Comments on: The Reality-Based Awards

By: Da King

Da King — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:27:17 +0000

“If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big” – Alan Greenspan, talking about the banks.

Yep. And with all the bailouts, the "too big to fail" boys have only gotten bigger. Four banks control 60% of the industry now.

By: walter

walter — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:53:17 +0000

gas at $400/gal….doctors as pikers ….now Alan Greenspan……

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=aJ8HPmNUfchg

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:21:48 +0000

When total deregulation just won't do….commit fraud. Then the government will give you money, if your fraud fails. Great system.

By: walter

walter — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:14:50 +0000

from the lead in the article cited by King…….

"Government deregulation and failed regulation of the commercial and investment banking industries were important contributors to the subprime mortgage crisis. These included allowing the self-regulation of Wall Street's investment banks and the failed regulation of Wall Street rating agencies, which were responsible for incorrectly rating some $3.2 trillion dollars of subprime mortgage-backed securities."

"….Wall Street rating agencies, which were responsible for incorrectly rating some $3.2 trillion dollars of subprime mortgage-backed securities."

sounds more like fraud than anything else

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:12:57 +0000

"Nope."

Gee, who can argue with a reasoned response like that ? lol.

Read it and learn, even though this link doesn't come close to describing all the irresponsible actions the government took. I could write a book on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:02:41 +0000

"The banks lowered mortgage standards because the government wanted and demanded that they lower mortgage standards."

Nope.

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:26:52 +0000

Rev,
You have decided to blame the whole mess on the greed of bankers and Wall Street, but that is only part of it. Your criticisms of these entities are not without merit, but you are leaving out the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say. As someone who worked in the banking industry for years, and whose job was partly to comply with myriad government regulations over the banks, I can tell you that the banking industry has always been tightly regulated, and when those regulations became more lax, as they did in the mortgage area, it was because the government wanted it that way. As a matter of fact, those regulations still haven't been changed, and it's over a year later. If I had more time, I could detail a series of regulatory and financial business model changes the government made, from the1970's forward, that brought us directly to this financial disaster. The banks lowered mortgage standards because the government wanted and demanded that they lower mortgage standards. That's the bottom line. The banks can't blink without the government's express permission. When you say "government regulations were lacking," as if the government just missed the growing mortgage problem, that misstates the central point. The point is, those regulations were lacking ON PURPOSE. The government orchestrated it by design, and by the time the government had it's "uh oh" moment regarding the mortgage disaster, it was too late to stop it. All the toxic mortgages were already out there. After the meltdown, and as sure as the sun rises, government absolved itself of all blame, and blamed the bankers and Wall Street. That was rather like Hitler blaming the Nazis at the end of WWII as Germany fell. No sale.

Home ownership is a fine goal, but only when it occurs within the context of a more prosperous economy, not when the government artificially manipulates the system for political reasons so the politicians can pat themselves on the back at the same time they are setting up an irresponsible money scam that cannot possibly be sustained.

By: walter

walter — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:17:35 +0000

good story here…….makes doctors look like pikers…….

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:33:52 +0000

"They (the government) made home ownership the goal, instead of making fiscal responsibility the goal. The government changed the rules of the mortgage game to increase home ownership, and setup a way for banks to alleviate risk for horribly risky loans (or so they thought)."

That is misguided. The government did not instruct banks to quit doing due diligence…appraisals, income verification, trick loans, etc. Home ownership is a respectable goal. But home ownership was not the goal of banksters…..they could care less. Banksters acted recklessly and irresponsibly because 1) they could, politicians having taken away many oversight and regulation provisions, and 2) they are hopelessly drunk on greed. Home ownership has nothing to do with it, really. Savings and Loan scandal, Dot.com scam, Enron and now, mortgages….all concern themselves with the same issue….greed, especially when unregulated, seeks out whatever vehicle it can ride to satisfy it's ugly addiction….even if it leads to disaster for millions.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:04:09 +0000

I'm not arguing about conservative agreement or non-agreement with the bankster bailouts. I wanted them busted up.

I'm arguing about the conservative position, still being held, that government should stay away from regulating big corporate interests.

Yes, break up the banks, yes….but enforce much stricter accountability and oversight provisions over corporate interests. The reason the crisis happened in the first place was because government oversight and regulations were lacking.

By: The Irreverend

The Irreverend — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:49:39 +0000

Walter -

Please tell me how you know "Doctors rip-off Medicare to the tune of $60 BILLION". I'd really like a solid reference, not your normal liberal opinion blog citations. I've worked in the industry for many years and I'd love to find those guys. The 10% reward for turning them in would provide a pretty comfortable nest egg.

With the current frequency of audits from both commercial insurers and Medicare, it is extremely difficult for physicians to keep any kind of scam operation of significance running for any length of time. Additionally, you would have to have a large number of conspiring patients involved in the scheme as well, adding to the difficulty in tricking Medicare.

If you really want to find the corruption and waste, look towards the third party contractors that actually administer the Medicare/Medicaid programs, and the government agents who select the contractors. The advantages all insurers have over physician compensation is hugely skewed in the insurers favor.

Take it from an insider, the "savings" everyone expects to find in the Medicare programs to offset this health care fiasco will not come from the evil physician population.

