Just curious, what level of education do you have? Or is my meter suck again.
All I'm saying is that nothing will get done until the Triumvirate sign off on it.
Bernanke is the Keynesian academic who speaks for the economists of the country.
Geithner is the Goldman mouthpiece in the white house.
Dimon speaks for the free market as the largest banking entity in the world.
Nothing happens unless the three of them sign off on it.
Don't forget that also the ratings agencies played a big part also like Standards and Poor which was rating that Dog turd dipped in chocolate as a triple AAA+ investment. The Rightists in here who love to bitch about pensions also should realize that a vast quantity of these pension were invested in these CDS's and when the whole works collapsed so did many Pension funds.
So wait, you're saying the regulators agreeing to banks paying hundred million to multi billion dollar settlements while also denying wrong doing out of laziness? Surely it would be worth it for them to be taken to court and be criminally convicted if they have evidence of fraud being committed.So wait, you're saying the banks pay hundred million to multi billion dollar settlements out of laziness? Surely it would be worth it for them to be taken to court and found innocent.
I find it hilarious that you must believe there has no been no fraud in the banking industry in the last 20 years. Save Madoff, Enron, and the few other biggies.
Deeds not words is the speech of angels.
Heh. I suppose that's why your Republican Heroes fought her nomination to head the consumer protection agency tooth & nail- to make sure it's only words...
Let me know when her words amount to anything other than just words.
Edit: As for why the GOP fought her nomination there are other reasons why they would not want to see her on this panel just as democrats would do the same for any other GOP nominee.
Oh I haven't forgotten about them, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well, but the real culprits were the assholes writing and peddling that shit. Not only have they not gone to jail, not only did WE bail them out with taxpayer dollars, but the assholes responsible got to keep all of their ill-gotten money! That is quite literally incentive for them to do it again.
So wait, you're saying the regulators agreeing to banks paying hundred million to multi billion dollar settlements while also denying wrong doing out of laziness? Surely it would be worth it for them to be taken to court and be criminally convicted if they have evidence of fraud being committed.
I find your viewpoint to be equally hilarious as you view mine.
My viewpoint as a regulator is this:
a.) If I'm a regulator and truly believe that a company or someone committed a crime, I certainly won't agree to any settlement(especially one that allows them to skate and pay a fee while denying wrong doing in the same settlement).
b.) Only if I'm a regulator that doesn't have much besides razor thin evidence and 2 employee emails out of millions will I ever agree to such a settlement.
My viewpoint as a banker is this:
a.) If I'm a banker and know that I'm guilty, cough up whatever the government wants.
b.) If I'm a banker and know that I'm not guilty, cough up whatever the government wants as long as it's reasonable and also deny wrong doing so I can go back to earning money rather than trying to defend myself from the government that could potentially have unlimited funding from the taxpayers for their own lawyers. I already gave an example using the red light camera traffic tickets. And no, choosing not to go to court and paying fees so you can go back to earning money when you could prove your innocence is not laziness.
There are both sides to every issue, and I certainly don't lend credence on one side over the other. It's too bad you can't see it that way.
Oh I am fairly sure they won't turn into any measurable deeds. Mostly because of assholes like you and others in this thread who see this as a partisan issue simply because of the letter behind the name of the person doing the talking.
I find the complete lack of interest and even complete denial on the right to be quite ironic though. For the party that is supposedly so free market they seem to support something that is about as anti free market as you can get. Why do you suppose that is? Does it really boil down to partisan bullshit or is it something deeper? Hell, this is actually a topic that the right can bash Obama on too!
Too true.
I mean, it's all Obama's fault- everything. The Right Wing punditocracy sez so, therefore it must be True! There was no housing bubble, either-
http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html
It's the same talking heads currently clutching their pearls over deficits, too...
Maybe there's some sort of pattern here...
Oh I am fairly sure they won't turn into any measurable deeds. Mostly because of assholes like you and others in this thread who see this as a partisan issue simply because of the letter behind the name of the person doing the talking.
I find the complete lack of interest and even complete denial on the right to be quite ironic though. For the party that is supposedly so free market they seem to support something that is about as anti free market as you can get. Why do you suppose that is? Does it really boil down to partisan bullshit or is it something deeper? Hell, this is actually a topic that the right can bash Obama on too!
I didn't inject partisanship into this post or the issue itself. Unless you are insinuating that stating the point that partisanship exists on the Dem side as well on the matter is in itself partisan after responding to Jhnnn clearly partisan response.
It's very ironic and funny how you accuse me of partisanship but than go on to act in the same manner as you falsely stated.
However let me put this into prospective. She is lambasting the very same government regulators/agency that government itself put in place to regulate the banking industry however after government itself watered down the initial rules on the books and tied their hands in many cases. So excuse me if I don't fall all over myself when it comes to this dog and pony show years later.
