banks, you could say that they were just dumb – they believed what they were selling, and it blew them up. Goldman knew what it was doing.”

I ask the manager how it could be that selling something to customers that you’re actually betting against – particularly when you know more about the weaknesses of those products than the customer – doesn’t amount to securities fraud.

“It’s exactly securities fraud.” he says. “It’s the heart of securities fraud.”

 

[BobsRevenge]

Pretending there wasn't any predatory lending, handwaving the billions of dollars in damage done to our economy as the result of a few bad formula, and ignoring that banks courted investments from state pension funds is intellectually dishonest.

The banks knew the whole system was fucked long before the public did.


https://sites.google.com/site/disclosuredelta/

Yeah, Taibbi does a great job of expanding on this article and really getting into what was so fucked up about the whole crisis in Griftopia. Awesome book.

 

[Zabka]

Goldman is beyond supervillain levels in its abuses of the American economy. What they did to the oil market is shameful.

 

[ezrarh]

On a related note, this article details how Goldman Sachs and other Wall St firms played a role in the rapid increases in food prices. Yes, they are the boogey man and are real.

The money tells the story. Since the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, there has been a 50-fold increase in dollars invested in commodity index funds. To put the phenomenon in real terms: In 2003, the commodities futures market still totaled a sleepy $13 billion. But when the global financial crisis sent investors running scared in early 2008, and as dollars, pounds, and euros evaded investor confidence, commodities -- including food -- seemed like the last, best place for hedge, pension, and sovereign wealth funds to park their cash. "You had people who had no clue what commodities were all about suddenly buying commodities," an analyst from the United States Department of Agriculture told me. In the first 55 days of 2008, speculators poured $55 billion into commodity markets, and by July, $318 billion was roiling the markets. Food inflation has remained steady since.

 

[NullPointer]

How is your day different?

Lose your job and take on a decent amount of debt and see how your day changes. Then prolong this period since for some reason nobody is hiring. Pray to the Gods that you don't have to go to the hospital.

Then listen to the richest 1% complain of class warfare.

I have a feeling your days would be different.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'd like to see the Supreme Court declare limitations on campaign proceeds, rather than having incumbent politicians continuously vote these measures down. It'll be dealt with eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later.

The Supreme Court can't declare limitations on campaign "proceeds" (I assume you actually mean contributions, not proceeds). The Supreme Court interprets the laws, it doesn't write them. It's Congress (incumbent politicians) that passed McCain-Feingold, and the Supreme Court that declared those limitations on campaign contributions were unconstitutional. So no, unless there is a change in the SC and Congress tries to re-enact those restrictions, it won't happen sooner or later.

 

[sh4mike]

https://sites.google.com/site/disclosuredelta/

Aww, come on. Rolling Stone is your high-quality evidence? With the widespread corruption, which any fool can clearly identify, and the thousands of journalists who could expose the organization and send all the evil-doers to prison for illegal activities, is this the best source for unbiased news that you have?

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

Michael Moore is less biased than this fud.

Like most people, I'm not a fan of investment bankers. They facilitate trillion-dollar gambling and speculation. Most people would love to put these guys behind bars if they did anything illegal. So where's the evidence of illegal activities? Look at what you bolded as your primary argument -- "says one hedge fund manager." Come on, let's talk real journalism. They would drag all the violators at Goldman before Congress and flush this out if there was any real evidence.

The Supreme Court can't declare limitations on campaign "proceeds" (I assume you actually mean contributions, not proceeds). The Supreme Court interprets the laws, it doesn't write them. It's Congress (incumbent politicians) that passed McCain-Feingold, and the Supreme Court that declared those limitations on campaign contributions were unconstitutional. So no, unless there is a change in the SC and Congress tries to re-enact those restrictions, it won't happen sooner or later.

Thank you for the education, Dude.

 

[Zabka]

Are you fucking kidding me

 

[Door2Dawn]

Are you fucking kidding me

lol

 

[Divvy]

Lol why even bother.

 

[dave is ok]

Come on, let's talk real journalism. They would drag all the violators at Goldman before Congress and flush this out if there was any real evidence.
.

Jesus christ, shut up.

Carl Levin did just that

 

[Jak140]

Aww, come on. Is this your only high-quality evidence? With the widespread corruption, which any fool can clearly identify, and the thousands of journalists who could expose the organization and send all the evil-doers to prison for illegal activities, is this the best you have?

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

Michael Moore vids are less biased than this.

Like most people, I'm not a fan of investment bankers. They facilitate trillion-dollar gambling and speculation. Most people would love to put these guys behind bars if they did anything illegal. So where's the evidence of illegal activities? Look at what you bolded as your primary argument -- "says one hedge fund manager." Come on, let's talk real journalism. They would drag all the violators at Goldman before Congress and flush this out if there was any real evidence.

Learn to read. I know it's hard because he didn't bold this part when he quoted it, but try again:

The bank might be taking all these hideous, completely irresponsible mortgages from beneath-gangster-status firms like Countrywide and selling them off to municipillities and pensioners – old people, for God’s sake – pretending the whole time that it wasn’t grade-D horseshit. But even as it was doing So, it was taking short positions in the same market, in essence betting against same crap it was selling. Even worse, Goldman bragged about it in public. The mortgage sector continues to he challenged,“ David Viniar, the bank’s chief financial officer, boasted in 2007. "As a result, we took significant markdowns on our long inventory positions, … However, our risk bias in that market was to be short, and that net short position was profitable.” In other words, the mortgages it was selling were for chumps. The real money was in betting against those same mortgages.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Aww, come on. Is this your only high-quality evidence? With the widespread corruption, which any fool can clearly identify, and the thousands of journalists who could expose the organization and send all the evil-doers to prison for illegal activities, is this the best you have?

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

Michael Moore vids are less biased than this.

Like most people, I'm not a fan of investment bankers. They facilitate trillion-dollar gambling and speculation. Most people would love to put these guys behind bars if they did anything illegal. So where's the evidence of illegal activities? Look at what you bolded as your primary argument -- "says one hedge fund manager." Come on, let's talk real journalism. They would drag all the violators at Goldman before Congress and flush this out if there was any real evidence.

Taibbi fancies himself a gonzo-style journalist, hence that language. He's pretty good about bringing out the going ons of the system, and how the shit got fucked, in language that is easy to understand and understandably heated. His information is backed up. Taibbi really pounced on Goldman with that article, and really focused on them, but Griftopia is far more deep and insightful.

Again, I highly recommend it.

 

[Karakand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEiI_04R_mA

 

[RSTEIN]

Lose your job and take on a decent amount of debt and see how your day changes. Then prolong this period since for some reason nobody is hiring. Pray to the Gods that you don't have to go to the hospital.

Then listen to the richest 1% complain of class warfare.

I have a feeling your days would be different.

I was there recently. But I didnt see some sort of corrupt system holding me back. In fact, I saw a great system, full of honest and hard working people. A system durable and flexible enough to handle multiple financial crises during the 1800s, a civil war, two world wars, and even George W.

Right now we have a lot of anger because we are still suffering from a very severe recession. Some people, like empty vessel, are so angry that they feel the need to create an enemy. Something they can be angry at (much like people use religion to make the world easier to navigate). People like empty vessel are so angry they can't articulate the problem nor define the problem. When pressed he reverts to his shell, claiming those that don't see his distorted world view are arrogant and ignorant. It's just pure anger. I feel sorry for him.

 

[dave is ok]

he laws, regulations, and guidelines that corporations have to follow are changing. They have changed in massive ways since the financial crisis. Thanks to citizens.

Um no. Not really

Thats why this is happening

 

[demon]

I was there recently. But I didnt see some sort of corrupt system holding me back. In fact, I saw a great system, full of honest and hard working people. A system durable and flexible enough to handle multiple financial crises during the 1800s, a civil war, two world wars, and even George W.

Right now we have a lot of anger because we are still suffering from a very severe recession. Some people, like empty vessel, are so angry that they feel the need to create an enemy. Something they can be angry at (much like people use religion to make the world easier to navigate). People like empty vessel are so angry they can't articulate the problem nor define the problem. When pressed he reverts to his shell, claiming those that don't see his distorted world view are arrogant and ignorant. It's just pure anger. I feel sorry for him.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Jesus christ, shut up.

Carl Levin did just that

How did that turn out?
Besides the hand waving.

 

[dave is ok]

How did that turn out?
Besides the hand waving.

The banks refused to answer any questions, and when they did, they contradicted themselves. Exactly how every inquiry goes

 

[Zabka]

I was there recently. But I didnt see some sort of corrupt system holding me back. In fact, I saw a great system, full of honest and hard working people. A system durable and flexible enough to handle multiple financial crises during the 1800s, a civil war, two world wars, and even George W.

Here's the thing you keep missing. The system is fine. It's the people who lose.

Yes, the economy has natural ups and downs, but companies like Goldman Sachs inflate the ups and coast through the downs. Passing all of a corporation's risk onto taxpayers is not "natural".

 

[Alucrid]

It's tense up in here.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I was there recently. But I didnt see some sort of corrupt system holding me back. In fact, I saw a great system, full of honest and hard working people. A system durable and flexible enough to handle multiple financial crises during the 1800s, a civil war, two world wars, and even George W.

Right now we have a lot of anger because we are still suffering from a very severe recession. Some people, like empty vessel, are so angry that they feel the need to create an enemy. Something they can be angry at (much like people use religion to make the world easier to navigate). People like empty vessel are so angry they can't articulate the problem nor define the problem. When pressed he reverts to his shell, claiming those that don't see his distorted world view are arrogant and ignorant. It's just pure anger. I feel sorry for him.

Dude, there genuinely is something wrong with the system and people really do suffer. The system, as it stands right now, works for a lot of people. I'm doing just fine by my own standards, and I don't even make much. But, you have to realize that the system really did almost break. There were enough toxic assets to bring the largest economy in the world to the brink and it could've gone over the edge. The lower class is really going to be feeling the effects with the austerity measures and it's going to make the unemployment problem this country has even worse. Our government can barely agree to pay its bills. There are problems and there needs to be a movement to bring attention to them so that the government realizes they can't dance around it any longer.

The financial system, as it stands right now, funnels money to the wealthy and away from people who weren't so lucky to be born into a system that nurtures them into a position to make good money. It's incredibly hard for a majority of Americans to take advantage of a system that isn't really available to them. It's also incredibly easy to take advantage of these people and the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and protect their best interest by strengthening the working and middle class to create a better economy for everyone.

 

[NullPointer]

Passing all of a corporation's risk onto taxpayers is not "natural".

Indeed. Privatized wealth and socialized risk.

Its got to end, and people need to be held accountable for their actions. All people, not just the lower classes.

I find it darkly humorous how Ben Stein says that all people are comprised of an amount of fools and crooks. But if you have money or friends in high places being a crook doesn't mean you'll be held accountable, or that your foolishness won't be rewarded.

 

[RSTEIN]

Yes, the economy has natural ups and downs, but companies like Goldman Sachs inflate the ups and coast through the downs. Passing all of a corporation's risk onto taxpayers is not "natural".

Absolutely. Derivatives reform needs to happen. Controls need to be in place to ensure institutions don't become too big to take the economy down.

 

[Piecake]

On a related note, this article details how Goldman Sachs and other Wall St firms played a role in the rapid increases in food prices. Yes, they are the boogey man and are real.

I would be more than happy to ban speculation on all essential commodities - like food and oil.

 

[marrec]

Absolutely. Derivatives reform needs to happen. Controls need to be in place to ensure institutions don't become too big to take the economy down.

Oh my god, RSTEIN is for more regulation.

Socialist.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I am trying to find a gif that captures the chaos and heat of this page, but so far have been unsuccessful.

maybe LD fainting?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Wonder if these protesters will bring back FDR's court packing scheme.

For more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Now that's how you handle a court that is fucking you over. FDR was the man.

 

[RSTEIN]

Oh my god, RSTEIN is for more regulation.

Socialist.

Personally, I believe our society needs more regulation and higher taxes. We're on that path. Hopefully the Occupy movement will send this message.

 

[marrec]

Personally, I believe our society needs more regulation and higher taxes. We're on that path. Hopefully the Occupy movement will send this message.

I haven't been following your posts this whole time so excuse me if this has been asked and answered already, but would you want higher taxes across the board?

 

[Zabka]

I am trying to find a gif that captures the chaos and heat of this page, but so far have been unsuccessful.

maybe LD fainting?

 

[Karma Kramer]

^ lol

 

[RSTEIN]

I haven't been following your posts this whole time so excuse me if this has been asked and answered already, but would you want higher taxes across the board?

No, only for the higher income earners such as myself. The tax system needs to be more equitable.

 

[Karma Kramer]

 

[marrec]

No, only for the higher income earners such as myself. The tax system needs to be more equitable.

It's not the income that needs to be taxed then, it's the other profits. This though, I suppose, is a debate for another time.

 

[Piecake]

It's not the income that needs to be taxed then, it's the other profits. This though, I suppose, is a debate for another time.

Yup, best thing we can do is to eliminate all deductions, uncap and lower the payroll tax, and increase the capital gains tax on people making over X amount of money.

I would also be fine with extending short-term capital gains to 3-5 years and the creation of a new tax bracket for people making over a million or something.

 

[RSTEIN]