5 ms·

This is frankly a non-response. You're defining corruption as "things I don't like". If you're going to argue that someone is corrupt, you need to be specific a

This is frankly a non-response. You're defining corruption as "things I don't like". If you're going to argue that someone is corrupt, you need to be specific as to what you're accusing them of, and how that fits into a theory of corruption. Your "case in point" points out the obvious: that people lost a lot of money in a market crash and economic downturn. But market crashes don't require any wrongdoing. In this case there is in fact evidence that some people were criminally dishonest. Some mortgage brokers who were complicit in applicants' lies, for example. But it's not readily apparent that investment banks did anything wrong, other than make bad decisions for themselves and their customers.

wallace_f 9y ago
You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed any of the examples I gave to support your argument. To my knowledge these are mostly widely-reported, commonly viewed cases of corruption. Perhaps you could meet me In the middle and try to convince me of why you are right that they aren't, and use more respectful language rather than just lashing out repeatedly "that's ridiculous?" Here is Bernie Sanders on the Fed: ""This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." I guess I thought that was self evident in my posts, though?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Individuals did get bailed out from their mortgages. And the banks paid back the bailout money with interest; the government made a profit. I'm not sure myself whether the bailouts were the right policy, but they were motivated by genuine policy considerations. People feared that letting the banks fail would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. But even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn't make you corrupt. From your original post: The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head. We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality. These aren't claims about corruption, it's a list of things you don't agree with.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically. If you don't think police killing people and getting away with it is evidence of corruption, or government lying to go to war for profit, etc, etc... then first I would have to ask what your definition of corruption is? The fact is why most people view these as corruption, so what's wrong with that viewpoint? How about this: what in your mind is an example of corruption?
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically." There is no reason the Fed would have been paid back. The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks. The architect of TARP was Timothy Geitner the then Treasury Secretary. The Fed didn't lend any money. The Fed is essentially a nonprofit, after their expenses any profits are always transferred to the US Treasury. And you are also wrong about the government not making a profit: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        Come on, if you read my post you would be aware that the TARP program you are referencing was only a small fraction of the bail out. The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money! They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates, but they also lend through something called the discount window, and by other means. Where in God's name are you getting so misinformed regarding what the Fed does? >The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks You would be further behooved to know that since the financial crisis, the Fed has even bought an enormous share of the MBS market, and even other toxic assets! So no, the Fed actually bought many times more assets from the banks than the TARP program. >The Fed didn't lend any money. Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have: I don't know where you got it from, and why you are so insistent on reiterating that I am wrong, silly, etc. Here is the reality: >"Fed facilitated bailouts to financially troubled institutions by invoking its so-called emergency lending authority. The government even forced some banks to take the money against their objections"(1) So no, no, and no! And the Fed doesn't need to pay anyone back because they simply print their own money and go buy an asset with it. It is really that simple! It doesn't mean you can get something for nothing, they're just dilluting everyone else's wealth. Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation. You've responded aggressively to me like this to me multiple times, and it's coming across as targeted. If you have some personal issue just let me know what your grievance is and we can work towards a solution. 1 - http://dailysignal.com/2009/05/15/paulson-and-the-banks-what-an-offer-you-can%E2%80%99t-refuse-looks-like/ http://dailysignal.com/2009/05/15/paulson-and-the-banks-what... Also see (yes they're biased, but it's a great, thoroughly-sourced article nonetheless) www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/report/quantitative-easing-the-feds-balance-sheet-and-central-bank-insolvency
mistermann 9y ago
This to me sounds more or less like the meant-to-confuse arguments given by the people involved and their lawyers to confuse the general public until they throw up their hands in despair. I followed the financial crisis closely enough to know that there were numerous laws broken all over the place, and nothing happened. And no, I'm not going to participate in some nonsense back and forth posting articles to "prove" this, es the ultimate "proof" is always going to be what was decided in a court of "law", which simply demonstrates OP's claim of widespread corruption, but only if you're willing to look honestly.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

wallace_f 9y ago

You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed any of the examples I gave to support your argument. To my knowledge these are mostly widely-reported, commonly viewed cases of corruption. Perhaps you could meet me In the middle and try to convince me of why you are right that they aren't, and use more respectful language rather than just lashing out repeatedly "that's ridiculous?" Here is Bernie Sanders on the Fed: ""This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." I guess I thought that was self evident in my posts, though?

marcoperaza 9y ago
Individuals did get bailed out from their mortgages. And the banks paid back the bailout money with interest; the government made a profit. I'm not sure myself whether the bailouts were the right policy, but they were motivated by genuine policy considerations. People feared that letting the banks fail would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. But even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn't make you corrupt. From your original post: The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head. We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality. These aren't claims about corruption, it's a list of things you don't agree with.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically. If you don't think police killing people and getting away with it is evidence of corruption, or government lying to go to war for profit, etc, etc... then first I would have to ask what your definition of corruption is? The fact is why most people view these as corruption, so what's wrong with that viewpoint? How about this: what in your mind is an example of corruption?
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically." There is no reason the Fed would have been paid back. The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks. The architect of TARP was Timothy Geitner the then Treasury Secretary. The Fed didn't lend any money. The Fed is essentially a nonprofit, after their expenses any profits are always transferred to the US Treasury. And you are also wrong about the government not making a profit: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      Come on, if you read my post you would be aware that the TARP program you are referencing was only a small fraction of the bail out. The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money! They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates, but they also lend through something called the discount window, and by other means. Where in God's name are you getting so misinformed regarding what the Fed does? >The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks You would be further behooved to know that since the financial crisis, the Fed has even bought an enormous share of the MBS market, and even other toxic assets! So no, the Fed actually bought many times more assets from the banks than the TARP program. >The Fed didn't lend any money. Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have: I don't know where you got it from, and why you are so insistent on reiterating that I am wrong, silly, etc. Here is the reality: >"Fed facilitated bailouts to financially troubled institutions by invoking its so-called emergency lending authority. The government even forced some banks to take the money against their objections"(1) So no, no, and no! And the Fed doesn't need to pay anyone back because they simply print their own money and go buy an asset with it. It is really that simple! It doesn't mean you can get something for nothing, they're just dilluting everyone else's wealth. Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation. You've responded aggressively to me like this to me multiple times, and it's coming across as targeted. If you have some personal issue just let me know what your grievance is and we can work towards a solution. 1 - http://dailysignal.com/2009/05/15/paulson-and-the-banks-what-an-offer-you-can%E2%80%99t-refuse-looks-like/ http://dailysignal.com/2009/05/15/paulson-and-the-banks-what... Also see (yes they're biased, but it's a great, thoroughly-sourced article nonetheless) www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/report/quantitative-easing-the-feds-balance-sheet-and-central-bank-insolvency

mistermann 9y ago

This to me sounds more or less like the meant-to-confuse arguments given by the people involved and their lawyers to confuse the general public until they throw up their hands in despair. I followed the financial crisis closely enough to know that there were numerous laws broken all over the place, and nothing happened. And no, I'm not going to participate in some nonsense back and forth posting articles to "prove" this, es the ultimate "proof" is always going to be what was decided in a court of "law", which simply demonstrates OP's claim of widespread corruption, but only if you're willing to look honestly.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]