I believe that some folks are wedded to the idea that the U.S.

[cali]

must fail in order to make way for their vision of a new utopian country. I think that explains the antipathy that these folks have toward Obama. To them, he's part of an evil and corrupt system that needs to be destroyed. And yeah, some of those folks post on DU.

[wyldwolf]

1. and it's usually the same ones who..

...believe the Democratic party must fail in order to make way for their vision of a "progressive" utopia.

[sarge43]

3. Burning down the village in order to save it.

That works well. :sarcasm:

[Beacool]

26. I agree.

After reading thousands of posts over the years, I believe that it's the left who wishes the country to "fail" more than the right. The right prefers to keep the status quo and the country they remember in the 50s. The left is the one that usually wants to throw the baby with the bath water.

Scary bunch, both extremes.

:(

[glowing]

2. It doesn't need to be destroyed. It needs perfecting. The useless tools who call themselves

"Representatives" are the greatest harm to our making it through this economic blight that they allowed in the first place. Representative is in quotes.. because they do little to represent the real needs of the most of the people. The revolution should be changing the old guard with truer representation. That would be the best goal. In these times, playing politics is killing people all over the world.

[wyldwolf]

4. and how would you suggest replacing the Congress?

[sarge43]

6. and what/who would you put in place to stop the same process from

happening all over again? Or do you believe progressives are somehow immuned to corruption?

[wyldwolf]

9. I don't think the process has been seriously thought out

[sarge43]

14. If history is any guide, no.

How many revolutions have been successful in that the goals were accomplished and maintained? The more violent and radical, the more likely the reaction would be the same.

Power is like radioactivity - necessary, but dangerous and difficult to control. Worse, the longer you're near it, the more likely you'll be destroyed.

I suppose the best we can do is routinely move people away from it and replace them.

[Odin2005]

33. The would be "revolutionaries" become a new source of oppression.

It never fails.

[Withywindle]

77. Exactly!

I've participated in progressive groups for various causes for decades, and found it's the people who are most zealous about "tear it all down" radicalism who are precisely the ones who should NEVER be in a position of real power - all on their own, in their own little groups, they create enough of a cult of personality; do so much to shout down and ostracize dissent in a cultish way; promote one-upmanship and "more radical than thou" competition; do their best to shrink the group down to a like-thinking "hard core" that perpetually gets more and more insular and less and less capable of coalition-building....that I'm thinking they'd be right proper scary little authoritarian tinpots if they ever had any real responsibility.

The people I have met who seem to REALLY have a grasp are the ones who volunteer for the unglamorous jobs but don't want "power," the ones who don't soapbox, and listen more than they talk. The ones who understand that every utopia is someone else's distopia, and that what really matters is taking care of people as best we can in the world we really have right now.

[Number23]

66. "Or do you believe progressives are somehow immuned to corruption?"

Best question I've seen here today.

[anonymous171]

21. "Representatives?" You mean like Kucinich? nt

[Odin2005]

28. And I bet anyone who disagrees with your vision of perfection is an...

...enemy of the people that needs to be "re-educated" or "liquidated". :eyes:

"Those who would create Heaven on Earth have only ever created a Hell" --Karl Popper

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Here is a list of some things I think need to fail badly.

1) for profit healthcare.
2) discriminatory policy and legislation against people because of their sexual orientation.
3) imperial adventures around the planet and American Exceptionalism in general
4) the kleptocratic corporate stranglehold on the federal government and congress in particular.
5) (or perhaps 4a) the resolute do-nothingism regarding catastrophic climate change and the need to restructure our economic system to be sustainable.
6) (or perhaps 3a/4b) the MIC.
7) the PIC. (4c?)
8) the desecularization of the federal government.
9) (or perhaps 4d) privatization.
10) the rightwing stranglehold on broadcast media.
11) the hollowing out of the public education system.
...

I want Obama and the Democratic Party to succeed when and where it aligns with my value system, otherwise not.

Just one of those folks who post on DU.

[noamnety]

25. You have a habit of posting things

that leave me with nothing intelligent to add besides "what he said."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. +1

Certain aspects of our society DO need to fail or at least be deliberately destroyed and rebuilt.

So far Obama is acting more like Tony Blair than like FDR.

If "0" is the political center, then the Republicanites took us to "-8" (with negative numbers indicating the right wing), "-4" under Reagan and "-4" under Bush Jr.

We'd need a "+8" push to get back to the old center. Obama is giving us only a "+1" push. If he were as zealous as Reagan, he would have given us a "+4" push.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

68. What he said +1 n/t

[Raster]

86. +2!

:kick:

[HamdenRice]

7. That became obvious during the September financial crisis when lots were screaming, "Let It Fail !"

That was a turning point for my opinion of the general level of common sense on this board. There were people hoping for a collapse of the system and a Great Depression II.

I consider this separate from the arguments that were made that the bailouts wouldn't work, or would be too expensive or were unfair, or that the financial crisis wasn't as severe as was being described. I think those arguments were wrong, but were rational.

I was flabbergasted by the number of people who WANTED THE SYSTEM TO COLLAPSE and wanted the world to be PLUNGED INTO ABJECT POVERTY. I remember asking a series of questions and polls, and the overall result was that many DUers were willing to see the entire working class and middle class impoverished if it would wipe out the "fat cats." Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! It turned out that a very significant group of DUers were motivated more by spite than any other emotion, let alone any iota of rational thought.

I don't think I'll ever get over it in terms of my opinion of the general level of intelligence and empathy for fellow human beings.

