-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
A new way for banks to screw the 99%ers. . .and get a bail out!
- Thread starter Openmind
- Start date
Werbung:
Because the underlying value is probably far lower than they want to admit, they are probably leveraged far more than they should be...and the only way to ensure they stay solvent is to keep bailing them out.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Right... Government is the epitome of "ethical"....
Insider Trading Rules Don't Apply To Congress
[O]ne thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
...
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
...
Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?
It’s not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
...
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored — it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn’t even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
[O]ne thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
...
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
...
Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?
It’s not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
...
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored — it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn’t even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
I recommend reading the entire Forbes article, those are just the highlights.
It's a good thing all those uber-ethical politicians are keeping us safe from those evil corporations!
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Right... Government is the epitome of "ethical"....
Insider Trading Rules Don't Apply To Congress
[O]ne thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
...
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
...
Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?
It’s not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
...
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored — it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn’t even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
I recommend reading the entire Forbes article, those are just the highlights.
It's a good thing all those uber-ethical politicians are keeping us safe from those evil corporations!
Did I ever said government is perfect?
But the fact is that the worst ethical problems in the government (except for sexual ethical issues, but at least it doesn't ruin the country!) are the incestuous relationship of law makers and big corporations.
So. . .why would anyone who blame the government for not being ethical would want to give a "free pass" to big corporations although they are the ones who CAUSE the government to forgoe its ethics?
Do you think that getting rid of the government will resolve the ethical issues of big corporations, wall street, and the banks? Or will a "free for all" make it worse?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Take away government's power to reward friends and punish foes and those evil corporations would have no reason to climb into bed with politicians.
Your "solution" is to give politicians GREATER power to reward friends and punish foes, in the belief they will use that power to "crack down" on corporations, and then you blame corporations when government uses it's new power to buy a larger bed.
it kills me that the answer to regulatory failure is more of the same for the left. and they never see the irony.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
The underlying question is....why?
Openmind
Well-Known Member
That's pretty simple: GREED!
supported by the lack of regulatins and lack of ovesight by the government.
Exactly what the GOP wants to preserve!
Openmind
Well-Known Member
So, you are saying that one way to get rid of goverment corruption, is to get rid of the government, so at the big banks can have free range and continue their devastating practices, without having to bother to "pay off " anyone in the process?
That makes a lot of sense!
The government did more than have a lack of oversight, they actively participated and encouraged the practice.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
the government encourage home ownership for lower income people by providing access to government insured loans, evenfor those who could not put down a lotof money in front. The private .market went crazy encouraging people to purchase houses, with no or low down payments that they could not afford.
The private industry (from the real estate agents, who preferred to get their 7% commission on $250,000 than on $150,000, to the mortgage broker who also preferred to get that higher commission, and had nothing to lose, personally,if the home buyers couldn't keep up with the mortgage payment!, and the banks who didn't care whether or not the criteria used to qualify for the mortgage were not sound, because they already knew they would "package" the mortgage in a pool of mortgage, and sell it to investors, thus covering their losses!) was the real driver of this debacle.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I didn't say get rid of government Mrs. Strawman, I said eliminate government's power to reward friends and punish foes. Government is the source of the corruption. If politicians didn't have the power to grant corporations special favors, the corporations would have no reason to lobby for those favors.
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You are saying that the government would still be corrupted if the big corps didn't provide the incentive for corruption through the use (andfor the purpose) of greed and power?
and I do notunderstand your referenceto Mrs. Strawman?
