Matt Tiabbi interview on his new book

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That would make perfect sense if these corporations didn't buy "big brother" in the first place. America has let corporations and banks fail in the past.

Now you know where I stand. I say we should have let them fail, economy be damned. I'm not arguing against that portion. I'm arguing that these corporations aren't going to be magically punished by the free market. The ones that fail will fail and the rest will just keep committing crimes. The only way to stop it is more regulation and prosecutions. Advocating government is the problem is silly when we consider how some of the Europeans handled their issues. The problem is our government is bought.

In asia they're sending dudes to the fukking gallows

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I am but also at the understanding that other banks would have survived and it might have returned for business as usual. I was under the impression that Taibbi was advocating a free market solution in general. I was in favor of letting them fail because of the absolute catastrophe it would have caused but I was also in favor of using government funds to propping up small business, the working class and home buyers much, much more than what occurred. There's nothing free market about that.

Dawg.

some companies got 150BILLION+ from the government

Thats just fukking scary.

I don't think that was their first decision, either.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

yeah, why wouldn't I be?

You seem to think you've got me figured out.

I have a lot of nuanced positions

Because he's a supporter of Snowden, whom you've spoken out against on some level

 

[Type Username Here]

Dawg.

some companies got 150BILLION+ from the government

Thats just fukking scary.

I don't think that was their first decision, either.

Trust me. I'm not for that at all.

That trillion dollars should have gone to the working class and homebuyers to keep them afloat while these banks failed. That's nowhere near a free market solution that Taibbi was advocating though.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Because he's a supporter of Snowden, whom you've spoken out against on some level

because snowden is like 50% a traitor in my eyes.

The fact you can't even acknowledge that is disturbing.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Trust me. I'm not for that at all.

That trillion dollars should have gone to the working class and homebuyers to keep them afloat while these banks failed. That's nowhere near a free market solution that Taibbi was advocating though.

I wish people would find a different word than 'free market" cause theres no such thing.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

because snowden is like 50% a traitor in my eyes.

The fact you can't even acknowledge that is disturbing.

 

[No1]

That would make perfect sense if these corporations didn't buy "big brother" in the first place. America has let corporations and banks fail in the past.

Now you know where I stand. I say we should have let them fail, economy be damned. I'm not arguing against that portion. I'm arguing that these corporations aren't going to be magically punished by the free market. The ones that fail will fail and the rest will just keep committing crimes. The only way to stop it is more regulation and prosecutions. Advocating government is the problem is silly when we consider how some of the Europeans handled their issues. The problem is our government is bought.

No one is saying government is the problem inherently. He is looking at the landscape and looking at the most feasible means of getting to the desired result. Let's assume that you're right and all government is bought, then what would be the point of implementing regulations when they would be designed to give these institutions greater flexibility and leniency..

You're underestimating the corporate structure or not understanding how corporations are organized. Shareholder derivative litigation, or litigation by shareholders against their corporations (the board of directors) has more successful than most other litigation against corporations. Even when they're unsuccessful, the threat alone often causes boards to shift actions. So what I am saying is that investors will tighten their rules and the reports that they require in response. They will act to mitigate their own losses. You're speaking at a general positive level in a conversation that requires specifics and a consideration for the intricacies of how these institutions operate. What Matt is saying, is that even with tighter regulations (which are unlikely), you will have enforcement problems due to many of the very things that you listed before.

After that, you seem to be lost within your own points. On one hand you claim that corporations aren't going to be punished by the free market, and then after that you said that some will fail. This makes sense if one accepts that total failure is not a punishment. However, I do take your point that some individuals will continue to commit crimes anyway, but that's not what I or Tiabbi are saying. We are saying we have created an environment where it is incredibly difficult to prosecute these individuals because of how complex the transactions are (haven't I been saying that the past two years) and because of their magnitude. Thus, given the unlikelihood of us modifying the limited liability structure or many of the other mechanisms that make this system work (both because of beliefs in the financial sector and economic community and interests in government), the best deterrence we have left is to remove the assurance that society will indemnify these people from their own fukk ups. In anything, our stance is realistic at best, and defeatist at worst. But don't think I'm anti-regulation, lawyers think rules are the answer to everything.

 

[Type Username Here]

No one is saying government is the problem inherently. He is looking at the landscape and looking at the most feasible means of getting to the desired result. Let's assume that you're right and all government is bought, then what would be the point of implementing regulations when they would be designed to give these institutions greater flexibility and leniency..

I was expecting the current Administration and congress in 2009 to come in riding populist demand to make significant changes. Obviously that was naive of my part. I did what a voter does in a democracy: I voted. It just happens that I was naive and I learned from that. I advocate state involvement in all matters as the state should work at the will of the people. When I advocate regulations and prosecution, I do so while also conceding that money has to be taken out of politics for good.

You're underestimating the corporate structure or not understanding how corporations are organized. Shareholder derivative litigation, or litigation by shareholders against their corporations (the board of directors) has more successful than most other litigation against corporations. Even when they're unsuccessful, the threat alone often causes boards to shift actions. So what I am saying is that investors will tighten their rules and the reports that they require in response. They will act to mitigate their own losses. You're speaking at a general positive level in a conversation that requires specifics and a consideration for the intricacies of how these institutions operate. What Matt is saying, is that even with tighter regulations (which are unlikely), you will have enforcement problems due to many of the very things that you listed before.

I don't believe that. I think it's only true when you consider recent American history. The past and other countries are successful with their litigations and prosecutions. Also, if they acted to mitigate their losses, why do the things that led up to 2008 (and that are being done again right now)?

After that, you seem to be lost within your own points. On one hand you claim that corporations aren't going to be punished by the free market, and then after that you said that some will fail. This makes sense if one accepts that total failure is not a punishment.

Corporations are a by-product of a system. I wish to see the system fail. If a Bank fails and another 3 takes it place and commits the same crimes, how exactly did the free market address that? So no, a few corporations failing is not a punishment. It would be merely a catalyst to drive deep change in social and economic doctrines.

However, I do take your point that some individuals will continue to commit crimes anyway, but that's not what I or Tiabbi are saying. We are saying we have created an environment where it is incredibly difficult to prosecute these individuals because of how complex the transactions are (haven't I been saying that the past two years) and because of their magnitude.

I understand, but would you at least entertain that countries have prosecuted people and institutions they felt were responsible for 2008? That America essentially did nothing?

I was also challenging Taibbi's "let the free market" sort it out mentality. When it comes to letting the banks/corps fail, I agree. But that's about where I end that talk. I would in turn advocate massive government investment to the working class and the homebuyers and there is nothing free market about that. I'm not against bailouts, I just think the bailouts went to the wrong place. So that's where I'm coming from. I don't know if I misread what Taibbi said, but it read like some libertarian fantasy.

 

[Type Username Here]

If anyone is interesting in reading about post 1929 government inquiries and the results:

Pecora Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It led to Glass-Steagall, Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act.

It's important to note that after 1929, the Federal Government brought up countless charges of fraud against people but they lost or dropped the case because they had no regulations on the books to show crimes were committed.

After appearing before the Pecora Commission, a terrified Insull fled the country in June of 1932, just eight months before prosecutors charged him with fraud. When authorities dragged him back to the United States nearly two years later, Insull beat the charges. He argued that his methods—which included paying dividends in stock of his own holding companies rather than cash, aggressively puffing his investments in circulars, and offering special benefits to a small number of preferred investors—were all in line with contemporary business practices. Insull's acquittal led to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which limited the size of utilities and barred them from speculating in the market. Congress repealed the law in 2005.

The government also went after Charles "Sunshine Charley" Mitchell, president of National City Bank, now Citibank. Mitchell divided National City into a banking arm and an investment arm, with the latter selling up to $2 billion annually in speculative securities and shaky bonds. Before the Pecora Commission, Mitchell acknowledged that he knew his salesmen were pushing bad investments on unsophisticated customers, many of who then borrowed money from his banking arm to finance their investments. While National City's behavior shocked the nation, the company's salesmen hadn't broken any laws. (In a déja vu moment, a Goldman Sachs employee admitted to Congress in April 2010 that he sold investments that he thought were a "shytty deal.") Mitchell himself resigned his post and was charged with tax evasion for selling company stock to his wife at a loss, but he got off with a fine. His performance at the Pecora Hearings led to theGlass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibited banking companies from speculating in the market. The law was repealed in 1999.

Bankers in jail: Did we punish anyone for causing the 1929 stock market crash?

 

[No1]

I was expecting the current Administration and congress in 2009 to come in riding populist demand to make significant changes. Obviously that was naive of my part. I did what a voter does in a democracy: I voted. It just happens that I was naive and I learned from that. I advocate state involvement in all matters as the state should work at the will of the people. When I advocate regulations and prosecution, I do so while also conceding that money has to be taken out of politics for good.

Well, I was working in DC during that time and I expected the same. The thing is, we forgot that (a) politics are local and that we had a bunch of blue dogs who would vote accordingly and (b) that special interests still run DC. We consistently overstate how liberal America is because of what we see around us, but polls are contradictory and people contradicts themselves. We also underestimated how cautious Obama is, he had some pure liberals and progressives in his administration but when these beefs broke out, he would always side with Rahm Emanuel and co. (the ACA being the exception where Rahm advocated something even smaller). But 2009 will always be that missed moment to do something transformative, but this is hindsight now. We all agree on that.

