Log In | Register
The magnitude and coincidence of borrowing and returning of shares is evidence of a concerted effort to drive down Citigroup's stock price and achieve a profit, i.e., a bear raid. Interpretations and analyses of financial markets should consider the possibility that the intentional actions of individual actors or coordinated groups can impact market behavior.
Evidence of market manipulation in the financial crisis
Seeded on Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:43 AM EST
Article Source: astro-ph updates on arXiv.org
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (120)
Author: Markets are not sufficiently transparent to reveal even major market manipulation events. Our results point to the need for regulations that prevent intentional actions that cause markets to deviate from equilibrium and contribute to crashes. Enforcement actions cannot reverse severe damage to the economic system. The current "alternative" uptick rule which is only in effect for stocks dropping by over 10% in a single day is insufficient. Prevention may be achieved through improved availability of market data and the original uptick rule or other transaction limitations.
- 27 votes
Just remember the entire right presidential field, including the all mighty Ron Paul, would like to remove the weak ass regulations we have.
They are still in denial that the private market had anything to do with anything, because the private market is always beholden to government... as we can plainly tell, this is true.... er not.
- 33 votes
We the people find we have been under the influence of a shadow government, shadow market, shadow banking, shadow military etc. What's up with that? Pretty obvious the mouseoles are only interested in covering their tracks during the Great American Rip-off, Die-off, F-off.
- 22 votes
Another reason that Occupy Wall Street is in the right places.
- 30 votes
Yeah, but we will show them - we will bring suits against ex Fannie and Freddie executives - that will show them!!
- 9 votes
Actually the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission have a law on their books clearly stating anything other than the natural supply and demand of the market is illegal. WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN DOING THEIR JOBS? We are really at a point where we need to sort out the regulators that are not doing their jobs and fire them.
Then the SEC needs to sort who is buying and then selling back shares to manipulate the market, take them to court and fine them. Then the worst of the worst need to have criminal charges brought against them so their butts can be sued off by the people be hurt by their greedy white collar crime.
- 22 votes
mountain
because there are so many loopholes that it makes that particular law pretty much meaningless.
Any activity on the market by the way has an impact. How do you define what is natural and what isn't.
- 5 votes
They don't even need loopholes. A lot of laws are passed seemingly for show-- they say all the right things but there is no provision for enforcement or penalties. No teeth to them, in other words.
- 13 votes
Boehner and Pelosi and many others love all the Insider Trading deals they made legal for them so they can get rich off the rest of us.
REVOLUTION people, time to take back all that they have stolen from the American people and the consumers.
These people should all be in jail, not running and ruining our country for the rest if us.
- 9 votes
Oh the SEC does have force, they are just in a lot of cases undermanned, and in some cases, just as susceptable to the marketing bull@!$%# of the industry. Does anyone think that Madoff got away with it for so long because what he was doing was all that sophisticated? No, he was using his personal reputation and his role in the growth of NASDAQ as his ticket to avoid the focus. I mean, if you couldn't trust madoff, who can you trust.
- 8 votes
The SEC case opens up investigation by Justice Dept...anyone taking bets?
- 8 votes
My bet is an out of court settlement of a few million bucks, criminal charges are dropped, the white collar criminals go right back to white collar crime. Why should Wall Street change its lying, cheating and stealing when no one has been held fully accountable.
- 8 votes
Insider Trading is not illegal, unethical yes, illegal no. Below is from the WSJ and Wiki, seems to me that all this below occured under the Democrats watch, while they actually had control over the company, literally, with half the seats of the board being occupied by Geithners people, which was part of the deal. Citi still made enormous profits during this time, so please spare me the " it's the republicans fault" , when the facts simply do not support such as claim. Also, under the financial reform aka "Dodd-Frank" , none of this was supposed to be able to occur & since the GOP hasn't overturned the reform and didn't write the Bill to allow loopholes, it appears that the Dems are just as greedy.
Did I mention that nationally, the Democrats have more in the 1% than the GOP?
Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive stimulus package by the U.S. government.[8] Its largest shareholders include funds from the Middle East and Singapore.[9] According to the NYTimes, on February 23, 2009, Citigroup announced that the United States government would take a 36% equity stake in the company by converting $25 billion in emergency aid into common shares with a US Treasury credit line of $45 billion to prevent the bankruptcy of the largest bank in the world at the time. The government would also guarantee losses on more than $300 billion troubled assets and inject $20 billion immediately into the company. In exchange, the salary of the CEO is $1 per year and the highest salary of employees is restricted to $500,000 in cash and any amount above $500,000 must be paid with restricted stock that cannot be sold until the emergency government aid is repaid in full. The US government also gains control of half the seats in the Board of Directors, and the senior management is subjected to removal by the US government if there is poor performance. By December 2009, the US government stake was reduced to 27% majority stake from a 36% majority stake after Citigroup sold $21 billion of common shares and equity in the largest single share sale in US history, surpassing Bank of America's $19 billion share sale one month prior. Eventually by December 2010, Citigroup repaid the emergency aid in full and the US government received an additional $12 billion profit in selling its shares.[10][11][12][13][14] US Government restrictions on pay and oversight of the senior management are removed after the US government sold its remaining 27% stake as of December 2010. According to the WSJ, the government aid was provided to prevent a world-wide chaos and panic by the potential collapse of its Global Transactions Services division, which transports more than $3 trillion around the world each day for most of the Fortune 500 companies and over 80 national governments and 60 central banks around the world. According to the article, Mr. Pandit said if Citigroup was allowed to unravel into bankruptcy, "100 governments around the world would be trying to figure out how to pay their employees."[15][16][17][18][19]
Despite huge losses during the global financial crisis, Citigroup Inc. built up an enormous cash pile in the wake of the financial crisis with $462 billion USD, which is slightly more than Sweden's nominal GDP of $458 billion USD.[20][21] Citi currently has Tier 1 Common ratio of 11.6% and a Tier 1 Capital ratio of 13.6% as of the end of the second quarter, making it ironically one of the best-capitalized financial institutions in the world after billions of dollars in losses from the financial crisis. This was a result of selling more than $500 billion of its special assets placed in Citi Holdings, which were guaranteed from losses by the US Treasury while under federal majority ownership.[22] Additionally, according to the Washington Post a special IRS tax exception given to Citi to allow the US Treasury to sell its shares at a profit while it still owned Citigroup shares, which eventually net $12 billion dollars. According to Treasury spokeswoman Nayyera Haq, "This (IRS tax) rule was designed to stop corporate raiders from using loss corporations to evade taxes, and was never intended to address the unprecedented situation where the government owned shares in banks. And it was certainly not written to prevent the government from selling its shares for a profit."[23]
- 2 votes
Ain't high finance grand?!?