[Deja Q]

10. Given the greed of a select few, raping our country for ~30 years, can you blame them?

And, no, I don't want Obama or anyone else to fail. Especially Bush -- look what happened under his reign.

Maybe those DUers are Chinese, thinking that it's better to dig two graves than one or whatever...

Besides, this is DU - home of the indigent, land of the emotionally fickle. Try to post something with some rationale and depth and in trots the mob squad and other bullshit, straight from the cows.

[HamdenRice]

18. Sort of like Stockholme syndrome after 30 years of economic abuse

I guess I can see where it comes from, but it certainly reduces one's incentive to post "something with some rationale and depth" because, you are right, just posting anything rational or empirically true about the economy get's one accused by the "mob squad" of being a shill or worse.

[LooseWilly]

46. Uhmm, I don't think that means what you think it means...

"Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed."

Your analogy would actually apply to the "moderates" who "show signs of loyalty" to the Financial Industries... which would in turn suggest that you are saying that those who hold your positions "reduce one's incentive to post "something with some rationale and depth" because..."

Just saying, when your calling folks irrational and borderline idiotic, it's generally best not to blow your own simile.

And, just out of curiosity, why do you hate "spite"? What's it ever done to you, to cause you to demean it so?

[HamdenRice]

58. Perhaps your analysis of the simile is too narrow and literal

Thirty years of economic abuse seems to have caused certain people to yearn for, --- uh, more economic abuse.

In colloquial English, the syndrome refers not just to identification with the hostage takers, but to the hostages identification with and desire to continue their own plight.

Also, since we're being picky, your sentence, "Just saying, when your calling folks irrational ..." should be "when you're calling ..." unless you wanted to say, "your calling folks irrational is unfair."

When you're going to make picky corrections, it's generally best not to blow your spelling.

[LooseWilly]

76. Uhhm, your simile still doesn't mean what you think it means.

Even if one were to grant your colloquial interpretation of Stockholm syndrome, "identification with the hostage takers" as well as "... desire to continue their own plight"... your simile would still apply only to those who wish to bail out the banks at their own expense... so that the banks can continue to lend them money at interest. That would most assuredly still not include the respondents who were reacting solely out of "spite", i.e. those shouting to "Let Them Fail !!". Those who were reacting solely out of "spite" would be better compared to those who would want to "punish" those who had taken them hostage (the Banks/Wall St. in our little simile which is now beginning to border on allegory).

Rather, it would be those who are insisting that the banks must be saved, at their own expense, especially those making that argument while shouldering massive debts, most especially those shouldering massive credit card debt... who would be "identifying with" and "desirous of continuing their own plight"... and hence theirs would be the "voice", in our little simile, that:

certainly reduces one's incentive to post "something with some rationale and depth" because, you are right, just posting anything rational or empirically true about the economy get's one accused by the "mob squad" of being a shill or worse.

And having prefaced that with, in post 7, "I was flabbergasted by the number of people who WANTED THE SYSTEM TO COLLAPSE..." I am confident that you are not in agreement with those who were reacting out of "spite". As there are really only two positions here: save the banks, or don't save the banks... if you are "flabbergasted" by those who would let them fail, then you are siding with those who would save them... and hence you are referring to your own opinions when you refer to the sufferers of Stockholm syndrome. Hence you are accusing yourself of reducing "... one's incentive to post...".

Unless that is what you meant to do, you sir... have botched your simile.

I'll take credit for the typo you pointed out... quite correctly. Then again, I wasn't making any attempt to sneer at a large swath of DUers... so I have no problem with a typo. Do you feel comfortable making statements such as:

I don't think I'll ever get over it in terms of my opinion of the general level of intelligence and empathy for fellow human beings.

?...
You condemn "... the general level of intelligence..." of swaths of DU, and then fail when trying to use your own simile in your next post?

It must be nice to be that... "self-assured". I will refrain from dreaming up any purple prose similes to expound the wonder that is... you.


:+

[depakid]

51. posting anything rational or empirically true about the economy get's one accused by the "mob squad"

of being a shill....

Yep. The epithet they tossed for awhile was: THANK GOD IT PASSED.

Sort of works both ways, though.

As can be seen with some of the posts about Krugman- or Stiglitz.

And if they only knew Dean Baker- one can only imagine what that side would say.

[Tektonik]

13. Anyone who wanted to let the economy take its own course is a libertarian through and through

They're still here, and that's freaky :scared:

[HamdenRice]

15. Ah yes, the Ron Paul Goldbug libertarians definitiely are still here

They usually start out by saying the banks "create money out of thin air..." and go downhill from there.

[Odin2005]

34. The Libertarian "The Fed is a conspiracy by Jewish bankers" shit is disturbing.

:puke:

[iamthebandfanman]

22. Bah,

im pretty sure we wanted the corporations to fail
not the american people.

we wanted money given to average folks, not businesses who failed to run themselves properly.


this trickle down economics shit is worthless.


you give people a means to consume, and you help everyone involved.

[BzaDem]

49. Please tell me. If we didn't bailout the banks, where would Americans spend their new money?

Maybe they would have spent it at the store that went bankrupt because it couldn't borrow money for payroll.

[Raineyb]

64. What new money has been created by bailing out the banks at the expense of the public?

Because the banks are STILL not really lending. And frankly we do too much borrowing anyway.

[Odin2005]

30. It's a sick, dangerous apocalypsism with obvious religious roots.

And its as frightening as Hell. Those people are no different psychologically then the Fundies that want to devastate the environment to make Jesus return faster.

