Financial fuckery thread

[Cain]

And Obama has signed the cuts into effect.

The BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says the cuts were designed to be so brutally painful that politicians would be forced to agree on a better way of balancing the books

WELL, DIDN'T THAT WORK OUT JUST GREAT.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And Obama has signed the cuts into effect.

The BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says the cuts were designed to be so brutally painful that politicians would be forced to agree on a better way of balancing the books

WELL, DIDN'T THAT WORK OUT JUST GREAT.

I'm convinced that all of this was deliberate.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

And Obama has signed the cuts into effect.

The BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says the cuts were designed to be so brutally painful that politicians would be forced to agree on a better way of balancing the books

WELL, DIDN'T THAT WORK OUT JUST GREAT.

I'm convinced that all of this was deliberate.

That's been obvious for some time now.

[Cain]

And Obama has signed the cuts into effect.

The BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says the cuts were designed to be so brutally painful that politicians would be forced to agree on a better way of balancing the books

WELL, DIDN'T THAT WORK OUT JUST GREAT.

I'm convinced that all of this was deliberate.

I'm not.  I think Obama is that big of an idiot he thought his proposals would be bad enough to force the Republicans hands.

He miscalculated badly, and US credit is going to get hammered by investors as a result.  On top of the damage done to the economy.  Or the questions that will be raised about the ongoing and future viability of the dollar as the global reserve currency in the face of US financial indecision.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And Obama has signed the cuts into effect.

The BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says the cuts were designed to be so brutally painful that politicians would be forced to agree on a better way of balancing the books

WELL, DIDN'T THAT WORK OUT JUST GREAT.

I'm convinced that all of this was deliberate.

I'm not.  I think Obama is that big of an idiot he thought his proposals would be bad enough to force the Republicans hands.

He miscalculated badly, and US credit is going to get hammered by investors as a result.  On top of the damage done to the economy.  Or the questions that will be raised about the ongoing and future viability of the dollar as the global reserve currency in the face of US financial indecision.

I think that Obama is anything but an idiot. I think it was completely deliberate, and that it's part of a larger strategy. I just don't know yet what the strategy is.

[Cain]

Then you're making the same basic error that the "Obama is a 19th dimension chess master we must trust in his plans" crowd who support him are.  Leaders make mistakes, and Obama has made a ton. 

I don't just read the American press, remember.  When worried sounds are being made in Japan and Israel and China and various European capitals on a range of issues from military procurement to the viability of the dollar as a reserve currency, that suggests someone fucked up.  If the vote on the debt ceiling doesn't go Obama's way, these worried sounds are only going to increase.

If anything, the only political advantage in this is that it has allowed Obama to lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans, with most people agreeing they are more to blame.  Which pretty much fits in perfectly with how politicians have acted for the past decade, Putin aside - they undertake policies which, will objectively disastrous, benefit them in small scale political support and partisan posturing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And Obama has signed the cuts into effect.

The BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says the cuts were designed to be so brutally painful that politicians would be forced to agree on a better way of balancing the books

WELL, DIDN'T THAT WORK OUT JUST GREAT.

I'm convinced that all of this was deliberate.

I'm not.  I think Obama is that big of an idiot he thought his proposals would be bad enough to force the Republicans hands.

He miscalculated badly, and US credit is going to get hammered by investors as a result.  On top of the damage done to the economy.  Or the questions that will be raised about the ongoing and future viability of the dollar as the global reserve currency in the face of US financial indecision.

I think that Obama is anything but an idiot. I think it was completely deliberate, and that it's part of a larger strategy. I just don't know yet what the strategy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf

[Elder Iptuous]

To be honest, I thought it was going to be a manufactured fake last-minute drama, which in a way would be a perfect end to a manufactured fake crisis.  But no.

same here.
if somebody had offered me a wager, i'd be a poorer man right now.  i was fucking certain!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Then you're making the same basic error that the "Obama is a 19th dimension chess master we must trust in his plans" crowd who support him are.  Leaders make mistakes, and Obama has made a ton. 

I don't just read the American press, remember.  When worried sounds are being made in Japan and Israel and China and various European capitals on a range of issues from military procurement to the viability of the dollar as a reserve currency, that suggests someone fucked up.  If the vote on the debt ceiling doesn't go Obama's way, these worried sounds are only going to increase.

