Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.

Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?

Given the polluted state of Constitutional case law and precedent - probably. At the very least a really solid amendment along those lines.

I wonder how many elected Democrats OR Republicans would support such an amendment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THAT is really stupid.
The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own private profit.

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.

Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?

"Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence

Published 1976
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

"The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

"These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

"Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."

Who owns the Fed?

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

There are no "controlling shares".

 

[georgephillip]

"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.

You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.

Along with Hank Paulson.

What was his accounting fraud?

TARP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Along with Hank Paulson.

What was his accounting fraud?

TARP

How was TARP accounting fraud?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.

Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?

"Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence

Published 1976
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

"The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

"These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

"Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."

Who owns the Fed?

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

There are no "controlling shares".

Got proof?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Capitalism guarantees jobs. Democrats guarantee picket lines & food stamps.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism guarantees jobs. Democrats guarantee picket lines & food stamps.

Lately capitalism has been guarantees jobs in China and India.
Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?

"Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence

Published 1976
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

"The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

"These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

"Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."

Who owns the Fed?

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

There are no "controlling shares".

Got proof?

This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner.

Who owns and controls the Federal Reserve

 

[dnsmith35]

Capitalism guarantees jobs. Democrats guarantee picket lines & food stamps.

Lately capitalism has been guarantees jobs in China and India.
Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans.

So you would let those Indians live homeless or starve instead of letting them have those labor intensive jobs Americans tend not to want to do? Shame on you! You are a prime example of what I mean when I say "LIBERAL WITH BORDERS." What gives you reason to believe American relative poor are so much more than the truly poor of the 3rd world? I sure am glad you don't serve on the board of any charity I would to.

 

[dnsmith35]

Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.

Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?

"Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence

Published 1976
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

"The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

"These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

"Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."

Who owns the Fed?

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

There are no "controlling shares".

No matter all the crap he throws at you, or how the charter reads for the Fed, IT ALWAYS DOES WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT TO DO IN SO FAR AS FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY.

 

[dnsmith35]

If there had actually been more fraud, there would have been more trials and convictions other than WorldCom and ENRON.

The point is, whether you want to believe it or not, what "mortgage fraud" which occurred was minor as part of the housing balloon and crash, and that "mortgage fraud" was mostly caused by unrealistic expectations of the government which pushed subprime loans and kept interest rates artificially low.

This article about Tilman's research is only part of the story about his ACTIVE OPINIONS AND IMAGINATION. The fact that you seem to believe it is MASSIVE FRAUD instead of a relatively few examples of criminal activity. It is not, and none of them related to the housing crisis, which was caused by the government's fiscal and monetary policy, NOT FRAUD. No matter how many links you have given us, you have yet to prove anything about the housing crash was caused by financial institutions except after the fact.

Robert Tillman

Published online: 3 October 2008
Abstract

Recent scandals at companies like Enron and WorldCom have pointed to the systemic origins of many corporate frauds. This paper advances the argument that behind those scandals were strategic political actions that changed the regulatory and legal environment in which those firms operated and created criminogenic institutional frameworks that facilitated acts of corporate corruption. Three case studies involving (1) the California energy crisis of the late 1990's, (2) the regulation of energy derivatives, and (3) accounting treatments of stock options, are presented to illustrate how markets and the rules that govern them are the products of political processes and how they can create motivations and opportunities for corporate fraud. The implications these case studies have for the study of corporate crime and corruption are discussed. Individual instances of white-collar crime, corporate executives who fix prices, bankers who embezzle, and investment bankers who trade on insider information are routine features of modern life, ones that most of us accept as the price of living in complex market societies. In recent years, however, we have witnessed several periods in which fraud and corruption have swept through a number of industries, leaving thousands of victims with massive financial losses, hundreds of indictments and calls for new legislation in their wake. The savings and loan crisis of the late1980's and the more recent corporate accounting scandals involving high-flying firms like WorldCom and Enron exemplify this pattern. These events suggest something at work that goes beyond the individual offender who has given into temptation and raise the possibility that large-scale institutional failures lie behind these epidemics of white-collar and corporate crime. A number of criminologists have come to realize that to understand these phenomena it is not enough to focus on individual white-collar employees or corporate executives, applying to them well-worn criminological theories that have been used to explain street crimes, but instead one must look at how the larger institutional environments in which they operate.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Nearly 4300 posts on a liberal drivel thread

Pathetic

 

[dnsmith35]

So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.

It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.

I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:

"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .

"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1

"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"

"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.

"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.

"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.

"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.

 

[georgephillip]

It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.

I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:

"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .

"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1

"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"

"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.

"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.

"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.

"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.

Bill Black has the opinion that thousands of bankers should have been prosecuted for their latest crimes. Possibly the 900,000 dollars that Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign explain why Obama picked Eric Holder for his Attorney General? The crimes are there; what's lacking is the political will to prosecute.

 

[bripat9643]

Along with Hank Paulson.

What was his accounting fraud?

TARP

So congress perpetrated the fraud?

 

[georgephillip]

What was his accounting fraud?

TARP

So congress perpetrated the fraud?

Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
Remember martial law?
That was Hank.

 

[bripat9643]

TARP

So congress perpetrated the fraud?

Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
Remember martial law?
That was Hank.

Congress created TARP, numskull. If TARP was fraud, then Congress committed fraud.

 

[georgephillip]

So congress perpetrated the fraud?

Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
Remember martial law?
That was Hank.

Congress created TARP, numskull. If TARP was fraud, then Congress committed fraud.

Are you sure?

"In Bailout Nation, we discuss the possibility that The TARP was all a giant ruse, a Hank Paulson engineered scam to cover up the simple fact that CitiGroup (C) was teetering on the brink of implosion.

"A loan just to Citi alone would have been problematic, went this line of brilliant reasoning, so instead, we gave money to all the big banks.

"Excerpt:

“Shortly after the TARP was passed, Paulson added to its original intent—to use the funds to buy toxic debt from the banks—with a mishmash of programs and schemes, including:

"- Injection of $250 billion into the nation’s banks..."

Ritholtz: TARP Was An Elaborate Hank Paulson Scam To Provide Cover For A Bailout Of*Citigroup - Home - The Daily Bail

 

[dnsmith35]

I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:

"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .

"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1

"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"

"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.

"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.

"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.

"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.

Bill Black has the opinion that thousands of bankers should have been prosecuted for their latest crimes. Possibly the 900,000 dollars that Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign explain why Obama picked Eric Holder for his Attorney General? The crimes are there; what's lacking is the political will to prosecute.

Bah humbug!

 

[dnsmith35]

TARP

So congress perpetrated the fraud?

Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
Remember martial law?
That was Hank.

It is my opinion, that conspiracy theorists are all bonkers.