Uncle Sam: in bed with cheaters and scoundrels!

Just like the tobacco settlement, The Fed Gov seems content to serve as a business partner with Wall Street fraudsters. Unlike tobacco, there is the pretense of investigation and court proceedings, but the ultimate result remains the same -- a share in the spoils of crime and an incentive for bad actors to step things up as they rip off the rest of us.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-05/meet-uncle-sam-your-partner-in-crime.html

Note to Flow: this might not be relevant in Oklahoma.

"Your shenanigans are beyond the pale! We must regulate* you!"

*By "regulate", we mean of course that we must fret on C-SPAN for a couple weeks while we take bakshish to let you carry on substantially unmolested.

Don't forget this: "we will fine you for this bad behavior, hand over an amount that satisfies the thirst for bread and circuses but doesn't put you out of business!" This followed on the QT with, "see you again next year for your next payment."

Sort of what I meant with the "bakshish" bit, but yep, exactement.

Not going to claim all is perfect but, Infowars much?

Break them up, and ban derivatives.

Are we still pretending that Uncle Sam isn't the creepy uncle that you won't leave your kids alone with?

Uncle Sam's nipples are creepy.

I was just taking a shot in the dark. Your post just sounded Jonesy to me.

Do you share Alex Jones' views about the secret world government, the 9/11 attacks, the fake moon landings, and so on?

I certainly hope so.

Let's cut to the chase, what are your thoughts on Lake Whores?

What about the integrals?

Breaking them up is certainly a needed step, but banning derivatives isn't a particularly good idea. There's nothing wrong with derivatives in and of themselves; their problems relate to a lack of transparency and regulation. So, for example, mortgage backed securities are fine. Mortgage backed securities structured to forbid the renegotiation of principal on underwater mortgages are a problem; mortgage backed securities structured to forbid the sale of specific mortgages and the substitution of cash or comparably valuable assets are a problem; mortgage backed securities that don't make public detailed information about the underlying mortgage pools are a problem; mortgage backed securities sliced and diced into tiers with even lower tiers rated AAA on the presumption that housing prices always go up are a problem; mortgage backed securities rated based on a presumption that default risks are entirely independent, that recessions and housing downturns never happen, are a problem; mortgage backed securities rated by companies paid by the issuers of the securities are a problem; mortgage backed securities where the middle men putting the securities together skim so much money off the top that they destabilize the issue are a problem; mortgage backed securities that aren't sold in an open public market, thereby sacrificing the primary virtue of mortgage backed securities--increased liquidity of pooled mortgage assets--are a problem; etc.

Rather than banning derivatives, ban the executives of any financial firm that has to be taken over or broken up from even again managing anyone's finances other than their own.

I love when there are people around to help make me feel more sane, because sometimes the pot makes me unsure that I am.

Liet, in principle I agree, but over and over we've seen that the damage from derivatives handled poorly is significant. We can ban the executives but that's a bit like closing the barn door after the cows have left.

Finance executives living with the threat of being banned from the industry if they grossly mismanage their companies by privatizing profit and externalizing risk will do much better in the future. As for that barn door, that's why you break up the companies by nationalizing them, selling off the parts, and using the proceeds to compensate victims of fraud before other creditors and shareholders. It accomplishes everything a forced bankruptcy does in terms of making victims whole, it can be done without meeting the requirements of bankruptcy, and it's less disruptive to the legitimate side of a finance company's operations than a bankruptcy is.

Yeah, the execs generally think they are smart enough to not break the toys, so they don't see a down side to playing. I've worked with some of these arrogant fucks, and each and every one of them believes he is the smartest and slickest man in a room full of very smart people.

*googles*

Fucking hell.

First link Google turns up says you're dead. Are you a ghost, Mr. Danner?

Black Dove to the Red Room STAT!

Holy shit, my PKE meter's going off the scale.

Oh wait, that's my pocket calculator. Well, that explains why my answer kept coming up "BOOBS."

I clicked through. Apparently Mr. Danner was faking his own death.

Did the Greys fall for it or has he led them here?!?!?

Does anyone suppose we have the real Sam Danner here? That would be quite the celebrity catch! We could do a 20 questions with Sam Danner type thing for publicity.

I wouldn't of minded someone who has taken "Alex Jones' Blue Pill" around to have some debate with. As I said, I don't like being reminded I'm not completely crazy.