If anything, the only political advantage in this is that it has allowed Obama to lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans, with most people agreeing they are more to blame.  Which pretty much fits in perfectly with how politicians have acted for the past decade, Putin aside - they undertake policies which, will objectively disastrous, benefit them in small scale political support and partisan posturing.

I'm not sure why you would think I would take that line of thinking... while I think it was deliberate, I also don't anticipate that anything good will come out of it... not for us plebes on the ground, anyway. If both Obama and the Republicans were willing to go this far, they probably both stand to benefit from the outcome in some way. Either that or they're willing to burn it all to the ground just for funzies.

[Faust]

Didn't cain said what he stands to gain

benefit them in small scale political support and partisan posturing.

Why should a politician concern himself with things like the far reaching damage of his decisions or worse still communist ideas like The Bigger Picture when there are things like party opinion, and personal image to think about?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Didn't cain said what he stands to gain

benefit them in small scale political support and partisan posturing.

Why should a politician concern himself with things like the far reaching damage of his decisions or worse still communist ideas like The Bigger Picture when there are things like party opinion, and personal image to think about?

Yeah, pretty much this.

[Cain]

Holder basically admitted that some banks are too big to prosecute:

GRASSLEY: OK. On the issue of bank prosecution, I'm concerned that we have a mentality of too-big-to-jail in the financial sector of spreading from fraud cases to terrorist financing and money laundering cases — and I cite HSBC. So I think we're on a slippery slope.

So then that's background for this question. I don't — I don't have recollection of DOJ prosecuting any high-profile financial criminal convictions in either companies or individuals. Assistant General — Attorney General Breuer said that one reason why DOJ has not brought these prosecutions is that it reaches out to, quote/unquote, "experts" to see what effect the prosecutions would have on the financial markets.

So then on January 29th, Senator Brown and I requested details on who these so-called experts are. So far, we've not received any information. Maybe you're going to, but why have we not yet have been provided the names of the experts that DOJ consults with as we requested on January 29th? Because we need to the find out why we aren't having these high profile cases.

And then I got one follow-up. But maybe you can answer that quickly.

HOLDER: Well, we'll endeavor to answer your letter, Senator. We did not, as I understand it, retain experts outside of the government in making — in making determinations with regard to HSBC. Now, if we could just put that aside for a minute, though. The concern that you have raised is one that I, frankly, share. And I'm not talking about HSBC now. That would not be appropriate.

But I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

Again, I'm not talking about HSBC. This is just a – a more general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence — impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate. And I think that is something that we — you all need to — need to consider. So the concern that you raised is actually one that I share.

[Salty]

How realistic are these "negative impacts"? I often wonder whether or not that idea itself is manufactured, sort of a nationally broadcasted, federally backed "WHO IS JOHN GALT?" signal or whether we do actually need these banks to keep on their course to prevent DOOM.

Even typing that last bit out makes me feel like a rube, but even after much Naked Capitalism, and others,filtering though my brain I still don't know.

Rather, and more to the point, will prosecuting these places have any long-standing negative impacts on the economy. I mean, those worse than letting them do what they do naturally, which seems awfully negative, what with the stealing out money and all.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If they're too big to prosecute, doesn't it seem that the logical response is to split them up into smaller entities that CAN be held responsible?

Of course it is.

And, of course, if you look at the natural life cycle of capitalism, that's impossible under our current economic system.

If you look at it as an ecology where different businesses are species, investment capitalism is a system that not only discourages, but inevitably, continuously, diminishes diversity.

GROW OR DIE.

[Pergamos]

If they're too big to prosecute, doesn't it seem that the logical response is to split them up into smaller entities that CAN be held responsible?

Of course it is.

And, of course, if you look at the natural life cycle of capitalism, that's impossible under our current economic system.

If you look at it as an ecology where different businesses are species, investment capitalism is a system that not only discourages, but inevitably, continuously, diminishes diversity.

GROW OR DIE.

It seems like the point of anti-trust laws was to avoid exactly that, a company that is big enough to influence the economy directly all by itself.  I am glad to hear Elizabeth Warren making noise about holding these banks accountable, but I haven't heard anyone talking anti-trust and that seems like it should have been the first option as soon as the words "too big to fail" were uttered.