Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[thereisnospoon]

Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.

Are you a min wage worker? Who is "they"?

 

[Indeependent]

How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce. However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.

Can you tell me what the stock market does for society? What does it produce that is so valuable? I wonder because the richest people in the world center around its "products." They aren't building schools or producing tables or water purifying systems on Wall St. They aren't collecting my trash or providing my electric. They only do these things some of the time as a result of the insane money they made on these financial products. The products themselves seem to have little value but they are the richest people on the planet.

Yer kidding, right?
Those investors pour money into companies which provides capital that is used to keep the doors open which also permits these firms to create jobs.
What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?

I think KNB was discussing the Stock Market' daily function, not the initial buy up of shares at IPO.
You know full well that post-IPO is nothing more than a hyped-up casino.
At least 98% of shares traded each day are Institutional hustling, partially intended to suck in the next bunch of suckers who won't be bailed out along with the major players

 

[EconChick]

Could we please put history about the Soviet Union back in American books??

Where's it gone to? Why do we have to teach this sh** all over again? There was a big fight awhile ago; the Marxists and Socialists lost. How do people not know this?

 

[KNB]

Yes, I'm sure about that. Don't talk about ethanol. Legalizing Cannabis Sativa again will replace corn for ethanol and for food, and Monsanto profits will nose-dive because they can't control the seed supply.

 

[KNB]

Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.

Are you a min wage worker? Who is "they"?

They are the "job creators". After slavery was abolished, they moved their operations overseas to pay exploited foreign labor dirt-poor wages because that limits expenses and increases company profits.

If we do away with the Federal minimum wage in the United States, perhaps more jobs will be created but with even less wages which means that those employees will still need government assistance to get by.

Record corporate profits are supposed to trickle down, otherwise trickle-down theory doesn't work.

 

[History]

Minimum Wage is exactly what it is, it is the "Start" of your work career.. We all go through it.. The question is, are you gonna strive for higher ground?? Are you going to work hard to make it to the top??
You can always go to college and get educated correct?? Some companies may help you "Pay for your college" or student loans or government assistance or be a man and "Pay Your Own Way"

Who knew you have the opportunity in America to be successful and if you need to, you can work 2 jobs and go to school if you're really motivated.. Wow.. Mind-blown liberals..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US. That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production

No they don't.

as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.

And if they stopped selling it, another supplier would quickly step in.

That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

No it isn't.

 

[KNB]

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US. That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production

No they don't.

as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.

And if they stopped selling it, another supplier would quickly step in.

That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

No it isn't.

You should turn off the news and read more.

Monsanto: The behemoth that controls 90 percent of soybean production | Marketplace.org

 

[gnarlylove]

What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?

I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.

The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.

For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?

 

[Indeependent]

What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?

I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.

The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.

For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?

The underutilized function of the Stock Market is the outsourcing of member entity data into the Stock Market that enables the fuzzy evaluation of an entity at any given moment.
This is theoretically a good thing.

It is, and always has been, severely undermined by human intervention both from the sources of information and how that information is utilized.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US. That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production

No they don't.

as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.

And if they stopped selling it, another supplier would quickly step in.

That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

No it isn't.

You should turn off the news and read more.

Monsanto: The behemoth that controls 90 percent of soybean production | Marketplace.org

You understand the difference between soybean production and seed production?
Probably not.

 

[dblack]

That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.

"people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.

Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?

 

[P@triot]

Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality. Just greed. If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.

Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."

No it wouldn't. What are you talking about?

The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.

No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.

I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.

If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn. One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest. The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.

At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn. The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.

Wealth is either created, or it is consumed. The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.

This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.

Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004. Today she's broke. All the wealth is gone. She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.

$10 Million dollars gone.

She consumed her wealth.

Alternatively take Steve Jobs. Jobs got $5 Million dollars. What did he do with it? He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.

Are you grasping this? All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.

As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.

Where does that come from?

It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.

When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route. He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine. He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.

What do most people do in high school? I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.

Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.

There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth. There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.

Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this. Some people will consume all they have. Others will invest all they have. The people invest, will have concentrated wealth. The people who consume, will have little to nothing.

Liberals love to play the victim because playing the victim is easier than working.

 

[georgephillip]

What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?

I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.

The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.

For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?

"The study suggests the (psychopathic) participants' lack of emotional responsiveness actually gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game.

"The emotionally impaired players were more willing to take gambles that had high payoffs because they lacked fear.

"Players with undamaged brain wiring, however, were more cautious and reactive during the game, and wound up with less money at the end.

"Some neuroscientists believe good investors may be exceptionally skilled at suppressing emotional reactions. 'It's possible that people who are high-risk takers or good investors may have what you call a functional psychopathy,' says Antoine Bechara, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Iowa, and a co-author of the study.

"'They don't react emotionally to things.

"Good investors can learn to control their emotions in certain ways to become like those people.'"

"The study demonstrates how neuroeconomics can offer insight into a question that has become a growing focus of economic inquiry: Why don't people always act in their own self-interest when they make economic decisions?"

Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ.com

Fear of losing their jobs is one obvious reason why largely conservative voters in places West Virginia's Elk River tend to support business-friendly psychopaths at the polls and elsewhere.

The wages of production workers has been dropping steadily for four decades.
A smaller share of working age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in over three decades.
Apparently, jobs are more precious than safe workplaces or drinking water?

Robert Reich (Fear is Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest)

 

[georgephillip]

First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.

So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.

Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.

Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.

So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?


First, banks have owned commodities for ages. Since the beginning of the country really. It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed. That's what the commodity market is all about. It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities. This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction. The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British. Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had. Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.

Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?

But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world. We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world. The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.

Yet, where did the crash originate? In the US. Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes. Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.

So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?

I would lean toward, yes why not? Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before. In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning. Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.

So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?

Further, banks always buy shares in companies. This is a normal common part of investment. So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?

What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company? Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.

As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!" chocked full of drama queen proclamations. Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?

Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
Here it is:

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.



That's a lie.



The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws. Inequality is not a violation of law. Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.

"And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse. JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated. It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged. If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.

The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that one warehouse on the entire planet, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous. Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.

"You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.

Lots of hearsay, very little fact.

Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies. If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?


Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.

Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"

If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:

"Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers — small fish — have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And it’s not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.

"There’s simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.

"Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?

William Black: Sure.

"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.

"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.

"But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100 — the 100 worst fraud schemes.

"They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.

"We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.

"In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac — which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans — made zero criminal referrals.

"The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.

"The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.

"And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."

Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.

 

[Silhouette]

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

Judging by the length of this thread, I'm sure it's gotten into deep metaphysical stuff by now.

But perhaps an interlude of a common sense idea for at least a partial solution?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...o-the-economy-without-hurting-capitalism.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?

I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.

The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.

For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?

"The study suggests the (psychopathic) participants' lack of emotional responsiveness actually gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game.

"The emotionally impaired players were more willing to take gambles that had high payoffs because they lacked fear.

"Players with undamaged brain wiring, however, were more cautious and reactive during the game, and wound up with less money at the end.

"Some neuroscientists believe good investors may be exceptionally skilled at suppressing emotional reactions. 'It's possible that people who are high-risk takers or good investors may have what you call a functional psychopathy,' says Antoine Bechara, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Iowa, and a co-author of the study.

"'They don't react emotionally to things.

"Good investors can learn to control their emotions in certain ways to become like those people.'"

"The study demonstrates how neuroeconomics can offer insight into a question that has become a growing focus of economic inquiry: Why don't people always act in their own self-interest when they make economic decisions?"

Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ.com

Fear of losing their jobs is one obvious reason why largely conservative voters in places West Virginia's Elk River tend to support business-friendly psychopaths at the polls and elsewhere.

