The Warring States of NPF - The Big Takeover

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - The Big Takeover (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=33982)

The Big Takeover

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...e_big_takeover

Found this really good article by Matt Taibbi about the ongoing financial hobidoobie. Basically lays out how the big banks and Wall Street firms and such went about demolishing the regulations that applied to them so they could grow huge and bloated enough to threaten the entire damn economy if they failed, then demolished the regulations that kept them from failing on a massive and unchecked scale, then did both of those things, then demanded massive amounts of public money to make up for their failure, and have altogether managed to engineer the transformation of the government into a massive engine for taking wealth from you and giving it to them.

In particular I found it unapologetic about calling out the shameless excuses these masters of failure have been making to the effect that they're the only people who can fail as well as they do and by gum if we don't continue to reward them for failing, they might not go on failing so hard in the future!

In particularly particular it reminds me of how when the original $700 billion bailout package was put out, it was put out on the pretext that we absolutely had to get these banks lending because lending was the oil that greased the gears of our economy. And then it immediately came out that the banks who received this money were well... sitting on it, and not lending jack shit, the argument became that well these banks are just so IMPORTANT that they CAN'T go out of business and it was like... well, if they're not going to lend any of the money then why do we care if they go out of business or not? Which generally relates to how everything we've generally been told about this entire process mostly amounts to bullshit and word-salad made up on the spot as the thinnest possible veil for the most otherwise naked power-grab in maybe all of human history.

Oh, I meant to work it into the above somewhere but I couldn't find a way so I'll just say it: It is becoming inreasingly apparent that Obama is either a balls-ass clueless or outright malevolent handmaiden to these men who are so busily picking the pockets of you and me. Take your pick of whichever of those you like best.

Yes, it's the fault of the global economy that AIG is fucked... It couldn't possibly be the fact that they're spending the bailout money, that the American people didn't want them to get, on $165,000,000 bonuses for their uppity-ups. That would be silly.

The more I read this the more angry I get. If what it does is that important, is there any way the American government can sue AIG executives into the ground and use the money to replace AIG with something that won't try to rape the economy? I'll admit, I'm somewhat ignorant of modern economics, and I'm not really sure all the details of what AIG actually did, other than it involved housing, was supposedly very important, and used the money it got from the government for free bonuses.

Depressing, but accurate.

Though for extra lolz scroll down to the bottom and read some comments:

Quote:

We must admit that Matt is a very good writer--so good, that many accept, without critical analysis, what he writes. He says what he says so well, one assumes he must know what he�s talking about. What�s missed is that he�s not objective. Simply put, he�s a hack for the left.
He reports from a leftist perspective and seems to simply leave out facts and positions that don�t support his bias--many of which have already been mentioned by other posters. He reports as absolute, that this whole mess was created by a time bomb planted by Phil Graham (which many analysts don�t believe at all), then blames it all on Republicans, greedy corporations, the deregulation mentality, etc. (all the usual talking points) He never mentions players like Chris Dodd and Barney Fwank.
But his credibility should have come into question in his second paragraph when he commented that we had spent the last eight years chasing terrorists �to no avail.� This reflects a mentality that I can�t comprehend. There is no question that Bush�s war on terror has rendered life saving results. Masterminds have been captured or killed. Plans have been discovered and thwarted; often in their in their final stages, here and abroad. Individuals committed to killing any American, any time, any place and by any means have been neutralized. Is this to no avail? If he can be dismissive of this, then what else is he ignoring?
Matt connects the dots very convincingly in his piece. It�s one neat, comprehensive little package of cause and effect, blame and cynicism. But don�t be fooled by the style-- Matt can�t be trusted.
The picture is much larger and more complex. And don�t be naive--there is unscrupulous political opportunism at work here, as well--coming mostly from the left--who have vowed to �never let a good crisis go to waste.�

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifth

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is either a balls-ass clueless or outright malevolent handmaiden to these men who are so busily picking the pockets of you and me. Take your pick of whichever of those you like best.

I'd like to believe clueless, but I have to ask if this is regards to Geithner and Patterson being on the Obama Administration?

For the record, I'm not a big fan of Fox News. But having to hear about the bailout everyday, I notice they have a few good points.

link

Quote:

He reports from a leftist perspective and seems to simply leave out facts and positions that don�t support his bias--many of which have already been mentioned by other posters.

Quote:

"It's all about the regulatory environment," says a government source involved with the AIG bailout.

Quote:

"The banks knew they were selling crap," says a London-based trader from one of the bailed-out companies.

Quote:

"They had some back room somewhere where a bunch of Indian guys who'd been doing nothing but math for God knows how many years would come up with some kind of model saying that this or that combination of debtors would only default once every 10,000 years," says one young trader who sold CDOs for a major investment bank.

