PDA

View Full Version : The Big Short



Ted Hoppe
01-05-2016, 05:09 PM
Loved It. Saw it on New Years Eve. Put me in a bad mood...:mad:

Clever and the one to watch for Oscars.

Norman Bernstein
01-05-2016, 05:28 PM
I read the book, when it came out... one of the best books I've read in a long time.

peb
01-05-2016, 06:00 PM
Saw it last night. Good movie, very cleverly done. Did not water down the technical details much, actually had some clever ways of explaining some of it.



Couple of plot problems, that were not in the book:

1) all three funds were shown predicting a financial system collapse. They did not, they predicted a collapse I the mirtgae market. If they actually knew it would cause such widespread economic or even a collapse of the financial system, they would have chosen a much less expensive and less risky means of shorting.

2) at the end, one of the managers actually says the banks orchestrated it all for the bailout money. Really? Think about that for a moment.



But I give the movie an A

Gerarddm
01-05-2016, 08:08 PM
The fact that nobody went to jail is in of itself a crime.

peb
01-05-2016, 08:34 PM
The fact that nobody went to jail is in of itself a crime.



Who should have gone to jail? On what charge?



Perhaps you are right, there is no doubt Obama and the dems love gigantic corporations. It makes sense that aggressively prosecuting the big banks' executives was not high on Obama's priorities. He certainly did not want to break them up.

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 09:21 AM
Who should have gone to jail? On what charge?

The REAL crime is that there were, and are, no laws which make this sort of behavior illegal. You're right, there was nothing to charge them with.... a fact which many progressives/liberals have refused to understand.


Perhaps you are right, there is no doubt Obama and the dems love gigantic corporations. It makes sense that aggressively prosecuting the big banks' executives was not high on Obama's priorities. He certainly did not want to break them up.

Now you're sounding as irrational as the progressives/liberals I just mentioned. How about this: it had nothing to do with any 'love' for gigantic corporations, but it probably had a great deal to do with fear that any form of action as extreme as trying to break up those corporations could result in a worse outcome than had already occurred. Tampering with the economy like that is unprecedented, and ain't nobody who could possibly know what the end effects would be. It's my one complaint about Bernie Sanders: he thinks that breaking up the big banks is a simple fait accompli... Hillary, at least, is a great deal more realistic about the wisdom of this.

The appropriate fix is also the impossible fix: changing the laws, to make actions dangerous to the national economy a felony. It's certainly appropriate. It's also impossible, considering the lobbying power of the major economic powers.

peb
01-06-2016, 09:44 AM
Now you're sounding as irrational as the progressives/liberals I just mentioned. How about this: it had nothing to do with any 'love' for gigantic corporations, but it probably had a great deal to do with fear that any form of action as extreme as trying to break up those corporations could result in a worse outcome than had already occurred. Tampering with the economy like that is unprecedented, and ain't nobody who could possibly know what the end effects would be. It's my one complaint about Bernie Sanders: he thinks that breaking up the big banks is a simple fait accompli... Hillary, at least, is a great deal more realistic about the wisdom of this.

.
There would be nothing unprecedented about it. It was all done in the 30s. Our economy functioned for decades with Glass Stegall, and with limits on inter-state banking. There is only one reason why we would allow a few banks to control the majority of banking assets in this country, because we want a fascist type economy: gigantic corporations under the governments thumb, with little or no thought about how they affect the small guy.

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 09:48 AM
There would be nothing unprecedented about it. It was all done in the 30s. Our economy functioned for decades with Glass Stegall, and with limits on inter-state banking. There is only one reason why we would allow a few banks to control the majority of banking assets in this country, because we want a fascist type economy: gigantic corporations under the governments thumb, with little or no thought about how they affect the small guy.

That all presumes that there would be the congressional will to do it. You think that will exists? Think the banks would lie down and take it? Or would they unleash a massive flood of money to stop it?

This ain't the 30's anymore.

peb
01-06-2016, 09:51 AM
That all presumes that there would be the congressional will to do it. You think that will exists? Think the banks would lie down and take it? Or would they unleash a massive flood of money to stop it?

This ain't the 30's anymore.

I don't know, I think someone who is a real leader out to try. When you have the likes of George Will and Bernie Sanders agreeing on an issue, someone out to be able to put together a coalition to get it done. I am very conservative, there is nothing good about the large banks and financial institutions in this country. There are certainly liberals on the right side of this issue. We should be able to get it done.

Paul Pless
01-06-2016, 09:58 AM
The REAL crime is that there were, and are, no laws which make this sort of behavior illegal. You're right, there was nothing to charge them with.... a fact which many progressives/liberals have refused to understand.That's Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for ya. . .

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 10:13 AM
That's Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for ya. . .

Those laws didn't exist before Dodd/Frank, and don't exist now. If you think a law like that is a good idea, then blame Congress as a whole, not two guys who tried to do at least SOMETHING worthwhile.

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 10:14 AM
I don't know, I think someone who is a real leader out to try.

Which leader? Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? Think any of THEM are the least bit interested in breaking up the big banks?

Paul Pless
01-06-2016, 10:21 AM
Those laws didn't exist before Dodd/Frank, and don't exist now. If you think a law like that is a good idea, then blame Congress as a whole, not two guys who tried to do at least SOMETHING worthwhile.they chaired the committees which over saw the banking, insurance, and investment industries for more than a decade each; all the while taking money from the very institutions they were supposedly they were regulating. . .

its on them directly - both of them are pieces of ****

Paul Pless
01-06-2016, 10:22 AM
Which leader? Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? Think any of THEM are the least bit interested in breaking up the big banks?
Hillary? rotflmao!!!

peb
01-06-2016, 10:56 AM
Hillary? rotflmao!!!

Very good point, it should be noted that Hillary's campaign.

As to the GOP candidates, it is a disappointment also. Bush has touted higher capital requirements for the bigger banks (higher than Dodd-Franks) which could force the big banks to split up.

Candidates on both parties have touted community banks needed to become a bigger factor. None of them will quite take the big step though. As I said, we need a leader on this issue. Obama had a wonderful opportunity: control of both houses of congress immediately after a crisis that put the whole issue in the forefront. He did not even consider it.

I started the other thread primarily because Sanders was the one person who has come up with the right solution and as I said in the OP, its worth discussion.

Ted Hoppe
01-06-2016, 12:44 PM
what was interesting in the movie was they dodged the politics and squarely placed it on every legislative lap.

It was a reminder that we should disgusted by every one of our legislative representatives who have taken money and influence from these banksters. Moreover when I see political posts on this forum promoting one of these folks to be a chief law enforcement officer (all of them) who took money and cavort with these folks, I hope our forum members add a disclaimer they are known associates of some of the greatest criminals of our era.

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 12:49 PM
.
Candidates on both parties have touted community banks needed to become a bigger factor. None of them will quite take the big step though. As I said, we need a leader on this issue. Obama had a wonderful opportunity: control of both houses of congress immediately after a crisis that put the whole issue in the forefront. He did not even consider it.

First, you don't know whether he considered it or not. Presidents obviously consider a great number of things, and included in the consideration is whether a proposal will have support in Congress.

Secondly, I'm REALLY tired of this 'Obama had control of both houses of Congress' crap. No President, no matter HOW much margin he has in congress, ever has 'control'.... the real control lies in the hands of big campaign contributors, who pollute both Dem and Rep legislators in a non-partisan fashion.

.

The Bigfella
01-06-2016, 02:55 PM
Geez, I dunno about you fellas.

We fixed our gun problem.

We fixed our banking regulations.

I thought you guys were supposed to be smart.

Tom Montgomery
01-06-2016, 02:58 PM
Geez, I dunno about you fellas.

We fixed our gun problem.

We fixed our banking regulations.

I thought you guys were supposed to be smart.Not really. What we are is a bunch of chest-beating provincials who chant loudly WE'RE #1!"

George Jung
01-06-2016, 03:01 PM
Geez, I dunno about you fellas.

We fixed our gun problem.

We fixed our banking regulations.

I thought you guys were supposed to be smart.

I thought so, too. Turns out that our motto is: "old age and trickery will overcome youth and ambition''.

who knew?