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:00:28 +0000

My thoughts exactly King, good job.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:38:21 +0000

An irony of the bailouts is that the "too big to fail" corporations got even bigger. The banking industry became more consolidated, not less. It was primarily the small banks that were allowed to fail or were merged into larger banks. The tendency of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" free market capitalism to end with ultimate winners and losers (monopolies) IS a danger, because business competition ceases at that point, and legitimate competiton is crucial to a thriving free market. It's the competition that keeps the inherent capitalistic greed in check. Maybe that's what the Reverend and Walter are trying to point out, though I don't want to put words in their mouthes. Frye did point that out. "Too big to fail" is what the government is supposed to be there to prevent. Instead, the government encourages it, because the government is corrupted by big money and/or politics, usually both. The government's role is to oversee that the market functions properly. That's what anti-trust laws and other regulations are for. What we've seen with the housing market meltdown, and the subsequent Wall Street derivatives imploding on top of it, is that the government has done an absolutely terrible job of oversight. Rather than acting judiciously, the government acted politically. They made home ownership the goal, instead of making fiscal responsibility the goal. The government changed the rules of the mortgage game to increase home ownership, and setup a way for banks to alleviate risk for horribly risky loans (or so they thought). The banks played the capitalist game by the new rules the government set up, and the whole insane money scheme eventually came crashing down. This wasn't a "the GOP did it" thing, or a "the Dems did it" thing. It was BOTH parties, from the Carter administration forward. They all played the same shell game.

The enormous error leftists make is in thinking the solution to this inherent problem with capitalism is for the government to take over from the private sector. We're seeing that in the health care debate right now. You don't fix "too big to fail" by ceding to government an absolute monopoly over the private sector, thereby creating a far bigger "too big to fail" entity. That's crazy, and history has shown us time and again that it doesn't work. It's called socialism, and it's a far worse economic system than capitalism. Ask China. Ask Russia. Ask Europe. They all know it, but we seem to want to repeat their same mistakes here, god only knows why. It's the very fact that America was economically different than China, Russia, and Europe that allowed us to rise to the top so quickly. Now, we're throwing it all away.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:21:28 +0000

frye….that's where we differ. Doctors rip-off Medicare to the tune of $60 BILLION. Honest doctors don't.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:09:49 +0000

speaking of reality based awards……….

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5

By: N. E. Frye

N. E. Frye — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:42:18 +0000

I don't see anything wrong with "Both" as an answer to that.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:35:27 +0000

quidpro……first you say that government programs BREED corruption, now you say government programs FEED corruption. Just what is it going to be?

By: walter

walter — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:40:31 +0000

or do you mean this………..

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/10/third-quarter-campaign-finance.html

By: Quidpro

Quidpro — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:11:27 +0000

Walter, Reverand, are you serious or are you engaged in parody? Do either of you read what I wrote? Do you even read your own words?

First, Walter attributes to me words I did not speak. Must you invent quotes? Certainly you can do better. Then you both completely misread my post and claim that I favored bailouts to Goldman Sachs. What part of keeping government small and out of the economy do you not understand? The government bailout of Goldman (and the banks and the auto companies, etc.) is antithetical to capitalism.

The bailout plans of the government over the past year feed the corruption that you both claim to oppose. The use of government funds by the Obama administration to bail out favored industries is oligarchy, not capitalism.

If you were consistent, you would oppose the government takeover of the Healthcare industry. That you favor Obamacare shows that, for you, politics trumps economics. Thus, consistency in matters economic is secondary to your political goals.

By: walter

walter — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:02:59 +0000

larry sez……"it's much more difficult to regulate and control those who have been given power to make the rules."

yeah, it's called voting

By: walter

walter — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:36:37 +0000

here's some more government corruption………

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/10/16/billionaire-among-6-nabbed-in-inside-trading-case-2/

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:30:19 +0000

Most governments are corrupt to some extent and those that are governing small socialist economies tend to be as corrupt as our own, if not more so. Corporate greed can be regulated but it's much more difficult to regulate and control those who have been given power to make the rules.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:10:01 +0000

larry…so the state was drunk behind the wheel, driving the engine….and those engine banksters were just trying to get their riders to their destination safely, like all good engine banksters would do?

Is that the pile you're trying to drive?

The state wasn't driving, they were in the back seat counting the money while the corporate bankster driver, who actually was drunk on greed, drove the workers' engine beyond the recommended limits until the workers' engine blew up.

You know, witnesses to crashes see things differently.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:58:47 +0000

No, walter….here's how Quid sees it. Goldman didn't really want to be deregulated to the point where they could gamble everything away on impossible credit-default swap wagers. When it all turned to sh*t, Goldman told the government not to give them all that bailout money. But sigh, the government couldn't help it, they forced it on Goldman anyway. All Goldman officials wanted was what was in the country's best interest. Surely, they don't want to hand out all those bonuses…but that meanie, bullying government keeps forcing them to. Because Goldman is a proud and patriotic member of the infallible capitalist club, no matter what really happened…..it was all, and only, the fault of the government.

By: walter

walter — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:19:53 +0000

From Offshoring Jobs to Bailing Out Bankers
The Rich Have Stolen the Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Bloomberg reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street firms. Bloomberg adds that none of these aides faced Senate confirmation. Yet, they are overseeing the handout of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to their former employers.

The gifts of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money provided the banks with an abundance of low cost capital that has boosted the banks’ profits, while the taxpayers who provided the capital are increasingly unemployed and homeless.

JPMorgan Chase announced that it has earned $3.6 billion in the third quarter of this year.

Goldman Sachs has made so much money during this year of economic crisis that enormous bonuses are in the works. The London Evening Standard reports that Goldman Sachs’ “5,500 London staff can look forward to record average payouts of around 500,000 pounds ($800,000) each. Senior executives will get bonuses of several million pounds each with the highest paid as much as 10 million pounds ($16 million).“

quidpro…..methinks these guys were crooks BEFORE coming in contact with any government program

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10162009.html