The wages of production workers has been dropping steadily for four decades.
A smaller share of working age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in over three decades.
Apparently, jobs are more precious than safe workplaces or drinking water?

Robert Reich (Fear is Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest)

How has voting for their economic self-interest been working for America's blue collar union workers over the last 50 years?

Robbie is such a funny little munchkin.

 

[Andylusion]

How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce. However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.

Can you tell me what the stock market does for society? What does it produce that is so valuable? I wonder because the richest people in the world center around its "products." They aren't building schools or producing tables or water purifying systems on Wall St. They aren't collecting my trash or providing my electric. They only do these things some of the time as a result of the insane money they made on these financial products. The products themselves seem to have little value but they are the richest people on the planet.

There are several reasons a company goes public.

The primary purpose of a company going public, and selling shares of stock in the company, is to raise capital. The purpose of raising capital is to grow and expand the business.

Another reason is to gain wide spread knowledge of the company. Going public automatically gives you name recognition, more than any marketing campaign.

Lastly, stocks can give the company leverage or securities to exchange.

The stock market facilitates all of the above results.

Take Apple computer. In 1979, the private company, Apple Computer, employed only 250 people, and less than 10% name recognition, and had very limited funds to expand the company.

The Apple Computer IPO in 1980 changed all of that. By 1981, 80% of Americans knew the name Apple Computer. The IPO raised over $100 Million dollars in capital for Apple, resulting in the R&D budget spent at Apple, increased from about $1 Million in 1979, to $21 Million in 1981. This also resulted in Apple employing over 1,000 people, up from the 250 in 1979. Additionally, a deal was struck with Xerox, for Apple to use their Graphical User Interface GUI, in exchange for $1 Million in Apple Stock. That deal spawned several R&D projects, which later ended up being the Macintosh computer, which I am currently using right now.

That stock market facilitated all of that happening.

The reason Apple gained name recognition, is because it was all over Wall St. The reason Apple created at least 750 more jobs which employed people, was because of the Stock Market which raised the capital to do so. The reason Apple was able to give Xerox shares of the company in exchange for technology, is because those shares were traded on the stock market, which gave them value to Xerox.

The stock market creates tons of real world economic value, that provides jobs, employment, growth, and wealth for the country.

It's just that simple sir. The stock market is not just some random meaningless thing, or no one would use it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
Here it is:

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.



That's a lie.



The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws. Inequality is not a violation of law. Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.



It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse. JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated. It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged. If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.

The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that one warehouse on the entire planet, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous. Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.

"You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.

Lots of hearsay, very little fact.

Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies. If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?


Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.

Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"

If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:

"Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers — small fish — have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And it’s not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.

"There’s simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.

"Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?

William Black: Sure.

"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.

"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.

"But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100 — the 100 worst fraud schemes.

"They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.

"We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.

"In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac — which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans — made zero criminal referrals.

"The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.

"The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.

"And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."

Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.

"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.

Corrupt self-dealing, involving corrupt politicians (Whitewater) is clearly a crime.

Lending money to poor credit risks, partially because of government pressure.....where is the crime?

 

[bripat9643]

Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.



That's a lie.



The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws. Inequality is not a violation of law. Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.



It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse. JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated. It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged. If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.

The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that one warehouse on the entire planet, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous. Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.



Lots of hearsay, very little fact.

Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies. If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?


Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.

Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"

If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:

"Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers — small fish — have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And it’s not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.

"There’s simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.

"Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?

William Black: Sure.

"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.

"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.

"But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100 — the 100 worst fraud schemes.

"They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.

"We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.

"In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac — which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans — made zero criminal referrals.

"The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.

"The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.

"And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."

Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.

"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.

Corrupt self-dealing, involving corrupt politicians (Whitewater) is clearly a crime.

Lending money to poor credit risks, partially because of government pressure.....where is the crime?

The politicians and the libturds need someone to blame other than themselves. They're perfectly happy to persecute the victims to deflect blame from themselves.