ralis Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) John S Reed explains the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as one of the primary causes behind the economic crash of 2008. This interview has a number of significant points that are easily missed, only if one has biased filters in place. http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-reed-on-big-banks-power-and-influence/ Edited February 1, 2012 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chang Posted February 1, 2012 Very interesting and informative. Thank you for posting this ralis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nanashi Posted February 1, 2012 the merchant class has always been, and continues to be, a blight upon humanity Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted February 1, 2012 John S Reed explains the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as one of the primary causes behind the economic crash of 2008. This interview has a number of significant points that are easily missed, only if one has biased filters in place. http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-reed-on-big-banks-power-and-influence/ yeah, Clinton was a great president wasnt he the myth of the clinton surplus http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 1, 2012 yeah, Clinton was a great president wasnt he the myth of the clinton surplus http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Clinton bought into this scam that was sold by right wing Republicans such as Phill Gramm et al. John Reed was one of the major players in repealing Glass-Steagall. Did you even bother to watch the interview? Probably not. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harmonious Emptiness Posted February 1, 2012 the merchant class has always been, and continues to be, a blight upon humanity ??? Unless you live on a farm, where do buy anything but from a merchant? You sure you meant merchants? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 1, 2012 yeah, Clinton was a great president wasnt he the myth of the clinton surplus http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 What does the Clinton surplus have to do with this thread? Except to derail it as usual. Please stay on topic. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted February 1, 2012 What does the Clinton surplus have to do with this thread? Except to derail it as usual. Please stay on topic. you mentioned glass-steagal. he signed it. on topic. thx. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan Posted February 1, 2012 it's a bit irritating when people bash one president and promote another... bash 'em all. they've all fucked us at one point or another. some in obvious immediate ways, some in subtle long term ways, and some in both ways. Gotta bash 'em all! Presidents! What clinton did might not have been 'real' but it did work for a short time before bush 2.0 restored the harsh reality of poverty. And what damages bush did were still occupied with what little good he did. So at the end of the day, every president is just another president, could be Mr. T, could be kermit the frog, could be benjamin franklin. they're little more than scapegoats for which the blame can be amply shoved upon. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humbleone Posted February 2, 2012 great interview. Thank you for posting it. Bill Moyers is right, this is a 'crime story'. Why is it that four years later none of these bankers have been sent to prision. sadly the link between big money and politicians is stronger than ever, GOP primary is turning into a battle of super packs, all run by competing billionairs... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) merchant (ˈmɜːtʃənt) —n 1. a person engaged in the purchase and sale of commodities for profit, esp on international markets; trader These scum think they are clever with all their fake math and money-moving, creating debt for unsuspecting rubes, then create profit out of nothing for themselves, hoarding undeserved wealth that shouldn't even exist (and really doesn't, just in their own fake math). Good luck with that. Don't buy or sell anything and don't use anything that's bought or sold. Don't trust anyone with over $30. I can't help but think you're setting yourself up. Derivatives didn't cause the problem, it was the housing bubble. Even if there were no derivatives made we'd still have huge problem. People create bubbles; we love'em on the way up; they burst, we're devastated. Its not scum who created the conditions. It could be argued it was well meaning people who wanted to make housing more affordable and put extra money in peoples pockets by allowing them to refinance cheaply. Money for nothing. So interest rates were lowered, down payments and eligibility were relaxed, leverage was expanded, every third commercial talked about no money down. Most people benefited until the bubble burst. They always do, real estate bubbles happen regularly, neatly spaced a generation apart. Whether beanie babies or turnips, there's a powerful human psychology going on. As long as the problem is Them. You'll be blindsided because you're staring at a tiny group and not taking in the whole dynamic. A dynamic that happens over and over. The do gooders are culpable, the bankers are culpable, the person who bought too much house with too little down is culpable. I think, and history backs me up that market forces tend to be fairer then those artificially imposed. Still, in my opinion some vital human resources needs like food and energy, controls and laws should be made to keep speculators out of the system. Unless you have a use for 100,000 pounds of corn and can take delivery, you shouldn't be able to bid on it, because people starve when speculators bid up commodities irrationally. Yet if these speculators are 'scum' they're probably less harmful then the 'Do Gooders'. Those with the best of intentions also destroy, kill and impoverish. Unintended coincidences are a bitch. We see it over and over. Take some African countries that were net exporters of food. New government sees big farms as unfair, takes the land away, gives it to the masses, in short order the the surplus food is gone, hunger spreads, poverty becomes a norm. Same type of things happen here, but capitalism and property rights help. They create a higher standard of living. Most often the market place makes wiser decisions then anything that can be artificially imposed. Its not an absolute rule, but as long as human nature is the way it is; it cannot be ignored. Edited February 2, 2012 by thelerner 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nanashi Posted February 2, 2012 Bacteria is natural, should we not use soap? Viruses are natural, shall we not use medication? STDs are natural, are we not to use condoms? How sad that unfettered capitalism has otherwise decent people so brainwashed, they will defend this constant trickery and scams. Turnips. Pfft. I get it, people see Michael Douglas movies and think they will be rich as sin someday too. Yeah, I get it, corporate fascism is sexy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted February 2, 2012 please show me an example of unfettered capitalism! a "completely free" market devoid of any governmental influence in the business calculus. no regulations. yeah, they dont exist... when laws and regulations are written badly, poorly, haphazardly, without any real consideration as to the full extent of the downstream effects...well hey, those writing them may not take them to extremes, but when one is to follow the letter of the law, it helps to theoretically follow it and consider the detrimental effects, because