PDA

View Full Version : Where are the bank regulators? bank fraud



Peter1469
07-21-2012, 07:56 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/nocera-financial-scandal-scorecard.html?_r=1


This article discusses several massive bank frauds. Where are the regulators? Where are the prosecutors?

Chris
07-21-2012, 09:23 AM
As per discussion in fraud. why the great recession (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/4535-fraud-why-the-great-recession), the government, rather than prosecuting, is protecting fraudulent banksters.

Peter1469
07-21-2012, 09:27 AM
That is exactly what is happening.

Chris
07-21-2012, 09:58 AM
Right. Think I may have posted this before, but..


Despite the ideological miles that separate them, activists in the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements agree on one thing: both condemn the recent bailouts of wealthy and well-connected banks. To the Tea Partiers, these bailouts were an unwarranted federal intrusion into the free market; to the Occupiers, they were a taxpayer-financed gift to the wealthy executives whose malfeasance brought on the financial crisis.

To both, the bailouts smacked of cronyism.The financial bailouts of 2008 were but one example in a long list of privileges that governments occasionally bestow upon particular firms or particular industries. At various times and places, these privileges have included (among other things) monopoly status, favorable regulations, subsidies, bailouts, loan guarantees, targeted tax breaks, protection from foreign competition, and noncompetitive contracts.

Whatever its guise, government-granted privilege is an extraordinarily destructive force. It misdirects resources, impedes genuine economic progress, breeds corruption, and undermines the legitimacy of both the government and the private sector....

The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism (http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/The-Pathology-of-Privilege-Final_0.pdf) (.pdf)

Conley
07-21-2012, 10:47 AM
Yes, and by not prosecuting the crimes they are setting up the financial system for an even bigger crash next time. We wont be in a position to recover as easily, if at all when that happens.

Peter1469
07-21-2012, 10:57 AM
Yes, and by not prosecuting the crimes they are setting up the financial system for an even bigger crash next time. We wont be in a position to recover as easily, if at all when that happens.
Yes, that; plus we are using tax dollars to bail out the bankers. That is your grandchildren's future being flushed down the toilet.

Conley
07-21-2012, 11:09 AM
Yes, that; plus we are using tax dollars to bail out the bankers. That is your grandchildren's future being flushed down the toilet.

Exactly...who's money will we use for the next bailout? And the one after that? At some point the whole house of cards is going to come crashing down and there won't be anything the Fed or anyone else can do about it.

Chris
07-21-2012, 11:17 AM
Just heard Frank-Dodd now consists of over 8000 laws and counting. What a farce. Regulate the damned government.

Peter1469
07-21-2012, 12:45 PM
Just heard Frank-Dodd now consists of over 8000 laws and counting. What a farce. Regulate the damned government.

:shocked: I am not sure how you "regulate" a government. How about force it to act within its mandate as written in the US. Const.?

Dodd Frank was largely written by big business- to harm their small business competitors. I say treat the two types of entities differently. Small businesses can be almost completely regulated by the criminal code and the free market. Large businesses not so much.

roadmaster
07-21-2012, 03:22 PM
I used to have a niece in the banking industry. If a person was ever one day late when sending a payment even if they got the next check early, they would hold it and make sure it went in late to up their interest. These people are crooks. The selling of loans ect, it's a big scam and we bailed them out. :rollseyes:

Chris
07-21-2012, 03:54 PM
:shocked: I am not sure how you "regulate" a government. How about force it to act within its mandate as written in the US. Const.?

Dodd Frank was largely written by big business- to harm their small business competitors. I say treat the two types of entities differently. Small businesses can be almost completely regulated by the criminal code and the free market. Large businesses not so much.


You're probably right, the Constitution is supposed to regulate it, when was the last time our government took a look at it?



Dodd Frank was largely written by big business- to harm their small business competitors.

Where does the Constitution grant big business any such powers?

Peter1469
07-21-2012, 06:21 PM
You're probably right, the Constitution is supposed to regulate it, when was the last time our government took a look at it?




Where does the Constitution grant big business any such powers?


It doesn't. But I have been advocating our federal government only acting within its constitutional parameters.

Chris
07-21-2012, 06:25 PM
It doesn't. But I have been advocating our federal government only acting within its constitutional parameters.

Then the answer is in the declaration.

I think common law as developed by the Romans and especially the English separated the court from the government as a private entity. We haven't had that.

I suppose there's always the amendment process.

Peter1469
07-21-2012, 07:14 PM
Then the answer is in the declaration.

I think common law as developed by the Romans and especially the English separated the court from the government as a private entity. We haven't had that.

I suppose there's always the amendment process.

I am against using the Amendment process. That acknowledges that the current system is legitimate. But if it takes an amendment process or a convention, ok.

RollingWave
07-23-2012, 04:24 AM
It doesn't. But I have been advocating our federal government only acting within its constitutional parameters.

While I certainly agree fully in theory, that seems difficult in practice considering the rather wide gap between the simplicity of the constitution versus the complexity of modern day society...

Chris
07-23-2012, 05:37 AM
I am against using the Amendment process. That acknowledges that the current system is legitimate. But if it takes an amendment process or a convention, ok.

It acknowledges the Constitution is legit, not the fraudulent, corrupt system.

Peter1469
07-23-2012, 06:24 AM
While I certainly agree fully in theory, that seems difficult in practice considering the rather wide gap between the simplicity of the constitution versus the complexity of modern day society...

It is not difficult. The states gave the federal government the limited and enumerated powers as listed. If the people think that the federal government needs more power, the Founders provided for two methods: amendment or a constitutional convention.