I don't believe that. I think it's only true when you consider recent American history. The past and other countries are successful with their litigations and prosecutions. Also, if they acted to mitigate their losses, why do the things that led up to 2008 (and that are being done again right now)?

The past is prologue, but it is not necessarily a constant. Recent history is a more accurate depiction of how our affairs are determined and how they will be for the foreseeable future absent some fundamental shift in who dictates policy.

Corporations are a by-product of a system. I wish to see the system fail. If a Bank fails and another 3 takes it place and commits the same crimes, how exactly did the free market address that? So no, a few corporations failing is not a punishment. It would be merely a catalyst to drive deep change in social and economic doctrines.

Your scenario is highly improbable. Another bank will not rise to that level overnight and other banks will not be as likely to takeover that bank's assets absent some sort of government support. Buffet invested in Goldman Sachs when it went down because he knew the government would save it. If it's made abundantly that will not happen, then who in the world would be jumping at the bits to absorb those toxic assets... Further, the "free market" never addressed anything because it wasn't a "free market." The government came in and saved them. That is exactly what Tiabbi and I are saying. Let them sink or swim.

Further, punishing an individual entity and punishing an entire industry are two different things. Following your argument, prosecuting the lieutenant of a major criminal enterprise is not a punishment because he is replaceable and the drug industry still exists. But as you say, you want the system gone. So what you should be saying is that the punishment will not meet your goal of dismantling the system. You're not looking for harsher individual punishments, you're looking an industry-wide remedy.

Last, you say "system," but you have to be more specific than that. I never see you in the threads about the Volcker Rule or anything of that sort that seek to address deficiencies. If you don't engage with the specifics of the financial system then how can you judge whether or not it is discouraging or encouraging risky behavior, how can you not be severely limited in understanding what should replace it..

I understand, but would you at least entertain that countries have prosecuted people and institutions they felt were responsible for 2008? That America essentially did nothing?

I mean, it's obvious that we did not criminally prosecute anyone of consequence. Tiabbi lays out why we didn't and that's all I've ever said on here. There's a lot we have to change, you and I both know that.

I was also challenging Taibbi's "let the free market" sort it out mentality. When it comes to letting the banks/corps fail, I agree. But that's about where I end that talk. I would in turn advocate massive government investment to the working class and the homebuyers and there is nothing free market about that. I'm not against bailouts, I just think the bailouts went to the wrong place. So that's where I'm coming from. I don't know if I misread what Taibbi said, but it read like some libertarian fantasy

Tiabbi was basically saying "fukk it" from what I saw. It was like a last resort measure based on pragmatism. I think you're conflating an economic belief with an enforcement mechanism. Obviously the two are intertwined. But it is entirely possible for what you want to occur while saying fukk you to banks as a means of policing them. Tiabbi justifies it by saying the evidence is there. Whenever you hint that you're not going to bail any entity out, they lose billions in market capaitalization overnight. It isn't what either he or I would traditionally posit, but it looks like the most feasible result to get what we want in the status quo.

 

[tmonster]

 

[tmonster]

No one is saying government is the problem inherently. He is looking at the landscape and looking at the most feasible means of getting to the desired result. Let's assume that you're right and all government is bought, then what would be the point of implementing regulations when they would be designed to give these institutions greater flexibility and leniency..

The Traffic Sign Conundrum (people still get away with running them so why have them)

my response is
Then why does deregulation always lead the way to corruption?

Clearly regulations can be formatted such that their abdication, after open deliberation, is necessary for crooks to do their dirty work. Regulations allow for transparency; even when they are being erased, we get to see who is holding the eraser.

In addition, look how prophylactic regulations were in Canada during the last financial crisis.
Regulations work.

 

[Type Username Here]

The past is prologue, but it is not necessarily a constant. Recent history is a more accurate depiction of how our affairs are determined and how they will be for the foreseeable future absent some fundamental shift in who dictates policy.

Somethings we have done in the past will work again now. I'm confident in saying this because other countries have done what the US did post-1929 over and over with tangible results. Recent history on the other hand has been deregulation after deregulation. We have already tried that method since 1980 and it has been a total failure to everyone except the people at the top.

Your scenario is highly improbable. Another bank will not rise to that level overnight and other banks will not be as likely to takeover that bank's assets absent some sort of government support. Buffet invested in Goldman Sachs when it went down because he knew the government would save it. If it's made abundantly that will not happen, then who in the world would be jumping at the bits to absorb those toxic assets...

Many banks failed in 2008. There were banks right there to take their place. I think it's a bit naive to think that corporate survival is the ultimate goal. We can see by the golden parachutes and bonuses that these entities exist as a means to transfer wealth from the majority to the minority. So it seems like I'm being told fairy tales about "companies will do what's best not to fail" but that usually isn't the case when there is no tangible financial risk to the people leading them, especially now. They get paid and don't have to worry about prosecution. A lot of them still go on to get hired despite their failures. So this Free Market "let it sort out on its own" dogma borders on delusion to me.

