Well, now it's up to government prosecutors. The case has been perfectly laid out by the Senate subcommittee on Investigations in their 650 report entitled Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. As Matt Taibbi recently put it in his latest magnum opus,
We now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn't leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial.
Their unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — "a million fraud cases a year" is how one former regulator puts it.
They broke the law. They should all go to fucking jail. Period. They are the reason why we have the economy we do today. For those of you who are still in doubt, the links I have provided have detailed information. I understand if you don't have the time to read the entire 650 page report but the executive summary is only 15 pages long. And Taibi's piece is a great wrap up to his work on this story-one of the biggest in our country's history.
The question now is...will anyone do anything about it? Or will we continue to worship the financial sector of this country and let them get away with it?
Being the cynic and sad pessimist that I am, I'm not holding out any hope. Our government's neutering may be too far gone thanks to the true believers.
16 comments:
well the people you voted for will decide if anything gets done so dont ask questions of anyone else here - its up to your guys.
"well the people you voted for will decide if anything gets done"
It's not quite that simple. Several laws were passed in the last session to strengthen financial regulations and consumer protections, but the Republican House is doing everything they can to sabotage them. First by not funding the agencies properly, attempting to repeal the new laws, intimidating and interfering with the regulators themselves, blocking the approval of the appointees who will run those agencies and other delaying tactics.
It's clear that despite all the screaming about the bail-out by Tea Partiers, the Republicans have always been and still are in the pockets of the financial industry. The Democrats have also been co-opted to some extent, but they are at least trying to exert some control over an industry that operates with unbridled greed, pretending it can manufacture wealth out of nothing.
I'll bet that nothing really comes from it. No blame for a (D) or an (R) possible. All are complicit and justice is nowhere to be found. If you still believe that your choice between D and R is really a choice at all, you aren't paying attention.
"Individuals and political action committees affiliated with the industry gave 56 percent of their 2008 cycle campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. While the industry’s cash once went to the GOP at margins of two- or three-to-one, Democrats received a majority of the industry’s donations in the 2008 cycle for the first time since 1990."
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=F06
Not exactly in line with your statement Nikto. Both major parties have been paid off and 'co-opted to some extent'. Picking one over the other is idiocy.
"The financial sector is far and away the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties, with insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interests and commercial banks providing the bulk of that money.
The sector contributes generous sums to both parties, with Republicans traditionally collecting more than Democrats. Yet in the past two election cycles, bankers have suddenly shifted their cash toward Democrats. The sector gave at least 55 percent of their contributions to the GOP from 1996 to 2004, but actually gave a slight majority of their donations to Democrats in the 2008 cycle. This reversal may suggest an effort to remain influential as a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress consider new market regulations in response to the specter of economic decline."
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F&goButt2.x=18&goButt2.y=10
Again, the facts presented by this source show both R & D paid for, with Democrats getting a slightly larger piece of the 2008 pie.
If we accept these numbers as true, does that affect your thinking? It does confound your statement of R being more paid for than D.
does that affect your thinking? It does confound your statement of R being more paid for than D
How do you figure, anon? The Ds are trying to pass tougher regulation restrictions and the Rs are blocking them. If anything, your numbers show that the Ds have turned their back on their donors and are now doing the right thing. The Rs have not.
I have no problem blaming the Democrats equally, though. Chris Dodd's name on the finreg bill was pretty riotous when you consider how in bed he was with Countrywide. President Clinton is just as much to blame as President Bush (and Carter, Bush 1, and Reagan) for massive deregulation. What matters is how we move forward and it's VERY clear who is blocking that path...all in the name of the "free market." Less regulation is not the answer.
What matters is how we move forward and it's VERY clear who is blocking that path...all in the name of the "free market."
Gawds, how fucking stupid can you be? There isn't anyone that actually believes in a free market - they want the market rigged, one way or another, and they are paying good money to both sides of the aisle to get that. The sad delusion is that you actually think the Dem party is representing your interest. I sure as hell know the Repubs aren't representing mine.
