Inside Job

[finnbow]

Matt Taibbi wrote an interesting, yet infuriating article about the revolving door between Wall St. and the regulators.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-jail-20110216

[BlueStreak]

So, I'm not the only one who's noticed this;

If a poor man steals from another poor man, he goes to jail.
If a poor man steals from a rich man, he goes to jail.
If a rich man steals from another rich man, he might go to jail.
If a rich man steals from the poor,-----Nothing happens.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, I'm not the only one who's noticed this;

If a poor man steals from another poor man, he goes to jail.
If a poor man steals from a rich man, he goes to jail.
If a rich man steals from another rich man, he might go to jail.
If a rich man steals from the poor,-----Nothing happens.

Dave

i did notice that

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Then what did happen? Huh?

I tend to think that when people say, "Oh, it's so complicated, you wouldn't understand.", they're blowing smoke. The movie made sense and spared no one. Left or right. They hit the Clinton Administration pretty hard. They made mention of the fact that "the regulators" were/are horribly corrupt. They mentioned that the current administration has changed darn little, if anything at all. The basic premise was that the problem was lack of effective regulation, yes. Because that's the truth. The key word being "effective".

I'm not saying it can't be understood, but I'm saying that you can't do it in movie. A movie that if you agree with the conclusion you'll like it and if you do not agree you will not like it. I'll watch it again when it comes on satellite.

I can't believe that after all that has happened, people still don't see that when you either have no rules, or have rules that are not enforced---Some people WILL lie, cheat and steal. What? Hundreds of billions of dollars at play doesn't amount to potential motive? Spare me.

Who's fault was it that regulators failed?

"Imagined evils"? Really? We just "imagine" that these people are insatiably greedy?
Please, again, spare me.

No, we know people are greedy; however, that also includes the regulators and those that created the rules. Rational actors will always attempt to maximize their interests.

I don't want a government that doesn't regulate. I want a government that regulates firmly, but responsibly. And, I don't get that from either party. I have one party that just piles one ineffective regulation on top of the last, and another party that seems to think the thieves are the good guys, that if we suck up to them they'll create jobs with the money they stole. They are both clueless.

Agreed, they both suck. I'm currently reading a couple of Paul Krugman's books. I dislike his op-ed column, but find his books more palatable. Any Krugman fans?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Like the same mentality that blames Freddie and Fannie because they encouraged banks to loan to people. That is like the the mentality that says people rob banks because that is where the money is.

There was political pressure to loan to those that weren't qualified. That ought not be Freddie, Fannie, and Barney's job. The whole damn house of cards fell and everyone's pointing fingers at corporations that took advantage of public guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there then, perhaps, they'd think twice before making risky investments.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Who's fault was it that regulators failed?

Primarily their own, but also those that bribed them.

To my mind, saying they only did it "because they could" excuses nothing.

If you had an employee that was caught stealing from customers, would you retain him because the customers left their valuables unguarded and you don't recall telling him that stealing was against policy?

Of course not.

But, that's what we are doing that for these people. Why?
Wrong is wrong. Why are there no heads rolling? None?

As a matter of fact, we now have politicians telling us that
further deregulation is the answer. Forget cleaning house of corruption
and enforcing existing regulations, these loonies think less oversight
is the answer...........................

Had a recent crime spree in your neighborhood?
What you need is less police! Obviously they aren't earning their keep, so who needs them. Right?

I find this line of thought alarming. Don't you?

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by bhunter

There was political pressure to loan to those that weren't qualified. That ought not be Freddie, Fannie, and Barney's job. The whole damn house of cards fell and everyone's pointing fingers at corporations that took advantage of public guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there then, perhaps, they'd think twice before making risky investments.

point fingers at folks who took a government initiative and bastardized it into a get rich scheme rather than a business opportunity

hardly as you describe

pressure to loan???? is that a joke?

we pressured the banks into loaning again with our money and they choose to reward their stock holders with it

saying the government pressured industry is naive as hell and only serves to advance a false agenda

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

There was political pressure to loan to those that weren't qualified. That ought not be Freddie, Fannie, and Barney's job. The whole damn house of cards fell and everyone's pointing fingers at corporations that took advantage of public guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there then, perhaps, they'd think twice before making risky investments.

As near as I recall the pressure was to stop the practice of red lining, not to make unqualified loans. What on earth would be the political point of putting people in houses they could not afford, knowing they would default? Dumbest spin I have ever heard, some folks at GOP HQ must think we are all stupid.

The way the mortgage system is set up there is loads of what free marketers love to call "Moral hazzard". It was designed by thieves for thieves. So the greedy thieves turned up in more than a few big banks and tanked the economy.

I note that even Samuelson has turned up this morning praising TARP and decrying the popular view. What the popular view is is not that TARP did not save the day, but where were all the crooks that belong in jail? Oh they were too busy spending their bonuses.

On BTW thanks for the selective editing of my post.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by noonereal

point fingers at folks who took a government initiative and bastardized it into a get rich scheme rather than a business opportunity

hardly as you describe

pressure to loan???? is that a joke?

An expansion of affordable housing was the goal of both parties at different times. Frankly, why is the government even involved in the secondary loan market?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

As near as I recall the pressure was to stop the practice of red lining, not to make unqualified loans. What on earth would be the political point of putting people in houses they could not afford, knowing they would default? Dumbest spin I have ever heard, some folks at GOP HQ must think we are all stupid.

The way the mortgage system is set up there is loads of what free marketers love to call "Moral hazzard". It was designed by thieves for thieves. So the greedy thieves turned up in more than a few big banks and tanked the economy.

Could the thieves have tanked the economy if the government created hazard didn't exist?

On BTW thanks for the selective editing of my post.

Sorry, I removed your example line. Putting people in houses that they can not afford gets you short term political points.