Further, the "free market" never addressed anything because it wasn't a "free market." The government came in and saved them. That is exactly what Tiabbi and I are saying. Let them sink or swim.

I don't disagree with that at all. It's exactly what happened in the past and in other countries. But after that? We just let the next ones rise up?

Further, punishing an individual entity and punishing an entire industry are two different things. Following your argument, prosecuting the lieutenant of a major criminal enterprise is not a punishment because he is replaceable and the drug industry still exists. But as you say, you want the system gone. So what you should be saying is that the punishment will not meet your goal of dismantling the system. You're not looking for harsher individual punishments, you're looking an industry-wide remedy.

I'm looking for both. People still committed fraud and they need to be punished. Those companies should have been let to fail. But those two things are not enough. Eventually we need the state to step in to assist and protect the people. Once you involve the state in the manner in which I think it should have be done, it ceases to be "Free market". I was mainly railing against the concept of "let it all work out on its own".

Last, you say "system," but you have to be more specific than that. I never see you in the threads about the Volcker Rule or anything of that sort that seek to address deficiencies. If you don't engage with the specifics of the financial system then how can you judge whether or not it is discouraging or encouraging risky behavior, how can you not be severely limited in understanding what should replace it..

Volcker rule? We had laws and regulations in place much more strict than that and they were abandoned. Ultimately though, I don't like speaking about financial systems while imprisoning myself within the context of that system. There is something much more fundamentally wrong about our capitalistic system than can't be described by limiting our conversation to economics (especially economics confined to Capitalistic philosophy). Our economic systems ultimately need to be revamped. Most of the things we have spoken about have no correlation to the physical world. It's betting money on money. Speculating on values and tying human existence to legal gambling. It's all geared towards risking for all and benefit of the few. I advocated for letting these banks and corporations fail because I know how entangled everything was. I know it would have been a disaster that could have pushed meaningful dialogue about our economic systems. It seems you and Taibbi on the other hand are advocating having let them fail so other banks would be scared of risking like that again. I don't believe that for a second. Our species can't leave it up to a system designed on greed and wealth accumulation to police itself. We shouldn't even be allowing it to exist in the first place.

Tiabbi was basically saying "fukk it" from what I saw. It was like a last resort measure based on pragmatism. I think you're conflating an economic belief with an enforcement mechanism. Obviously the two are intertwined. But it is entirely possible for what you want to occur while saying fukk you to banks as a means of policing them. Tiabbi justifies it by saying the evidence is there. Whenever you hint that you're not going to bail any entity out, they lose billions in market capaitalization overnight. It isn't what either he or I would traditionally posit, but it looks like the most feasible result to get what we want in the status quo.

Would you agree that if we let those banks and entities fail, and in 10-15 years there were new ones doing the same thing, that nothing of value was accomplished? It seems Taibbi is advocating this and it seems utterly naive to me. Here is a quote from him:

It’s a very conservative argument [I'm making]. I’m not advocating for socialism; I’m advocating for the “Schoolhouse Rock” version of what we were taught about democracy and capitalism, and we have a long way to go just to get back to that.

He seems upset that capitalism has led to our government being bought out and for these events to occur and his remedy is more capitalism? The invisible hand will take care of it? I don't understand that at all. Seems primitive. The entire way this economic system is constructed seems very primitive when you look at it from outside the economic box.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

After that, you seem to be lost within your own points. On one hand you claim that corporations aren't going to be punished by the free market, and then after that you said that some will fail. This makes sense if one accepts that total failure is not a punishment. However, I do take your point that some individuals will continue to commit crimes anyway, but that's not what I or Tiabbi are saying. We are saying we have created an environment where it is incredibly difficult to prosecute these individuals because of how complex the transactions are (haven't I been saying that the past two years) and because of their magnitude. Thus, given the unlikelihood of us modifying the limited liability structure or many of the other mechanisms that make this system work (both because of beliefs in the financial sector and economic community and interests in government), the best deterrence we have left is to remove the assurance that society will indemnify these people from their own fukk ups. In anything, our stance is realistic at best, and defeatist at worst. But don't think I'm anti-regulation, lawyers think rules are the answer to everything.

you're surprising me with your stance here. I always envisioned you as something of a 'realist', acknowledging that there's no way Obama could have let them fail and run for reelection after the economic fallout that failure would have created.

@Type Username Here your idea of reinvesting that trillion back into the populace is intriguing. Do you have any articles/resources on this idea? I never even considered a 'stimulus package' aimed at the people

@Broke Wave ?