This is a pretty good summary.
Who is blocking who, Mark?
The legislators who received 51% of the cash, or the 49%?
Who is blocking the free market?
Obviously, the government is. Not (R) not (D). The Gub'mint!
(Note that my intention there is to make fun of your bigotry towards those who speak with a Southern accent, think about it - you are a bigot)
That's why we HAVE a government according to Manzi. To limit innovation to a sustainable level. He's a smart man.
You want more government regulation to make sure everyone is doing the 'correct' thing.
I want less government, to allow people to do the correct thing.
One of us is wrong.
It might be me...
...But I've got a lot of history on my side.
I will agree, juris, that the Democrats don't perfectly represent my interests. But they do a massively better job of it than the right. Having Elizabeth Warren in the mix would be one reason I support what President Obama is doing.
And the problem, Hurricane, is that we have allowed people the chance to do the right thing and look what happened. Crisis after crisis. History clearly shows that when we have had tighter regs, we have less trouble. Manzi himself said in his piece that we need to put FDR like regs back into place.
Mark, perhaps a point of contention we have is your definition of crisis.
It is not my goal to eliminate any chance of a crisis. I don't believe that to be possible.
Did yesterday's government prevent the latest housing bubble? Did it prevent the dotcom bubble? The 'energy crisis' of the 70's? The Great Depression? The panic of 1873? The tulip bubble of the 1600's?
The commodity bubble of next week?
More and more government does not seem to be the answer. But I am interested in your backing for the statement 'tighter regs = less trouble'. Please elaborate.
Please, please, please; do not descend into your argument against anarchy. We have a shot at a real conversation here.
Jay, I'm not the one you should be imploring here. I'm always up for a real conversation. The problem originates with people who refuse to let go of their rigid ideology and can only argue from one point of view.
Your list of crises contains fine examples of what happens when there is too much deregulation. I'm not sure if you are a new reader or not but I have explained my position backed up with facts and history many times in here. From FDR to Carter we had less trouble because of tighter regs. Certainly things weren't perfect but the crises of the last 30 years are largely due to deregulation. Look what happened. People couldn't be trusted and bent, twisted and even broke the law.
What I want to see, as does Jim Manzi in his oft quoted piece, is a modernized version of the regs FDR put in place in the 30s. Less interconnectivity...more barriers between insurance, banking, mortgages, and investments. More importantly, real jail time in pound me in the ass prison for people that commit fraud.
All of this starts with the government. Saying that there should be less government to let people do the right thing is insane. Thus report and...well....the history of human nature prove completely the opposite.
Sorry for the typos...I was putting up a comment from my iPhone.
Saying that there should be less government to let people do the right thing is insane.
Like having more govt to force people to do the right thing has worked so well?
By the way, remember how you crowed about how the Obama Admin wouldn't play politics with science? Now, I can only wonder - will I get an admission from M that his guy isn't all that and a bag of chips - or will I get some lame rationalization?
Speaking of blind ideology - when you lose the WaPo, isn't it time to ask god to remove the scales from your eyes?
All of this starts with the government?
No! NO!
no.
All of this starts with people who decide they will be stronger together, than they would be seperate.
Any form of government is only allowed if it serves the interest of its people.
But to the topic at hand...
Can you point me to the facts regarding your assertion:
"From FDR to Carter we had less trouble because of tighter regs."
That is a bold statement, and would carry some weight if it were unimpeachable.
But if your problem is with people that break the law, then why would more laws help?
Don't leave me hanging Mark, I agree with what you are saying.
"real jail time in pound me in the ass prison"
That's a good thought. But why do you think that guy who got busted for selling pot got 30 years, and the guy who stole $50 million got 6 months under house arrest?
Was it the R's or the D's who got you there? What's the difference between the two?
R's protesting about Libya with the War Power's Act clutched to their chest?
Am I taking crazy pills?
Post a Comment