Financial Scams

[YMix]

Mr. Perfect is basically making a reverse Marxism statement. While Endovelico argues that corporations corrupt politicians and turn them into puppets who are no longer able to serve the people, Mr. Perfect argues that the government corrupts businessmen and turns them into agents who simply implement government policies. Thus tainted by the government, they can no longer rise to pure capitalism.

[Ammianus]

I'm sure according to Mr. P., it was the nefarious doings of all the Western govts who deviously and deliberately forced innocent banks like Barclays, HSBC, and co. to begin their LIBOR fixing way back in 2005, not 2007, and have been directing their corrupt affairs ever since.

[Alph]

They're both right. Everyone is corrupt. Mr. P. is more right, because only the government can change the rules of the game. Capitalists have to die by what they lived by, without government help. The point of democracy, in fact, is to make corruption automatically self punishing. (Like capitalism does in economic terms.)

Eventually, democracy fails to punish as we descend into mob rule (which is where we are now) and we eventually go back to monarchy, whose point is to give someone the power to punish corruption. And from there to aristocracy, to overthrow monarchs devolved into despots, and then on to democracy, to make the corruption the aristocrats will be known for automatically self punishing.

It's a good system. Learn to love the pain.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

They're both right. Everyone is corrupt. Mr. P. is more right, because only the government can change the rules of the game. Capitalists have to die by what they lived by, without government help. The point of democracy, in fact, is to make corruption automatically self punishing. (Like capitalism does in economic terms.)

Eventually, democracy fails to punish as we descend into mob rule (which is where we are now) and we eventually go back to monarchy, whose point is to give someone the power to punish corruption. And from there to aristocracy, to overthrow monarchs devolved into despots, and then on to democracy, to make the corruption the aristocrats will be known for automatically self punishing.

It's a good system. Learn to love the pain.

Goodness... someone who reads history!

It is disheartening to see how many people think that the threat of authoritarianism comes from the top when, I suppose, some existing power apparatus gets tired of listening to the rabble's lavender and finally just imposes a police state. It blinds people to the real threat, which is that of the people getting fed up and installing a Big Man and empowering him to get in there and address their grievances. Historically, this is how dictatorships have always gotten their start.

In other words, it is far less likely that the banking oligarchy is going to have tanks on the streets to make sure people are making their interest payments than it is that the people will install a Caesar who will declare a jubilee and hang a few bankers in public.

Not sure how "common sense" got so twisted around on that one.

[Ammianus]

They're both right. Everyone is corrupt. Mr. P. is more right, because only the government can change the rules of the game. Capitalists have to die by what they lived by, without government help. The point of democracy, in fact, is to make corruption automatically self punishing. (Like capitalism does in economic terms.)

Eventually, democracy fails to punish as we descend into mob rule (which is where we are now) and we eventually go back to monarchy, whose point is to give someone the power to punish corruption. And from there to aristocracy, to overthrow monarchs devolved into despots, and then on to democracy, to make the corruption the aristocrats will be known for automatically self punishing.

It's a good system. Learn to love the pain.

Goodness, someone who's read Polybius!

It seems however, we have largely broken the historian's model of anacyclosis. Rather than going into the ochlocric and monarchic aspects that are supposedly de rigeur, we are directly stumbling into an oligarchic la la land

[YMix]

Catholic Church Fears Growing Vatican Bank Scandal

A new scandal threatens to engulf the Catholic Church and this time the focus is money. Senior Vatican officials are battling over the future of the Vatican bank. While some would like total transparency, dubious transactions from the past and present could harm the Church's image.

[Mr. Perfect]

1/ Your argument is analogous to the debates I've have with Marxist-Leninists, known as pinko commies to you, regarding the nature of communism.
Like you and capitalism, they claim that communism is a perfect system whose real life implementations, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, were flawed.
In your case, it is the United States in it's current form.
Both ideologies ignore the spanner in the works: human nature.

Pure fiction, I love the United States but have never claimed it was perfect or a perfect implementation of capitalism. That ended under Woodrow and Franklin, long ago.

Rather, I have only postulated a belief in cause and effect in difference to what others have said, that is that if a government created "market" underwritten by government licensed,regulated and insured institutions dealing in gov't created, regulated and insured currency and maybe the problem is government particularly when no other market failed.

You and every other person in this thread on the other hand have failed to provide a single solitary example of any market failing that was not related to the government created subprime mortgage market. Why is that do you think? I definitely have an answer if you can't think of one.

2/ There has never been and will never be a system of pure capitalism, so-called. This is as an unrealistic and naive goal as is pure communism.

Why? Because both make major assumptions about human nature that are contrary to evidence, experience, and history.

Like what?

People will simply not behave as you would like them, or need them, to behave.

Murder has been illegal for a very long time AFAIK, so I guess since we can't change it we should devote the resources to other pursuits. Right?

People will collude, bribe, cheat, steal, and attempt to gain advantage regardless of system in which they operate.

True. Even further, some people will change the definitions of collusion, bribing, cheating, stealing blah blah to read "acting in the public welfare", and still others applaud it.

But to the point, since you seem to see this as a hopeless situation, perhaps as a personal favor and since it won't matter one way or the other we could settle on using the capitalist system. One with things like the fed/freddie fannie and other major entities stripped away.

Just as some businessmen and politicians have done in the current US system.

And so our disagreement is where exactly?

3/ Successful capitalism, like communism, leads to an every increasing concentration of wealth and power.

And at what point is wealth or power too concentrated? Where is wealth or power too concentrated?

There are plenty of historical examples, including the trusts of the Gilded Age in the US or the to-big-to-fail financial institutions of today.

All created by government protectionism.

In communism, power is concentrated in the ruling party factions, in capitalism power becomes concentrated in the clique of successful cartels.
Both set up barriers to entry. One method employed in capitalism is to buy influence in government.

Except, except, if there are barriers to entry how is it capitalism?

Buying influence in government is not limited to capitalism.

4/ It is the ongoing tension between the private and public sectors, not unlike the church and kings in historical Europe, that ensures that neither gets the upper hand.

Problems arise when one or the other becomes too powerful. Or when both collude to screw the middle class.

Indefinable centrist ideological affirmations. How does one determine when the "private" or "public" sector gains "the upper hand"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... dle_ground

CS, you may not be informed, but we have financial and economic crisis based on the failure of mixed government throughout the western hemisphere. The failure we are experiencing is because of you, and Simple Minded, and Monster Gardner, and crashtech, who want to safely split the difference. Tinker or myself would never have created this. He would never allow a corporation to have that much money flowing through it, I would never give the government enough power for a business to ever benefit from making a political donation. Freddie and Fannie would never exist in my world, the Fed would never have half a dozen mini fiefdoms (called banks) in it's employ, doing it's bidding. It simply wouldn't happen.

5/ The history of capitalism, in practice rather than theory since the days of the Rialto, is the history of booms and busts: history of financial crises

And....?

You do this a lot, random moving goalposts. Now the standard is booms and busts? Why? When? What is the standard going to be later on?

6/ Calling people idiots, for ideological reasons, do not make them so. Rather, you have yet to present a compelling argument as why I should stop reading Taibbi.

Tabu is an durian because at his own roundtable his central thesis was rejected right into his face and he didn't realize it, as I pointed out. I have no idea where Tabu is ideologically, haven't the foggiest. Never heard of him before the "crisis", his only content I've read were cut and pasted by various posters on these forums. I haven't learned one thing from him about anything.

His material is somewhere between Captain Obvious and Captain "draw the wrong conclusion".

I imagine you would struggle to explain that a certain say Calculus book was written idiotically to someone who had never taken calculus, thus it is difficult to explain some of this to non-professionals. In reality I think Tabo doesn't understand his topic very well, but as such he should probably move on to something else. If you think you are getting good understanding from Tabu I am sure at this point I can't stop you, nor is it really in my interest either way, other than he is a stool pigeon for the status quo. More government to fix government, Universe of lies. We are at this level of turpid dumb@$$ness. A bunch of dumb@$$ Harvard Democrats put all their money into legwarmers and the pinheads have to endlessly intellectualize, endlessly.

[Alph]

Ammianus,

It seems however, we have largely broken the historian's model of anacyclosis. Rather than going into the ochlocric and monarchic aspects that are supposedly de rigeur, we are directly stumbling into an oligarchic la la land

I disagree. (And I specifically reference Juggernaut Nihilism above, whose post in some ways would have been a good response to yours.) The United States is our de facto center of civilization, and you can even track through history them referring to themselves as a Republic, then a Democratic Republic, and then a Democracy. We (as a world) are in the grip of the mob now, where obvious solutions cannot be made because it steps on the toes of firemen and steel workers. We just can't see it because we don't like to face how pathetic we have become.

And what are those trailblazing Americans and we condescendingly-following Europeans doing if not pining for an emperor? For instance, observe Bush's Imperial Presidency, Obama's Rule by Executive Order, LaHood et al.'s praise of Chinese decision making not needing the support (or input) of the people, or basically the entirety of EU policy and opinion.

[Ibrahim]

They're both right. Everyone is corrupt. is more right, because only the government can change the rules of the game. Capitalists have to die by what they lived by, without government help.

Laughable. The ability of capitalists to influence the government, reduce regulation, or simply circumvent laws is well-established. They have a much greater hand in writing the rules of the game that the electorate, and trying to pass the responsibility off to the government they bought and corrupted is a transparent sham.

The point of democracy, in fact, is to make corruption automatically self punishing. (Like capitalism does in economic terms.)

This first part of this statement is not coherent. The second part in parentheses is false, since the recent market collapse, and in fact all market collapses historically, disproportionately punish those at the bottom of the economic ladder and not the capitalists who manipulated the market and actually caused the collapse.

Eventually, democracy fails to punish as we descend into mob rule (which is where we are now) and we eventually go back to monarchy, whose point is to give someone the power to punish corruption. And from there to aristocracy, to overthrow monarchs devolved into despots, and then on to democracy, to make the corruption the aristocrats will be known for automatically self punishing.

It's a good system. Learn to love the pain.

I trust this is meant to be a joke?

[Ibrahim]

Ammianus,

It seems however, we have largely broken the historian's model of anacyclosis. Rather than going into the ochlocric and monarchic aspects that are supposedly de rigeur, we are directly stumbling into an oligarchic la la land

I disagree. (And I specifically reference Juggernaut Nihilism above, whose post in some ways would have been a good response to yours.) The United States is our de facto center of civilization, and you can even track through history them referring to themselves as a Republic, then a Democratic Republic, and then a Democracy. We (as a world) are in the grip of the mob now, where obvious solutions cannot be made because it steps on the toes of firemen and steel workers. We just can't see it because we don't like to face how pathetic we have become.

And what are those trailblazing Americans and we condescendingly-following Europeans doing if not pining for an emperor? For instance, observe Bush's Imperial Presidency, Obama's Rule by Executive Order, LaHood et al.'s praise of Chinese decision making not needing the support (or input) of the people, or basically the entirety of EU policy and opinion.

Oh, you weren't joking. This position is absurd, and not related to any present or historical fact. To argue that the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a smaller segment of the global elite represents the descent into "mob rule" is contrary to reality. Your claim that there are "obvious solutions" is itself laughable, but the added claim that the implementation of these solutions is prevented by "firemen and steelworkers" is even more so. Perhaps your knowledge of the history of organized labor in America ends sometime in the 1970's. I mean really, steelworkers?

Your pet theories about the "center of civilization" and the cyclical nature of government are based on nothing whatsoever.

[Typhoon]

So bankers were going about their business, making a reasonable profit assisting widow, orphans, and captains of industry, when the Devil, a.k.a. the Government, showed up and lead the innocent bankers astray.

I've seen that bit of stand up comedy before:

0SLifea3NHQ

Anyways, a lovely new global banking scandal is now unfolding:

Economist | The LIBOR scandal - The rotten heart of finance

THE most memorable incidents in earth-changing events are sometimes the most banal. In the rapidly spreading scandal of LIBOR (the London inter-bank offered rate) it is the very everydayness with which bank traders set about manipulating the most important figure in finance. They joked, or offered small favours. “Coffees will be coming your way,” promised one trader in exchange for a fiddled number. “Dude. I owe you big time!… I’m opening a bottle of Bollinger,” wrote another. One trader posted diary notes to himself so that he wouldn’t forget to fiddle the numbers the next week. “Ask for High 6M Fix,” he entered in his calendar, as he might have put “Buy milk”.

What may still seem to many to be a parochial affair involving Barclays, a 300-year-old British bank, rigging an obscure number, is beginning to assume global significance. The number that the traders were toying with determines the prices that people and corporations around the world pay for loans or receive for their savings. It is used as a benchmark to set payments on about $800 trillion-worth of financial instruments, ranging from complex interest-rate derivatives to simple mortgages. The number determines the global flow of billions of dollars each year. Yet it turns out to have been flawed.

[Typhoon]

Ammianus,

It seems however, we have largely broken the historian's model of anacyclosis. Rather than going into the ochlocric and monarchic aspects that are supposedly de rigeur, we are directly stumbling into an oligarchic la la land

I disagree. (And I specifically reference Juggernaut Nihilism above, whose post in some ways would have been a good response to yours.) The United States is our de facto center of civilization, and you can even track through history them referring to themselves as a Republic, then a Democratic Republic, and then a Democracy. We (as a world) are in the grip of the mob now, where obvious solutions cannot be made because it steps on the toes of firemen and steel workers. We just can't see it because we don't like to face how pathetic we have become.

And what are those trailblazing Americans and we condescendingly-following Europeans doing if not pining for an emperor? For instance, observe Bush's Imperial Presidency, Obama's Rule by Executive Order, LaHood et al.'s praise of Chinese decision making not needing the support (or input) of the people, or basically the entirety of EU policy and opinion.

Oh, you weren't joking. This position is absurd, and not related to any present or historical fact. To argue that the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a smaller segment of the global elite represents the descent into "mob rule" is contrary to reality. Your claim that there are "obvious solutions" is itself laughable, but the added claim that the implementation of these solutions is prevented by "firemen and steelworkers" is even more so. Perhaps your knowledge of the history of organized labor in America ends sometime in the 1970's. I mean really, steelworkers?

Your pet theories about the "center of civilization" and the cyclical nature of government are based on nothing whatsoever.

Not clear to me what steelworkers and firemen have to to with anything, as union membership in the US is at an all time low:



Source: US BLS

[Ibrahim]

Not clear to me what steelworkers and firemen have to to with anything, as union membership in the US is at an all time low:

Precisely. I think the tactic of scapegoating organized labor for American economic decline is a few decades past its "best before" date.

[Alph]

Ibrahim,

Let's see. I said, "They're both right. Everyone is corrupt. Mr. Perfect is more right, because only the government can change the rules of the game. Capitalists have to die by what they lived by, without government help."

And you said,

"Laughable. The ability of capitalists to influence the government, reduce regulation, or simply circumvent laws is well-established. They have a much greater hand in writing the rules of the game that the electorate, and trying to pass the responsibility off to the government they bought and corrupted is a transparent sham."

So, I say both groups are corrupt because they work together to generate corruption, which is sort of a combination of Endovelico's 'the capitalists are the root of corruption' and Mr. Perfect's 'the government is the root of corruption'. But that inherently capitalists have to corrupt government because them just being corrupt on their own, without government support, just leads to their eventual failure. And you say... that's laughable because capitalists corrupt government? Ok.

"... in fact all market collapses historically, disproportionately punish those at the bottom of the economic ladder and not the capitalists who manipulated the market and actually caused the collapse."

Really? All market collapses historically, disproportionately punish those at the bottom of the economic ladder and not the capitalists? All of them? All of them? I find that hard to believe, but maybe you have some interesting definitions in your head when you say this. In what terms were 'those at the bottom of the economic ladder' were hurt more than 'capitalists' in all market collapses historically? Who precisely are 'capitalists' in your meaning? Who are 'those at the bottom of the economic ladder'? Do you mean they were hurt less by net worth? Percentage of income in each income bracket? Unemployment? Do you consider all those unemployed college graduates at the bottom of the economic ladder? But before I move on, I'd like to say that I am very pleased to see you making an actual argument, even one that seems like it probably isn't true.

Oh, you weren't joking. This position is absurd, and not related to any present or historical fact. To argue that the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a smaller segment of the global elite represents the descent into "mob rule" is contrary to reality. Your claim that there are "obvious solutions" is itself laughable, but the added claim that the implementation of these solutions is prevented by "firemen and steelworkers" is even more so. Perhaps your knowledge of the history of organized labor in America ends sometime in the 1970's. I mean really, steelworkers?

Let's see what you've said here. My position is absurd and not based in fact. Ok. Now let's see what argument you bring. My argument is contrary to reality because... oh, nothing. Because you say so. Because Buffet is richer than Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Astor? Because globalization didn't happen? No. Because Ibrahim says so. An impressive argument, Ibrahim.

Now let's see your next point. I say that there are obvious solutions to our current growing loss of faith in government (feel free to look at the polls) and the failure of governments around the world due to overspending. You say... laughable! And especially for me to say that "firemen and steelworkers" (which you at first correctly, and I am proud of you for this, interpret as a way for me to say organized labor even if you seem to forget seconds later and think I must literally be talking about fireman and steelworkers) is "even more so." And then you suggest that my information might be out of date! Well, strong arguments. I'm wrong because it's laughable and my information is old, as demonstrated by... oh, I guess you saying so! Except, of course, that the problem facing governments is overspending on social transfers like retirement given to unionized workers and maintained now by demands from the mob. Those promises and expectations are keeping Greece on the edge and giving governments like the newly elected one in France heartburn when they have to declare that austerity is going to have to happen, even if the people of France voted them into power against it. C'est la vie.

Well that was... fun?

[Alph]

Colonel,

Not clear to me what steelworkers and firemen have to to with anything.

I apologize for my inaccurate off the cuff metonym. I used it because it means to me what it means to everyone, you included according to your obvious interpretation of it. The labor movement.

What the labor movement has to do with the slow decline of government today, from cities in California to nations in Europe, is that promises were made to and because of the labor movement that are now being paid to everyone. And the existence of those promises, and particularly that they are the 'third rail' of every government that cannot be addressed in a timely fashion no matter how large their expense, are the sign of the influence of the mob, in the kyklos sense.

That was how my comment on steelworkers and firemen related to what I was discussing.

[Typhoon]

Most transactions suspended at Cedar Falls-based PFGBest; investors begin assessing possible damage

MFGlobal: Part deux

[Ibrahim]

Ibrahim,

Let's see. I said, "They're both right. Everyone is corrupt. is more right, because only the government can change the rules of the game. Capitalists have to die by what they lived by, without government help."

And you said,

"Laughable. The ability of capitalists to influence the government, reduce regulation, or simply circumvent laws is well-established. They have a much greater hand in writing the rules of the game that the electorate, and trying to pass the responsibility off to the government they bought and corrupted is a transparent sham."

So, I say both groups are corrupt because they work together to generate corruption, which is sort of a combination of Endovelico's 'the capitalists are the root of corruption' 'the government is the root of corruption'. But that inherently capitalists have to corrupt government because them just being corrupt on their own, without government support, just leads to their eventual failure. And you say... that's laughable because capitalists corrupt government? Ok.

You don't seem to understand the part of your statement I am rebutting. I've underlined it to help you. Capitalists don't have to "die by what they live by," because they can influence the government to bail them out, nor do they have to live by the rules set by government, because they can heavily influence or even directly write those rules themselves.

Arguably the main source of corruption in government is influence-peddling from capitalists and their lobbyists, since they they have more resources than other special interests competing to buy elected officials. Possible exception for the Saudis and Israelis.

"... in fact all market collapses historically, disproportionately punish those at the bottom of the economic ladder and not the capitalists who manipulated the market and actually caused the collapse."

Really? All market collapses historically, disproportionately punish those at the bottom of the economic ladder and not the capitalists? All of them? All of them?