[HamdenRice]

61. It is interesting that there is a religious correlation

Let It Failers do indeed have the same teleology as fundamentalist Christians -- namely, that the world must be destroyed in order to be rebuilt in some perfect, post rapture way.

[Odin2005]

65. Many historians have noticed that way of thinking as running very strongly in Western culture.

German historian Oswald Spengler, considered by many to have been the first person to espouse a truly objective, non-Eurocentric history of the the world, traced that kind of thinking back to a 11th Century Italian monk named Joachim di Fiore, who was condemned as a heretic because of his apocalyptic theological history.

[JackRiddler]

48. Sorry Hamden, this is what happened and you're in denial.

It wasn't, "let it fail."

It was, "don't let them rob whatever's left."

They did. Things will keep getting worse for the vast majority who don't own and control the financial sector.

[HamdenRice]

57. I have distinguised the rational as opposed to irrational opposition to the bailout

Being worried that the bailout money would be lost or stolen was a rational worry, albeit wrong. But there were indeed many DUers who actually wanted the entire economic system to fail, and "Let It Fail" was their rallying cry. I'm not the only one in this subthread who remembers it.

As for who is in denial, I find it amazing that intelligent people seem unable to come to term with the actual numbers -- including the profitability to the Treasury so far of the TARP 1 bailout as a result of the built in mandatory 5% dividend, which Barney Frank predicted and continues to mention when he discusses it.

Believing at this point that the TARP 1 bailout money was simply stolen or given away -- with the banks having made timely quarterly dividend payments and several offering to redeem the TARP preferred shares for full value -- is the economic equivalent of being a "no planer" in post 9/11 geo-politics, which is to say, it means believing in something for which there is no evidence.

[JackRiddler]

71. Actually, it's sort of like believing housing bonds are fine because there's an annual return.

TARP is dwarfed by the Federal Reserve bailouts, and all of the bailouts together haven't even begun to meet the exposure of the essentially criminal top banks known as Wall Street. It's a temporary cash flow solution that has already failed. Evidence: they revoked accounting rules and now allow banks to make up numbers on the value of their supposed assets! They also fixed the "stress tests," as though this is going to fool the big international money pools to invest in these entities. Further evidence: They won't even specify who's getting how much out of the Fed bailouts, it's effectively a state secret, because this basic open accounting for investors would cause a run on these insolvent banks.

Even as recipients provide this "mandatory" dividend (we'll see how long before that's revised, it's funny how you're declaring victory a few months into this scam). You're assuming this can continue and principal will be paid off - sort of like the banks sold the myth that housing prices would rise forever so all that mattered was how many points you were getting today.

There is a larger issue. The actions of the Wall Street banks, the ratings agencies who slapped triple-As on junk they didn't even read in exchange for fees from these banks, and the overseers who suspended and cancelled all the rules in response to the activities of the banking lobby were those of an essentially criminal, piratical class with an extremist ideology handed down by Ayatollahs Friedman and Greenspan. After they wittingly put in bets and lost more in nominal value than the value of all the earth's assets combined, the casino invited them into the vault, to take whatever was left, and gave them a promissory note on federal tax revenues through the Nth generation. This is a capitulation to extortionists who wittingly and objectively have done a million times more damage to the world than the supposed terrorists we're supposed to fear.

I never said, let the economy fail and put everyone out of work!

This is the absurd strawman of the bailout defenders, and comparable to FOXNEWS claiming that antiwar activists love the terrorists. You're also promoting an absurd false dichotomy that the only choices were between "doing nothing" in the mode of "libertarians" (or religious "apocalyptists," to cite the rhetorical extreme of Odin2005), or else letting the pirates get away with crime because they were "too big too fail" and there was no other choice.

Bullshit. This was not exactly a Churchillian reaction to terror.

The trillions could have, and still can, be used to establish a national banking system that serves the productive economy and working citizens as a capital-providing utility at low interest. We could do away with the private banking system; it fails, but can be replaced with something less predatory that keeps the money flowing. Of course there is an immediate cost in transitional upheavals, but these are still less than what's coming already (did you just notice the bankruptcy of GM) and as the time inevitably arrives - it's already here - in which it can no longer be denied that despite the "bailouts" the megabanks are still insolvent and still demanding more lest they "fail" and we lose their life-giving functions.

Part of the trillions could have also gone to the system of local banks and credit unions, who did not knowingly bet themselves into insolvency, and who have now been placed at a competitive disadvantage to the mega-banks. If a credit union that serves its community goes insolvent, it fails. But if it succeeds, it's still faced with the unfair competition from megabanks who are provided with capital flow at taxpayer expense.

Why didn't that money go to the responsible, local, solvent and community-centered institutions? Why, on the contrary, were these institutions disadvantaged?

And then there's the reality that the measures to save mortgage holders are few and late. A new wave of foreclosures has just begun this week. The credit card wave is still only getting started. All of these were also the basis for securitized bonds and derivative bets on top in the trillions. You must know damn well this thing only ends in complete insolvency, hyperinflation of the dollar, or a financial dictatorship where the accountants are not even allowed to say that out loud, although everyone can see it. China won't be fooled again.

[HamdenRice]

73. "I never said, let the economy fail"--No one said you did

But there is no doubting that others did. This isn't about you, this time.

As for the rest, you've thrown in a lot, which would take some time to disaggregate. But already, you seem to have changed positions.

If we can take one issue at a time, I'd like to ask this:

Do you now agree that the TARP 1 bailout did involve the purchase of preferred shares with a mandatory 5% dividend?