Anyone of either party who advocates that ole' "deregulation" snake oil as a panacea for all that ails America should be tarred and feathered before serving long stretches of hard time in general population... with country club prisons as only a distant fond dream
That being said and with the refrains of "they're all just as bad" ringing in my ears... can someone remind me just which entire party, from ground to tippity top, has a dogmatic and near religious deregulation based political belief system?? I just can't seem to remember.
- 4 votes
Ah, the good old "short sale" and the removing of the "up-tick" requirement some time without the true meaning of what that action might bring about....
The terms shorting and going short are also used as blanket terms for tactics that allow an investor to gain from the decline in price of a security. Such tactics are generally based on a derivative contract, such as an option, a future or a similar synthetic position. For example, a put option consists of the right to sell an asset at a given strike price; the owner of the option therefore benefits when the market price of the asset falls below that price, as he can buy the asset at the lower price and sell it under the option at the strike price. Similarly, a short position in afutures contract means the holder of the position has an obligation to sell the underlying asset later at a given price; if the price falls below the given price, the person with the short position can buy the asset at the lower price and sell it under the future at the higher price.
So, what we have is someone who undoubtedly bought a slew of "puts" then manipulated the market in an obvious action to have the price continue to drop, thus giving the "puts" additional value. Six days later they sold the "puts" made a huge profit in the increased value of them, then bought the stock, covered their short, and made a huge profit in that.... this would have never been done with the previous SEC short sale requirement which stated that any short sale had to be initiated with an up-tick in the price of the stock to be shorted.... essentially, the removal of the "rule" allowed the "piling on" of a stock which contributed to its going down... also the market looks at the ratio of "puts" and "calls" and uses that as a possible determination of the direction of the stock in the near future...
Again, lack of regulations, lack of Oversight!
- 1 vote
steve,
shorting has been a practice that has been round for decades, even long before the concept of a derivative became mainstream. Not sure where you got the reference 'generally based on a derivative contract' because a derivative contract is just a piece of paper that has no meaning without the underlying security (hence the term derivatice).
That actually looks like a quote but you didn't include the source of the quote, which actually is a violation of the CoH.
Any activity on the market by the way has an impact. How do you define what is natural and what isn't.
I hope everyone knows how commodities trading started. People were buying agricultural products such as corn, rice and wheat. The only people that were buying these commodities intended to use them or sell them directly to the public. This is why in Congress the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission is under the authority of the Agriculture Committee Chairman. The natural ebb and flow of prices was dictated by the weather and how good the crop was that year.
Jump forward to 2011. Before oil is loaded into the tankers in the Mideast, speculators are already buying and selling it on the world's stock exchanges. Speculator number one buys it in order to immediately turn around and resell it to speculator number two. When the price of gas in America goes over $4 a gallon, oil has been traded back and forth two or three dozen times before it reaches the pump as gasoline. In short, the greedy white collar criminal slobs on Wall Street are getting rich off of everyone's misery at the gas pump. And this is especially a threat in 2011 as the speculators are using super fast computers that link all stock exchanges in the world.
Who is exercise real oversight on this speculation? There was a recent incident where an English super rich speculator went on a drinking and speculating binge in buying a huge amount of oil. Apparently with all regulators asleep at the wheel.
Buying a commodity or future on the stock exchange with the only purpose of turning around and immediately reselling - with no intent at all to sell to the public or use it - is UNNATURAL as it does not reflect the forces of supply and demand.
That's why I advocate a full BAN on oil and food speculation as it becomes the driving force behind nation wide inflation.
Sounds radical? But its the right thing to do. Why indulge a bunch of greedy speculators in causing nation wide inflation for all Americans?
The Real Reason Gas Prices Are Soaring
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/03/28/the-real-reason-gas-prices-are-soaring/
‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=8878&context=va
How today’s oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil prices in this strange new world of “paper oil.”
With the development of unregulated international derivatives trading in oil futures over the past decade or more, the way has opened for the present speculative bubble in oil prices.
Since the advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures contracts, control of oil prices has left OPEC and gone to Wall Street. It is a classic case of the “tail that wags the dog.”
A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”
What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.
The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.
The report pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation. The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery . . . causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”
Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?
They seem to have deliberately walked away from their mandated oversight responsibilities in the world’s most important traded commodity, oil.
- 3 votes
Jonathan & Gozo, please excuse me, the quote did come from "Wiki" as it did have a resonalble and to the point definition of the short used in the story Gozo posted.
Yes, shorting has been going on for years, and if you check my bio, I came from the Industry and know the tactics well....
The problem comes from the elimination of the short selling requirement or regulation which used to mandate that no "short" could be exercised without an "uptick" in the price of the stock being shorted.
Commodities and futures contracts were primarily used by those who needed to assure themselves of a steady price upon which to deliver goods to the market or for use by themselves.
A farmer would use a contract to assure himself a price on his crops which would give him a profit. Airlines would buy futures contracts to budget gasoline or jet fuel for their Airlines and give them an idea of what the break-even would be on any flight being booked.
Chrysler used it once on a grand scale to offer to those buying their cars and trucks an assured price on gas if you bought the vehicle and that was for a year.
Options are contracts similar to futures on stock, A "Call" when owned gives one the ability to buy at an agreed upon price the stock of a company in the future. The "put" allows one to put the stock to someone at a defined price again in the future. The "Call" or a simple one covers 100 shares of a stock and the intrinsic value of the "call" is based upon the value of the stock, the time value of the option, and the strike price or agreed price at which the stock can be called or taken from someone. The "put" allows one to put the stock to someone, again at the price stipulated on the put...
The benefit of these simple options or derivatives (meaning derived from) is that someone can control a hundred shares of stock with a whole lot less money than outright ownership of the stock.
The idea of shorting a stock is one based upon an assumption of the underlying stock going down for whatever the reason might be.... and in other posts the knowledge of many of our Congressmen and women knowing how a future bill or legislation might have on the market and that they are not under the same laws as the public has been part of discussions.
And, while the act of trading on non public information is against the law, perhaps, just perhaps, that law is being broken far more than anyone knows or the SEC can handle???
In this case and post, the idea of the stripping away of the regulations which used to govern short trades is in fact a reasonable statement and great post. Before the stripping of the "up-tick rule" it was indeed a gamble to make a short at a time when the underlying stock is going up... some times it payed off, many times it did not...