sooner or later, somebody will take those notions to the extreme end of the utilized verbiage. that's why people freaked out about the "death panels" in Obamacare, because sooner or later that's what we'll be subjected to - read the verbiage and it is right there. part of demanding integrity of your legislators - who are they writing this stuff for anyway?? the market percolates, no doubt about that. but huge bubbles that are systemic threats? puh-leeze, those are fueled by political considerations trumping market considerations in the business calculus as a whole for "the marketplace." sorta like there are those whom are so full of their theories that they claim CO2 is a stronger driver of climate than the sun and love to take an arbitrary point and draw a straight line and then use that as real data. its a fantasy, just as it is a fantasy that the market blew itself up, just as its fantasy that speculation is what has been driving up commodity and oil prices. (hello, we now burn more corn as fuel than as food - consider what animals are fed, consider what we eat...hm, yeah, must be those damned speculators! not that speculation cant go to an extreme, but the function of speculation is to shield the market from large price swings - it has the net effect of smoothing out the price over the longer term. storage - who can store stuff for long, how expensive is that...it simply doesnt work like it is been portrayed by some. you can lose your shirt if you're not smart, you can make a bunch if you are...like many other things in life...) yeah, when the market is swinging more wildly than usual, speculative prices will also swing a little more - but you cant with a straight face attribute that as a root cause!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nanashi Posted February 2, 2012 Alright, I recant my rage, joeblast and thelerner do make good points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humbleone Posted February 2, 2012 please show me an example of unfettered capitalism! a "completely free" market devoid of any governmental influence in the business calculus. no regulations. I would urge you to watch the Bill Moyers interview link posted by OP. There were regulations in place, a firewall in place by glass-segal. The problem is big money, big banks in fact forced the regulators to change the rules. Travelars and Citibank were given the green light 'before' the merger. The issue is not so much lack of regulations, but enforcement of regulations. Hedge funds/banks have been beating up on CFTC(commodity Futures trading commission) and SEC for years, getting the lawmakers to cut their budgets. I once read that in case of AIG, there were over 280 regulations in place that should have prevented AIG from what they did, but the big money and their lobbyist made the regulators look the other way. In the Bill Moyers interview, he said banks are now spending large sums of money to rollback Frank-dodd... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted February 2, 2012 I would urge you to watch the Bill Moyers interview link posted by OP. There were regulations in place, a firewall in place by glass-segal. The problem is big money, big banks in fact forced the regulators to change the rules. Travelars and Citibank were given the green light 'before' the merger. The issue is not so much lack of regulations, but enforcement of regulations. Hedge funds/banks have been beating up on CFTC(commodity Futures trading commission) and SEC for years, getting the lawmakers to cut their budgets. I once read that in case of AIG, there were over 280 regulations in place that should have prevented AIG from what they did, but the big money and their lobbyist made the regulators look the other way. In the Bill Moyers interview, he said banks are now spending large sums of money to rollback Frank-dodd... it is delusional to believe such a thing - and Bill Moyers is not going to convince me otherwise. I'll watch when I have time, so I'll confirm my gut & research on that later. if you want to make the case that the SEC was underfunded or what not, that assertion can be made - but the fact remains that they did not perform their job, performed it poorly, regulations were not followed - dude, come on - how can you blame a bank for a regulator not doing their job? the way things are written it is mostly "here is what you may not do" so then when somebody invents something outside of the paradigm of the regulation, whose job is it to identify and enforce such things? the regulators. The SEC couldnt even pick up on Madoff, right under their noses. Incompetence or willfull ignorance? Dodd-Frank is an absolutely terribly written bill and it should be rolled back. If you know a single thing about it, know that it ostensibly entrenches the concept of "too big to fail." Something better written and more appropriate would be nice and all, but...Dodd Frank was written by two charlatans that heavily contributed towards the housing market bubble, it is a badly written law that would not have even passed if the democrats didnt have a supermajority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 2, 2012 it is delusional to believe such a thing - and Bill Moyers is not going to convince me otherwise. I'll watch when I have time, so I'll confirm my gut & research on that later. if you want to make the case that the SEC was underfunded or what not, that assertion can be made - but the fact remains that they did not perform their job, performed it poorly, regulations were not followed - dude, come on - how can you blame a bank for a regulator not doing their job? the way things are written it is mostly "here is what you may not do" so then when somebody invents something outside of the paradigm of the regulation, whose job is it to identify and enforce such things? the regulators. The SEC couldnt even pick up on Madoff, right under their noses. Incompetence or willfull ignorance? Dodd-Frank is an absolutely terribly written bill and it should be rolled back. If you know a single thing about it, know that it ostensibly entrenches the concept of "too big to fail." Something better written and more appropriate would be nice and all, but...Dodd Frank was written by two charlatans that heavily contributed towards the housing market bubble, it is a badly written law that would not have even passed if the democrats didnt have a supermajority. I started this thread on a very important topic of concern to all. As usual you post here with your boring, redundant and fractured narrative. Whether, it is your complaints about Clinton's surplus, commie liberals, the evil government etc., you are still off topic. Clinton's surplus is irrelevant to this topic, yet you somehow believe that bringing an extraneous topic into a discourse on Glass-Steagall, is proper. Proper it is not! Further, you admit that you haven't had time to watch the interview, yet assume a pretense that you have complete facts in regards to the topic being discussed and will not be persuaded to a different point of view. Talk about being prejudiced! 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted February 2, 2012 pfft, as long as you continue to deny the existence of the enabling hand of government in this, you are every bit as narrow minded as you claim my views are! Clinton joked about using the CRA to lower lending standards ffs, but your laser focus is on the branches, calling them root, wondering why your picture is skewed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted February 2, 2012 "freewheelin conference room' indeed...! I don't think so...it actually sounds too open-minded and 'liberal' 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