John of Phoenix
01-06-2016, 04:24 PM
peb:
2) at the end, one of the managers actually says the banks orchestrated it all for the bailout money. Really? Think about that for a moment.I can promise you the banks didn't orchestrate anything. They did not then and do not even NOW have a clue of the extent of liabilities on their books. "Too big to fail" is bigger than ever.

peb
01-06-2016, 04:57 PM
I can promise you the banks didn't orchestrate anything. They did not then and do not even NOW have a clue of the extent of liabilities on their books. "Too big to fail" is bigger than ever.

Yes, you are correct.

PhaseLockedLoop
01-06-2016, 05:28 PM
The REAL crime is that there were, and are, no laws which make this sort of behavior illegal. You're right, there was nothing to charge them with.... a fact which many progressives/liberals have refused to understand.



Now you're sounding as irrational as the progressives/liberals I just mentioned. How about this: it had nothing to do with any 'love' for gigantic corporations, but it probably had a great deal to do with fear that any form of action as extreme as trying to break up those corporations could result in a worse outcome than had already occurred. Tampering with the economy like that is unprecedented, and ain't nobody who could possibly know what the end effects would be. It's my one complaint about Bernie Sanders: he thinks that breaking up the big banks is a simple fait accompli... Hillary, at least, is a great deal more realistic about the wisdom of this.

The appropriate fix is also the impossible fix: changing the laws, to make actions dangerous to the national economy a felony. It's certainly appropriate. It's also impossible, considering the lobbying power of the major economic powers.

This is claptrap, Norman. We're talking about ordinary swindling, on a grand scale. The fact that the swindlers could do a lot of backing and filling in defense doesn't mean that they didn't break the law. Which law? Well, which swindler? The history of the runup of the crash and the aftermath has been examined in detail--you might want to look it up.


Tampering with the economy like that is unprecedented, and ain't nobody who could possibly know what the end effects would be.

So a gang of thieves can tamper with the economy (and we know what the effects were) but the government can't? You've got it 'way backwards.

An assortment of the worst of them could have been jailed without bail while charges against them were considered....for years, if need be. The damaged that was done, to some millions of people, here and around the world, is 'way beyond disgraceful. Your notion that there's some identity between the "economy" and these bastards is the attitude of a courtier.

PeterSibley
01-06-2016, 05:36 PM
There would be nothing unprecedented about it. It was all done in the 30s. Our economy functioned for decades with Glass Stegall, and with limits on inter-state banking. There is only one reason why we would allow a few banks to control the majority of banking assets in this country, because we want a fascist type economy: gigantic corporations under the governments thumb, with little or no thought about how they affect the small guy.

and people say changing the 2nd is impossible.:d

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 05:37 PM
This is claptrap, Norman. We're talking about ordinary swindling, on a grand scale. The fact that the swindlers could do a lot of backing and filling in defense doesn't mean that they didn't break the law. Which law? Well, which swindler? The history of the runup of the crash and the aftermath has been examined in detail--you might want to look it up.

I sincerely wish I could agree with you.... but even when your moral and ethical sensibilities tells you that something OUGHT to be illegal, it doesn't mean that there's a law covering it. I've read a great deal about this situation, and from what the bulk of the expert obsrvers say, there simply wasn't a law under which these guys could be prosecuted.


So a gang of thieves can tamper with the economy (and we know what the effects were) but the government can't? You've got it 'way backwards.

Talk to your congressman and senators. I'd love to screw these guys to the wall, myself... but I do NOT believe in inventing laws, after the fact, to enble a prosecution.


An assortment of the worst of them could have been jailed without bail while charges against them were considered....for years, if need be.

No, they couldn't... you need probable cause, and to establish probable cause, you have to be able to cite a law.


The damaged that was done, to some millions of people, here and around the world, is 'way beyond disgraceful. Your notion that there's some identity between the "economy" and these bastards is the attitude of a courtier.

I have no clue as to what you mean. I'm on your side here, from the moral and ethical perspective. I just happen to also believe in the law.

Ted Hoppe
01-06-2016, 05:52 PM
Talk to your congressman and senators. I'd love to screw these guys to the wall, myself... but I do NOT believe in inventing laws, after the fact, to enable a prosecution.


Well how do you feel that your lawmakers did nothing to protect us from their fraud again as well as not secure our economy from their reprehensible and damaging actions? Simply put we are no safer from these wolves and more likely have increased risk.

Norman Bernstein
01-06-2016, 07:41 PM
Well how do you feel that your lawmakers did nothing to protect us from their fraud again as well as not secure our economy from their reprehensible and damaging actions? Simply put we are no safer from these wolves and more likely have increased risk.

Well, I'm certainly not HAPPY about it! :)

SullivanB
01-06-2016, 07:51 PM
This is claptrap, Norman. We're talking about ordinary swindling, on a grand scale. The fact that the swindlers could do a lot of backing and filling in defense doesn't mean that they didn't break the law. Which law? Well, which swindler? The history of the runup of the crash and the aftermath has been examined in detail--you might want to look it up.



So a gang of thieves can tamper with the economy (and we know what the effects were) but the government can't? You've got it 'way backwards.

An assortment of the worst of them could have been jailed without bail while charges against them were considered....for years, if need be. The damaged that was done, to some millions of people, here and around the world, is 'way beyond disgraceful. Your notion that there's some identity between the "economy" and these bastards is the attitude of a courtier.

It absolutely is claptrap. There was extensive, orchestrated fraud committed, probably conducted in a way that making a RICO case against many of them would have been a piece of cake. The Obama administration gave these guys a free pass, another crime, in my opinion.

JBreeze
01-06-2016, 08:21 PM
Sarbanes-Oxley was repealed?

If not, then it was the resonsibility of DOJ to prosecute. But it declined to do so.

Ted Hoppe
01-06-2016, 09:55 PM
Sarbanes-Oxley was repealed?

If not, then it was the responsibility of DOJ to prosecute. But it declined to do so.

Moreover the folks that run the SEC are puppets and many now are Goldman Sachs employees as well as BofA and wells Fargo. Those folks who were left to oversee the debacle were rewarded with wall street jobs and manhattan perks. The countrywide folks who ripped billions and were biggest offenders of fraud have money that will last their families for 4 generations without any additional investment, held under secured trusts as well as off-shored to make sure the money would never be returned or taxed with any significant future penalties.

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 09:19 AM
"DIRTY JUSTICE"

So reads the title of this HP article discussing the Obama administration's response, to date, to the despicable fraud Volkswagen has perpetrated on the American people. Now, maybe it's a bit early to be criticizing them in the matter but early signs are not very encouraging and, in view of their track record of closeness with, and having protected, the Wall Street criminals who brought the country to the brink of a depression, watching such things very closely and with a dubious eye is clearly warranted, as the article suggests.

The sad truth is that this president and his administration are simply are NOT entitled to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to holding big business criminals accountable. And here's why it's so important to consider all this very carefully, right now. There's every reason to believe that a Clinton presidency would be the same or worse, when it comes to giving big business criminals the same free rein to rob the American people blind, with a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card in the vest pockets of their $1,000 three piece suits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/department-of-justice-volkswagen_568ad0b8e4b06fa688831b99

Dan McCosh
01-07-2016, 09:31 AM
It's not a good comparison. In the VW case, the U.S. government has responded to VW's infraction of its revised emission rules by cracking down hard--on consumers. Stopping sales of the vehicles, killing the resale value, recalling the cars for a fix that will make their owners unhappy.

Norman Bernstein
01-07-2016, 09:38 AM
Sully, your condemnation of the Obama administration is premature. Certainly, they're sensitive to the charges that they don't pursue criminal indictments in cases like this. The HuffPo piece is speculation, not reporting. Even the piece explains why indictments have not been instantaneously filed:


Uhlmann and Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia law school and author of the book Too Big to Jail, listed several likely reasons why the Justice Department first pursued civil claims against Volkswagen rather than criminal charges:



The Clean Air Act precludes the federal government from seeking criminal penalties against automakers that violate the law by installing defeat devices, Uhlmann said. The civil suit is "the only way for the Justice Department to address the pollution that has occurred as a result of Volkswagen's misconduct," he explained. "The lying and the fraud is a different matter [which] the government will address with a criminal lawsuit."
Prosecutors typically file civil suits as soon as they think they have a case in order to obtain additional evidence during the discovery phase of litigation, Uhlmann said. Criminal charges only come after authorities have completed their investigation and generally take much longer because prosecutors want enough evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's common for the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits before seeking criminal charges, Garrett said. For example, federal prosecutors filed a civil lawsuit against BP eight months (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-civil-lawsuit-against-nine-defendants-deepwater) after the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but didn't file criminal charges against the company untilNovember 2012 (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bp-exploration-and-production-inc-agrees-plead-guilty-felony-manslaughter-environmental).
Federal prosecutors are probably waiting to file criminal charges against Volkswagen until they first build cases against company employees responsible for Volkswagen's alleged deceptions, Garrett said. The Justice Department's September memorandum calls on prosecutors to "put individuals first, even if you can file a case against the company right away," he noted. Federal prosecutors are probably relying on Volkswagen to turn over evidence that would implicate culpable employees. Companies that don't help prosecutors in their attempt to hold individual employees accountable are likely to face stiffer penalties, he added. Filing criminal charges now could lead Volkswagen to stop cooperating with the Justice Department, Garrett said, costing prosecutors "their best opportunity to get individuals."

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 10:29 AM
Sully, your condemnation of the Obama administration is premature. Certainly, they're sensitive to the charges that they don't pursue criminal indictments in cases like this. The HuffPo piece is speculation, not reporting. Even the piece explains why indictments have not been instantaneously filed:

Yes, I acknowledged the possibility in my first paragraph and I'm hoping for the best. We do have a new sheriff in town, an impressive gal, to be sure, and maybe she'll make a difference. The problem is that it's the president who sets the priorities for his/her administration and, to date, this president has come up dismally short in that "accountability for white collar criminals" thing he so aggressively ran his 2008 campaign on. Of course, any prosecutions warranted and started by the Obama administration will carry over to the next administration, and you already know what I think about that.:ycool:

There's something else worth discussing, here. This charging of business entities with the crimes, and not charging the offending individuals, is just another GET OUT OF JAIL FREE cop out. It only encourages more bad conduct as the bad guys just get richer and more emboldened, and the monetary penalties imposed on the corporations (more and more, considered by the bad guys as part of the costs of doing business) are passed on to and picked up by the consumers and the taxpayers. It's the individuals involved who are the real culprits and who should be held accountable.

Too Little Time
01-07-2016, 10:32 AM
Who should have gone to jail? On what charge?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/01/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/

A reading of part of this article indicates at least some people believe that there were valid reasons for prosecutions. And it only took a few seconds of searching to find it. I suspect there are better arguments.

It must be nice to be so sure of the truth.

John of Phoenix
01-07-2016, 10:32 AM
It absolutely is claptrap. There was extensive, orchestrated fraud committed, probably conducted in a way that making a RICO case against many of them would have been a piece of cake. The Obama administration gave these guys a free pass, another crime, in my opinion.That was after the economic damage had already been done - any fraud was the attempted coverup. I say "attempted" because the screwup was so incredibly huge that it couldn't be concealed.

I haven't seen the movie but for me the best line in the book is when the beleaguered hedge fund manager figures out the incredible risk involved. Basically he says, "At first I thought they were crooks. Then I realized they were just stupid."

I could relate dozens of personal stories to validate just how deeply, dangerously ignorant top management of banks and brokerage firms was about what incredibly complex, astonishingly toxic assets they had on their books but suffice to say that if stupidity and arrogance were capital offenses there would be acres and acres of these guys' tombstones.

Norman Bernstein
01-07-2016, 10:37 AM
That was after the economic damage had already been done - any fraud was the attempted coverup. I say "attempted" because the screwup was so incredibly huge that it couldn't be concealed.

I haven't seen the movie but for me the best line in the book is when the beleaguered hedge fund manager figures out the incredible risk involved. Basically he says, "At first I thought they were crooks. Then I realized they were just stupid."

I could relate dozens of personal stories to validate just how deeply, dangerously ignorant top management of banks and brokerage firms was about what incredibly complex, astonishingly toxic assets they had on their books but suffice to say that if stupidity and arrogance were capital offenses there would be acres and acres of these guys' tombstones.

I think the lesson to be learned is that, in corporate America, there is rarely any punishment for incompetence or stupidity... there's just bonuses.

George Jung
01-07-2016, 10:43 AM
A few on this thread simply want to (seemingly) dump on Obama for all of these short-comings. As I understand, Congress is the branch to address this. Why no similar criticism? Is it because it's Republican controlled, and distractors are simply playing partisan politics?

Norman Bernstein
01-07-2016, 10:49 AM
A few on this thread simply want to (seemingly) dump on Obama for all of these short-comings. As I understand, Congress is the branch to address this. Why no similar criticism? Is it because it's Republican controlled, and distractors are simply playing partisan politics?

Is the Pope Catholic? :)

Too Little Time
01-07-2016, 10:52 AM
A few on this thread simply want to (seemingly) dump on Obama for all of these short-comings. As I understand, Congress is the branch to address this. Why no similar criticism? Is it because it's Republican controlled, and distractors are simply playing partisan politics?
I think it is because many people still view the president as having the power to get things done. And since the SEC and Attorney General are part of the executive branch, it seems reasonable that they in the name of the president should express a need for the appropriate laws.

You might notice that both sides of political issues show graphs of of economic behavior (to use one example) with the various presidents shown on the time axis. While I think the situation is more complex, it does provide fodder for some.

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 11:37 AM
A few on this thread simply want to (seemingly) dump on Obama for all of these short-comings. As I understand, Congress is the branch to address this. Why no similar criticism? Is it because it's Republican controlled, and distractors are simply playing partisan politics?

The Congress and all the presidents starting no later than with Reagan are complicit and culpable in all this, to be sure and, yes, the big damage was done before Obama took office. But the man ran his campaign on holding the white collar criminals of Wall street accountable. It was one of the big campaign promises he ran on and easily one of the biggest reasons he got elected. He failed to genuinely try to make good on that commitment, not to mention that he's failed to do his sworn duty.

Congress is not in charge of enforcement. As chief executive and ultimate law enforcement officer of the land, it's the President's job to see that the federal laws of the nation are enforced. Obama's record in that regard is worse than dismal, clearly reflecting a decision to let these bums off the hook. There can be no justification for that.

Any suggestion that extensive criminal fraud didn't occur in the conduct leading up to the most recent financial crisis, before any attempts at cover up, is just flat wrong. Hell, some of these folks have even admitted that they were knowingly defrauding unsuspecting buyers. They were all doing it, they've said. The bottom line is that Barack Obama didn't and doesn't want to hold these bums accountable. That's indefensible.

George Jung
01-07-2016, 11:43 AM
There probably is 'justification'; I believe Norman outlined that, earlier.

With Obama, as with most folks - he gets more credit than he deserves, but he also gets more blame. Such is life.

Norman Bernstein
01-07-2016, 11:55 AM
With Obama, as with most folks - he gets more credit than he deserves, but he also gets more blame. Such is life.

It's simply a case of irrational expectations: the expectations that the campaign rhetoric, which sensible people ought to know is NOT something that ANY candidate can possibly deliver, in office, naturally results in reality falling short of the fantasy.

For folks like that, they are condemned to be eternally disappointed, and I feel sorry for them. They will NEVER feel that their choice for President, if elected, is going to wave his wand and perform magical feats of political willpower, like they hoped.

John of Phoenix
01-07-2016, 12:12 PM
I think the lesson to be learned is that, in corporate America, there is rarely any punishment for incompetence or stupidity... there's just bonuses.The last bank caused economic crisis was the S&L crisis in the 80's. Resolution Trust Corp bought properties at 50-60 cents on the dollar - a hit to the banks but the strong ones survived and they learned a lesson. They'd forgotten everything a generation later and we suffered the closest thing to an international depression you can get without going through one. We can thank those terrible government bailouts for avoiding it.

The lesson bankers have learned from their latest debacle is that the bigger the screw-up, the bigger their bonus. No surprise then that "Too Big to Fail" is bigger than ever and the clock is ticking on their next catastrophe.

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 12:23 PM
There probably is 'justification'; I believe Norman outlined that, earlier.

With Obama, as with most folks - he gets more credit than he deserves, but he also gets more blame. Such is life.

To be clear, if the possible or probable "justification" you're speaking of here is with regard to this Volkswagen thing, you and Norm may well be right in that it's too soon to know. When I used the word, just above, I was referring to the President's "handling" of the white collar criminals largely responsible for the 2008/9 financial crisis. There, at least in my opinion, the President's inaction cannot be justified.

Norman Bernstein
01-07-2016, 12:24 PM
There, at least in my opinion, the President's inaction cannot be justified.

...and you are certain that there were laws on the books which would have permitted indictment and prosecution?

According to many articles I have read, that simply wasn't the case.

George Jung
01-07-2016, 12:27 PM
No. But he's still pi$$ed! (as are we all)

Norman Bernstein
01-07-2016, 12:41 PM
No. But he's still pi$$ed! (as are we all)

It's one thing to be pissed... it's quite another to be irrational about it.

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 01:49 PM
...and you are certain that there were laws on the books which would have permitted indictment and prosecution?

According to many articles I have read, that simply wasn't the case.

Since you've mentioned the many articles that you've read confirming that there was no law permitting indictment and prosecution in the instant cases, how about sharing some with us, hopefully from credible sources. Here's one that I think is helpful:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/why-wont-obama-go-after_b_4661086.html

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 01:53 PM
And another worth reading, this time by Bill Black, a man to be trusted, I'm sure you'll agree.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-wall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/

Too Little Time
01-07-2016, 02:00 PM
...and you are certain that there were laws on the books which would have permitted indictment and prosecution?

According to many articles I have read, that simply wasn't the case.

The key to your position is "many articles." That seems to indicate that some thought there were laws. I posted a link indicating that there were laws. SullivanB posted a link indicating there were laws.

It seems a lot of people including yourself have been exposed to the opinion that there were laws, but deny it. I don't know if people would have been convicted if prosecuted. I don't even know if there were laws. But when reasonable people write that there were laws, it is very poor form to say that there are no laws.

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 02:14 PM
Here's one that gives us a bit of insight into what was actually going on in the Obama/Holder Justice Department with regard to white collar crime. It's kind of ugly and certainly not very reassuring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html?_r=1

I may have overlooked the suggestion that there were no laws available to prosecute the financial fraud perpetrated by these big banks and other big financial houses in the instances leading to the financial crisis of 2008/9. If so, please point it out to me.

John of Phoenix
01-07-2016, 02:56 PM
And another worth reading, this time by Bill Black, a man to be trusted, I'm sure you'll agree.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-wall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/Excellent article.

The savings and loan debacle was 1/70th 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.

I knew this one was bad but OMG, 70 times as bad as the S&L debacle. Professor Black is pretty good with sarcasm too.


Instead it’s those nasty ultra-sophisticated hairdressers who conned the poor unsophisticated bankers from Harvard and Columbia and NYU to cause this crisis

SullivanB
01-07-2016, 03:04 PM
After Bernie is elected, I'd love to see him appoint Black to his cabinet, maybe AG.

Rigadog
02-07-2016, 08:35 AM
Finally saw this movie. It was excellent. It pissed me off. It really gets at what Sanders has been hammering at. I was leaning towards the Clintons on a pragmatic basis, I will now push the button for Sanders.

I am really looking forward to Michael Moore's new movie, "Where do We Invade Next?". It will piss me off even more I fear.

(BTW Michael Moore is in the hospital. I hope he will be okay. He is a national treasure...)

SullivanB
02-07-2016, 09:25 AM
Clinton blasts Wall Street, but still draws millions in contributions.

So reads the title of the article (link, below) that tells of the keen and very impressive competition between Hill and Bill to determine which of them will hold the title for raking in the most dough from Wall Street. An excerpt:

Even as Hillary Clinton has stepped up her rhetorical assault on Wall Street, her campaign and allied super PACs have continued to rake in millions from the financial sector, a sign of her deep and lasting relationships with banking and investment titans.
Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run — more than 10 percent of the $157.8 million contributed to back her bid, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by The Washington Post.
The contributions helped Clinton reach a fundraising milestone: By the end of 2015, she had brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns than her *husband did during his *quarter-century political career.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9

Reality is that Hillary has surpassed even Slick Willy in taking bribes for Wall Street and in conning the American people. Reading Rigadog's comment, just above, it's refreshing to know that this movie has enlightened another American by shining the light of day on the connection between Wall Street's money and the politicians it corrupts.