Without going into whether you think that they will pay it or pay back the face value, or issues relating to the other bailouts, is the answer to that question, "yes" according to the terms of the preferred (which are available on line) and the behavior of the banks in making timely quarterly payments thus far?

[JackRiddler]

79. It's only been two quarters!

Sure, TARP 1 went almost entirely to buy "preferred shares" (overvalued) with "mandatory" dividend. So what? When did I say otherwise?

As you point out, after two quarters, they have yet to default on TARP. Is that an achievement? Remember, the banks themselves could have made the claim they were doing very well on bad loans, on the basis of getting good points in the first two quarters.

And why are we not going into the total amount of bailouts, including Fed printing trillions? Or, perhaps the most criminal piece of all, the AIG "bailout" for counterparties, the largest piece of which ($12 bn if I remember) was funneled directly to Goldman to pay credit-default swaps?

[HamdenRice]

81. The reason I'm going one issue at a time is because there is a lot of unclarity about each issue

There have been lots of posts that assume that the feds got absolutely nothing -- not even a promise of repayment -- for the bailout money. So before we can get to those other issues, I would like to know whether that is your belief.

In fact, the vast majority of DUers seem to believe that no promise to repay was implied in the TARP 1 or Federal reserve bailouts. It's very difficult to discuss the bailouts because of the wild and conflicting claims that so many people are making about it.

So, second question. The lead story on NPR this morning was that certain banks want to repay the amount they received under the TARP 1 bailout.

If a bank repays its TARP 1 bailout funds after having paid dividends, do you think that, limiting one's analysis to TARP 1, that the federal government will be fully reimbursed by that bank, with some income?

And if a bank repays its TARP 1 bailout funds with dividends, does that mean that that particular bank's TARP 1 bailout was neither a free money gift nor theft?

[JackRiddler]

85. I understand your point, now please acknowledge mine...

Yeah, yeah, I know it, I get it. They're supposed to pay back with dividend, and some few are doing so, to the kind of business press fanfare that the bogus up-tick in the DOW is also getting. What I'm hearing, however, is more whining about all the restrictive conditions and how the big guys want to pay and get out, blah blah, which isn't necessarily going to happen. Furthermore, how will they pay? By overstating their asset values thanks to the repeal of market accounting, and borrowing it from the Fed?

You think it all comes back. I think that's laughable, because the exposures of the mega-banks dwarfs TARP, which is why the real size of bailouts dwarfs TARP. So maybe another dozen trillion in Fed bailouts will do the trick. Then they'll repay the TARP, in hyperinflated dollars, out of the Fed bailouts.

I think your focus on these details, ignoring the positively criminal AIG & Citigroup bailouts by the way, with optimistic statements about how everything's going to be all right, misses the big picture. The banks are insolvent. The TARP is a very small part of what's being flooded into them. This money should have been used to set up a different national banking system and prop up the credit unions as the new alternative to the Wall Street banks. The government capitulated to extortion threats from a criminal class - which is wrong in principle as well as from any realistic perspective. The extortionists have put a new motto on the Great Seal: CRIME PAYS.

I think the problem is that as a financial expert you're a brilliant engineer and you know all about how the engine works, except you're down there with the engine and in denial that the ship has hit an iceberg.

[HamdenRice]

87. When your ship hits an iceberg, you save the ship & passengers, not build a new ship right then

I don't claim to be a financial expert; just a guy who can read a spread sheet, which it has become clear, most DUers can't do, or won't do if data in the spread sheet conflicts with deeply held political or emotional commitments.

The idea that the crisis and bailout was some sort of criminal conspiracy to extort public funds doesn't make sense. A criminal conspiracy is generally designed to make the conspirators better off. The crisis and bailout have wiped out hundreds billions of dollars worth of bankers personal fortunes in the financial sector. Investment bankers are generally required to hold much of their wealth as ownership in the banks (they were initially unlimited liability partnerships). The collapse of so many banks wiped those owners out. This was widely reported in the press at the time -- some of them losing 90% of their personal wealth. It just doesn't make sense to me that the owners of so many banks would conspire to wipe out billions of their own money, then get bailed out by the government in such a way that the government now has substantial control over them and is in the process of limiting their pay and bonuses.

Cui bono?

On the other hand, reading the media reports of what happened at face value, it looks to me that Wall Street was greedy and over confident, they got blind sided by a welter of bad ideas (like collateralized debt obligations), went bankrupt and almost took the entire financial system down with them, which was where the feds stepped in and basically nationalized the financial system.

If Paulson was involved in a criminal conspiracy, then he certainly was an astounding actor at playing dumb, blindsided, confused, scared shitless and ultimately bullied by Barney Frank and British PM Gordon Brown into doing the right thing. (TARP 1 really should be called the Gordon Brown plan, because after dithering over asset purchase language, Paulson and Frank ditched most of it and just did what Brown, as well as Krugman, said to do -- direct capital infusion and partial nationalization.) But then again, maybe it was all Kabuki theater and the alien lizard overlords were actually calling all the shots behind the scenes telling Paulson to only pretend to get on his knees and beg Nancy Pelosi.

As for the profitability of nationalizing the financial sector, I think it's important to look at it piece by piece. I do, however, have my own view of the "big picture." Even if it does cost hundreds of billions of dollars, that is less that what it would have cost to let the entire system collapse. As Paul Krugman and other progressive economists have pointed out, in the fall there was both a solvency crisis (the banks' underlying assets, mainly mortgage backed securities being worthless, making the banks insolvent) and a liquidity crisis (the banks being to scared to lend each other or buy each others still good assets). Economists disagree on how much of the crisis was each part.