Additionally it was government that completely failed to see and eventually denied the looming bubble that grew under its own housing mandates, coupled with the Federal Reserve's own interest rate manipulation and continued loose money policies, of which the crisis itself was in part propagated by GSE's (Government Sanctioned Entities) such as Fanny and Freddie at the time.
On top of all this it was government, at the behest of the Federal Reserve (and individuals such as Tim Geithner) who pushed for bailouts rather than allowing these banks to suffer the consequences of their actions. Why Because central banker and United States Secretary of the Treasury Tim Gartner created a seed of fear and uncertainty in which they insinuated and thus labeled these banks as "Too big to fail" of which the public and politicians ate up and run with in the end to justify these bailouts for banks which should of gone under in a true free market
Yet you still think the fault lays at the door step of a free market which has not existed in the banking industry when it comes to failure itself being removed by government or in how interest rates are manipulated by the central bankers at the Federal Reserve in order to prop up or inflate false economic bubbles along with government's own escalating out of control spending and debt. Well excuse me if I find this view laughable and somewhat naive. Especially in the light of the aforementioned and the total failure of government to "regulate" risk or follow its own rules and than the belief that if we just grow out government and have it involve itself further that everything will workout this time around.
The problem is that you think of banks as a faced but yet abstracted entity but do not even think about the complexity behind the banks, especially money center banks such as BoA.
These banks, the ones you'd rather just see "punished" lend money in many ways. The most realistic way that Americans can think of are just checking accounts. However, what you don't see is how those entities fund entire corporations, or corporation receivables. If BoA were to fail than many companies WOULD have significant issues even in the short/medium term.
It is a realistic problem. The only real way to solve it is to break the banks up.
You're basically regurgitating the noise pushed by these banks and their central banking colleagues/friends at the Federal Reserve that they are to big and to important to be allowed to fail. That we could not possibly deal with the fallout or live without them. That is just nonsense and frankly those who would of taken the largest hit would of been those with the biggest interest in these bank which FDIC insurance does not cover. However as it stands now it was the tax payer/little guy who has been royally screwed over and lied to by everyone in this mess which includes these banks, the Federal Reserve and the Federal government itself.
Edit: If you want to see what happens if banks are allowed to fail then take a look at Iceland. While they did everything possible to save their banks and briefly jumped in to take over their own national banks (currently these 2 of these 3 banks are owned by the creditors) in the end they allowed failure to occur while protecting and managing the crisis for little guy in manner which has benefited their nation and yes they were very much able to deal with the "complexity" of these banks holdings and assists.
She doesn't get it.
It is essential for banks to operate with immunity, if people lose confidence in the banks, everything collapses. Banks prop up the entire economy through lending, if anything she has said manages to hurt a bank, the effects will be devastating. Too big to fail is also too big for trial.
Somebody will call her into their office and tell her what's up soon enough.
This is what a completely uneducated person regurgitates.
Do you know what an Asset Backed Commercial Paper conduit is? Do you know what a "normal" one finances (not a SIV or SecArb)? Let's say one is ~$10bn, it may have ~70-80 separate lending facilities. Those facilities may finance another few tens of thousands of borrowers from fleet leases to retail auto loans to dealer floorplan loans or small business equipment leases (copiers, computers...etc). Each ABCP conduit is backed by two facilities, a liquidity and letter of credit, both usually issued by a bank to "backstop" the conduit if a deal inside of it goes bad or if the CP market isn't around to finance the conduit (it happened, hence CPFF).
Now, pray tell, what the fuck do you think happens if the bank, which backstops the conduit, suddenly goes away? Do you think those tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of initial or tertiary borrowers just say "Well, I'll take this over to this smaller regional bank!". No, it takes MONTHS to structure an conduit deal, it takes MONTHS to market that ABCP to investors, it takes millions of dollars to set up the ABCP conduit and then the deals themselves.
This is only the topsoil of a huge banking effort that finances larger companies which finance individual obligors.
What about trade finance? Trade receivables, 30-day net 10 plain-old AR, are sometimes financed through ABCP, sometimes through trade AR deals on bank balance sheets. What happens if those facilities just "go away"? Do you think that it is easy for XYZ small/medium business to just go get another deal within days in order to finance their own customers?
If you are making widgets and you finance your own customers for 30 day net 10, what do you tell them? Do you think it's all cool that you got fucked because some dipshit online thinks the whole system should go to hell?
And then what do you do with your workers? Once your own cash runs out, because you need to finance your customers or they go somewhere else, where do you get a temporary liquidity facility to make payroll? Because, naturally, if you take one bank down several more will go and they will all roll back lending to preserve liquidity.
This is what utterly baffles me about people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about banking. You don't even try, you just want to say "ME GRIMLOCK, SMASH SMASH SMASH!"
Get a clue, fool.
And as far as saying that I just want to keep the status quo, fucking read. I want to break the banks up so that none are big enough to matter that much if they fall, that it will be easier to delink the risk that a small business will be able to move easier/faster/better. I am for TBTF until there is nothing left that is TB.
And as far as the comparison to Iceland - a big ABCP facility can be as big as Iceland's annual GDP. Comparing the two only highlights how simple minded you are.
Wow nice hissy fit.
You're using a fallacy here which relies on propagating a myth (along with throwing out industry jargon) that these finical relationships and arrangements are "JUST TO COMPLICATED AND BIG" to sort out via bankruptcy courts and hearings. In addition your fallacy relies on the notion that the creditors and the Federal government would be at a loss in dealing with the issue which is again patently false myth.
While there is certainly a significant amount of complexity involved in the banking relationships between these mega banks and the businesses which they deal with there is however nothing within these business arrangements would completely prohibit allowing these banks to fail and than handing their assists over to creditors and holding agencies to sort out exactly who gets what and who is out of luck.
Would it be complicated? Yes. Would it involve time to sort out through all the arrangements? Yes. Would big time investors of these companies of taken a massive loss?
Yes and rightfully so in order for the lesson of failure inherently necessary in a capitalist market system to be able to function and ensure that this mess would not go unpunished for those who dare to repeat the same mistake.
Along with allowing smaller players who acted rationally and cautiously to be able to move in and have the opportunity to take up and reap the rewards of increased customers and business from the ashes of these clearly malignant mega banking firms which have been allowed to survive and continue their practices with almost the same leadership still running the helms of these firms.
However in the end the priority should of been with protecting the tax payers and ensuring they would not be on the hook (continually it seems now) for trillions of dollars of banking bailouts.
As for the Iceland example you may dismiss it due to scale but they faced many of the same issues which were seen in the US however their issues were not at the scale seen here due to the small size of their nation in banking system compared to ours and yet the level of complexity they faced was almost no different than what we have in the US other than scale itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers
It's very ironic and funny how you accuse me of partisanship but than go on to act in the same manner as you falsely stated.
However let me put this into prospective. She is lambasting the very same government regulators/agency that government itself put in place to regulate the banking industry however after government itself watered down the initial rules on the books and tied their hands in many cases. So excuse me if I don't fall all over myself when it comes to this dog and pony show years later.
Additionally it was government that completely failed to see and eventually denied the looming bubble that grew under its own housing mandates, coupled with the Federal Reserve's own interest rate manipulation and continued loose money policies, of which the crisis itself was in part propagated by GSE's (Government Sanctioned Entities) such as Fanny and Freddie at the time.
On top of all this it was government, at the behest of the Federal Reserve (and individuals such as Tim Geithner) who pushed for bailouts rather than allowing these banks to suffer the consequences of their actions. Why Because central banker and United States Secretary of the Treasury Tim Gartner created a seed of fear and uncertainty in which they insinuated and thus labeled these banks as "Too big to fail" of which the public and politicians ate up and run with in the end to justify these bailouts for banks which should of gone under in a true free market
Yet you still think the fault lays at the door step of a free market which has not existed in the banking industry when it comes to failure itself being removed by government or in how interest rates are manipulated by the central bankers at the Federal Reserve in order to prop up or inflate false economic bubbles along with government's own escalating out of control spending and debt. Well excuse me if I find this view laughable and somewhat naive. Especially in the light of the aforementioned and the total failure of government to "regulate" risk or follow its own rules and than the belief that if we just grow out government and have it involve itself further that everything will workout this time around.
Wow nice hissy fit.
You're using a fallacy here which relies on propagating a myth (along with throwing out industry jargon) that these finical relationships and arrangements are "JUST TO COMPLICATED AND BIG" to sort out via bankruptcy courts and hearings. In addition your fallacy relies on the notion that the creditors and the Federal government would be at a loss in dealing with the issue which is again patently false myth.
While there is certainly a significant amount of complexity involved in the banking relationships between these mega banks and the businesses which they deal with there is however nothing within these business arrangements would completely prohibit allowing these banks to fail and than handing their assists over to creditors and holding agencies to sort out exactly who gets what and who is out of luck.
Would it be complicated? Yes. Would it involve time to sort out through all the arrangements? Yes. Would big time investors of these companies of taken a massive loss?
Yes and rightfully so in order for the lesson of failure inherently necessary in a capitalist market system to be able to function and ensure that this mess would not go unpunished for those who dare to repeat the same mistake.
Along with allowing smaller players who acted rationally and cautiously to be able to move in and have the opportunity to take up and reap the rewards of increased customers and business from the ashes of these clearly malignant mega banking firms which have been allowed to survive and continue their practices with almost the same leadership still running the helms of these firms.
However in the end the priority should of been with protecting the tax payers and ensuring they would not be on the hook (continually it seems now) for trillions of dollars of banking bailouts.
As for the Iceland example you may dismiss it due to scale but they faced many of the same issues which were seen in the US however their issues were not at the scale seen here due to the small size of their nation in banking system compared to ours and yet the level of complexity they faced was almost no different than what we have in the US other than scale itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers
Facebook
Twitter