Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:Considering Obama signed Dodd-Frank, I think it's safe to say your comment is pretty much wrong.

Dodd-Frank has been nothing but smoke and noise. All it did was authorize a rule-writing, which process was immediately infiltrated and overpowered by corporate lobby. All while giving that same lobby a beautiful smokescreen of wailing over the supposedly draconian regulation, which of course is only regulation at all when compared to the lacuna that preceded it. Meanwhile, in DC, Democrats get to pretend that they did something good and Republicans can pretend Democrats did something bad. Here on Dakka, it let's you pretend the President is interested in reforming Wallstreet.

biccat wrote:Regulation is unnecessary when the market behaves in the manner you want.

I think that's probably chiseled on the front of the NYSE, right? That's the bloody motto of big business.

biccat wrote:A call for regulation therefore is a call to force people to act in a manner that you want.

And the objection to regulation is an objection to anyone else having a say on what you want.

Manchu wrote:Dodd-Frank has been nothing but smoke and noise. All it did was authorize a rule-writing, which process was immediately infiltrated and overpowered by corporate lobby. All while giving that same lobby a beautiful smokescreen of wailing over the supposedly draconian regulation, which of course is only regulation at all when compared to the lacuna that preceded it.

Except...no. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Obama has been a friend to Wall Street, but you're largely wrong. He's been a friend to his friends on Wall Street, but that's pretty much how state capitalism works. People in power give favors to their friends. But anyone who isn't a friend of Obama (or raising money for him) has been left out in the cold.

Manchu wrote:I think that's probably chiseled on the front of the NYSE, right? That's the bloody motto of big business.

No, that's the motto of big government. "People aren't doing what we want, how can we force them to do so?"

When government takes the power to force people to behave in a certain manner businesses have to respond.

Manchu wrote:And the objection to regulation is an objection to anyone else having a say on what you want.

Yup. Now you're getting it.

The proper role of government is to force people to behave in certain ways: such as not assaulting, raping, and murdering one another -- and yes, even trillion dollar examples of fraud are still fraud. (But don't you worry; the President is clearly not interested in treating it as crime.)

Manchu wrote:The proper role of government is to force people to behave in certain ways: such as not assaulting, raping, and murdering one another -- and yes, even trillion dollar examples of fraud are still fraud. (But don't you worry; the President is clearly not interested in treating it as crime.)

I suppose there's only one thing left to be said.

Manchu wrote:

Manchu wrote:The proper role of government is to force people to behave in certain ways: such as not assaulting, raping, and murdering one another -- and yes, even trillion dollar examples of fraud are still fraud. (But don't you worry; the President is clearly not interested in treating it as crime.)

that's part of the problem, since the banks got deregulated what they did is not even a crime.

What was the supposed crime again?

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?

Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.

At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.

The one the banks are all charging each other with (carefully, carefully -- as a violation of civil law!) is fraud. The complaints tend to read "massive fraud." The damages tend to the hundreds of millions if not billions. The cases are piling higher and higher. Of course, that's just the banks hounding each other, setting aside the American population that is actually being affected. The activity in question, remarkably similar from instance to instance, has lead to near economic collapse. No other enemy of the United States has ever done so much damage to the Republic as corporate finance. If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

Losing millions of Americans savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the Americans whose money was lost in the first place?

What get rich quick schemes?

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

aren't you against socialism? you're opposed to welfare to help your neighbor, but your fine with welfare to help big banks? interesting.

if banks are to big to fail, they need to get chopped up into smaller banks that can fail.

Manchu wrote:The one the banks are all charging each other with (carefully, carefully -- as a violation of civil law!) is fraud. The complaints tend to read "massive fraud." The damages tend to the hundreds of millions if not billions. The cases are piling higher and higher. Of course, that's just the banks hounding each other, setting aside the American population that is actually being affected. The activity in question, remarkably similar from instance to instance, has lead to near economic collapse. No other enemy of the United States has ever done so much damage to the Republic as corporate finance. If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.

How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

aren't you against socialism? you're opposed to welfare to help your neighbor, but your fine with welfare to help big banks? interesting.

if banks are to big to fail, they need to get chopped up into smaller banks that can fail.

Again, what crime. Don't change the subject when called on it.

Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?

We could start with credit default swaps.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?

Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.

At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.

When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?

Manchu wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.

You knew this was ridiculous when you wrote it.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?

We could start with credit default swaps.

Thats designed to be insurance. Do you know what they are actually?

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:The one the banks are all charging each other with (carefully, carefully -- as a violation of civil law!) is fraud. The complaints tend to read "massive fraud." The damages tend to the hundreds of millions if not billions. The cases are piling higher and higher. Of course, that's just the banks hounding each other, setting aside the American population that is actually being affected. The activity in question, remarkably similar from instance to instance, has lead to near economic collapse. No other enemy of the United States has ever done so much damage to the Republic as corporate finance. If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.

How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

aren't you against socialism? you're opposed to welfare to help your neighbor, but your fine with welfare to help big banks? interesting.

if banks are to big to fail, they need to get chopped up into smaller banks that can fail.

Again, what crime. Don't change the subject when called on it.

I said there was no crime involved because there are no laws to regulate the banks. Laws need to be put into place so those same banks don't crash the entire worlds market again. Now why are you for welfare for the banks?

Frazzled wrote:How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.

Good thing I didn't just say a word then. The charge is that banks encouraged customers to invest in instruments that those same banks were simultaneously betting against. You keep playing dumb.

Allrighty then what crime would you accuse them of?

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?

We could start with credit default swaps.

Thats designed to be insurance. Do you know what they are actually?

