Wall Street behaved badly, but not illegally

[GeezerMan]

I dunno, I think there is plenty to prosecute Wall Street on. I'd like to find the entire statement by Obama on this.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195649

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you prosecuting because you are pissed off?

Or because people broke the law and you want them punished?

Seems to be lots of evidence for the first, and not so much of the second.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Seems to me that there is plenty of evidence about mis-representing the quality of some of the crap the banks sold, and strong arming good ratings for them. Much is already known, and I bet enough could be found for prosecution with some digging by people with court authority.

 

[Engineer]

and, as far as I can tell, the "Occupy Wall Street" people are "behaving badly" but not illegally, no?

 

[Darwin333]

Are you prosecuting because you are pissed off?

Or because people broke the law and you want them punished?

Seems to be lots of evidence for the first, and not so much of the second.

Hmm, not so much of the second eh? Did you actually read the link? Here, let me post some of the "second" for you from the article.

Laundering drug money. Wachovia admitted to doing it in court. They got a "deferred prosecution agreement" and not only did nobody go to jail nobody other than a few bloggers like myself raised hell about it until days before that agreement expired. Then, magically, it got news coverage. This is a clear black-letter felony; where are the handcuffs?

The former chief risk officer for Citifinancial testified under oath before the FCIC that the company knowingly sold loans on to investors that did not meet their quality guidelines and published claims. In fact, he testified that by 2007 80 percent of those loans were defective. This is functionally identical to selling you a car and rolling back the odometer, peddling tainted medicine or selling melamine-laced baby formula. There is nothing complicated about this and there is under-oath testimony establishing that it was not an accident or an "error in judgment" as it continued for more than a year after it became known and was the subject of internal memos to corporate officers. This is not my conjecture or analysis, it is factual sworn testimony before a government body. Where are the damned handcuffs?

Ponzi Schemes generally. Those are all illegal. They locked Charlie up for it (the originator of the name, natch) and more recently Bernie Madoff went to prison. Ok, Mr. President, how about all the stock analysts, the market callers, and pension fund managers along with the real estate industry that have been pumping 8, 10 or 11% annualized returns for the last three decades? These claims are all pyramid schemes and thus by the very definition of such a scheme are illegal. An 8% "annual return" for 45 years, the average working man's period of effort (20 to 65) produces a return of nearly 32 times the original amount invested. The 9% growth rate of medical cost over the last year (close to the premium increases over the last decade in annualized terms) for the person of age 50 that the government claims "will not see their Medicare harmed" has the annual cost of their medical insurance (assuming no increase due to age or greater risk) go from $5,000 a year to $100,000 by the time they're 85! The claims of Realtors that home prices would go up 10% "for the indefinite future" turns a $150,000 house into a $4.21 million house in 35 years. None of this was ever going to actually happen, and it still won't. Why did Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff go to prison when your administration, every member of Congress, those on Wall Street and otherwise in the "finance and investment" business community have not for the exact same offense?

Jefferson County Alabama jailed several politicians and others for bribery and other crimes related to the infamous "sewer bond" nonsense. Why have no bankers gone to prison? It takes two people to commit bribery and similar offenses - someone who offers a bribe, and someone who accepts a bribe. One party went to prison while the other did not. No crimes in this case among the banksters? Pull the other one Mr. President; the damage here remains in that the water bills of these residents remains at ridiculously elevated levels as the financial harm done to the county was not forcibly returned from those banksters.

Perjury is a felony in most circumstances. Banksters admitted to more than 100,000 instances of it by withdrawing perjured ("robosigned") affidavits. Just as with the testimony under oath in the case of Citifinancial, just as in the Wachovia admission of drug money laundering, in this case the violation of the law is clear. Perjury can only be cured at "no penalty" up until it is clear that the defective statement or filing will be discovered; once you're "caught" you cannot avoid liability by withdrawing the filing. Whether someone was paying their mortgage or not is immaterial as to whether filing a false affidavit is a criminal matter -- it is. Again, where are the damned handcuffs?

Sarbanes-Oxley criminalized false accounting statements. There have been multiple bank failures by public companies that filed balance sheets under penalty of criminal prosecution were they to be false just weeks before they blew up -- balance sheets that showed perfectly-healthy institutions. The FDIC has documented dozens of bank failures, privately-held and publicly-traded, where those balance sheets were proved factually false, as the losses have been 20, 30, 40% or even more just a few weeks later. It is beyond comprehension that the assets in question could have actually lost 30 or 40% of their value within that period of time. The only rational explanation is that these financial statements were a work of fiction. Sarbanes-Oxley makes this a criminal matter. Again, where are the handcuffs?

 

[Darwin333]

Seems to me that there is plenty of evidence about mis-representing the quality of some of the crap the banks sold, and strong arming good ratings for them. Much is already known, and I bet enough could be found for prosecution with some digging by people with court authority.

According to Obama it isn't fraud when the banksters do it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Since when did the definition of good business become equivalent to "we didn't break the law?" I know it happened quite a while back but, I was curious when it became actual policy.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

and, as far as I can tell, the "Occupy Wall Street" people are "behaving badly" but not illegally, no?

Depends on what the laws on protesting loitering and occupying public spaces without a permit are in NYC and other cities.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I would bet if you looked hard enough you could find things to charge them with, but that's probably more a reflection on our legal system than their actual behavior.

 

[Doppel]

It does appear they acted illegally. This all happened after Sarbox. AFAIK there should already be numerous bankers and execs behind bars, but hey that's what lobbying buys, right? Get out of jail free, or more to the point you can work in the president's administration.

 

[JSt0rm]

you know you are at the top when you can shape the laws around how you want things to not break any laws.

 

[gevorg]

 

[GeezerMan]

You know, I forgot that this criminal actually said, 'we do God's work' ...I must be getting too used to all of their crap

 

[Infohawk]

It's a mistake to focus too much on the morality of an economic system.

The real question is, is it benefiting most people? Americans are willing to look past Wall St. fat cats if they're enjoying good economic times too. But with the way things are now, fewer and fewer people are willing to be cool with a system that privatizes profits and socializes losses.

 

[Craig234]

Let's all support the 'We are the 99%' movement against Wall Street corruption and both parties' failure to prosecute it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Let's all support the 'We are the 99%' movement against Wall Street corruption and both parties' failure to prosecute it.

No. It's easier to point out the differences we have with those people then to join with their message. It's the greatest way to use democracy for the rich and powerful - keep the peasants divided.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let's all support the 'We are the 99%' movement against Wall Street corruption and both parties' failure to prosecute it.

At least you are honest to point out that both parties are a failure.

It looks like the movement is turning into a part of the Democrat party though with all the unions and Democrats coming out to support them.

I think the movement becomes much weaker if it is seen as just a bunch of Democrats complaining and causing problems.

 

[ProfJohn]

Hmm, not so much of the second eh? Did you actually read the link? Here, let me post some of the "second" for you from the article.

I didn't read the whole thing.

Not exactly a great source. A link to some legit articles would go a long ways otherwise it reads like something posted by Craig.

 

[JSt0rm]

At least you are honest to point out that both parties are a failure.

It looks like the movement is turning into a part of the Democrat party though with all the unions and Democrats coming out to support them.

I think the movement becomes much weaker if it is seen as just a bunch of Democrats complaining and causing problems.

Imagine how strong the movement would be if republicans and tea party members joined with the unions there in demand of wall street reform?

Unions and neocons in one place demanding reform. Wall street types would be shaking in their boots.

 

[Darwin333]

you know you are at the top when you can shape the laws around how you want things to not break any laws.

You know you are the BOSS when not only can you do that but you can also blatantly violate black letter law during the course of fucking people/entire countries out of trillions without repercussion.

 

[Darwin333]

I didn't read the whole thing.

Not exactly a great source. A link to some legit articles would go a long ways otherwise it reads like something posted by Craig.

Congressional testimony is not a "legit source"?

Court records are not a "legit source"?

Admission of guilt by politicians in a court of law who are now serving jail time is not a "legit source"?

Would it be a "legit source" if the exact same article was on the front page of foxnews or MSNBC?

Did you even read it? All of it is completely verifiable with a very quick and easy google search.

 

[IronWing]

In the US, most high level financial corruption is legal. Blame apathetic voters.

 

[Lithium381]

blame bush

 

[IronWing]

blame bush

I do. Both of them. And Clinton and Reagan and Obama and Carter and damn near every congress critter of the past century. In catering to corporate sleaze almost all of Washington is in lock step. Again, voter apathy.

 

[Darwin333]

At least you are honest to point out that both parties are a failure.

It looks like the movement is turning into a part of the Democrat party though with all the unions and Democrats coming out to support them.

I think the movement becomes much weaker if it is seen as just a bunch of Democrats complaining and causing problems.

So the people protesting un-prosecuted violations of black letter law by the banksters, who fucked TONS of people/entities out of untold sums of money, is weakened due to the political party of the protesters and would be strengthened if those protesters went home? How about your side shows the fuck up and joins something that every last one of us should be for.

Both sides are way friggen late to the party but better now then never. Sounds like it is time for YOUR side to put up or shut up instead of blasting the other side for doing something.