How could it be otherwise? The wealthy, even if ruined, would still possess more wealth than the newly-unemployed members of the laboring class, and in most eras could also rely on their social class to maintain them at a minimum level of comfort.

In what terms were 'those at the bottom of the economic ladder' were hurt more than 'capitalists' in all market collapses historically?

Some starve to death, others become less wealthy than they were previously. Rather straightforward. You seem to be hung up on trivialities like who lost more in terms of units of wealth, which is clearly less relevant when assessing the damage of an economic disaster.

But before I move on, I'd like to say that I am very pleased to see you making an actual argument

You are hardly qualified to judge. Your posts are frequently devoid of any content beyond pseudo-intellectual pontification. You could have responded without this risible attempt at condescension, but I suppose you couldn't resist.

Oh, you weren't joking. This position is absurd, and not related to any present or historical fact. To argue that the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a smaller segment of the global elite represents the descent into "mob rule" is contrary to reality. Your claim that there are "obvious solutions" is itself laughable, but the added claim that the implementation of these solutions is prevented by "firemen and steelworkers" is even more so. Perhaps your knowledge of the history of organized labor in America ends sometime in the 1970's. I mean really, steelworkers?

Let's see what you've said here. My position is absurd and not based in fact. Ok. Now let's see what argument you bring. My argument is contrary to reality because... oh, nothing.

False. Your argument is contrary to reality because it argues that we are descending into an age of "mob rule" at a time when the concentration of wealth and power among a small number of people is increasing (not the greatest in history by a long shot, but increasing over the past several decades). Your claim is the opposite of observable reality.

Because you say so. Because Buffet is richer than Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Astor? Because globalization didn't happen? No. Because Ibrahim says so. An impressive argument, Ibrahim.

False. I did state why your claims are contrary to reality. You are simply unable to defend those false claims.

Now let's see your next point. I say that there are obvious solutions to our current growing loss of faith in government (feel free to look at the polls) and the failure of governments around the world due to overspending.

This is also false. You didn't specify what problems you believe you have "solutions" to. Given the absence of any specific details on your part I assumed from the context that you mean economic solutions, but apparently you means solutions to the "growing loss of faith in government." Well that's also rather vague, so perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that phrase, or better yet give an example of some of these "solutions?" In any case the real howler of your whole post was that "firemen and steel workers" were preventing it from happening.

You say... laughable! And especially for me to say that "firemen and steelworkers" (which you at first correctly, and I am proud of you for this, interpret as a way for me to say organized labor even if you seem to forget seconds later and think I must literally be talking about fireman and steelworkers) is "even more so."

I'm impressed that you're doubling down on condescension at the same time as you confirm the stupidity of your initial claim. Whatever can be said about the gulf between your self-perception and how you come across in this posts, the important thing is that you are conceding that you believe organized labor is some kind of hindrance to these still-unspecified "solutions." That's what I, indeed I think all of us, want to hear more about. In as much detail as possible please.

And then you suggest that my information might be out of date! Well, strong arguments. I'm wrong because it's laughable and my information is old, as demonstrated by... oh, I guess you saying so!

False. If this is to be your only tactic in defending your otherwise unsubstantiated claims then this will grow stale quickly. What I, and the Col, are pointing out is that organized labor currently has very little power, and continues to wane. To assert, as you did without any further argumentation, that they are preventing your unspecified "solutions" from being implemented is indeed laughable.


[quote]Except, of course, that the problem facing governments is overspending on social transfers like retirement given to unionized workers and maintained now by demands from the mob.[/quote]

So the problem facing government is paying pensions that they already agreed upon to the dwindling members of labor unions accounting for a small fraction of the overall workforce, and that some unspecified "mob" is supporting this, but presumably a different "mob" than the one in Wisconsin that backed a union-busting Governor twice over precisely this issue?

I'm bolding this particular exchange because, aside from the sniping and false claims, it contains both your actual position in simple terms, and my refutation of that claim. Come at me.

Those promises... Greece... France....

Wait, weren't you just educating us all on how America is the center of civilization? I guess we know what changed your tune.

Well that was... fun?

I would say it was rather predictable.

[Mr. Perfect]

You don't seem to understand the part of your statement I am rebutting. I've underlined it to help you. Capitalists don't have to "die by what they live by," because they can influence the government to bail them out

How? How do broke people influence anybody with money? How do you buy influence when you are insolvent?

nor do they have to live by the rules set by government, because they can heavily influence or even directly write those rules themselves.

How come some people are able to do this and some people are not? IOW the NRA seems to be unable to write legislation when the Dems are in charge, and Planned Parenthood has the same problem when the GOP is in charge.

Arguably the main source of corruption in government is influence-peddling from capitalists and their lobbyists, since they they have more resources than other special interests competing to buy elected officials. Possible exception for the Saudis and Israelis.

The Saudis and Israelis certainly don't have the most money in the world. Why can't other people just out bid them to obtain their preferred policies?

How does the NRA seem to be unable to buy Democrat legislation and Planned Parenthood Republican legislation?

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr. Perfect is basically making a reverse Marxism statement. While Endovelico argues that corporations corrupt politicians and turn them into puppets who are no longer able to serve the people, Mr. Perfect argues that the government corrupts businessmen and turns them into agents who simply implement government policies. Thus tainted by the government, they can no longer rise to pure capitalism.

I even came up with a dictum to encapsulate my very new thinking.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No one has ever thought of it before.

[YMix]

Power corrupts sometimes, but it always reveals what's already within.

[Typhoon]

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

~ Abraham Lincoln

[Typhoon]

Huff Post | Crooked Bankers Are Corrupting Government: The Real LIBOR Story

Scandalous Survey

The survey, sponsored by whistleblower defense firm Labaton Sucharow, is a revelation: Almost half of the senior-level bankers in a recent poll refused to say they wouldn't break the law. One in four said they "had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace." Only 41 percent of them said that colleagues in their own firm had "definitely not" committed crimes to get ahead.

And nearly one-fourth "... believed that financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal conduct in order to be successful."

I discussed the survey with a few other people familiar with the banking industry, and they had the same reaction I did: If anything, those numbers sound low. That makes sense. Admitting your criminal inclinations to a total stranger isn't as easy as telling a them your favorite color or what kind of music you like.

But even if taken at face value, the poll's an eye-opener: One in six bankers said they were "fairly likely" to commit a banking crime if they could get away with it. 45 percent refused to rule it out if the payoff were big enough.

And it's not just a matter of personal morality: "Nearly one-third of all financial services professionals reported feeling pressured by bonus or compensation plans to violate the law or engage in unethical conduct,. Nearly one-quarter of the respondents felt similar pressure from other sources." (Presumably including their bosses.)

In other words, the system is designed to encourage lawbreaking in critical banking functions. The survey's sample size was fairly small -- only 500 people -- but that's still a decent-sized group. Even if you don't think they're understated, the answers are devastating.

[YMix]

But these people are not capitalists! They are government agents! And the financial markets haven't failed! Show me one that failed! And laws are bad and should be broken because they are made by the government!

Ahem.

[Mr. Perfect]

In other words, the system is designed to encourage lawbreaking in critical banking functions.

Who designed the system I wonder.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

.

In other words, the system is designed to encourage lawbreaking in critical banking functions.

.

Who designed the system I wonder.

.

that was a good one, MP

who designed the system ? ? ?

come on, MP, come on

you know who

OK

tell me one financial scam, just one, that "you know who" had not a finger in or outright architect of

like mouse loves cheese Rhubarb loves money

Wall Street ruining America was not run by Muslims or Iranians

Rhubarb pretty much has unchecked rule of WS


An anti-Semitic cartoon depicting religious Jews praying in front of a hybrid between Jerusalem's Western Wall and Wall Street took first prize in the inaugural Iranian "Wall Street Downfall" art festival. The winning artist, Mohammad Tabrizi, was awarded 5,000 euros for his entry.

.
The event, held earlier this week in Tehran, was meant to support the US's grassroots "Occupy Wall Street"- a grassroots movement which aims to eliminate income inequalities and excesses in the US financial system.
.

.