But to the extent that the federal government stepped in and created liquidity on the basis of assets they judged to be still good, they took over the function that banks had performed profitably, and as such have reaped those profits. That's the big picture: The feds stepped in and took over functions previously performed by private sector banks. Terrified investors all over the world (including giant debt funds like the Chinese) sucked trillions out of the financial and handed it over to the federal government at no interest, which in turn loaned it out as a kind of super bank, earning money on the spread. It was just a massive intermediation process.

Iirc, the biggest bailout is the Fed's commercial paper program, which was allegedly around $1 trillion. But no major commercial paper issuers have defaulted and no money market fund (which invests in commercial paper, ie 30, 60 & 90 day loans) has reported losses ("broken the buck") since the unprecedented losses when Lehman defaulted. So if the money markets have not broken the buck, that's pretty solid evidence that neither has the Fed, which means that they are earning interest and having their commercial paper redeemed every 30 days. Which means that on an annualized basis, the Fed is probably making around $20 billion to $30 billion profit.

Another big Fed program was the currency swap with other central banks. Again, no central bank the Fed was involved with has collapsed (Iceland wasn't included). The Chinese State Administration for Foreign Currency, the Japanese Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Deutsche Bundesbank and the European Central Bank are still standing.

Does this mean that the bailout overall will be profitable? Who knows. But allowing the system to collapse would have been infinitely more expensive and miserable to billions of real human families. As the system becomes stabilized it's pretty clear that the Obama administration is erecting the new system of regulation and control, and down the road, I would agree with you that a decentralized consumer banking system, such as we had before the Garn-St. Germain banking act of 1982, is going to be necessary. I just don't see how that could be done now, let alone could have been done if the old banking system had been allowed to collapse.

The main point though is that it makes much more sense to explain the bailout as the orthodox application of the theory of liberal economic titans like John Maynard Keynes than to explain it through Naomi Klein, simply because disaster capitalists generally don't engineer their own destruction, bankruptcy, nationalization and submission to government fiat.

[JackRiddler]

92. Don't play strawmen with me, please.

"The idea that the crisis and bailout was some sort of criminal conspiracy to extort public funds doesn't make sense."

Good thing I didn't say that!

Furthermore, the way you label it (conspiracy) is mystification, while the way you define it is narrow and post-facto.

While you're beating that strawman, let's get on with the reality:

There was widespread criminal activity. For many years. The players found ways to invent new crimes, or successfully bought the Congress to re-legalize old crimes.

The public actions of a piratical class are not merely "conspiracy," of course. Would you call the imperialist land grabs of the 19th century a "conspiracy"? Many conspiracies are involved, but the empires were obviously built with fanfare, with the support of state policy and with an extremist ideology upheld as the justification.

And this is what happened throughout the financialization of the economy, with the extremist ideology of Ayatollahs Friedman and Greenspan serving as the justification. But above all, it went criminal in the final phase of the last 10 years (since Citigroup overturned Glass-Steagal, followed by the end of the dot-com bubble and the turn to the real-estate inflation insanity).

It's hardly a conspiracy when every edition of your propaganda media (until the crash) is devoted to singing the praises of how your class plundered the world.

When ratings agencies take money from banks and then don't even read the bonds they certify as AAA, and when this becomes pervasive even as the number of bonds multiplies into the stratosphere, all without oversight or honest analysis, then that is essentially criminal activity. It is fraud. They may want to claim otherwise, they may say it was legalized by some roll back in the regulation, but it is still fraud, the heart of which lies in conscious deception for gain. They are defrauding the investors around the world who think a AAA rating actually signifies something.

When the banks then issue clones of the exact same bonds, which track the already junky bonds and promise the same payoff, but DON'T HAVE the collateral in the form of houses to foreclose upon when they fail, then this too is fraud. It's even a form of fraud if the investor who buys the clone is a witting sucker.

When AIG issues multiple credit-default swaps on the same bond to actors who don't even own that bond, knowing that in sum they will never be able to pay off the notional value if the underlying bond fails because they've taken the same bet several dozen or hundred times over, and are thus liable for many times more than all of their reserves, they are committing FRAUD. Even if they claim some OTC regulation repeal five minutes earlier made it legal, in spirit it is still intentional deception of the market for the purpose of profit (and based on the lie that the underlying bond cannot fail!). They are offering a service on contingency that they know they will NEVER be able to fulfill, if the contingency actually happens.

And it goes on and on. When they all claim, over and over, that this system is stable and will keep growing, knowing that this is impossible, they are committing a collective, systemic fraud. No "conspiracy" necessary! When the system does fail and they all pretend they got ambushed, they are liars and frauds. When they claim the world can't go on without them and successfully extort bailout funds from taxpayers, even as legitimate productive businesses go under and genuinely sound banks who did honest business are disadvantaged, this is an extension of the fraud.

You write: "A criminal conspiracy is generally designed to make the conspirators better off. The crisis and bailout have wiped out hundreds billions of dollars worth of bankers personal fortunes in the financial sector."

Well, golly, some of the gamblers lost. They over-exposed themselves. Meanwhile, others won and are still winning. It's a classic capitalist consolidation, where risk-takers bet against each other and the winner eats the loser's assets. As for what happened at the biggest institutions, it was a bust-out. Why the hell should the executives care that they're screwing the investors, long as it's widespread and "legal," and why should they care that in the end they're destroying their own institutions? The point for them is the many billions in bonuses that they reap. They are just like the poachers who kill (I should say: murder) a six-ton elephant just to get 100 lbs worth of ivory.

Then the loser goes to the government and successfully hits it up for trillions. Or rather, the loser IS the government in the first place, the losers' execs are placed in all the key positions thanks to the revolving door system.

Finally, when one describes these obvious systemic workings in a straightforward manner, apologists reach into the "conspiracy" trick-bag and try to mystify the obvious.

Hamden, I expect better from you, as a victim yourself (in the 9/11 questions) of the conspiracy-panickers' hysterical and shameless attack tactics.

You write: "But then again, maybe it was all Kabuki theater and the alien lizard overlords were actually calling all the shots behind the scenes telling Paulson to only pretend to get on his knees and beg Nancy Pelosi."

From there I really don't feel I need to read any further. Once you mention lizards you're reaching deep into the bottom of the disinformation barrel and bringing up the dregs designed for complacent idiots. I don't need to engage that any more.

Kabuki is a centuries-old theater created by humans, it is played all the time. It has never required "alien lizard overlords."

You disappoint me.

[HamdenRice]

93. "The government capitulated to extortion threats from a criminal class...

- which is wrong in principle as well as from any realistic perspective. The extortionists have put a new motto on the Great Seal: CRIME PAYS."

Sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me. That plus the confident predictions of what they will do in the future, or the conclusion that bankers deliberately destroyed their own companies as a "breakout."

And you have not been any more sympathetic to "no-planers" than the "conspiracy-panickers" have -- and rightly so.

Some interpretations of criminal behavior are supported by evidence; some are the intellectual equivalent of "no planes," "mini-nukes" and "alien lizard overlord" theories.

[JackRiddler]

95. There's a difference between deliberate and witting...

The executives didn't set out to destroy their own banks. They set out to enrich themselves by any means, with the mentality that anything that enriches them personally asap is good and might as well be legal, because nothing they do will be punished.

Once it became obvious, years ago, that this would lead to disaster, including insolvency for their own institutions, they kept doing it. In fact, they upped the antes and did even more damage to their institutions, despite the obvious lack of viability. Why? Because it was about their own incomes, and not the investors', or the institution's solvency. So it was witting and wanton. And who cares at what point it qualified as deliberate, or how much was planned in advance?

And if the AIG Financial Products Division in London was not a criminal operation busting out the institution and its investors for all they were worth (for the immediate personal gain, you understand, not as a grand plan to kill AIG), then what do you say it was?!

Wait, don't tell me. They were confused by the new financial products?!

PLEASE! Cassano's done more damage to the world than ten Bin Ladins.

Fuck that. "Greed is good." That's an extremist ideology.

And if anything merits the "no planes" comparison - actually nothing here does, but you're insisting on it - then it's the idea that the banks aren't essentially there to suck the maximum money out of every situation they can. Legally or not. With an always increasingly short time frame that encourages plunder and punishes long-term thinking.

Banking as it is set up in capitalist society tends to the criminal already by definition. Grab what you can now. Next quarter is too late. Crush and fuck everything. Don't worry about consequences or externalized costs. Don't worry about yourself, because the laws will be repealed or won't be enforced.

That's the extremist ideology of a criminal class.

But I understand. It's okay. In this army, you're one of the troops, so you've been persuaded that somehow you have ownership in the system.

And besides, what's my evidence? Just what they did? Come on, did they write it all down in a convenient memo? No, they didn't! So they're in the clear. Ass-covered.

And by the way, reading a balance sheet - something a lot of people can do! - doesn't necessarily help when the essential deals are, as you know well, going on OFF the balance sheets.

The balance sheet doesn't tell you anything, not when they're empowered to lie about the value of their assets.

(NOTE: You still haven't addressed the repeal of "mark to market" rules!)

It doesn't tell you anything, not when the details are made tantamount to state secrets, like who's getting how much from the Fed!

Have they announced yet which of the nine banks are paying back TARP, by the way? Why is that being treated like a state secret? Could it because the other nine are going out of business, despite the wonderful TARP machine?

It's expected that one of the noble banks paying back on TARP is Goldman. Sweet - after they got the same billions, without conditions, through the AIG swindle.

Believing a Wall Street bank's balance sheet because golly, they're big institutions and wouldn't lie to you, is kind of like... believing the 9/11 Commission Report because it's bipartisan and honorable?

Let's face it, for someone who may know more than me in this area, you sure are deploying a lot fewer facts and a lot more sneering dismissive bullshit phrases. Must be a familiar situation for you, in some way. Except this time it's you dispensing the bullshit.

Finally, is there a reason you're still ignoring the far larger bailouts that weren't through TARP. If TARP, as you say, didn't buy the toxic assets, then what exactly is TALF doing? What did the AIG and Citigroup bailouts do? Yeah, as you say, they "took advice" from Krugman to do direct capital injections - except simultaneously, they set up five or six times the bailout in toxic asset purchases via the other bailout programs.

[BzaDem]

50. Exactly!

That was really the time that shed a lot of light on who certain DUers really were. It's one thing to not know about basic economics, but its another thing entirely to actually know something about basic economics and still wish for the whole system to collapse (knowing what it would have done to the average person).

[JVS]

60. What became obvious is that a lot of people who decry corporate welfare and 'socialize cost...

, privatize profit' are full of shit when the rubber hits the road and in fact strongly support that trickle down bullshit.

[MercutioATC]

8. There are also a lot of people who feel a real correction is necessary (economically)

Without that real correction (and the unfortunate resultant pain) we're never going to build a stable economy.

[Deja Q]

11. The working and middle class wages have been, adjusted for inflation, going down the last 36 years

We've taken our pain while top level wages went up from 40x to 400x, 600x, or higher. Complete with excuses how they deserve the higher pay because they make decisions that can break the company.

And now they're breaking companies and getting some nice severance packages in return for their own braindead actions and hurting a LOT of peoples' lives.

And getting bailed out by all of us by our government too. That's kinda sad, in a certain perspective.

[camera obscura]

12. I believe some folks would rather come up with fanciful strawmen than address intraparty conflicts

And yeah, some of those folks post on DU.

[Forkboy]

19. For the win!

[cali]

54. or not. depends where you're standing, I guess.

I find this thread fascinating.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

69. I find this OP a gigantic strawman asking to be burned to the ground n/t

[WyldRogue]

16. Umm..

...ooookkk

Apparently, you're right that some are always on the attack on Obama but some are actually right in their critique of some of Obama's policies and positions laid out thus far. And I hate to break this to you but this is like the 100th post you make calling out those who criticize Obama's choices and that is insanely sophomoric.

How does a leader learn from mistakes if no one is allowed to criticize some of his decisions that goes against the face of the Rule of Law? So I guess everyone's thoughts and questions on why Obama has not held the Bush cabal accountable for OBVIOUS war crimes is out of line and that they should just learn to keep quiet.... It's one thing to attack Obama for no reason other than to attack him but a voter voicing concerns at the apparent and willful ignoring of doing what is right IS a valid point that SHOULD be made without fear of being called a basher or to be mocked.

I love reading a lot of your posts but these types of posts you make undermine what the spirit of DU is about. If Skinner didn't want anyone to hold our elected leader and officials accountable to their constituents, he would have made sure that was a main rule but as he stated, criticism is allowed while bashing (like right-winger BS) is not.

**Wonders if I'll be bashed** lol

Anyways, keep your head up and keep looking forward if you want, as for me, I want to see the LAW upheld because if we broke any laws, we would be in jail (depending on which law we broke) so I don't understand why NO ONE has not been held accountable nor the idea that we should not bother looking back at the proof that laws were broken and often ignored. Maybe you can explain that position to me since we're supposed to be a Nation of Laws. In the mean-time, we'll have to keep putting up with seeing war criminals appearing every hour of every day on every TV station basically getting a free-pass.

[cali]

55. I hate to break this to you but my OP wasn't primarily about Obama

It was much more about the dystopian/utopian mindset. What I find "insanely" sohpmoric" are people who exaggerate wildly. As well, I've criticized Obama on specific issues and will continue to do so. Criticism of Obama was not what I was referring to in the OP.

[JVS]

59. Then why is it here instead of GD?

[unblock]

17. rush limbaugh posts here?

who knew?

:shrug:

[anonymous171]

20. If Capitalism fell I wouldn't be all that disappointed.

But I would never cheer for the death of our nation.

[PufPuf23]

23. I am wedded to the idea that I do not want the USA to fail

nor become a third world economy except for the economic elite.

This is non-sense and a polarizing post. Why make such a post?

I supported and voted for Obama in the primaries and general and he is the only politician I have sent cash in my life.

My concerns mirror the concerns listed in post #5 of this thread.

I wish Obama had the leeway to be more populist /anti-corporate / anti-Military Empire in his governance.

I have far more problems with Congress and what is "on or off the table".

[donco6]

24. Yeah, that's it exactly.

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

27. They are the types mocked in the 70s as the "Hate-America-Firsters"

The types that still defend Jane Fonda's stunt in North Vietnam.

Despite their hatred towards Western Civilization they are a very Western phenomenon, believers in a secularized version of the Christian Apocalypse where the Evildoers (Capitalists) will be sent to Hell and the Elect (Proletariat) will live in Utopia for ever after. Popular Marxism is nothing but a secularized Judeo-Christian Eschatology.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Wow all that and Jane Fonda too.

You must be so proud of your fine post.

[Odin2005]

32. Truth hurts.

Too bad fellow liberals giving constructive criticism like myself will be lumped in with the Pukes for saying the painful truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. yeah that is such a shame

getting lumped in with pukes just for using their standard buzz-words and catch phrases. You would think that fellow liberals would instead read for content rather than being put off by superficial rightwing stereotypical insults.

[Odin2005]

41. Excuse me? I do read for content.

And I'm not liking the content of the posts. If I think the terms are accurate I'll use them.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I'm meant those other fonda hugging hate america 'liberals'

you know, the ones who mistook your fine post for some sort of rightwing bullshit rather than understanding it for its content, just because you used stereotypical rightwing buzzwords.

[donco6]

37. You're interrupting. It just pisses them off.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Yep. You have to kill it, to make it better, so they say.

[grantcart]

35. living in a refugee camp gives you an appreciation for how fragile human

systems are and how devistating systemic collapse can be.


Although I have to say that sometimes I wonder if a collapse of the US health system is the only way we can get what every single person in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan has, a shared committment to provide universal health.

[BeFree]

36. It has failed

Look around at the poverty and the hate. Look at the fact that we are dependent upon foreign oil to keep our lifestyle afloat. We are no longer a land of the free. We are indebted up to our eyeballs.

It gives no one any joy to see it failing, but the truth is it has.

The future does not look bright. Can you argue that? Sure, Obama appears to be a change. But some of us know much more change has to occur and for that we do clamor.

[Orsino]

78. Yes. It *is* failing, and it's doing so by design.

The question becomes: how much more failure do we tolerate, and should those abandoned by our system still feel obligated to support it?

I'm all for peaceful reform, but I won't try to tell those left out in the cold that their desire for revolution is necessarily wrong.

[Vidar]

38. Religious fanatacism & unregulated capitalism. rallying points for many "patriots", need to fail.

[joshcryer]

42. No Empire lasts forever.

US can't last for more than a century two or more.

[anonymous171]

44. America has only been a (large) Empire for about 60 years.

Before WWII, our conquests and interventions had been largely confined to the Western Hemisphere.

[dflprincess]

45. Now that the U.S. has been committed to escalting in Afghanistan, it won't last that long

"Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/afghanistan-where-empires_n_164344.html

[eridani]

47. Imperialism must fail, or the US will be destroyed

We can't afford world domination without killing ourselves off with debt.

[smalll]

52. There are some who believe there's no danger in this world --

but what the United States brings upon itself through our own bumbling and misguided foreign policy.

[Mythsaje]

53. Our economy doesn't look very good right now

and nothing is being done to actually solve the problems that caused it in the first place. I'm not of the opinion that band-aids work well to stop arterial spray, but you're welcome to believe anything you want.

You know--I'm not even sure why I bother responding to you. It can't possibly end any other way than badly.

[cali]

56. I'm not sure why you do either. That's entirely your choice. No one is forcing

you to respond to my posts. And really, I don't see why it should "end badly", but whatever floats your boat.

[Mythsaje]

75. Because, near as I can tell, we've never agreed on anything.

You have no idea how badly I would like not to have the chance to say "I told you so." But it looks like everyone on top has bought into the trickle-down argument and the people responsible for this mess are going to stuff their pockets full and run for the hills when the fit hits the shan.

NOTHING is being done to address the cause of the problem, nor to shore up the economic situation beyond trying to keep the bubble afloat a little while longer. I have a great deal of hope that once it becomes obvious to everyone, Obama's smart enough to grab the opportunity to actually do something to fix this nightmare.

If he doesn't, what we'll see will make the depression look like an economic "downturn."

[OneBlueSky]

62. speaking only for myself, it's not that I'm "hoping" for failure . . .

it's that I see the underlying insanity of a capitalist system that is based on unlimited growth in a finite world . . . since the seeds of its own destruction are embedded in such a system, it's not a matter of hoping, but more one of waiting . . .

the bottom line in this country is that no real progress will ever be made as long as corporations -- whose interests are strictly and solely maximizing shareholder value -- are calling the shots, making the rules, writing the laws, and ravaging the planet . . . what we're engaged in is a power struggle between us, the American people, and them, the corporations -- and they're winning, big time . . . unless and until that changes, no other change of any substance will be allowed to occur -- not in healthcare, not in war and peace, not in energy, not in food and agriculture, not in civil rights and liberties, not in environmental protection, not in anything . . .

and if that change can only come about with the corporations devouring themselves and each other in the unending drive for more and more profits, so be it . . . no amount of bailout money is going to change the underlying fact that capitalism, as practiced in America in 2009, is a self-defeating system that will collapse under its own weight sooner or later . . . THEN we might see some real change -- but only then . . .

[Peacetrain]

63. And it is amazing how loud they are...nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

67. Most ridiculous post I have read today on DU

If you disagree with some of Obama's policy decisions then you are an utopian and wishing for the collapse of all systems of order. Hilarious.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. last September, well before Obama was even elected, there were posters

openly saying, "let it collapse" and salivating at the thought of total global depression apparently motivated by some utopian fantasy.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

74. Well that is ridiculous as well, if it is true I didn't see it

but Cali is arguing that if you are anti-Obama (which to many is the same as having issues with some of his policy) then you are wishing for the economy to fail. That is what is ridiculous and a huge strawman at that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. this is like a secular version of wanting to provoke World War III in the Middle East in order to

bring on the battle of Armageddon - so that Jesus can return and establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

The whole principle of wanting terrible things to happen that will inflict untold suffering on the entire world - so that a new world will be born from the ashes of the old - is simply batshit crazy and lunatic-dangerous, to put it mildly.

If the economy were to collapse, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a democratic-socialist revolution, "where the earth is owned by labor and their is joy and peace for all" would be the result. The last massive economic collapse brought on Hitler, the holocaust, World War II and half the world living under totalitarian communism. Scared and hungry people are far more apt to follow or accept totalitarianism than some lofty vision of a world of peaceful utopian-socialist communities.

[ZombieHorde]

80. America does not need to fail for gay marriage, improved health care,

improved education, and legalized drugs. At least I hope it doesn't.

[cali]

90. Idiot ic comment as I said nothing about those issues and strongly

support all of the issues you mentioned.

[ZombieHorde]

91. Idiotic comment as I said nothing about your opinion on those issues and I also strongly

support all of the issues I mentioned. }(

I was just trying to agree, no reason for murder mode.;)

Sorry for the confusion.

[Truth2Tell]

82. Must. Build. Bigger. Strawman!!!!

They get bigger every day. Congrats Cali, this one is even bigger than the last! Can you go even bigger?

[pecwae]

88. LOL!!

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamthebandfanman]

84. I believe that some folks are wedded to the idea that

the united states and ANY of its presidents shouldnt be held accountable or criticized for decisions that impact millions and millions of people.


oh yeah, some of these folks post on DU.

[ShortnFiery]

94. Yeah, you've figured us out.

:sarcasm: