wall st ties to government = government sachs

JC29856

let see how closely tied government is to wall street or vice verse.

It seems that every few weeks, another Goldman Sachs executive goes to work for a government agency, with bankers landing in positions of power at the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and pulling the levers of the massive trillion-dollar federal bailout.

And it is amazing to me the degree to which, say, Goldman Sachs is intertwined with the Treasury, and how they're -- there don't seem to be any independent voices in the thick of the decision-making. The decision-making is all being done by people who one way or another might expect to make a lot of money from Goldman Sachs in the future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/0 ... 10561.html

JC29856

check out this interactive map, its clickable

http://www.muckety.com/897792228FFFA019 ... 26FE6D.map

JC29856

There’s nothing new about this tradition – indeed there was a time not so long ago when it seemed as if actually running Goldman Sachs was a prerequisite for serving as Secretary of the Treasury. But the triple whammy of the financial crisis, the trillion-dollar government bailout and the return of lavish bonuses to many on Wall Street while unemployment in the United States is stuck above 9 percent has cast the intimacy between political and business elites in a new, often more jaundiced light.

http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freel ... -revolves/

JC29856

Let’s look at the Goldman Sachs government that we have in place now, that is masked by Barack Obama. Fittingly, we begin with Obama:

http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/201 ... tentacles/


http://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an ... ena-kagan/

polaris_x

corporate run gov't

JC29856

every single taxpaying citizen should read this...if u dont believe it do your own research

Secrets and Lies of the Bailout
The federal rescue of Wall Street didn’t fix the economy – it created a permanent bailout state based on a Ponzi-like confidence scheme. And the worst may be yet to come


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z2I9GvQ7HL

MotoDC

I agree there should be less intertwining between gov't and corps but if you're going to regulate the shit out of something, shouldn't that something have some say in it? Not all businesses are big, "evil" GS. Most aren't, in fact. Most are just a collection of people who create a product that another collection of people want to buy.

Another perspective is that without industry input (whether from former industry folks who transitioned to a regulatory role or current industry players), most regulators wouldn't know what to regulate in the first place. Do you think the federal gov't just automatically knows how to run a bank?

JC29856

MotoDC wrote:

I agree there should be less intertwining between gov't and corps but if you're going to regulate the shit out of something, shouldn't that something have some say in it? Not all businesses are big, "evil" GS. Most aren't, in fact. Most are just a collection of people who create a product that another collection of people want to buy.

Another perspective is that without industry input (whether from former industry folks who transitioned to a regulatory role or current industry players), most regulators wouldn't know what to regulate in the first place. Do you think the federal gov't just automatically knows how to run a bank?

i agree but i dont think the regulations should be written by the private sector then handed over to the govt for there stamp of approval, which was the case with the oil and gas regulations a few years back.
its not the fed govt job to run banks but it is their collective job to see that the bank is run fairly. in any event the point isnt about regulation or running private businesses its the effects the "revolving door" has had on real living people, your family friends and neighbors that either "lost" their savings, "lost" their homes, or were defrauded or deceived. people talk about regulation like its a bad thing but how can the sec even think about going after goliath companies when they have no budget, (we pay more in corn subsidies then fund sec!) how can gov protect the people when the "know how" goes to work for the private sector not the regulators. its obvious this is what the american people want, if your happy and you know it clap your hands!(i dont here many clapping?)

MotoDC

JC wrote:

i agree but i dont think the regulations should be written by the private sector then handed over to the govt for there stamp of approval, which was the case with the oil and gas regulations a few years back.
its not the fed govt job to run banks but it is their collective job to see that the bank is run fairly.

Right but without knowing the industry and how a bank runs itself, one cannot create effective regulation. The point is that if we're going to have substantial regulation, the regs need to be created with some form of cooperation between the regulators and regulatees. You and polaris probably trust the federal gov't more than you should, I probably trust businesses more than I should. But again, GS isn't the only business out there. Sorta like how the tax debate didn't solely impact the ultra-rich, though that seemed to be the focus of so many of the arguments. It's easy to attack the billionaires and GS's of the world and feel pretty good about yourself.

in any event the point isnt about regulation or running private businesses its the effects the "revolving door" has had on real living people, your family friends and neighbors that either "lost" their savings, "lost" their homes, or were defrauded or deceived. people talk about regulation like its a bad thing but how can the sec even think about going after goliath companies when they have no budget, (we pay more in corn subsidies then fund sec!) how can gov protect the people when the "know how" goes to work for the private sector not the regulators. its obvious this is what the american people want, if your happy and you know it clap your hands!(i dont here many clapping?)

The conversation kinda devolves here as you start talking about things that can't really be analyzed or discussed in a rational way. You say things like "the effects the revolving door has had on real living people" which isn't meaningful without drawing the lines between exactly which industry-inspired regulations (or lack thereof) impacted my family/friends/etc. Otherwise we're just boxing with giant shadows.

polaris_x

that's absurd ... so, you can't regulate an industry unless you've previously worked for them? ... no wonder it's such a clustercuss down there ...

it's funny because there is a vocal group of people who believe in less gov't regulation, smaller gov't, etc.. but they have no problem having it run by people with corporate ties ... it's like if the choice is between a gov't run by corporations or run by the people - they choose corporations ...

JC29856

you're right i was speaking in broad terms..as far a the foreclosure scandal, look into "qualified mortgage"

here is a good piece

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/ ... tence.html

how about enron?

JC29856

example:
oil and gas industry wrote the regulations for the government a few years back, no shocker since the entire white house was marinated in oil

MotoDC

JC29856 wrote:

you're right i was speaking in broad terms..as far a the foreclosure scandal, look into "qualified mortgage"

here is a good piece

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/ ... tence.html

how about enron?

Very interesting article. Not a ton of new info there for me, but the memory plays tricks sometimes, so it's good to be reminded. Interesting that most of the article is dedicated to complaining about one of the regulators (OCC) and also about activities that are already illegal (mainly fraud). Then that begs the question -- how will more regulation help? Depends how you define regulation, I suppose. We need a way to make sure the banks (or borrowers or originators, etc) aren't breaking the laws that already exist. One option is to bring in independent third parties, but the article decries the independence of the consultants brought in to review loan files at BoA. While I doubt that's an industry-wide phenomenon, even the appearance of a lack of independence puts the whole exercise in question.

In any case, third-party review of every loan file (or even a statistical sampling) isn't sustainable and at some point, begins to punish the innocent. I.e., at some point, we have to consider BoA (i.e., Countrywide) et al to have paid for their sins. That time is not yet nigh, but when it is, what then? They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars responding to these Consent Orders to atone for a comparatively small volume of actual foreclosure sins. It becomes punitive, rather than corrective, which is fine b/c they did have some crimes to pay for. But it can't go on as punitive forever, and, frankly, if something's to be punitive, shouldn't there be some due process by the appropriate legal bodies?

Ugh didn't really mean to focus on punitive/corrective thing for that whole paragraph. What I'm trying to get at is the difference between monitoring and regulating. Where the banks went wrong in this situation, in most cases, they went wrong in ways that were already illegal. Need to have a better way to catch them when they do.

JC29856

MotoDC wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

you're right i was speaking in broad terms..as far a the foreclosure scandal, look into "qualified mortgage"

here is a good piece

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/ ... tence.html

how about enron?

Very interesting article. Not a ton of new info there for me, but the memory plays tricks sometimes, so it's good to be reminded. Interesting that most of the article is dedicated to complaining about one of the regulators (OCC) and also about activities that are already illegal (mainly fraud). Then that begs the question -- how will more regulation help? Depends how you define regulation, I suppose. We need a way to make sure the banks (or borrowers or originators, etc) aren't breaking the laws that already exist. One option is to bring in independent third parties, but the article decries the independence of the consultants brought in to review loan files at BoA. While I doubt that's an industry-wide phenomenon, even the appearance of a lack of independence puts the whole exercise in question.

In any case, third-party review of every loan file (or even a statistical sampling) isn't sustainable and at some point, begins to punish the innocent. I.e., at some point, we have to consider BoA (i.e., Countrywide) et al to have paid for their sins. That time is not yet nigh, but when it is, what then? They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars responding to these Consent Orders to atone for a comparatively small volume of actual foreclosure sins. It becomes punitive, rather than corrective, which is fine b/c they did have some crimes to pay for. But it can't go on as punitive forever, and, frankly, if something's to be punitive, shouldn't there be some due process by the appropriate legal bodies?

Ugh didn't really mean to focus on punitive/corrective thing for that whole paragraph. What I'm trying to get at is the difference between monitoring and regulating. Where the banks went wrong in this situation, in most cases, they went wrong in ways that were already illegal. Need to have a better way to catch them when they do.

u make great points, i think what is old news to you is not old news to most (IMO)... no one called for more regulation, just regulation and enforcement with teeth and maybe justice, obviously the consent orders were theater... what im trying to get out is how come business can be too big to fail but govt cannot be too big to regulate, monitor and serve justice. if businesses are to big to fail then maybe they are just plain too big (as compared to the bodies that govern them, as compared to the states there granted charter in).

some things worth mentioning:
4 million homes were illegally stolen from homeowners (i dont consider that small)
when the fraud was uncovered the banks went crying to the govt and struck a deal with state AGs, bypassing due process for defrauded homeowners
if you or I forged loan documents then went and stole just 1 home, we would be in jail, period. i dont think our state AG would lend us an ear then slap us with minimal penalties as compared to our income then grant us immunity

MotoDC

u make great points, i think what is old news to you is not old news to most (IMO)

Fair enough; wasn't intended as denigration of your link, moreso as a statement of my familiarity with the topic.

... no one called for more regulation, just regulation and enforcement with teeth and maybe justice, obviously the consent orders were theater...

But that's exactly what we got -- two different regulators issuing almost identical COs with just enough nuanced difference between them to substantially increase response LOE at the involved banks. This is why I spoke to the punitive vs corrective concept in my prior post -- to the extent the COs were just theater (I can understand why some people feel that way), they were quite punitive due to the cost of responding to them.

We can get into the whole correctional system debate of whether punitive is inherently corrective due to the implied deterrent factor, but I'm not really equipped for that.

4 million homes were illegally stolen from homeowners (i dont consider that small)

Not sure where you're getting that number, unless you're implying that nearly every repossessed home in the last 5 years was fraudulent.

when the fraud was uncovered the banks went crying to the govt and struck a deal with state AGs, bypassing due process for defrauded homeowners
if you or I forged loan documents then went and stole just 1 home, we would be in jail, period. i dont think our state AG would lend us an ear then slap us with minimal penalties as compared to our income then grant us immunity

Absolutely agree. Corporations should not be held to different standards. Challenging to figure out who to punish, though. Fire the CEO? Company pays fines? Who really made the decisions to foreclose fraudulently?

JC29856

to quote a great actor..."i gotta lotta mo for ya, gotta lotta mo"

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/37705.html

to quote a great singer..."and the beat goes on...doot doot da doot"

Bank of America Foreclosure Reviews: Whistleblowers Reveal Extensive Borrower Harm and Orchestrated Coverup

Overwhelming evidence of widespread, systematic abuses .
OCC’s badly flawed review structure compounded by complex, chaotic,and undermanaged implementation by Promontory.

Concerted efforts to suppress finding of harm.

Dubious role of Promontory.

Nine circles of modification hell.

Suspense account abuses

Obvious padding in capitalized fees in mortgage modifications

Impermissible charges in bankruptcy

Zombie title.

Force placed insurance and force place escrow.

JC29856

great article on the housing market recovery... a couple of points to ponder: free markets, true pricing, govt and private sectors ties
more at
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/25/ ... erful-fed/

For example, what if there were signs that the market was being manipulated with historic low rates, lavish mortgage modification programs, blanket gov underwriting and financing of mortgage loans, shadow inventory that is being deliberately withheld from the market to keep prices artificially high, and a $45 billion per month mortgage-backed securities (MBS) bond buying program (QE) designed to incentivize banks to lend more money to loan applicants? Would that change your attitude about whether the so called recovery was real or not?

After all, the presumption is that houses are bought and sold in a free “market” which Investopedia defines as: “A medium that allows buyers and sellers of a specific good or service to interact in order to facilitate an exchange. The price that individuals pay during the transaction may be determined by a number of factors, but price is often determined by the forces of supply and demand.” (Investopedia)

So, how does this definition apply to our current US housing market?

It doesn’t apply at all, does it, because everything has been manipulated from top to bottom by the people who are supposed to be the system’s impartial referees.

“Impartial”? You gotta be kidding. Interest rates have been slashed in half from 6.5% in 2005 to 3.25% today. How impartial is that? Mr. Market didn’t create that phony “rate stimulus”. Mr Bernanke did! This is central planning at its worst. Capital is being diverted into sinking, unproductive industries, like housing, not because it helps the broader economy and puts people back to work, but because Bernanke’s criminal friends on Wall Street need another handout. Isn’t that what’s happening?