Biggest financial scam in history

purch

See my recent post comparing the current looking-glass world to 1933 Weimar.

1923 :rolleyes:

Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933, so the Weimar Republic was well and truely over by then.

leveller2911

catmiaow wrote: »

I certainly agree the money would have been better spend on helping people with their mortgages and I agree the banks should not give themselves bonuses out of the bail out - what a cheek! The banks were such a pain over these bank charges, shame they are getting the last laugh though!

I agree with the sentiment, however,if we as tax payers are to "pay off" mortgages can we expect to also share in the big profits that people have made when selling houses.

It seems too many people want their cake and eat it.Where is the "risk" when people buy if they know the good old tax payer will bail them out.

We are suppose to be a capitaist market and some may not like it but in past recession houses have been re-possessed and sold why should it be any different now. I know peopl who lost everything in the recession of the 90,s but they got back on their feet...........:rolleyes:

I would also say, yes the banks behaved disgracefully but the same could be said for people who sold their house for far more than they paid for them along with the idiots who wanted 125% mortgages.........greed,greed,greed..........

Banks and big business run the world, not governments thats why Clown is treading on eggshells.They will regulate, but not much......

samclam

Folks

You are missing my point. I suggest separating off the High St banking activities and keeping them afloat. But all high risk Investment banking activities should be allowed to fail, if they can't pay their debts. Why should we fund their gambling?

I only said paying off defaulting mortgages would have been far better and cheaper. I don't necessarily agree with it morally. I definitely don't agree with rewarding the banksters with 10 times the money we could have spent.

I mention Goldman Sachs because they have infiltrated American government so heavily. They received something like $13 billion via the bailing out of AIG, unless someone can correct me. The Fed is so corrupt they won't even disclose where they sent the money! They act like it's their money!

Hank Paulson used to be the Boss of Goldman then somehow became US Treasury Secretary. Next thing you know, in the words of Max Keiser, he held a gun to the head of Congress and said if you don't give us (the banksters) $ Trillions we're gonna blow up these 'Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction' (the derivatives). He also litterally threatened some Congressmen with Martial Law, though why he had that power I don't know.

There is a lot of bad stuff going on here. Maddoff is just one of many. Stop getting side lined, the focus is that the level to which we are bailing out the banks is astronomical and unjustified - that should be our biggest concern!

lostinrates

Maddof in the argument as far as I can see is confusing: his acts were illegal and treated as illegal on their discovery.

treliac

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I disagree. A mortgage is an arrangement between an individual and a financial institution. I dont have one.why should my tax $$ be used to underwrite those who took out mortgages and cant afford them?

Agree 100%

If they cant afford them,they need to sell,downsize,restructure or get repossessed.

Don't entirely agree. Many were stupid in what they took on financially and should have known they'd never cope. Sadly, though, so many are totally naive about their money and if a mortgage adviser told them, 'You can borrow this much and you can afford to buy a house costing that sum...' they would have believed it, gone along and thought themselves very lucky indeed.

People should rightly have been able to rely on good advice. They weren't and will have to bear the cost of their naivety. But the banks and building societies were highly culpable and should sink or swim by their lending decisions.

Those of us who were careful and were not sucked into over extending ourselves should not have to bail them out.

dopester

wolvoman wrote: »

As to the rest of your arguments - do you have any idea how many small/medium businesses would fail if those big banks were left to fail? Tens of thousands.

If RBS and Lloyds had gone under, we'd be talking 4 or maybe 5 million unemployed.

Not necessarily. They could have gone into administration - temporarily supported and still running - and the markets would have sorted it out.

New owners would have been forthcoming at a new market levels, with bad debts restructured, dodgy offbalance sheet stuff being repriced at real world values, exotic financial instruments crashing back to levels which reflect reality, some people winning, some losing. Lessons learnt and ground cleared, but not under ego-maniac "boom-never-ends" heads like Goodwin.

It would have been a short sharp shock, instead of a massive depression which will last a very long time.

Afriend_2

dopester wrote: »

Not necessarily. They could have gone into administration - temporarily supported and still running - and the markets would have sorted it out.

New owners would have been forthcoming at a new market levels, with bad debts restructured, dodgy offbalance sheet stuff being repriced at real world values, exotic financial instruments crashing back to levels which reflect reality, some people winning, some losing. Lessons learnt and ground cleared for , but not under ego-maniac "boom-never-ends" heads like Goodwin.

It would have been a short sharp shock, instead of a massive depression which will last a very long time.

The great depression wasn't a short sharp shock. It lastest over ten years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
It is important to learn from history / past events.

samclam

I mention Madoff because he was running a Ponzi scheme and the bank bailouts are also a ponzi scheme. The bailouts are new borrowing to pay off old borrowing just as in a ponzi scheme new subscribers pay off older subscribers, if they are lucky, but the scheme grows unstable and collapses. See any similarities? The very nature of our Fractional Reserve Banking system is also a Ponzi scheme. You cannot loan money and then add on interest and expect there to be enough money in the system to repay both, it's impossible. So more loans are made just to pay off the old interest. Know anyone in that position? If it sounds a bit complicated there's a great video here: tr.im/moneydebt

Also as Madoff's activities were corrupt so were the activities of the sub-prime mortgage providers. They were paying the rating agencies to sign them off. There was massive conflict of interest. I call that blatant corruption and deception on a scale greater than Madoff. Wall Street is rife with corruption of this sort: no real regulation, bogus self regulation, bribery, market manipulation, secret cartels. Obviously not everyone is bad but this Big Apple's in a bad way.

Generali

samclam wrote: »

I mention Madoff because he was running a Ponzi scheme and the bank bailouts are also a ponzi scheme. The bailouts are new borrowing to pay off old borrowing just as in a ponzi scheme new subscribers pay off older subscribers, if they are lucky, but the scheme grows unstable and collapses. See any similarities? The very nature of our Fractional Reserve Banking system is also a Ponzi scheme. You cannot loan money and then add on interest and expect there to be enough money in the system to repay both, it's impossible. So more loans are made just to pay off the old interest. Know anyone in that position? If it sounds a bit complicated there's a great video here: tr.im/moneydebt

Also as Madoff's activities were corrupt so were the activities of the sub-prime mortgage providers. They were paying the rating agencies to sign them off. There was massive conflict of interest. I call that blatant corruption and deception on a scale greater than Madoff. Wall Street is rife with corruption of this sort: no real regulation, bogus self regulation, bribery, market manipulation, secret cartels. Obviously not everyone is bad but this Big Apple's in a bad way.

With what would you replace fractional reserve banking, please?

lostinrates

I get that many, many people feel regulation isn't sufficient. i don't pretend to know. Where I gaze over is where people say there is no or no real regulation. I've ''lost'' DH to too many hours working here, or on the phone, dealing with regulation to think its non-existant.