No it's not designed to be insurance. It's designed to be like insurance, in terms of the profitability, but it was specifically designed to be different enough that it could entirely avoid regulation. (Most basically the investor doesn't even have to have an insurable interest in the instrument.) Since you're the expert, you must know that insurance is one of the most if not the most heavily regulated products in the market. Credit default swaps, by contrast, had absolutely no regulation whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.

You knew this was ridiculous when you wrote it.

You're right. The damage Al Qaeda has done or ever possibly could do pales absolutely in comparison to the way Wallstreet has ravaged and continues to ravage Mainstreet.

AustonT wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?

Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.

At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.

When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?

When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.

No.

It was different than an actual insurance contract because it was an offsetting trade tied to differing bonds to match the risk profile of the underlying credit you were trying to hedge the risk against.


Its not designed for nefarious purpose, but as a way for banks and other institutions to hedge loans/securities to clients they viewed as too risky for the return they were getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?

We could start with credit default swaps.

Thats designed to be insurance. Do you know what they are actually?

No it's not designed to be insurance. It's designed to be like insurance, in terms of the profitability, but it was specifically designed to be different enough that it could entirely avoid regulation. (Most basically the investor doesn't even have to have an insurable interest in the instrument.) Since you're the expert, you must know that insurance is one of the most if not the most heavily regulated products in the market. Credit default swaps, by contrast, had absolutely no regulation whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.

You knew this was ridiculous when you wrote it.

You're right. The damage Al Qaeda has done or ever possibly could do pales absolutely in comparison to the way Wallstreet has ravaged and continues to ravage Mainstreet.

I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?

Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.

At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.

When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?

When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.

Malus, understand, in the US deposits are insured. Its my understanding that is not the case in the UK. You're both right actually.

Frazzled wrote:Its not designed for nefarious purpose, but as a way for banks and other institutions to hedge loans/securities to clients they viewed as too risky for the return they were getting.

Yeah -- banks took on risk by making loans that they then wanted off their books so that they could take on other risks -- CDS let them do it all without increasing capitalization AND selling the derivative was insanely profitable. And the result? Who cares how risky the loan is if you don't have to deal with the risk?

Are you seriously tell me, in 2012, that nothing went wrong?

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.

Good thing I didn't just say a word then. The charge is that banks encouraged customers to invest in instruments that those same banks were simultaneously betting against. You keep playing dumb.

What instruments? When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

AustonT wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?

Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?

Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.

At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.

When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?

When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.

That doesn't make any sense. You said they "lost millions of public savings and needing the government to put it back" Now in clarification you have made those two separate statements one and the same. The subprime lending market was and is a debacle, but to my knowledge no one's SAVINGS were lost by banks. Which is what I asked about: savings.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its not designed for nefarious purpose, but as a way for banks and other institutions to hedge loans/securities to clients they viewed as too risky for the return they were getting.

Yeah -- banks took on risk by making loans that they then wanted off their books so that they could take on other risks -- CDS let them do it all without increasing capitalization AND selling the derivative was insanely profitable. And the result? Who cares how risky the loan is if you don't have to deal with the risk?

Are you seriously tell me, in 2012, that nothing went wrong?

If you're trying to lay off risk you buy CDS not sell it. In addition to seeming to have taken up the pastime of comparing whole industries to mass terorrists (thats just choice, so choice) you're lacking a basic understanding of risk. Further, the pricing of the CDS is tied to the underlyhing risk you're offsetting. Get a potential bad loan and there's no CDS to begin with or the pricing is particularly brutal.

Of course its not illegal or unethical, unless you're down with the hardcore Baptist view that insurance is a form of gambling. I guess you don't have home insurance either.


To your point that soething went wrong. Yea. Lots of things go wrong all the time. It doesn't make them illegal or unethical.

Guess what, none of that blathering is what nearly sank Citigroup.

Frazzled wrote:I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.

You don't need to wait for me, tough guy. Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness. You can personally explain to them how innocent the finance sector is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?

Depending on the level of the transaction, both. As you well know.

alarmingrick wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:

The Republican narrative is fiction

Pretty much this.

Yes, very much so.

Seeing as I third the motion, I say we break for beer and pizza. On Frazz.

I'd prefer a glass and a plate, respectively. But to each their own.

Glass of beer and a plate of pizza? Sure, I can compromise.

I also agree with this,

The republicans are just digging a larger hole for themselves.

Though people who keep saying Obama is the worst president clearly have never read history correctly XD

Frazzled wrote:Further, the pricing of the CDS is tied to the underlyhing risk you're offsetting. Get a potential bad loan and there's no CDS to begin with or the pricing is particularly brutal.

It didn't matter. In less than fifteen years, the market was worth over $60 trillion. And I'm not even talking about mortgages, which is where the model really took hold.

Frazzled wrote:If you're trying to lay off risk you buy CDS not sell it.

Yeah, that's the point -- banks were doing both at the same time.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.

You don't need to wait for me, tough guy. Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness. You can personally explain to them how innocent the finance sector is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?

Depending on the level of the transaction, both. As you well know.

Whats your encore? Do you accuse real estate agents of being Nazis next?

Do you seriously feel personally responsible for the financial models that ruined our economy? If so, then you ought to do something other than defend them.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.

You don't need to wait for me, tough guy. Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness. You can personally explain to them how innocent the finance sector is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?

Depending on the level of the transaction, both. As you well know.

So yo're telling me retail customers were being sold CDS? What the feth are you smoking? What retail Joe Shmoe has a couple of million laying around for a CDS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Do you seriously feel personally responsible for the financial models that ruined our economy? If so, then you ought to do something other than defend them.

The problem is you're shooting your arrow at the wrong target. However, since you labelled all finance and insurance guys (er Wall Street in your joyous Occupymyass parlance) as AlQaeda you've just attacked everything from car insurance salesmen to bank tellers arguing with you about what really happened is kind of pointless.