Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More questions about the Obama/Geithner bank bailout scam

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:35 AM
Original message
More questions about the Obama/Geithner bank bailout scam
I wonder if this article is accurately presenting the facts of the scam. I hope someone will point out any inaccuracies. Maybe the Obama/Geithner scam really isn't a scam and maybe it really is a good idea to transfer so much wealth to the rich. Maybe someone here will explain why the Obama administration is doing this and why the seemingly much more reasonable alternatives discussed by Stiglitz, Sachs, and others should be ignored.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/134986/proof_that_geithner%27s_bank_plan_is_a_massive_giveaway_to_the_bastards_who_started_this_mess/

Proof that Geithner's Bank Plan Is a Massive Giveaway to the Bastards Who Started This Mess
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 1:17 PM on April 3, 2009.

Recall the Geithner Bank Plan in a nutshell: private investors will partner with the government to buy those "toxic" assets off of struggling "zombie banks." The buyers would put about 7 percent of the purchase price down, and the Treasury Department would match that with another 7 or so percent. Then the FDIC would offer government-backed loans for the remainder.

If the assets were to recover their value and turn a profit down the road, the investors would split the profits with the government. But if they don't -- if their values continue to tank, and it's entirely likely many will -- then you and I and everyone else we know who pays taxes will be on the hook for the lion's share of the losses.

In other words, we're letting bargain-hunters' pick up the crappy financial instruments that are burdening a small number of extremely-well connected financial institutions for pennies on the dollar, and limiting their downside risk if it doesn't turn out well for them. It's a pretty sweet deal for those investors. And, as I wrote when Geithner first announced the plan, it's also pretty much the definition of "moral hazard."

That background is important in order to understand just how incredibly infuriating this report from The Financial Times is:

US banks that have received government aid, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, are considering buying toxic assets to be sold by rivals under the Treasury’s $1,000bn (£680bn) plan to revive the financial system.

<edit>

Get it? We first pumped tens of billions of dollars into these institutions via the TARP, set up another program to aid them further by offering investors the opportunity to purchase the "shitpile" on their books with sweet federal subsidies, and they then turn around and buy the assets back with taxpayer-backed loans.

more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. Did you vote for McCain?
Because you've been out for bear since the primaries and before. Is anything being done that you like? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. No, I did not vote for McCain. And since I answered your question,
maybe you could answer mine and help me understand why progressives should support the Obama/Geithner scam. I would be very appreciative. Thanks in advance for your efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Great.
I am not at all knowledgeable about what's going on with this financial mess. So you think Obama and Geithner are scamming us?

Yes, call me naive, but I think and hope there might be another explanation. And if progressives don't support this, what are the options for you, besides posting articles from alternet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Did you get to watch the Bill Moyers program with Wlliam Black?
it should be required watching by every DU'er. It made me understand the comment Obama made to the bankers. The one where he told them that he was the only one standing between the bankers and the pitchforks. here's the link if you're interested.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5389122

i still have hope that Obama is smarter than these people and that he is going to get them in the end, however, I am disappointed in how he's allowing the ones that committed the fraud to continue with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. No I didn't, but I will. I've read that it was a great program.
As for allowing the ones in who committed the fraud, my take is he picked the best and the brightest, but they are there to explain to him what's going on and he makes the final determination. He must have known about their past involvements, but who should he have picked? Some unknowns with no experience? How would that have worked?

As with everyone he has selected for his cabinet, there's lots of cons to go with the pros.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Yeah, but the thing with this banking mess... is that they're all cons
And no, I don't believe that there are only a few insiders capable of understanding what happened or that they're the only ones capable of fixing it. The banks committed a huge fraud, and now it appears they've got the president participating in a cover up. Like I said before, I hope he's a couple of steps ahead of them and that he's laying a trap and not a participant of the mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. The transcript is great at the PBS link in that thread
April 3, 2009
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.

For months now, revelations of the wholesale greed and blatant transgressions of Wall Street have reminded us that "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One." In fact, the man you're about to meet wrote a book with just that title. It was based upon his experience as a tough regulator during one of the darkest chapters in our financial history: the savings and loan scandal in the late 1980s.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: These numbers as large as they are, vastly understate the problem of fraud.

BILL MOYERS: Bill Black was in New York this week for a conference at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice where scholars and journalists gathered to ask the question, "How do they get away with it?" Well, no one has asked that question more often than Bill Black.

The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating — after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named — he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black — kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.

Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname "banksters."

Bill Black, welcome to the Journal.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: I was taken with your candor at the conference here in New York to hear you say that this crisis we're going through, this economic and financial meltdown is driven by fraud. What's your definition of fraud?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, "I create trust in you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of value." And as a result, there's no more effective acid against trust than fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that's what we have.

BILL MOYERS: In your book, you make it clear that calculated dishonesty by people in charge is at the heart of most large corporate failures and scandals, including, of course, the S&L, but is that true? Is that what you're saying here, that it was in the boardrooms and the CEO offices where this fraud began?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: How did they do it? What do you mean?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, the way that you do it is to make really bad loans, because they pay better. Then you grow extremely rapidly, in other words, you're a Ponzi-like scheme. And the third thing you do is we call it leverage. That just means borrowing a lot of money, and the combination creates a situation where you have guaranteed record profits in the early years. That makes you rich, through the bonuses that modern executive compensation has produced. It also makes it inevitable that there's going to be a disaster down the road.

BILL MOYERS: So you're suggesting, saying that CEOs of some of these banks and mortgage firms in order to increase their own personal income, deliberately set out to make bad loans?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: How do they get away with it? I mean, what about their own checks and balances in the company? What about their accounting divisions?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: All of those checks and balances report to the CEO, so if the CEO goes bad, all of the checks and balances are easily overcome. And the art form is not simply to defeat those internal controls, but to suborn them, to turn them into your greatest allies. And the bonus programs are exactly how you do that.

BILL MOYERS: If I wanted to go looking for the parties to this, with a good bird dog, where would you send me?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, that's exactly what hasn't happened. We haven't looked, all right? The Bush Administration essentially got rid of regulation, so if nobody was looking, you were able to do this with impunity and that's exactly what happened. Where would you look? You'd look at the specialty lenders. The lenders that did almost all of their work in the sub-prime and what's called Alt-A, liars' loans.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Liars' loans--

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Liars' loans.

BILL MOYERS: Why did they call them liars' loans?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they were liars' loans.

BILL MOYERS: And they knew it?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: They knew it. They knew that they were frauds.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Liars' loans mean that we don't check. You tell us what your income is. You tell us what your job is. You tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you. We won't check on any of those things. And by the way, you get a better deal if you inflate your income and your job history and your assets.

BILL MOYERS: You think they really said that to borrowers?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: We know that they said that to borrowers. In fact, they were also called, in the trade, ninja loans.

BILL MOYERS: Ninja?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yeah, because no income verification, no job verification, no asset verification.

BILL MOYERS: You're talking about significant American companies.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Huge! One company produced as many losses as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.

BILL MOYERS: Which company?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: IndyMac specialized in making liars' loans. In 2006 alone, it sold $80 billion dollars of liars' loans to other companies. $80 billion.

BILL MOYERS: And was this happening exclusively in this sub-prime mortgage business?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: No, and that's a big part of the story as well. Even prime loans began to have non-verification. Even Ronald Reagan, you know, said, "Trust, but verify." They just gutted the verification process. We know that will produce enormous fraud, under economic theory, criminology theory, and two thousand years of life experience.

BILL MOYERS: Is it possible that these complex instruments were deliberately created so swindlers could exploit them?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, absolutely. This stuff, the exotic stuff that you're talking about was created out of things like liars' loans, that were known to be extraordinarily bad. And now it was getting triple-A ratings. Now a triple-A rating is supposed to mean there is zero credit risk. So you take something that not only has significant, it has crushing risk. That's why it's toxic. And you create this fiction that it has zero risk. That itself, of course, is a fraudulent exercise. And again, there was nobody looking, during the Bush years. So finally, only a year ago, we started to have a Congressional investigation of some of these rating agencies, and it's scandalous what came out. What we know now is that the rating agencies never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I'm quoting Fitch, the smallest of the rating agencies, "the results were disconcerting, in that there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined."

BILL MOYERS: So if your assumption is correct, your evidence is sound, the bank, the lending company, created a fraud. And the ratings agency that is supposed to test the value of these assets knowingly entered into the fraud. Both parties are committing fraud by intention.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right, and the investment banker that — we call it pooling — puts together these bad mortgages, these liars' loans, and creates the toxic waste of these derivatives. All of them do that. And then they sell it to the world and the world just thinks because it has a triple-A rating it must actually be safe. Well, instead, there are 60 and 80 percent losses on these things, because of course they, in reality, are toxic waste.

BILL MOYERS: You're describing what Bernie Madoff did to a limited number of people. But you're saying it's systemic, a systemic Ponzi scheme.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, Bernie was a piker. He doesn't even get into the front ranks of a Ponzi scheme...

BILL MOYERS: But you're saying our system became a Ponzi scheme.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Our system...

BILL MOYERS: Our financial system...

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Became a Ponzi scheme. Everybody was buying a pig in the poke. But they were buying a pig in the poke with a pretty pink ribbon, and the pink ribbon said, "Triple-A."

BILL MOYERS: Is there a law against liars' loans?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not directly, but there, of course, many laws against fraud, and liars' loans are fraudulent.

BILL MOYERS: Because...

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they're not going to be repaid and because they had false representations. They involve deceit, which is the essence of fraud.

BILL MOYERS: Why is it so hard to prosecute? Why hasn't anyone been brought to justice over this?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they didn't even begin to investigate the major lenders until the market had actually collapsed, which is completely contrary to what we did successfully in the Savings and Loan crisis, right? Even while the institutions were reporting they were the most profitable savings and loan in America, we knew they were frauds. And we were moving to close them down. Here, the Justice Department, even though it very appropriately warned, in 2004, that there was an epidemic...

BILL MOYERS: Who did?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: The FBI publicly warned, in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, that if it was allowed to continue it would produce a crisis at least as large as the Savings and Loan debacle. And that they were going to make sure that they didn't let that happen. So what goes wrong? After 9/11, the attacks, the Justice Department transfers 500 white-collar specialists in the FBI to national terrorism. Well, we can all understand that. But then, the Bush administration refused to replace the missing 500 agents. So even today, again, as you say, this crisis is 1000 times worse, perhaps, certainly 100 times worse, than the Savings and Loan crisis. There are one-fifth as many FBI agents as worked the Savings and Loan crisis.

BILL MOYERS: You talk about the Bush administration. Of course, there's that famous photograph of some of the regulators in 2003, who come to a press conference with a chainsaw suggesting that they're going to slash, cut business loose from regulation, right?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, they succeeded. And in that picture, by the way, the other — three of the other guys with pruning shears are the...

BILL MOYERS: That's right.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: They're the trade representatives. They're the lobbyists for the bankers. And everybody's grinning. The government's working together with the industry to destroy regulation. Well, we now know what happens when you destroy regulation. You get the biggest financial calamity of anybody under the age of 80.

BILL MOYERS: But I can point you to statements by Larry Summers, who was then Bill Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, or the other Clinton Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin. I can point you to suspects in both parties, right?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: There were two really big things, under the Clinton administration. One, they got rid of the law that came out of the real-world disasters of the Great Depression. We learned a lot of things in the Great Depression. And one is we had to separate what's called commercial banking from investment banking. That's the Glass-Steagall law. But we thought we were much smarter, supposedly. So we got rid of that law, and that was bipartisan. And the other thing is we passed a law, because there was a very good regulator, Brooksley Born, that everybody should know about and probably doesn't. She tried to do the right thing to regulate one of these exotic derivatives that you're talking about. We call them C.D.F.S. And Summers, Rubin, and Phil Gramm came together to say not only will we block this particular regulation. We will pass a law that says you can't regulate. And it's this type of derivative that is most involved in the AIG scandal. AIG all by itself, cost the same as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.

BILL MOYERS: What did AIG contribute? What did they do wrong?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: They made bad loans. Their type of loan was to sell a guarantee, right? And they charged a lot of fees up front. So, they booked a lot of income. Paid enormous bonuses. The bonuses we're thinking about now, they're much smaller than these bonuses that were also the product of accounting fraud. And they got very, very rich. But, of course, then they had guaranteed this toxic waste. These liars' loans. Well, we've just gone through why those toxic waste, those liars' loans, are going to have enormous losses. And so, you have to pay the guarantee on those enormous losses. And you go bankrupt. Except that you don't in the modern world, because you've come to the United States, and the taxpayers play the fool. Under Secretary Geithner and under Secretary Paulson before him... we took $5 billion dollars, for example, in U.S. taxpayer money. And sent it to a huge Swiss Bank called UBS. At the same time that that bank was defrauding the taxpayers of America. And we were bringing a criminal case against them. We eventually get them to pay a $780 million fine, but wait, we gave them $5 billion. So, the taxpayers of America paid the fine of a Swiss Bank. And why are we bailing out somebody who that is defrauding us?

BILL MOYERS: And why...

WILLIAM K. BLACK: How mad is this?

BILL MOYERS: What is your explanation for why the bankers who created this mess are still calling the shots?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, that, especially after what's just happened at G.M., that's... it's scandalous.

BILL MOYERS: Why are they firing the president of G.M. and not firing the head of all these banks that are involved?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: There are two reasons. One, they're much closer to the bankers. These are people from the banking industry. And they have a lot more sympathy. In fact, they're outright hostile to autoworkers, as you can see. They want to bash all of their contracts. But when they get to banking, they say, ‘contracts, sacred.' But the other element of your question is we don't want to change the bankers, because if we do, if we put honest people in, who didn't cause the problem, their first job would be to find the scope of the problem. And that would destroy the cover up.

BILL MOYERS: The cover up?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Sure. The cover up.

BILL MOYERS: That's a serious charge.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Of course.

BILL MOYERS: Who's covering up?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Geithner is charging, is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.

These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed, not because...

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation's top regulators, during the entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave no warning. He did nothing in response to the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud. All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his phrase about legacy assets. Well he's a failed legacy regulator.

BILL MOYERS: But he denies that he was a regulator. Let me show you some of his testimony before Congress. Take a look at this.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER:I've never been a regulator, for better or worse. And I think you're right to say that we have to be very skeptical that regulation can solve all of these problems. We have parts of our system that are overwhelmed by regulation.

Overwhelmed by regulation! It wasn't the absence of regulation that was the problem, it was despite the presence of regulation you've got huge risks that build up.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, he may be right that he never regulated, but his job was to regulate. That was his mission statement.

BILL MOYERS: As?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: As president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is responsible for regulating most of the largest bank holding companies in America. And he's completely wrong that we had too much regulation in some of these areas. I mean, he gives no details, obviously. But that's just plain wrong.

BILL MOYERS: How is this happening? I mean why is it happening?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Until you get the facts, it's harder to blow all this up. And, of course, the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts.

BILL MOYERS: What facts?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: The facts about how bad the condition of the banks is. So, as long as I keep the old CEO who caused the problems, is he going to go vigorously around finding the problems? Finding the frauds?

BILL MOYERS: You--

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Taking away people's bonuses?

BILL MOYERS: To hear you say this is unusual because you supported Barack Obama, during the campaign. But you're seeming disillusioned now.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they're refusing to obey the law.

BILL MOYERS: In other words, they could have closed these banks without nationalizing them?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, you do a receivership. No one -- Ronald Reagan did receiverships. Nobody called it nationalization.

BILL MOYERS: And that's a law?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: That's the law.

BILL MOYERS: So, Paulson could have done this? Geithner could do this?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not could. Was mandated--

BILL MOYERS: By the law.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: By the law.

BILL MOYERS: This law, you're talking about.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: What the reason they give for not doing it?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: They ignore it. And nobody calls them on it.

BILL MOYERS: Well, where's Congress? Where's the press? Where--

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, where's the Pecora investigation?

BILL MOYERS: The what?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: The Pecora investigation. The Great Depression, we said, "Hey, we have to learn the facts. What caused this disaster, so that we can take steps, like pass the Glass-Steagall law, that will prevent future disasters?" Where's our investigation?

What would happen if after a plane crashes, we said, "Oh, we don't want to look in the past. We want to be forward looking. Many people might have been, you know, we don't want to pass blame. No. We have a nonpartisan, skilled inquiry. We spend lots of money on, get really bright people. And we find out, to the best of our ability, what caused every single major plane crash in America. And because of that, aviation has an extraordinarily good safety record. We ought to follow the same policies in the financial sphere. We have to find out what caused the disasters, or we will keep reliving them. And here, we've got a double tragedy. It isn't just that we are failing to learn from the mistakes of the past. We're failing to learn from the successes of the past.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: In the Savings and Loan debacle, we developed excellent ways for dealing with the frauds, and for dealing with the failed institutions. And for 15 years after the Savings and Loan crisis, didn't matter which party was in power, the U.S. Treasury Secretary would fly over to Tokyo and tell the Japanese, "You ought to do things the way we did in the Savings and Loan crisis, because it worked really well. Instead you're covering up the bank losses, because you know, you say you need confidence. And so, we have to lie to the people to create confidence. And it doesn't work. You will cause your recession to continue and continue." And the Japanese call it the lost decade. That was the result. So, now we get in trouble, and what do we do? We adopt the Japanese approach of lying about the assets. And you know what? It's working just as well as it did in Japan.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: You are.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely, because they are scared to death. All right? They're scared to death of a collapse. They're afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we'll run screaming to the exits. And we won't rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it's foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, "We just can't let the big banks fail." That's wrong.

BILL MOYERS: But what might happen, at this point, if in fact they keep from us the true health of the banks?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, then the banks will, as they did in Japan, either stay enormously weak, or Treasury will be forced to increasingly absurd giveaways of taxpayer money. We've seen how horrific AIG -- and remember, they kept secrets from everyone.

BILL MOYERS: A.I.G. did?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: What we're doing with -- no, Treasury and both administrations. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration kept secret from us what was being done with AIG. AIG was being used secretly to bail out favored banks like UBS and like Goldman Sachs. Secretary Paulson's firm, that he had come from being CEO. It got the largest amount of money. $12.9 billion. And they didn't want us to know that. And it was only Congressional pressure, and not Congressional pressure, by the way, on Geithner, but Congressional pressure on AIG.

Where Congress said, "We will not give you a single penny more unless we know who received the money." And, you know, when he was Treasury Secretary, Paulson created a recommendation group to tell Treasury what they ought to do with AIG. And he put Goldman Sachs on it.

BILL MOYERS: Even though Goldman Sachs had a big vested stake.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive stake. And even though he had just been CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. Now, in most stages in American history, that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn't be allowed in civilized society.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, like a conflict of interest, it seems.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive conflict of interests.

BILL MOYERS: So, how did he get away with it?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: I don't know whether we've lost our capability of outrage. Or whether the cover up has been so successful that people just don't have the facts to react to it.

BILL MOYERS: Who's going to get the facts?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: We need some chairmen or chairwomen--

BILL MOYERS: In Congress.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: --in Congress, to hold the necessary hearings. And we can blast this out. But if you leave the failed CEOs in place, it isn't just that they're terrible business people, though they are. It isn't just that they lack integrity, though they do. Because they were engaged in these frauds. But they're not going to disclose the truth about the assets.

BILL MOYERS: And we have to know that, in order to know what?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: To know everything. To know who committed the frauds. Whose bonuses we should recover. How much the assets are worth. How much they should be sold for. Is the bank insolvent, such that we should resolve it in this way? It's the predicate, right? You need to know the facts to make intelligent decisions. And they're deliberately leaving in place the people that caused the problem, because they don't want the facts. And this is not new. The Reagan Administration's central priority, at all times, during the Savings and Loan crisis, was covering up the losses.

BILL MOYERS: So, you're saying that people in power, political power, and financial power, act in concert when their own behinds are in the ringer, right?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: That's right. And it's particularly a crisis that brings this out, because then the class of the banker says, "You've got to keep the information away from the public or everything will collapse. If they understand how bad it is, they'll run for the exits."

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, and this week in New York, at this conference, you described this as more than a financial crisis. You called it a moral crisis.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because it is a fundamental lack of integrity. But also because, if you look back at crises, an economist who is also a presidential appointee, as a regulator in the Savings and Loan industry, right here in New York, Larry White, wrote a book about the Savings and Loan crisis. And he said, you know, one of the most interesting questions is why so few people engaged in fraud? Because objectively, you could have gotten away with it. But only about ten percent of the CEOs, engaged in fraud. So, 90 percent of them were restrained by ethics and integrity. So, far more than law or by F.B.I. agents, it's our integrity that often prevents the greatest abuses. And what we had in this crisis, instead of the Savings and Loan, is the most elite institutions in America engaging or facilitating fraud.

BILL MOYERS: This wound that you say has been inflicted on American life. The loss of worker's income. And security and pensions and future happened, because of the misconduct of a relatively few, very well-heeled people, in very well-decorated corporate suites, right?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right.

BILL MOYERS: It was relatively a handful of people.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don't prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it's what saves capitalism. "Honest purveyors prosper" is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn't need to happen at all.

BILL MOYERS: When you wake in the middle of the night, thinking about your work, what do you make of that? What do you tell yourself?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: There's a saying that we took great comfort in. It's actually by the Dutch, who were fighting this impossible war for independence against what was then the most powerful nation in the world, Spain. And their motto was, "It is not necessary to hope in order to persevere."

Now, going forward, get rid of the people that have caused the problems. That's a pretty straightforward thing, as well. Why would we keep CEOs and CFOs and other senior officers, that caused the problems? That's facially nuts. That's our current system.

So stop that current system. We're hiding the losses, instead of trying to find out the real losses. Stop that, because you need good information to make good decisions, right? Follow what works instead of what's failed. Start appointing people who have records of success, instead of records of failure. That would be another nice place to start. There are lots of things we can do. Even today, as late as it is. Even though they've had a terrible start to the administration. They could change, and they could change within weeks. And by the way, the folks who are the better regulators, they paid their taxes. So, you can get them through the vetting process a lot quicker.

BILL MOYERS: William Black, thank you very much for being with me on the Journal.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Thank you so much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Pardon me for interceding, but I think there's a reason why:
Fear.

So many crooked and paid-for politicians. We loved Candidate Obama's promises, most of us accept change often takes time (I mean, to impose anything would have everyone branding him a dictator), and it's been too early for him as President to prove himself he isn't paid for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=438173&mesg_id=438173
That article only does more to instil more fear, because people want their livelihoods back. That's what they perceived "change" to be, from what little "change" was described to them. Never mind saving the economy, which means a strong middle class. Many words have been spoken -- all the actions of which have yet to come to pass and show their repercussions, but as other articles on DU and responders pointed out, what jobs really can't be offshored? Tax cuts for big businesses.

People will accept various changes. But what's going on now is a slow death with no signs of hope. Especially when we gave taxpayer money to all sorts of banks to open up lending... and lending has not occurred...

SBA lending drops 57% (not good news for the SMBs that McCain and Obama both said are what make this country great...

peoples' discussions on not being able to get loans - not good at all.

Should be retitled "The cars nobody can afford
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. I think based on the facts in this article and the analysis of Stiglitz, Sachs, and
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 11:10 AM by Karmadillo
others, it is a scam. Stiglitz referred to it as robbing the US taxpayer. Given the inability of Obama supporters to convincingly support this huge transfer of wealth to the rich with reason, I'm not sure "hope" is enough to justify supporting it.

Not sure why you want to focus on me. The amount of red-baiting and red-state baiting here is strange for a website that bills itself as "underground." Again, since you seem so interested in me, my life (work and personal) is pretty much focused on progressive issues. The fact I lack the power to influence the Wall Street types in the Obama administration shouldn't necessarily bar me from posting an occasional article on DU. What might be a better target of your concern is how so many of Obama's most vociferous supporters are unable or unwilling to adequately defend his bank bailout plan/scam. Historically, faith-based support of government, whether right or left, tends not to work out well in the long run.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. Babylon Sister is not capable of doing anything but worship someone she calls
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 06:59 PM by truedelphi
"Master"

She doesn't realize that the positon of President is simply that of an elected servant - supposedly a servant of the people and not the servant of the banking class.

But it was FDR who said "It is far more dangerous to collude with the organized banking class than the organized crime families"

Because of that philosophy, FDR's actions helped people, average people, during the Depression. Obama would rather collude with the bankers. His actions will cause a massive devaluing of the wages that the average Americans receive. Then when he is exposed, he will point fingers at Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, Gensler etc.

But he made those appointments, not anyone but him. And against the sound advice of Krugman, Black, Stiglitz, and Robert Reich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. The criticism is well-founded. Not a GOP talking-point.
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 09:52 AM by leveymg
Just an obvious Wall Street rip-off of the taxpayer, at least the part of the plan that would back the value of CDS contracts, those should simply be cancelled. They were nothing but casino side-bets to begin with.

The mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that they "insured" should be steeply discounted before any payout is made to holders - the market pricing system using CDS as the basis for valuation was an inside trading scheme called a "circle". The US gov't should pay out on MBS based on the present underlying value of the mortgages, and sell them back to investors with long-term loans payable with interest - that part I could live with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Fine. But all I read from this person is criticism, so thought I'd ask. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. OK - point taken. :hi:
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 09:50 AM by leveymg
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Wouldn't using the word "Bastard" draw a Liable suit
I would really like to see that on the front page of my local paper
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sort of an asset default swap and the government is AIG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Seems like sites like Alternet only are able to survive
by feeding off anger. Much like Rush Limbaugh and Free Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Is it just anger or are the objections in the article legitimate? If you could point out
the inaccuracies in how the article characterizes the Obama/Geithner scam, I would be very appreciative. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. How much of this has to do with the Banks balance sheets
From what I read in 2008 the rules were changed back where Banks could no longer carry the Toxic Assets as Assets on their balance sheet. Which started the freezing of credit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. Why don't we wait and see if they're actually allowed to do this.
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 10:17 AM by drm604
Read your own quote. They haven't turned around and done anything yet, they're considering it. Granted, it would be unacceptable if they were allowed to do this - even considering doing it is unacceptable - but it's the banks that are doing the considering and not Obama or Geithner.

Labeling it the "Obama/Geithner bank bailout scam" because of this is a bit premature since we don't know where either Obama or Geithner stand on this yet.

According to your own source, legislation is going to be introduced to prevent this.

Edited for spelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. On that I wholly agree.
As with all things, time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. It doesn't appear Obama will allow that
Here is an article citing Obama is telling the "Bond Holders" they are going to have to make concessions

ALL BUSINESS: Bank creditors still sitting pretty


ALL BUSINESS: Financial crisis not hurting bank creditors who hold on to their investments
Rachel Beck, AP Business Writer
Saturday April 4, 2009, 6:33 am EDT


NEW YORK (AP) -- American taxpayers and stock owners have taken it on the chin in this financial crisis. The same can't be said of bondholders who lent money to the most troubled banks.

The Obama administration is now ordering General Motors Corp.'s creditors to make sacrifices to save the ailing automaker. Yet bondholders of financial companies such as Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. so far have been mostly left off the hook, even though the government has given the banks billions of dollars in bailout money.

-snip-

Hussman is among critics who say bank bondholders shouldn't be shielded from all that has gone wrong in the past two years. "When one lends money to a financial institution, one also assumes the risk and responsibility of bearing the losses," Hussman observed.

The White House has been sending out the same message as it turns up the heat on GM's creditors. In addition to forcing CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, Obama administration officials told GM bondholders over the last week they must make concessions or else the automaker will be headed for a bankruptcy reorganization that likely would diminish the value of their holdings.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ALL-BUSINESS-Bank-creditors-apf-14850712.html


So to think Obama is going to creat a loop Hole for bank execs to skirt through while pressing bond holders for concessions is very unlikely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. That article is referring to GM bondholders..
that's a different matter altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
21. Close the barn door AFTER the horses are out?
I prefer a proactive approach that lets Geithner and the Obama administration KNOW that we are watching and will hold them accountable BEFORE the money is gone and we have to listen to more,"Gee, who could have imagined?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. The horses aren't out yet.
There are banks considering doing this. They haven't done it yet and hopefully they won't be allowed to. Let's not judge Obama on this issue until it plays out one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. $600 Billion horses already out...
...and NOBODY can tell us where they went.

Trillions of horses leaving as we speak. The time to REGULATE is BEFORE they get the money....NOT after.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. The OP was referring to the government's new program to aid investors in buying toxic assets.
The problem is that banks which are already burdened with such assets like Citi, Goldman Sachs, et al, are considering buying from each other through this new program, essentially swapping those assets amongst themselves at taxpayers' expense. That is the subject of this thread, and that is what I was talking about. As far as I know that horse has not left the barn yet. If you were discussing something else then you'll have to excuse me for assuming that you were referring to the subject of the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. As I understand it,
there is room for gigantic fraud if the banks are allowed to set the value on those assets.
I would like to close THAT door before those horses leave THAT barn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Then we agree.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
17. Thanks for posting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
22. K & R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jemma Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. More answers
Glenn Greenwald
Salon
Saturday April 4, 2009 08:35 EDT
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...04/04/summers/

Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's ownership of government

...

As much as he campaigned against anything, Obama railed against precisely this sort of incestuous, profoundly corrupt control by narrow private interests of the Government, yet he has chosen to empower the very individuals who most embody that corruption. And the results are exactly what one would expect them to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Thanks for posting. Greenwald sums it up very nicely.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. I believe they thought this was the best of all the bad options...
That if they permitted these half-dozen or so big banks to go under, then it would create a panic and a worldwide depression of unknowable consequence. And they did not want to "nationalize" or go down the socialist route. Also, I think that Obama believes that he, like FDR, is saving the capitalist system by these actions. They are convinced any other option would be worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. It's too bad we have to try to divine their intent. More transparency might
have a resulted in a better solution. Did they consider the solutions proposed by economists like Stiglitz? If they did, why did they reject them? Such a monstrous transfer of the wealth from the taxpayer to the wealthy would seem to need more justification than simply saying trust us to know what we're doing. Lack of transparency resulting in policies that rob the American taxpayer (Stiglitz' description) is bad government regardless of the party label.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. "Did they consider the solutions proposed by economists like Stiglitz?"
No. Obviously not. As many folks have pointed out, the only world that Summers and Geithner know. And that appears to be the only folks that are advising Obama on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC