• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since when do communists hate cities...?

It's not universal but a lot of commie revolutions saw forced removals from metropolitan centers for participation in communized farming, as I'm sure you know.

Such as China and Cambodia, as I'm sure you also know.

In those cases living in a city made you bourgeoise by default.
 
Manchester isn't London and whogivesacrap Idaho isn't New York. News at 11.
You're right, actually we should surrender all of our political power to bankers and tech CEOs so they can take all of the wealth and then price us out of the places that have all the money. I'm not even sure why we bother with this whole democracy thing.
 

East Lake

Member
I'm all for jailing people who committed crimes. If you want to elaborate on what specific CEO and particular fraud you're referring too it would probably help.

I don't see how that "fixes" "Wall St" and thus snowballs into solving everything else.
Sure!

From an article called Liars Loans ain't rocket science, by an expert who studied financial crime.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report should be read closely.

From 2000 to 2007, a coalition of appraisal organizations … delivered to Washington officials a public petition; signed by 11,000 appraisers…. t charged that lenders were pressuring appraisers to place artificially high prices on properties [and] “blacklisting honest appraisers” and instead assigning business only to appraisers who would hit the desired price targets (FCIC 2011:18).

Surveys of appraisers in 2003 and 2006 found, respectively, that 55% and 90% of them had been personally subjected to such coercion to inflate appraisals (FCIC 2011: 91). It was lenders and their agents (typically mortgage brokers) who were overwhelmingly responsible for deliberately generating a “Gresham’s” dynamic (in which bad ethics drives good ethics out of the profession or market) in order to inflate reported market values.
90% of appraisers in 2006 felt coerced by lenders to inflate loan values. That's pretty high! FBI could probably pick a lender at random to charge with a crime at this point.

DOJ has just given Wagner’s team its second highest award for their failure to prosecute anyone at JPMorgan (JPM) for committing roughly a dozen of the largest frauds in history. In this case this refers also to the officers that controlled Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual (WaMu) because they were acquired by JPM. Here, I use the term “JPM” to refer collectively to the three financial institutions.

“The four were cited for their work, under the guidance of Shelledy and U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner, ‘that led to an unprecedented civil settlement with JPMorgan Chase,’ the nation’s largest bank.

‘The settlement negotiations and the (underlying) fraud investigations they undertook led to what was the largest settlement with a single entity in American history – $13 billion – and the largest … penalty ever recovered by the department – $2 billion’ under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. The measure was enacted in response to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.

The settlement resulted in part from an investigation showing that, in the lead-up to the 2007-08 collapse of the economy, JPMorgan sold billions of dollars of residential mortgage-backed securities which included loans that did not comply with underwriting guidelines, were secured by properties with inflated appraisals, were supported by inaccurate loan-to-value or debt-to-income ratios or were otherwise unlawfully originated, according to the citation.

All the while, the citation says, JPMorgan was ‘misrepresenting to investors the (high) quality of the loans … and the (low) risk of loss.’ The efforts of the four award recipients held ‘wrongdoers accountable for reckless and abusive conduct that contributed to the financial crisis,’ the citation says.

Wagner said Wednesday the four attorneys ‘exemplify what it truly means to be a public servant.’”

Let’s parse those statements. JPM’s senior officers led a series of fraud schemes (only two of which are discussed in the quoted passage) that contributed to the “collapse of the economy.” JPM sold “billions of dollars of [RMBS] … that did not comply with underwriting guidelines, were secured by properties with inflated appraisals, were supported by inaccurate loan-to-value or debt-to-income ratios or where otherwise unlawfully originated.” JPM sold the RMBS to the secondary market by “misrepresenting to investors” the condition of the loans.

What we have here is a confession by DOJ that JPM’s, Countrywide’s, and Merrill Lynch’s controlling officers led the three most destructive financial fraud epidemics. They originated hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages “unlawfully” through extorting appraisers to inflate appraised values and by making “liar’s” loans they knew to be pervasively fraudulent. No honest lender would do that, but accounting control frauds found it to be optimal. Fraudulently originated loans, of course, remain fraudulent so they can only be sold to the secondary market through “misrepresenting” the quality of the loans. That misrepresentation comes in the form of fraudulent “representations and warranties.” Loan origination fraud begets secondary market sales fraud.

And yes, if you are wondering, each of these frauds is a federal crime (actually, a whole series of federal crimes). Collectively, DOJ found roughly a million fraudulent acts led by JPM’s officers just in the three fraud categories listed in the award citation. (The civil case against JPM involved additional frauds.)
Even the largest wall st institutions are involved.

The Fraud “Recipe” That Shaped the Crisis

The officers that controlled home mortgage lenders (purchasers) could optimize their frauds by causing the firm to follow the fraud recipe’s four “ingredients.”

Grow extremely rapidly by
Making (buying) massive amounts of bad loans at premium nominal yield, while
Employing extreme leverage, and
Providing only trivial allowances for loan and lease losses (ALLL)
The Recipe Guarantees Three “Sure Things”

The lender (buyer) will promptly report record (albeit fictional) profits
The senior officers will promptly be made wealthy by modern executive compensation
The firm will eventually suffer catastrophic losses
The title of George Akerlof and Paul Romer’s 1993 explains the resulting “agency” problem – “Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit.” The firm will suffer terrible losses, but the controlling officers can walk away wealthy.
The motive of fraud, originally layed out by nobel winning economist and husband of Janet Yellen, George Akerlof.

The top “quant” at Enron, the honest and brilliant top risk officer, Vincent Kaminski, wrote recently about his regrets that he was unable to spot the fraud, at a firm that was “rotten to the core,” because he did not understand accounting control fraud techniques. The financial rocket scientists rarely study accounting and they were virtually never the CEOs of the financial firms that led the frauds that drove the crisis. Indeed, the CFOs of the financial firms were rarely rocket scientists. The most senior rocket scientists at these firms were, like Kaminski, often risk officers – and the CEOs and CFOs routinely ignored their warnings.
Not understanding the fraud even when you should have all the tools to do so.

Note that “low doc” loans were not new. They began, as do most U.S. financial frauds, at in Orange County, California in 1990. More specifically they began at Orange County savings and loans (S&Ls). We (OTS West Region) were their regulators and our examiners figured them out almost immediately. Despite being slammed dealing with the boarder S&L debacle we created a special effort that drove such loans out of the S&L industry beginning in 1991. The worst of the lenders (which also targeted blacks and Latinos) gave up its S&L charter and FDIC insurance for the sole purpose of escaping our jurisdiction. It renamed itself “Ameriquest” and became a predatory mortgage bank. Liar’s loans caused “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses … in the early 1990s” before we could purge them from the industry. We acted quickly enough, however, to avoid any costly failures, much less allow them to cause a bubble and a crisis.
Making white nationalism a business opportunity!

Most people still call it “the subprime crisis,” but it would be more accurate to call it the “liar’s loan and appraisal fraud” crisis. Between 2003 and 2006, liar’s loans grew by roughly 500% (while conventional loans declined). By 2006, half of all the loans that the industry called “subprime” were also liar’s loans (the two categories are not mutually exclusive) and 40% of all home loans originated that year were liar’s loans. At the 90% fraud incidence figure, that means that lenders originated over two million fraudulent liar’s loans in 2006 alone.

It was liar’s loans that hyper-inflated the housing bubble. The bubble, in turn, was optimal for accounting control fraud because it meant that the fraudulent officers controlling the lenders could refinance bad loans and minimize defaults. The saying in the trade is: “a rolling loan gathers no loss.”
More liar's loans than subprime.

“More loan sales meant higher profits for everyone in the chain. Business boomed for Christopher Cruise, a Maryland-based corporate educator who trained loan officers for companies that were expanding mortgage originations. He crisscrossed the nation, coaching about 10,000 loan originators a year in auditoriums and classrooms.

His clients included many of the largest lenders—Countrywide, Ameriquest, and Ditech among them. Most of their new hires were young, with no mortgage experience, fresh out of school and with previous jobs ‘flipping burgers,’ he told the FCIC. Given the right training, however, the best of them could ‘easily’ earn millions.
From flipping burgers to making home loans!

“William D. Dallas, the founder and chief executive of Ownit, acknowledges loosening lending standards but says he did so reluctantly and under pressure from his investors, particularly Merrill Lynch, which wanted more loans to package into lucrative securities.

He recalls being asked to make more ‘stated income’ loans, in which lenders do not verify the information provided by borrowers and brokers with tax returns, pay stubs or other documentation. The message, he said, was simple: You are leaving money on the table — do more of them.

Mr. Dallas, a trim 51-year-old who has been in the mortgage business for more than 25 years, said he disagreed, but complied.

‘If I can sell it at a profit,’ he said, ‘why would I not do it?’”

Dallas liked the sound of that last clause. He used it in another interview to explain why any right-minded CEO of a home lender would make endemically fraudulent liar’s loans.

“‘The market is paying me to do a no-income-verification loan more than it is paying me to do the full documentation loans,’ he said. ‘What would you do?’”

To give the reader a more complete context, Ownit specialized in subprime lending. Merrill Lynch, which bought huge amounts of bad loans from Ownit (because doing so made its corporate decision-makers wealth pursuant to the fraud recipe) wanted Ownit to sell it far more, and far worse loans. Merrill invested in Ownit and pushed it to make subprime liar’s loans and sell more of the resultant toxic mortgages to Merrill. The inevitable result was that Merrill’s officers were made wealthy and Merrill failed and had to be acquired. Hint: “Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit.”

Dallas knew that what Merrill wanted Ownit to do would be fatal to Ownit and cause severe losses to Merrill. He explained why to Merrill’s officers. Merrill’s officers decided that this was their optimal strategy to enrich them and paid Ownit a premium for originating, and selling to Merrill, toxic mortgages with a premium nominal yield.
An example of specific people to charge for fraud. Officers at Merryl Lynch and Ownit Corporation.
 

kirblar

Member
You're right, actually we should surrender all of our political power to bankers and tech CEOs so they can take all of the wealth and then price us out of the places that have all the money. I'm not even sure why we bother with this whole democracy thing.
I'm missing where cities having power means you automatically give power to rich CEOs.
 

sphagnum

Banned
It's not universal but a lot of commie revolutions saw forced removals from metropolitan centers for participation in communized farming, as I'm sure you know.

Such as China and Cambodia, as I'm sure you also know.

In those cases living in a city made you bourgeoise by default.

That was because of class conflict though, not the idea of hating cities themselves. The Soviets starved the farmers so they could feed the urban proletariat.

Perhaps I'm reading into this too literally.

I was thinking of the Khmer Rouge, mostly.

Well they were just the worst at everything.
 

Chichikov

Member
It's not universal but a lot of commie revolutions saw forced removals from metropolitan centers for participation in communized farming, as I'm sure you know.

Such as China and Cambodia, as I'm sure you also know.

In those cases living in a city made you bourgeoise by default.
I'm not super informed about the history of communism in Cambodia, but in China, I don't think it was so much an ideological decision but a reflection of the fact that the communist power base during the civil war was in the rural parts of the country (and that's something that happened due to military necessity more than anything).
 

pigeon

Banned
Not all cities were created equal.



This is especially troubling because as these areas concentrate wealth, they eventually push out those who haven't concentrated the wealth who are forced to move to poorer locations.



This is why when I run for the Iowa State House I'm going to talk about how great nationalizing airlines will be.

For what it's worth though, I love cities and I've wanted to move to one since I was a kid. My hope is that when I graduate I'll get accepted into a PhD program somewhere like Madison or Minneapolis and head east, and I've been wanting to visit New York a lot now that I've made a trip to Chicago.

Interesting stuff. I was reading a discussion between Yglesias and Noah Smith the other day focusing on the other part of this, which the article touches on in passing -- better communication just hasn't delivered the decentralization benefits that people expected. In fact, the internet seems to have made centralization even more valuable than it used to be. Not clear yet to economists why this would be, but I think that factor is worth keeping in mind as well.

You're right, actually we should surrender all of our political power to bankers and tech CEOs so they can take all of the wealth and then price us out of the places that have all the money. I'm not even sure why we bother with this whole democracy thing.

You really do read too much Matt Stoller!

I see what you're saying here, but I would just quickly note that the thing about getting priced out of places is a problem with land regulation and lack of proper upzoning more than anything else. You don't need to come up with new socialist remedies for that, just expropriate the rentiers like usual. The number one thing that would improve the Bay Area is if all the old hippies on the city councils got pushed out so that people who would actually give subsidies to apartment buildings would take over instead.

Admittedly the problem is probably more complicated for New York City, which as I understand it is pretty well built-up already. But there's always room for more apartment buildings somewhere.
 
Awesome. Lock them up. World peace.

You're right, actually we should surrender all of our political power to bankers and tech CEOs so they can take all of the wealth and then price us out of the places that have all the money. I'm not even sure why we bother with this whole democracy thing.
I'm sorry you live in a nobody cares place, but this is an entirely natural concentration of industry. And no one wants to live in your central planning distributed inefficient utopia.

Except maybe sphaghum.
 
Interesting stuff. I was reading a discussion between Yglesias and Noah Smith the other day focusing on the other part of this, which the article touches on in passing -- better communication just hasn't delivered the decentralization benefits that people expected. In fact, the internet seems to have made centralization even more valuable than it used to be. Not clear yet to economists why this would be, but I think that factor is worth keeping in mind as well.
Would you mind sharing a link to this? Or should I just go dig through Yglesias's twitter for it?
 
Like pigeon said, the issue is a lack of housing being built in general. Now, one way to fix that is social housing like they have in Europe, but another way is just let developers build more. Even here in Seattle, rent increases have dropped despite more people piling in because we had more new buildings in years in the past 18 months.

Edit - Also, it turns out as long as there isn't a massive crime wave like there was from about 1965 to 1995, people like living where all the cool shit is and a lot of cool people are, no matter how easy you make it to order stuff on Amazon or watch Netflix in Idaho or Oklahoma.
 

pigeon

Banned

kirblar

Member
The solution to NIMBYism is giving individuals and local authorities LESS power over zoning, not more.

Crime wave goes back further, theyve seen the lead effects in the 20s and 30s.
 

Makai

Member
...aren't those called cities?

I am really unclear on why people hate New York City so much. I mean I get why some people hate it but I'm not really clear why hypothetically progressive people do. Cities have a lot of money because cities are more productive and better to live in than rural areas. The desire to break up the urban bourgeoisie is literally why every Communist revolution immediately led to mass unnecessary famines. Socialists should really think about that! Cities are good. They allow for more efficient delivery of social services!
I don't understand. Communist cities weren't growing food, right? The Chinese experimented with unproven farming techniques like putting all the seeds in a big hole, and then reported orders of magnitude greater farm yields because of a perverse incentive structure. Then the government thought there was a surplus of food so they exported much of it.
 

pigeon

Banned
For the record I don't think the argument that hostility to urban laborers played a role in all the famines has no merit but i just don't know enough to lay the argument out and I don't like reading about unnecessary mass famines.
 
So, cities, white collar non-unionised workers and Nancy Pelosi. Is there anything else today we want to break up or eject from the Democratic party.
 

Makai

Member
New York's awesome and I don't think it's off limits to the lower middle class. There's apartments in Long Island that resemble what you'd find in the suburban South - 2 bedroom for $500/month. Then take a 30 minute train ride on the LIRR to your job in Manhattan.
 
So, cities, white collar non-unionised workers and Nancy Pelosi. Is there anything else today we want to break up or eject from the Democratic party.

Southern Democrat's are allowed to stay, but they shouldn't have any voice in the primaries, because those states just vote red anyway.
 

pigeon

Banned
New York's awesome and I don't think it's off limits to the lower middle class. There's apartments in Long Island that resemble what you'd find in the suburban South - 2 bedroom for $500/month. Then take a 30 minute train ride on the LIRR to your job in Manhattan.

That's the other thing the Bay Area desperately needs, an actual mass transit policy.
 
Trump working hard on the weekends.

Now, you might think the story here is that Trump never does any work, even after his biggest political failure to date. Alternatively, you may be interested in the evident lack of security to prevent such unflattering images from leaking.

But actually, the best part of this whole thing is that @fwesdock_56 isn't some fringe political blogger who talked his way into Trump's club. He's a kid!

That's right, folks. Here in America, in the year 2017, a sitting president is getting owned by a kid for loafing around watching a rich-guy sport with other rich guys instead of working on any kind of policy that might benefit the people who elected him.

Kind of a shit-tastic source and the writing on that report is garbage tier, but I got a kick out of it. Trump is like straight up addicted to Golf...
 

Chumley

Banned
How the fuck did Scarborough segway from Trump's 36 percent approval to relitigating Hillary Clinton's campaign

Jesus fucking Christ
 

sazzy

Member
How the fuck did Scarborough segway from Trump's 36 percent approval to relitigating Hillary Clinton's campaign

Jesus fucking Christ

I think the point he was making was that people inside Donald's inner circle (mainly Bannon) are too full of themselves to realize that they won, partly, because Hillary ran a bad campaign.
 
Gowdy would replace Nunes? Good lord, Nunes doesn't sound so bad after all.
I, too, am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of making Oswald Cobblepot the house intel chairman, but if it's any consolation Gowdy is even dumber than Nunes and would probably be removed himself in fairly short order.
 

Gotchaye

Member
But I will say that you're missing how these monopolies and concentrated power has had devastating effects on our economy and culture in ways that we don't normally think about, including effecting minority groups. With the rise of monopoly power, black-owned businesses have dropped steadily and these were often cornerstones of the Civil Rights movement (as I probably don't have to share with you). While breaking up monopolies didn't fix racism, the greatest gains of equality for nonwhite Americans were made at the time when these powers were most held in line.

So, this is something that I've always wanted to try to understand more. It's a common observation that African-Americans have never really seemed to be on the same sort of trajectory as a group that we saw with many kinds of immigrants, except perhaps for a period in the early and middle 20th century. This seems easy to explain early on - it's racism - but the lack of progress in the last ~50 years is striking, and while obviously racism is still a big problem it's not clear that this is a much bigger obstacle than those faced by various immigrant groups. It also seems important that blacks aren't the only easily distinguished group to not experience what we think of as the typical immigrant trajectory. Native Americans have also never done well, and again while this seems very easy to explain for most of US history I don't get the sense that there's been much of a constituency for specifically anti-Indian policy in the last few decades. Obviously the two have in common that they didn't choose to be here, though it seems implausible that that matters in a way that isn't manifesting as differences in policy or other groups' attitudes.

The explanation that seems most plausible to me - though I'm hardly an expert - is sort of along the lines of what you're gesturing at here. Though I'd stress that the problem seems to me to be less Wall Street and more Wal-Mart. The advantage that various immigrant groups had is that they started earlier, when the local grocery store was going to be owned and worked by people who lived close by. You can maybe think of immigrant communities as building wealth by exporting labor and importing only relatively basic things. But by the time the major legal barriers to black and indigenous people doing the same thing were mostly gone, it no longer made economic sense to do things this way. Now Wal-Mart's going to come in and, sure, they'll hire local employees and maybe a local manager, but none of their supply is local and all of the profits are being sent away. And so there's not much opportunity to build wealth. And to be clear, I'm using Wal-Mart and grocery stores as a stand-in for almost any sort of physical business and even many services. I think we can see evidence for this in the way that casinos have injected wealth into some Native American communities. In this case the law specifically advantages a certain kind of Indian-owned business, and suddenly they're able to competitively export something to the rest of the country.

But this isn't at all my area and I'd be happy if someone who knows more could talk about this or give me some links or recommendations.
 

sazzy

Member
viM7Jtj.png
 

Owzers

Member
Having a house intelligence committee is putting too much negative attention on the president, it's just not fair so maybe we're not going to have one.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
POTUS promoting Fox and Friends again, this time about Podesta/Russia.

The projection continues.
 

DonShula

Member
I, too, am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of making Oswald Cobblepot the house intel chairman, but if it's any consolation Gowdy is even dumber than Nunes and would probably be removed himself in fairly short order.

I've always assumed Gowdy was idealistic-stupid as opposed to Nunes' brand of henchman-stupid.

Maybe Gowdy would accidentally get some work done while crowing about how leaks are still illegal.

If Sally Yates' testimony on telling Trump about Flynn was on PPV I'd pay to watch.
 

PowerTaxi

Banned
I've always assumed Gowdy was idealistic-stupid as opposed to Nunes' brand of henchman-stupid.

Maybe Gowdy would accidentally get some work done while crowing about how leaks are still illegal.

If Sally Yates' testimony on telling Trump about Flynn was on PPV I'd pay to watch.

Would probably earn more than Mayweather-Pacquiao did.
 
This story about no logs being kept of visitors at Mar-a-Lago is insane:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-visitor-logs-mar-a-lago-236564
They didn’t have to submit to the kinds of rigorous background checks required if they’d been entering the White House in Washington. And there were no weapon screenings or bomb-sniffing dogs checking vehicles of the sort that have long been routine at public restaurants or other places where the president or first lady is present.
Secret Service must be loving the president right now
 

Wilsongt

Member
"I’m sure that the Democrats do want me to quit, because they know that I’m quite effective at getting to the bottom of things," Nunes told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly when asked about calls for his recusal.

Surejan.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom