6 ms·

OP here. Given the current story re HSBC's misbehaviour, I thought it worth reminding everyone of the scale of the theft that took place during the bank bailout

by sjcsjc 12y ago

OP here. Given the current story re HSBC's misbehaviour, I thought it worth reminding everyone of the scale of the theft that took place during the bank bailout.

themartorana 12y ago
This, HSBC lending money to rouge nations and drug cartels, the LIBOR scandal, and not a single person is in jail. Not to mention that the Fed made available and lent up to $7T to banks (without telling Congress) right before TARP was rushed through. Smoke some weed, go to jail. Do it three times, go to jail for life in CA. MANDATORY. Especially if you're black. If these and other ongoing similar "crimes" don't convince you that we're living in an oligarchy, and our precious democracy/republic is a farce at best, well, I don't know what will.
- rayiner 12y ago
  California's three-strikes law was supported by a 72-28 vote in a public referendum. At the time of the vote, nation-wide, the public supported keeping marijuana illegal by an over 70-30 margin: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports.... Our drug and sentencing laws are the result of democracy, not oligarchy.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    But we don't live in a democracy, and expect better from the Republic bound by the Constitution, which is pretty clear about unjust punishment. If a democracy and majority rule were the true rule of the land, we may still have segregation, slavery, illegal mixed-race marriages, and so on, and so on... Now look at what class our electorate is largely made up of. Mix that with a little Citizens United and it becomes clear again that money controls government (and now rather blatantly) and it's not often that decisions are made that benefit the weakest among us - drug policy and the war on drugs being just one example.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      You're trying to tie-together two narratives that make no sense in conjunction. Do we have the drug war because of tyranny of the majority, or Citizens United money overriding the will of the majority? I'd posit the evidence shows that the majority strongly supported making drugs illegal and meting out harsh sentences, at least at the time the laws were put into place. If that's the case, the whole "oligarchy" narrative is superfluous.
      - themartorana 12y ago
        The majority is often in support all sorts of policies that are against their best interests. That has nothing to do with what agenda is moved forward by the oligarchy.
  - foobarian 12y ago
    That doesn't follow. All the oligarchs have to do is carefully pick the referendum topics to achieve their agenda. You sure didn't see any referendum on whether to bail out the banks.
    - arthurcolle 12y ago
      I'm sure the average citizen has enough working knowledge of monetary policy to make an informed decision about bank recapitalization. Please.
      - themartorana 12y ago
        They then also have a working knowledge of the psychological, human, and monetary costs of a never-ending war against our own citizens, the inability to distinguish between crime and addiction and disease, the extremely regressive nature of drug addiction, recidivism rates of minor criminals in to hardened felons, the stifling effect of a felony conviction on upward mobility, and everything else proven to be utterly destructive about the war on drugs. The majority is rarely well educated about anything. Pretending their support on the war on drugs is somehow more informed than on bank bailouts is silly.
        arthurcolle 12y ago
        EDIT: My apologies, I didn't realize the comment thread I had posted to was started as a comment about drug laws. I was merely commenting about my general philosophical belief that democracy is not optimal because an uninformed population should not be making decisions it is uninformed about. Unedited previous comment: --------------------------------------------------------------- I don't understand your comment, friend. I said nothing about the 'war on drugs'. Uninformed participants in a political or economic system should not be making decisions that affect others in any way. Random citizen John Smith will, out of a sense of righteous indignation, decide against any useful regulation for banks because he is upset that they get recapitalized while his mortgage terms do not get favorably renegotiated, irrespective of the intellectual value of his decision. Banking and financial activities are fundamental to a healthy and growing economy and everything from home mortgages to credit cards to IPOs are driven by a bank's ability to extend credit and deliver banking services to the citizenry of a country. Bonuses are generally speaking a direct function of a bank's PROFITABILITY, not its ability to cater to every individual's whims and desires to become some rockstar 'rich person' or even the populace's desire to remain middle class. Services are provided, and profits are distributed accordingly. If affecting political policy is beneficial to shareholders, decisions like Citizens United are logical and the exact type of decisions I'd want my board of directors to make, as an investor, and if that contributes to maximal economic growth then it is optimal for human society, with the exception of environmental concerns which need to be taken more seriously then they have been in our immediate past.
cones688 12y ago
appreciate the sentiment but HSBC didn't take a dollar, pound or Euro of bailout money.
- desdiv 12y ago
  HSBC got $3.5 billion from the AIG bailout: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/arch...
sliverstorm 12y ago
If it was all paid back though, what was the magnitude of the theft? If we say 8% return was too low given the risk, the value that was stolen from the public is the marginal interest the public missed out on. So what was the right rate of return? If it was 10%, that's 2% marginal rate not captured. How long was the term of the loans? 5 years? That works out to roughly $70B over 5 years. I'm not claiming that's a small number (!) but if we are calling it theft, we should qualify the theft more concretely.

by sjcsjc 12y ago

OP here. Given the current story re HSBC's misbehaviour, I thought it worth reminding everyone of the scale of the theft that took place during the bank bailout.

themartorana 12y ago

This, HSBC lending money to rouge nations and drug cartels, the LIBOR scandal, and not a single person is in jail. Not to mention that the Fed made available and lent up to $7T to banks (without telling Congress) right before TARP was rushed through. Smoke some weed, go to jail. Do it three times, go to jail for life in CA. MANDATORY. Especially if you're black. If these and other ongoing similar "crimes" don't convince you that we're living in an oligarchy, and our precious democracy/republic is a farce at best, well, I don't know what will.

rayiner 12y ago
California's three-strikes law was supported by a 72-28 vote in a public referendum. At the time of the vote, nation-wide, the public supported keeping marijuana illegal by an over 70-30 margin: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports.... Our drug and sentencing laws are the result of democracy, not oligarchy.
- themartorana 12y ago
  But we don't live in a democracy, and expect better from the Republic bound by the Constitution, which is pretty clear about unjust punishment. If a democracy and majority rule were the true rule of the land, we may still have segregation, slavery, illegal mixed-race marriages, and so on, and so on... Now look at what class our electorate is largely made up of. Mix that with a little Citizens United and it becomes clear again that money controls government (and now rather blatantly) and it's not often that decisions are made that benefit the weakest among us - drug policy and the war on drugs being just one example.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    You're trying to tie-together two narratives that make no sense in conjunction. Do we have the drug war because of tyranny of the majority, or Citizens United money overriding the will of the majority? I'd posit the evidence shows that the majority strongly supported making drugs illegal and meting out harsh sentences, at least at the time the laws were put into place. If that's the case, the whole "oligarchy" narrative is superfluous.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      The majority is often in support all sorts of policies that are against their best interests. That has nothing to do with what agenda is moved forward by the oligarchy.
- foobarian 12y ago
  That doesn't follow. All the oligarchs have to do is carefully pick the referendum topics to achieve their agenda. You sure didn't see any referendum on whether to bail out the banks.
  - arthurcolle 12y ago
    I'm sure the average citizen has enough working knowledge of monetary policy to make an informed decision about bank recapitalization. Please.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      They then also have a working knowledge of the psychological, human, and monetary costs of a never-ending war against our own citizens, the inability to distinguish between crime and addiction and disease, the extremely regressive nature of drug addiction, recidivism rates of minor criminals in to hardened felons, the stifling effect of a felony conviction on upward mobility, and everything else proven to be utterly destructive about the war on drugs. The majority is rarely well educated about anything. Pretending their support on the war on drugs is somehow more informed than on bank bailouts is silly.
      - arthurcolle 12y ago
        EDIT: My apologies, I didn't realize the comment thread I had posted to was started as a comment about drug laws. I was merely commenting about my general philosophical belief that democracy is not optimal because an uninformed population should not be making decisions it is uninformed about. Unedited previous comment: --------------------------------------------------------------- I don't understand your comment, friend. I said nothing about the 'war on drugs'. Uninformed participants in a political or economic system should not be making decisions that affect others in any way. Random citizen John Smith will, out of a sense of righteous indignation, decide against any useful regulation for banks because he is upset that they get recapitalized while his mortgage terms do not get favorably renegotiated, irrespective of the intellectual value of his decision. Banking and financial activities are fundamental to a healthy and growing economy and everything from home mortgages to credit cards to IPOs are driven by a bank's ability to extend credit and deliver banking services to the citizenry of a country. Bonuses are generally speaking a direct function of a bank's PROFITABILITY, not its ability to cater to every individual's whims and desires to become some rockstar 'rich person' or even the populace's desire to remain middle class. Services are provided, and profits are distributed accordingly. If affecting political policy is beneficial to shareholders, decisions like Citizens United are logical and the exact type of decisions I'd want my board of directors to make, as an investor, and if that contributes to maximal economic growth then it is optimal for human society, with the exception of environmental concerns which need to be taken more seriously then they have been in our immediate past.

cones688 12y ago

appreciate the sentiment but HSBC didn't take a dollar, pound or Euro of bailout money.

desdiv 12y ago
HSBC got $3.5 billion from the AIG bailout: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/arch...

sliverstorm 12y ago

If it was all paid back though, what was the magnitude of the theft? If we say 8% return was too low given the risk, the value that was stolen from the public is the marginal interest the public missed out on. So what was the right rate of return? If it was 10%, that's 2% marginal rate not captured. How long was the term of the loans? 5 years? That works out to roughly $70B over 5 years. I'm not claiming that's a small number (!) but if we are calling it theft, we should qualify the theft more concretely.