Quote:

"You have to remember, investment banks aren't in the business of making huge directional bets," says the government source involved in the AIG bailout

I kinda notice that about half his sources are anonymous. I have a feeling he makes up some stuff just to give his argument more credence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonCon

The more I read this the more angry I get. If what it does is that important, is there any way the American government can sue AIG executives into the ground and use the money to replace AIG with something that won't try to rape the economy? I'll admit, I'm somewhat ignorant of modern economics, and I'm not really sure all the details of what AIG actually did, other than it involved housing, was supposedly very important, and used the money it got from the government for free bonuses.

Shortened version:

Quote:

The mess Cassano created had its roots in an investment boom fueled in part by a relatively new type of financial instrument called a collateralized-debt obligation. A CDO is like a box full of diced-up assets. Now that even the crappiest mortgages could be sold to conservative investors, the CDOs spurred a massive explosion of irresponsible and predatory lending. Bank A wants to hedge its mortgage risk in case the Pope can't make his monthly payments, so it buys CDS protection from Bank B, wherein it agrees to pay Bank B a premium of $1,000 a month for five years. In return, Bank B agrees to pay Bank A the full million-dollar value of the Pope's mortgage if he defaults. In theory, Bank A is covered if the Pope goes on a meth binge and loses his job.

The rest of the article devolves more into saying AIG massively lobbied to change the rules for everyone, the Office of Thrift failed because it was so obscure, and having Henry Paulson on speed dial helps your case in getting TARP money.

Though I do contest this:

Quote:

While all the bigwigs at Citi and Goldman and Bank of America who had Paulson on speed-dial got bailed out right away � remember that TARP was originally passed because money had to be lent right now, that day, that minute, to stave off emergency � many small banks are still waiting for help. Five months into the TARP program, some not only haven't received any funds, they haven't even gotten a call back about their applications.

The regional banks have their own funds

Quote:

Wow, that was the best comment ever. I'm tempted to sig-quote the entire thing. My favorite part is the way it regurgitates whole the entire attitude that Taibbi makes a mockery of in the very article to which it is responding, with not a single actual fact in support of why on Earth we should take it seriously. Gosh, the only thing that could make it better would be if it namedropped ACORN.

If I had to pick a favorite - cause honestly the whole thing is awesome - it would have to be when he says 'political opportunism is at work here coming mostly from the left.'

Its just that kind of brick-wall of logic. Like, oh man how dare we name names and try to make people aware of the people who have put us in this situation, instead lets just smokescreen the entire thing by saying 'HE'S JUST WORKING FOR LEFTISTS POINTING BLAME'.

I'm having some difficulty telling what level of sarcasm is going on here as compared to the level of seriousness in the posts made. It's prolly just me.

Still, that entire article reeks of 'crazy conspiracy theorist', I'm taking it with a heavy grain of salt since other then doing the extensive research into this myself, there are no real listed sources for these claims that I can see

It's easy to dismiss something as a conspiracy theory based on the grounds that the argument sounds so absurd. But somethings are absurd.

Quote:

And don’t be naive--there is unscrupulous political opportunism at work here

Don't be naive? I think it's pretty naive to assume that these banks have done nothing to forward their own goals.

Well, yes, some things are absurd, but until more information comes out to support the article like sources and interviews and things we can really check and look at ourselves..grain of salt. All I'm Saying.

Edit: I may be picky, but lets not resort to calling someone out on a comment just because he has no support for his claims against an article that has no visible sources (support) for it's content (claims).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0 (Post 906318)

Still, that entire article reeks of 'crazy conspiracy theorist', I'm taking it with a heavy grain of salt since other then doing the extensive research into this myself, there are no real listed sources for these claims that I can see

I won't deny that there is some measure of careful skepticism that I probably should have, but honestly it sums up so much of my feelings on the subject in far better words than I could that I kinda can't help but agree, you know?

Such as --

Quote:

"But wait a minute," you say to them. "No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what's left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?"

But before you even finish saying that, they're rolling their eyes, because You Don't Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they're on par with crack addicts, or obsessive sexual deviants who burgle homes to steal panties. Yet these are the people in whose hands our entire political future now rests.

-- that. And that isn't me accepting everything he said as 100% fact, that's just a good summary of what they're actually doing I'm like, damn, yeah.

EDIT:

Quote:

Edit: I may be picky, but lets not resort to calling someone out on a comment just because he has no support for his claims against an article that has no visible sources (support) for it's content (claims).

Well when he basically said 'this is just a bunch of finger-pointing from leftist opportunistic agenda-pushing' its kind of hard to take him seriously. I mean these guys at AIG - like it or not - did issue forth absurdly huge bonuses after receiving free money to support their failing bank just cause while hundreds of thousands of jobs are vanishing into thin air. Call me crazy but I imagine that money just had to come from somewhere.