We could get into straddles, strips, etc and the varied uses of options and the options market, but not the place here or the post.
The changes in the Commodities Futures Trading, the lack of true oversight by the SEC, by the past Administration, the elimination of the "up-tick rule" all led to the eventual failure of the market to act in a way which offered stability. The speculation increased, causing wide swings and eventually the pendulum broke with more and more speculation not being covered by assets, let alone the ability to identify the assets the derivatives were supposed to be representing.
Controls are needed, they were taken away, no wonder the race ended in a collision which almost brought down the entire financial global market!
- 1 vote
steve,
I honestly don't really care about the uptick, assuming the decision to short is transparent and is not from insider trading but that insider trading is the problem there. I do however care about the naked shorts which can easily constructed to guarantee the resulting price drop. This is where I say that naked shorts should be banned outright.
The uptick, much smaller problem as far as I am concerned, and one that is easily maneuvered around. Naked shorts, that is something that is very dangerous and can be relatively easily fixed by outright banning of the practice.
- 2 votes
Jonathan, you should be concerned about the "uptick rule" as it too, along with the lack of oversight on the rules governing "naked short selling" did in fact help to bring about the collapseof Lehman Bros, and the slide of the financial markets during the Administration of 2001-2009. A day late and a dollar short as they would say... It has been somewhat forbidden since 2008, once again a day late and many dollars short! Pun on the Short!
The SEC has defined rules that were not followed, capital requirements that were most likely not followed, manipulation of the Market that was not being investigated, and yes, that nasty word "insider trading" which is still being investigated and slowly brought to justice.
Yes, we can ban "naked shorts" and most likely should, I for one would only allow "short against the box" transactions, which maintains the likelihood of delivery as one already owns what is being sold, and does not deliver until the price sought is there.
Why not fill in a bio on yourself and your knowledge in this so we can have a meaning-full conversation? Again, I was a trader, worked in the Industry for some 31 years, and know fully well how devastating the abuse of derivatives were, the impact of the ellimation of the "short sale rule" and the "ham stringing" of the SEC in reducing their budget and failure to allow oversight.
The problem is that when one has the "Foxes" in the "Hen House" making the rules, and objecting to what Elizabeth Warren was trying to do to straighten out the SEC, it is not good! She really only achieve a portion of what she wanted, and what really should be done to our financial markets to make them a truly "Free Market" without the possibility of manipulation or insider trading!
- 1 vote
steven
the problem to me isn't the uptick rule, it is 'how easy is it to circumvent that rule but still accomplish the same thing'. It really isn't that hard.
I am fairly pragmatic in that I believe that it is impossible to take out all of the unethical crap (shorting to me is unethical in general because it treats the stock market not as a place to make money, but to gamble with money). So that is why I tend to focus my attention to things which clean up most of it, realizing that some of it will still remain.
I spent 11 years in the financial industry (I am a systems engineer) developing systems, about 7 of those years spent building risk management systems, some for Sox, some for Basel II, some just general risk management systems.
As far as the foxes in the henhouse, my feeling there is that who better to know the foxes tactics than the foxes themselves. If you aren't aware of all the tricks that are played, then how are you going to know how to find them. Is it ideal, no, but I am not sure that anything better will come out of it.
As far as derivatives, they should be fully regulated. When derivatives were largely custom tools, that were largely used for specific business needs, there was no need to regulate them. Once they became generic products in this world of financial innovation, then they became something that needs to be regulated, if only for transparency reasons.
Cutting the SEC budget, another thing that needs to end. Can't expect them to do the job if they are underfunded.
Another thing that needs to happen is our society needs to change the attitude that stock market growth is economic growth, and we need to stop the preferential taxation that occurs with stock market transactions. I have a higher net ROI on my financial investments than I do with my company income, even though my gross is slightly the other way. Why? because my company pays near 25% corporate income tax and my investment profits pay 15%. It makes it more profitable to play on the market rather than invest.
Jonathan: My thoughts on the "uptick" rule were to focus on the beginning of the lack of oversight, the manipulation of the rules, which eventually led to a landslide in additional side stepping of other rules and systems put into place after the "Great Depression"... I am sure the two of us could go on about Glass-Stegal, etc, and I agree with so many of the items listed above that it seem that you and are would only be preaching to the choir...
It seemed like the "Protestant Ethic" working hard to earn a fair days living, went away with the attitude of "easy money" in fact that was once my own brother's call sign in the days of CB radios, he called himself "Easy Money" then the attitude OPM, "other peoples money" and using it to risk capital not ones own came to being.... again for a Christian Nation, so many were willing to do almost anything in the pursuit of money and power, hence the the CEO's and their huge pay packages, golden parachutes, etc... all at the cost of middle class workers and yes, even the shareholders... but since markets were mostly invested by institutional traders(mutual funds, etc) and the extent of the information given to those, was directly related to the quantity of company stock in the managed portfolios.... well, now we have information not readily available to all...
Systems which can take care of this, you bet they are possible, but in doing so, we need total transparency, and doing so would mean, once more that all too many have to work for a living rther than speculate using the tax payers dollars instead of their own.
The market demonstrates or used to demonstrate the overall projected thoughts on the economy, hence the "bulls and Bears" or being bullish on one thing or another... today we have all together too many players, speculators, and those who like Goldman who played both sides, selling CMO's to clients while betting against the same portfolio they sold.
So as long as we allow the market to reward those who profit by gamming the system, we will continue to have problems.
- 1 vote
That actually looks like a quote but you didn't include the source of the quote, which actually is a violation of the CoH.
Then report me. I did mention in my opening where I found the information. Next time I will be sure to include all the sources I read before I post with accurate information. Please set aside 30 minutes to validate my answers and sources.
from mountainmike, with who I often disagree: But wow mike, did we just agree on your comment below? I think we did!
That's why I advocate a full BAN on oil and food speculation as it becomes the driving force behind nation wide inflation.
- 1 vote
Gozo the SEC and the people who prosecute the violators on the market are not doing their job I agree one hundred percent. You might like the article I found on the history of scandals with the stock market, JP Morgan and scandals go way back! I was looking for one that I read in the last few months about a judge that was "coming down" on a company when another judge was going to let them go even though it was a third offense.
- 2 votes
I have no problems with the glass steagall revoking, I did have a big problem with other parts of that legislation.
Canada (I am Canadian and grew up in that system) has had an integrated banking system since the mid 80's, when its prohibitions were removed. There hasn't been any issues with the removal there. The difference? A very strong regulatory regime. (some would think there is less regulation because there isn't a set leverage limit, but the difference is that the level of leverage isn't a legislated matter, it is a regulatory matter, and OSFI (the regulatory agency) sets the leverage limits for each entity separately based on the risk levels of the debt. (manulife was actually ordered to increase its capitalization by about 10 billion dollars a couple of years after it bought John Hancock as an example of this, though this decision had more to do with its variable annuity business than with the Hancock purchase).
The one thing that I can say, I started with my risk analysis systems work in the canadian business, and quite frankly it was MUCH easier to manage, specifically because the industry WAS integrated. This is unlike the US side, where it was extremely difficult to come up with realistic assessments (Basel II compliance is probably impossible in the US as an example) specifically because the US industry is so fragmented from both a regional as well as a market segment view.
As far as gaming the system, well that is going to happen, the only thing we can really do is a) make it as hard as possible without throttling the industry from being able to operate and b) make it less profitable, which to me is in part a taxation issue.
- 3 votes
anonymous-1077600 ... here's a good one.
US Senate Exposes JP Morgan & Co.'s Gauranteed Profits to High Profile Clients
"In May 1933, U.S. Senate Banking Committee counsel Ferdinand Pecora exposed how Morgan [JP Morgan & Co.] reserved shares at reduced prices for certain clients, giving guaranteed profits to former President Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's sitting treasury secretary, the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national committees, and the CEOs of General Electric, AT&T, and Standard Oil, among others."
- 5 votes
Evidence of market manipulation in the financial crisis
Dog Bites Man? :-)
- 7 votes
#2 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:54 AM EST( ^ :
Time for the Man to bite the dog back.
Then the 99% can stand in line to screw the 1% back.
- 8 votes
No doubt that Goldman Sachs, Morgan, and others are agents for Mr. Big. Under the Patriot Act, the Government can do literally anything, and with the two newest regarding Citizen/Military Incarceration and the Internet Neutrality, Big Brother is now totally real. Transparency is no longer even desired.
- 6 votes
Time for the Man to bite the dog back.
Sorry, man needs to severely kick, beat, and hurt the dog... then maybe eat the dog.
- 4 votes
Excuse me for noticing, but the Commodities and Futures Trade Commission Commissioners are all ex Wall Street giant executives. How should we expect them to regulate their former employers? The same situation at the Fed.
- 7 votes
how else are you going to regulate if you don't know the tricks.
- 2 votes
If my memory serves me right, didn't a young lady (person) doing a report on Murdock call him out on his illegal dealings and was shot down by the 'experts'. You don't need a ex fox to guard the chicken coup, just someone willing to look with unjaded eyes.
- 1 vote
Hank Paulsen is an ex CEO of Goldman Sachs. Alan Greenspan is an ex Goldman Sachs executive. Several of the commissioners on the CFTC are ex Goldman Sachs executives. Eric Cantor's wife is an ex Goldman Sachs executive and banker. Goldman Sachs by itself looks like a cancer spreading through government.
Then look at the recent audit of the Fed disclosing a secret budget for handing out $16 trillion in zero interest loans to Fed staff friends and families.
- 3 votes
yeah, but Mike -- we have to have people with business experience in these key positions. Ask the Republicans, they've been saying this for years.
"We must run government like a business..."
(I have intentionally left that last sentence open-ended for appropriate snarky tag lines)
- 2 votes
How about Nobel Prize winning, college economics professors Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. In short, Wall Street critics instead of ex Wall Street executives.
And what would that business experience be to justify hiring ex Wall Streeters as regulators? Predatory lending, derivatives fraud, cooking books, etc...
- 3 votes
Can any one imagine a deregulated Wall Street. With all attempts to make Wall Street transparent and honest it is still filled with less than honorable CEO's. and those out to march on the edge of legality. Are new laws the answer when the ones on the books are not enforced? The Banking industry as a whole violated the Sarbanes Oxley act yet no one has been charged. One can only surmise they purchased "get out of jail cards" from Congress.
- 16 votes
#3 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:03 AM ESTBecks72:
One can only surmise they purchased "get out of jail cards" from Congress.
More like "retroactively legalize every crime we commit" cards.
- 16 votes
Can any one imagine a deregulated Wall Street. With all attempts to make Wall Street transparent and honest it is still filled with less than honorable CEO's.
Can anyone imagine a world where the sociopaths are in treatment instead of running banks, corporations and government?
Then, and only then, could we entertain the thought of less regulation. And then I'd still want meaningful regulation.
- 10 votes
Republicans have given us the next "best" thing for Wall Street, pretend regulation. This is how you play the game. You set up agencies that look like they are actually regulating, then you staff them with grossly unqualified political appointees. Remember "Brownie" the Bush grossly unqualified political appointee that botched the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina? If you look at the staffing of the regulatory agencies closely enough, you see a brownie infestation.
Or worse:
A few days ago, incoming Agriculture Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) announced the hire of Ryan McKee as the senior staffer to oversee the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. McKee is currently a lobbyistworking for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s division dedicated to deregulating complex derivatives products. In her new role working for Lucas, McKee will be liaising with regulators in charge of implementing new rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law to overhaul the over-the-counter derivatives market.
- 3 votes
They've been trying for months to get Ryan McKee in that position.
Google McKee -- "trying to kill" the finance reform bill has been her objective from the beginning.
- 2 votes
Frank Church, the head of the Ag Committee, needs to be brought up on charges of ethics violation and impeached out of office. The party of Lincoln of, by and for the people is now the party of Goldman Sachs of, by and for Wall Street.
- 3 votes
I am shocked, shocked! to find that gambling manipulation is going on in that establishment!!!! ("Here are your winnings, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs.")
"There used to be a rule that prevented it from happening by forbidding borrowed shares from being sold in large blocks that drive the price down," said Bar-Yam. "The Securities and Exchange Commission repealed that rule, known as the price test or uptick rule, on July 6, 2007."
Hmmm, now that is interesting. Someone planned ahead and cleared the way so there would not be any nasty legal consequences.
- 14 votes
Naked shorts should be banned outright. You wouldn't need the uptick rule if you banned naked short selling.
- 10 votes
Naked shorts should be banned outright.
Isn't that sort of an oxymoron Jonathan? :-)
Seriously, you are right. Why it is ok to make trades you cannot cover when they go bad is beyond me. But how do you catch them? It does not take much to get someone to create an account that looks like it has your money in it.
- 8 votes
you just have to show that you have the assets in your portfolio before you short them.
The reality is that it is brokers that deliberately use naked shorting to impact the price of stock that they think is over priced. It really is market manipulation.
Shorting itself is just a trick to me, a gamble, but as long as the person doing the shorting holds the stock (possess it but haven't paid for it), it is really something that remains isolated. Naked shorting on the other hand can be done in such a way that it actually creates the conditions that makes the short a win.
- 8 votes
We recently learned about how collateral rehypothication covers shorts. Why MF Gobal is now owned by Jp Morgen and George Soros.
- 6 votes
gozo.
no soros doesn't own MF Global, what Soros did was short the same euro funds that MF global had invested in. Nothing unusual there, that is how Soros makes his money.
As for who owns MF Global in general? why anyone would care is beyond me. The company is being LIQUIDATED which means that generally nothing will be left over for the shareholders. Ownership would be a negative.
- 5 votes
collateral rehypothication
Whoa. I had to go look that one up. I'm familiar with the practice. I even tried to explain it before but did not know that word for it. Thanks Gozo!
I usually called it "borrowing 50 times against the same bundled sub-prime loan package".
I've firmly come to the belief that it makes no sense to invest in companies on the stock market. All the "value" is manipulated to the point it no longer actual represents the underlying assets and worth of the company. The game is rigged and cannot be undone without huge losses on paper. 401Ks have become a deception except in the regard that your employer matches funds.
- 6 votes
Ownership as far as who holds assets. Soros bought post bankruptcy bonds for liquidity ... while JP has been sitting on the mess all along.
- 5 votes
krounded,
you got a billion dollars or so to invest in my company? ;) We aren't a public company yet. hahahaha
ROTFLMAO
- 3 votes
you got a billion dollars or so to invest in my company?
Sounds like a better investment than the stock market!......I'll put up my collateral, get 50 people to thrown in $50,000 a piece for it. Each person will own 80%.....And away we go!
Somehow Wall St. made "The Producers" legal. :-)
- 3 votes
You gonna find 50 little old ladies, Max?
Why do you think they have Bingo night twice a week down at lodge? :-)
Mmmmmm.....I love playing the boy scout or pool boy.
- 5 votes
yellow:
I wouldn't accept 50 little old ladies to begin with. Anyone that would invest would be required to show that they could afford to lose the money. We KNOW the venture is high risk. Unfortunately our money is essentially tied up in various financial debacles (debt ceiling, euro crap), though the VC/PE firms that we are working with have said that we can continue work and what we spend won't be deducted from our capital base for the purposes of calculating our leverage. Our personal assets are essentially just being treated as a single tranche rather than a component of each of the different VC capital injection phases.
We are still taking it slow though because we have no clue how long the financial uncertainty is going to last. It is too bad though because without this, we could justify hiring about a thousand people within 6 months or so.
- 2 votes
We are still taking it slow though because we have no clue how long the financial uncertainty is going to last. It is too bad though because without this, we could justify hiring about a thousand people within 6 months or so.
Don't wait too long Jonathan.
I saw a webinar Friday that is predicting slow but steady growth to 2014. I don't how good the track record is for this bunch on the webinar, but our company is planning some expansion. That's actually saying something considering how cheap they are. But sales have almost doubled since 2009.
- 2 votes
Jonathan,I was joking with Krounded about the premise of the movie 'The Producers'. You saw it didn't you?
Krounded,I pictured you as the 'chauffeur for the contessa'. ;>)
- 2 votes
Krounded,I pictured you as the 'chauffeur for the contessa'. ;>)
Haaaaa.....That's great. One can be anything they want on the internet!
- 4 votes
krounded,
We are going slow at the moment, but we aren't at a standstill. lol.
You know where a lot of my company's sales are dependent on, though we are seeing an uptake in our non core business that is making us happy. We are looking to expand, (started those discussions yesterday actually with our plans for the next year), but that expansion won't be in the US.
yellow dog:
Actually, no I haven't seen the movie, too much of a workaholic I guess. (Actually the only movie I have been out to see in a very long time was Paul, and that was to take my niece and nephew to a movie).
- 2 votes
If you ever slowdown and want to see a comedy movie, Jonathan, I recommend it. I Like the original best.
- 2 votes
We are going slow at the moment, but we aren't at a standstill. lol.
Well that's good. The uptake in non-core is good too. I think we are seeing an uptick outside that other industry too.
Our expansion won't be large. Most of it will be rearranging and buying racks for stuff.
Newt Gingrich said something about bringing Lean/Six Sigma to government. Guess who that statement is targeting! Ha! That'll be the day. Lord knows they could use it. But Newt won't be the one bringing it.
- 4 votes
six sigma has some good points but it also has some bad points if it is applied to the whole company. There are times where experimentation is required, and there are times where it isn't desirable. When manufacturing on a line, six sigma is fine, but trying to apply it to a development process is counter productive.
As for us, we are seeing interest in some contracts in our 'target' industry, but they haven't been finalized yet, but they are looking very promising.
Not really sure where a manufacturing methodology would fit within the US government, but I think we all know that newt is smoking some really good stuff.
- 4 votes
six sigma has some good points but it also has some bad points if it is applied to the whole company. There are times where experimentation is required, and there are times where it isn't desirable. When manufacturing on a line, six sigma is fine, but trying to apply it to a development process is counter productive
I agree. It's not for every company. Our company is so far behind most that I have to laugh when they talk about lean. There's not enough people to do the work that's there now, much less eliminate waste. They mostly need organization and standardization of processes. (I know that's not the example you are giving. It's just a another example of how consultants can assume things that just are not true about an organization.)
Good luck with your target. I hope it gets bigger and larger - easier to hit :-)
- 3 votes
sounds like they need six sigma more than they need LEAN.
As far as the 'target', if I ever come to the feeling that it is literally impossible to reach, I will probably just retire. I have had enough illness in my life that I think I deserve it. (yeah, retire at 44 WOOHOO!!!).
- 2 votes
Retiring at 44 does sound great. Illness does not.
I'd probably not know what to do if I retired, so I think I'll keep working another 20 years or so. I'll be about 70 then. I doubt I'll ever have enough money to retire so it's just as well.
We all deserve to retire after 30 years of work in my book. That's enough already! :-)
Then you'll have time to see the Producers. It has Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel from 1968. It's a classic.
- 2 votes
cancer, kidney transplant, diabetes, it's a bitch.
It is actually why I haven't retired, wouldn't know what to do.
- 3 votes
Good grief what a bitch! That's a lot for a young guy like you. Sounds like you are pretty brave and not easily discouraged. Best of luck, stay well and happy holidays to you Jonathan. You're certainly one of my favorites here on the vine.
- 2 votes
jonathan:
As for who owns MF Global in general? why anyone would care is beyond me. The company is being LIQUIDATED which means that generally nothing will be left over for the shareholders. Ownership would be a negative.
So, you're saying Soros will lose money on the deal?
- 2 votes
he would be losing tons of money if he invested in MF Global equity, he didn't. (I didn't look into the details of what he did, but it didn't look illegal, unethical and it wasn't an investment in MF Global.
- 2 votes
A few days ago, incoming Agriculture Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) announced the hire of Ryan McKee as the senior staffer to oversee the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. McKee is currently a lobbyistworking for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s division dedicated to deregulating complex derivatives products. In her new role working for Lucas, McKee will be liaising with regulators in charge of implementing new rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law to overhaul the over-the-counter derivatives market.
and
Cantor promises to block regulations for speculators
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXJR7eZ_jQ
- 10 votes
#5 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:07 PM ESTDo away with the stock market and wall street. Are they really necessary? Insurance companies and banks need not exist and I would suspect the same for wall street. Why do we need the stock market? Is this just a bad habit we can't quit?
- 2 votes
#6 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:27 PM ESTIf the stock market was working the way it originally did (that is a way to raise capital for companies to expand), then yes we do need it, but now the requirements to list your company are so onerous that by the time you are ready to list on the stock market, you are actually pretty much just cashing out your investment.
And that comment is ignoring the 'derivatives' side of things, which in some cases, derivatives can be extremely useful financial tools, but the majority of what they are being used for is harmful.
- 7 votes
Do away with the stock market and wall street. Are they really necessary?
They are. They have a long history in positively driving the economy and trade. Even options have a positive reason for existing.
When people misuse the tools, you don't blame the screwdriver. Someone will always try to use it as a hammer, but at least the screwdriver will break before it can be used on too many nails. (ala too big to fail)
The incentive for individuals to destroy the financial system for personal gain needs to be removed.
- 4 votes
After Wall Street giants formed and collapsed the economy to cause the Great Depression, we were desperate enough to pass the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. That divided up the Wall Street giants and established regulations to prevent them from forming again. What does that do? It divides savings and investment into separate corporations, then the investment corporations are no longer too big to let fail. They can be forced into bankruptcy with executive assets seized to pay off debts. Just think where we would be right now with Glass-Steagall still in effect! The world would financially be in a much safer place without the white collar criminal investors at Goldman Sachs, AIG, JP Morgan, Bank of America, etc...
Instead, this is where we are at today:
Too Big To Fail? 10 Banks Own 77 percent Of All US Banking Assets
http://wallstreetsectorselector.com/2011/07/too-big-to-fail-10-banks-own-77-percent-of-all-u-s-banking-assets/
The same banks control most of the investment in America. In short, the small group monopoly of Wall Street giants has gotten even smaller. With almost all of the main white collar criminals to collapsed the economy still on Wall Street, we are more vulnerable now than before the recession.
The Dodd-Frank Act was gutted in the process of all of those compromises with Republicans to get this legislation passed. Then we have regulations on the books that are going un enforced thanks to Republicans sabotaging the regulatory agencies.
Nobel Prize winning economist and economics college professor Joseph Stiglitz was the first to critique the Dodd-Frank Act. His articles, blogs and videos are available over the internet.
- 3 votes
If naked shorting were banned, the FED would be in deep, deep sh$t. imo.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_110812.html
reverse repo repurchase counterparties. Coming to a Hedge fund near you !
Read all about it!
- 3 votes
#7 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:58 PM ESTyes, but if you create a naked short position large enough, the position itself creates a change in price that makes the naked short always being a net gain. In order for a naked short to not do that, you have to have a greater long position that would create a price change in the other direction, but the people that can do that, may not even be able to do that because of ownership restrictions.
The industry is actually quite open about what naked shorts are generally used for. They are used by the industry deliberately to bring down prices that they feel are over inflated. This was the argument that was publicly spouted when naked shorts were banned temporarily in 2008
- 3 votes
Now you are talking about "Industry", and "Generally".....When they are abused for the purpose of price deflation, other forces such as "THE FEAR" of a future possiblity of another ban has kept such a strategy from taking hold again.
The fear of something possible, is sometimes greater than the action itself. imo.
The FED needs to be able to flex its own muscle's on its trading desk. look at their options trades on TLT's and TBT's. It looks like about 66% of total to me.
- 1 vote
This was the argument that was publicly spouted when naked shorts were banned temporarily in 2008
...And should still be. It's clear manipulation.
Once any entity becomes so large that their trades move the market in their favor, it's time to take action. Now what one does when that entity is the government....another story.
- 3 votes
krounded,
which is why I said elsewhere in this articles comments that naked shorts should be banned outright.
Now there is one thing that could be said for them. Naked shorts could be used to burst a bubble when it is small, rather than letting it expand to the point where the burst causes havok (re 2008). The question there is, who decides to burst that bubble, and what level of transparency is involved in that process, and are there other ways to 'burst' the bubble so to speak that are far better than using naked shorts.
- 3 votes
I'd happily say good bye to naked shorts. There are other ways (like you said) and that one positive does not outweigh the negatives.
- 3 votes
Oh I don't think that is a positive, to me that is a 'nuclear bomb' where a jack-hammer would be more appropriate.
As I have said, I have done shorting (not naked though), but mostly to see how it worked in practice (not much money, could lose it all etc...) and it really isn't something that fits how we manage our money, so we don't do it. (We would have to change how we do our analysis if we were to do so). It just doesn't seem to be all that useful to me.
Now derivatives, we have used those a fair amount in the past, but not the generic CDO's but ones more specific to our business operations (short term cash swaps, fuel hedges etc...). If there is something specific we need, we will use them, but we won't get into them for the sake of getting into them.
- 2 votes
All of you OWS Jackels that want your pound of FLESH, I suggest you look in the proper place.
THE FED.
I am so sick and tired of you lazy non-researching pieces of noise, making a spectacle out of Capital Markets.
Jonathon and a few others are pointing mere facts. They are not opinions.
If you don't like FED double-speak.......Leave the Country. Go to China, and see what kind of breaks you get there.
Otherwise Occupy The FED!........Bernanke is your problem. No one else. They write the rule book!
- 2 votes
#8 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:10 PM ESTjpokerman,
Removing the fed would just make the problem 10 times worse.
- 3 votes
I am not saying to remove them......I am saying, that is where the problem is. And the lazy SOB's ought to go through all the web pages at least 3 times before they start twisting my testes on these message board's about CAPITAL MARKETS!
It took me 30 fracking years to learn what I know.
- 1 vote
I don't see the fed as right now being anything close to the problem.
I spent 11 years in the financial industry, with most of my money still in there, and even though I really don't have the involvement anymore, I still have myself classified as a pro trader. (I probably should get that little thing removed as there really is no more of a need to look at my trades for insider trading anymore).
- 3 votes
You don't see Government participation in capital markets as problematic, and an inherent conflict of interest?
They can change the rules any time they want.
They control 66% of the debt markets, and also look at what happened to the Russian newscaster.
What do you think will happen if the U.S. should elect some Right wing type who takes advantage and plugs in a fascist Fed? Then will you see a problem?
P.S. Are you feeling well?.......:)
- 1 vote
I see the fed's role in the 'monetary' markets as the nature of the beast.
Capital Markets (I wonder if we are talking about different things) is essentially institutional investing, and underwriting of securities issues. I spent about 2/3 of my financial industry career (hopefully over lol) in Capital Markets. While I was aware of the fed's existence, it rarely had an effect on what we did.
- 2 votes
How the Fed contributes to the problem .... Video- Fractional Reserve Banking Explained
- 2 votes
and you take the fed away, and you need to go back to a gold standard which believe it or not, makes the PROBLEM FAR WORSE.
Fractional banking has been around for FAR longer than the FED or even the concept of a central bank, hell it was one of the ways that the 'colonies' stuck it to the king prior to independence.
Austrian economics also doesn't address fractional banking either.
Just because something has 'weak points' doesn't mean that the alternatives don't have weak points either, in fact in this case, the alternative's weak points are worse than the current systems weak points.
- 3 votes
I want the fed to cease and desist the buying and selling of assets.
I want them to go back to their original mandate of ensuring that the U.S. maintain a "Competitive Currency". That above all the interests of the U.S. currency guide them in their policy decision making.
The dual mandate leads to ambiguaty which is outside the the moral reach of central banking.
The Term making money "Hand over fist", comes down through the Centuries from the Huns. They actually found a way to counterfeit Roman coins with inferior metals and a simple hammer....Thus the term. Hand over fist.
Monetising Debt is simply another way of making money hand over fist. The FED-Tresury-Administration way.
You know it....They know it....More importantly, if it were not for even for greater idiots abroad, who also know it....The Dollar would not be worth much at all.
So again.........We now have a VERY loaded gun. What happens if a right wing nut job, should get elected?
Please answer that question.
I am fine with this status. for now......However, To quote a very bad movie.....I see dead people....everywhere!
- 1 vote
It is the treasury that does the buying and selling of assets. The fed only deals with currency (which is technically an asset, but not the same thing as say equity in a company).
Once that right wing nut job gets elected, he is going to look at what is really going on and realize that what Ron Paul wants to do is just not possible. If they really are nuts, well then the great depression will be considered a light blip in the economic landscape.
- 3 votes
jpokergman:
Jonathon and a few others are pointing mere facts. They are not opinions.
The only solid facts regarding how Wall Street functions are:
1. It is completely unregulated in any substantive way.
2. It survives solely on fraud.
3. Nearly all -- if not all -- of the largest banks in the world are insolvent.
4. The people who control it are both psychopathic and above the law ... A devastatingly dangerous mix, as we have all come to learn.
There was a study done recently (See Max Keiser's show # 223) that showed that the existence of bankers caused a net loss in assets for nations and the people in those nations.
The point here is that, if we were to drown all the bankers worldwide -- as we should -- then we'd actually increase the financial net worth of the planet.
Doesn't say much for bankers and their alleged expertise, does it?
- 2 votes
The first mental picture I get when I read or hear "naked shorts" is people in boxer shorts with imprinted on the outside with a photo of their genitals on the front and their butt on the back. Can someone come up with better terminology?
- 4 votes
These fascist conservative right wing pigs will stop at nothing to eliminate civil society and privatize America.
The 1% are so filled with bitterness they begrudge the 99%; every home, every possession, and every morsel of food. The 1% are an economic and moral cancer which devours civil society and freedom.
Tax the rich. Tax and regulate corporations. Bring democracy to America.
- 4 votes
#10 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:30 PM ESTIt should be illegal for politicians to meet with lobbyists. Half of the members of corporate boards should be hourly workers in the companies, like they do in Germany. Germany has high wages unions and produces high qualitiy products. Their ecomony is sound. We should take notes. Their taxes are also higher. What does the GOP say? "Keep taxes low for the job creators". How long will people believe this lie.
- 3 votes
Making lobbyist contact illegal for legislators?
Then there is John Boehner's Thursday meetings that have been going on for years. Lobbyists meet with Republican legislators in an assembly hall just off of the floor of the House of Representatives for the purpose of wholesale sell out of Republican votes on legislation. John was the guy that to be ordered to sit down and quit handing out corporate checks to Republicans during a major House debate. He was the one caught living in a house owned by a lobbyist rent free. There are even rumors about him being in bed with a female lobbyist. My bet is that he has a lobbyist paid for tanning bed with a full supply of booze for his favorite recreation.
- 3 votes
A Balanced budget Amendment, and Term Limits alone would do a great deal to start with!... Could someone out there explain to me like I'm a four year old, what and HOW exactly will Obama's intended policies create more jobs...I remember the "Farming Crisis" of the eighties very well, I wasn't much on the Farmers side,with all the government subsidies going to farmers at the time...Until one day I saw a bumper sticker on an old beat up pick-up truck, in upper state N.Y....That read.... " Don't bitch about farmers, WITH YOUR MOUTH FULL"....That really stuck with me for all these years!
I'm pretty far right, but I say @!$%#-can every last politician in Washington and start over!...And as far as taxing the rich goes, they should pay more, but not 50%+ that's unconstitutional at best. I truly can't wait until next election, to see all these Union Leaders and Far Left A-Holes crying!!!!
- 2 votes
#11 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:24 PM ESThappy,
Well at one point, the marginal rate was as high as 90%, but that wasn't 90% across the board, that is a MARGINAL rate of 90%
- 2 votes
GREED :
strong desire for more: an overwhelming desire to have more of something such as money than is actually needed.
So many people suffer from this that all the regulation in the world would not prevent them from trying to circumvent them not matter the repercussions to the others and the country.
But when they do, we should hold them each responsible. Bring charges, prosecute, jail, fine, fire and fine, etc. No one should be above paying for doing harm and cheating.
- 3 votes
#12 - Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:22 PM ESTThey know that only now. The evidence is glaring. Even the gas price manipulation is up front and center and yet they let happen. This is an administration who can not see the scene even if it is unfolding in front of their eyes.
- 1 vote
#13 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:09 AM ESTYou want an instant stimulus bail out of Main Street that does not require taxpayer money? Ban speculation in oil and food. The price of gas at the pumps would be cut in half over night. Similarly food prices at the grocery store would be substantially reduced. Wall Street is causing nation wide inflation with their greedy speculation.
It was so OK for Main Street to bail out Wall Street (even though that was white collar criminals getting bailed out by their victims) maybe its more than OK for Wall Street to bail out Main Street.
- 4 votes
I am afraid that banning speculation on stock market may not be easy to achieve since we are working under the capitalistic system. However, I have not heard of any move by the government as to monitoring of all this manipulation by either the FBI or the Justice Department. Is it because, once they do it and found nothing because it was well hidden or they got paid off under the table it is done and over with. The investigation must be carried out every year and I sincerely believe that the FBI or the Justice Department should start creating a Department specifically to investigate this kind of business acts.
The manipulators must not be made to sit on their ass while the American people suffer. Let them look over their shoulders every time they commit such an illegal act.
- 1 vote
Capitalistic system? What type of capitalism? The Republican talking point is that we have the free market capitalism of Adam Smith and the 1700's UK. What we really have in 2011 is the PREDATORY CAPITALISM of Goldman Sachs. Adam Smith was the first to warn us about "merchant cartels" or monopolies. He would not approve of the group monopoly of WallStreet giants we have currently. We currently have just ten Wall Street giants owning most of the banking assets in America and controlling most of the investment. THEY NEED TO BE DIVIDED UP SO NONE ARE TOO BIG TO LET FAIL ANYMORE. Divide the banking/savings from the investment/white collar crime. Investment corporations could then be forced into bankruptcy with executive assets seized to pay debts. That's exactly what should have happened with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America and others. And the world would now be a much safe place financially.
- 3 votes
There is a lot of talk these days, about how ' our system is broken'. This is not true. The system was built to perform exactly the way that it is. Thus putting all control in the hands of a very few. Oil and food futures is a prime case. If you are sharp, you would have read in the financial pages some months ago, that the price of coffee was going to go up. It is not that Juan Valdez needed a new donkey, Juan has to make do with the old one. Wall Street decided that they were not making enough, and so, the price of coffee HAD to go up. They do it often.....with produce, sugar, oil, pork bellies, milk, electricity, gold, you name it.....if there is a market for it, there are people manipulating the price !
People go to jail for insider trading.....but not congress ! They are permitted that.....
One has only to read a book such as " A connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court" to see that this 'system' we have has been in place for hundreds of years. The same system is alive & well, and living in the United States ! The 'nobles' are BETTER than the 'commoner'......the evidence is everywhere ! Sadly, the commoner is being used to keep the system just like it is ! The nobles are afraid of the wrong man getting elected.....so they rig the election, and make it difficult to vote !
Don't protest....the nobles will arrest you ! It is disgusting that here in America, our nation has indeed become the type of country our founding fathers warned us about !
- 2 votes
#14 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:16 AM ESTThis is the conservatives version of the "free market" that ALL the gop candidates are pushing!...again! keep this in mind when voteing!!
- 3 votes
#15 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:40 AM ESTGary:
It is blatantly obvious that the right wing talking points are delusional.
What's not blatantly obvious about predatory lending, writing mortgage papers that do not meet legal standards, robo signing of foreclosures, generating hundreds of thousands of junk loans and mortgages, grouping them into bundles, bribing rating agencies to lie their butts off and grossly over rate those bundles, then fraudulently sell those bundles world wide to scam the global economy out of $20 trillion (The Inside Job) and collapse the economy.
So what is acceptable for right wing Republicans about lying, cheating, stealing???
Yup! And in a parallel Republican universe, only Democrats can do wrong and blame everything on Chris and Barney, Clinton and Carter, Fannie and Freddie, etc...
- 3 votes
#18 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:33 AM ESTMountainmike: So right, and with the elimination of Glass-Stegal and from the mouth of George W. Bush: In one of his own addresses.... of course there are a few sarcastic points made during the speech in () not his.... but you will get the gist.
GWB 2002 Speech :”More and more people own their homes in America today. Yet we have a problem here in America because fewer than half the Hispanics and African Americans own their own homes. That’s a home ownership gap; a gap that we got to work together to close. And by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners (future Obama voters ) by 5.5 million families. “
“One of the major obstacles to minority home-ownership is financing. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (who I will bail out in 2008) have committed to provide more money for lenders, they committed to meet the shortage of capital available for minority home-buyers. Freddie Mac just began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers (like income requirements) and create better opportunities for home-ownership. One of the programs is designed to help families with bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans (by faking their income) . You don’t have to have a lousy home for first time home-buyers. You put your mind to it the first time low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anyone else (till those adjustable rates go up).
I am sick of all of those who point fingers at all of the above you mentioned, while never admitting that it was the Bush Administration and HUD which his cohorts controlled which was one if not the major reason for the lax underwriting and pushing through of less than worthy individuals and enabled them to buy a home... and not a lesser one, but as George said, just as nice as everyone else!
- 3 votes
steve,
saying we need to work on closing the gap is a far cry from what actually happened. I have no problem with a president saying that we need to close the gap. But saying we need to close the gap with reckless fiscal policies, that is a very different matter.
- 2 votes
His Administration, His policies, I give credit where credit is due.... He was a terrible President, took from the Middle Class, gave to the Rich. Cut back on areas of oversight, let cronies of Capitalism rum amok with neither direction or regulation... It really is no wonder we don't have another Great Depression all staring us in the face.... Obama has caved in all too often too, but at least he is heading in somewhat the right direction...
Go back to the tax levels of Reagan, for the Rich, bring back plant and equipment here in the US, and offer any tax credits to those who do and re-instate some form of manufacturing here. We need solid business principles at work, not the short term outlook of CEO's out to make a quick buck, then quit with a Golden Parachute!
I am for going after, regardless of Political Party any and all involved in the mess we are in, and holding our Representatives responsible for the actions or inaction's they make! The party of "no" has got to go!But I will say the party of "tax andspend" has got to stop, and we need to bring fiscal responsibility back to our government. Don't over-regulate, just regulate and follow the rules established to keep this great nation growing and competitive in a world market... if German products can be competitive, we can too!
- 4 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
