Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, in my view - Geithner, like Paulson, as

> President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

> since October 2003, was one of those senior

> regulators who failed to take any effective

> regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but

> instead covered up its depth.

>

> I would also add that he was supposed to regulate

> many of the largest bank holding companies in the

> United States. Far too many of these institutions

> are now deeply insolvent because the banks they

> own are deeply insolvent. The law mandated that

> Geithner and his colleagues place troubled banks

> in receivership long before they became insolvent.

>

>

> Which begs the question, Nexus - Why are the

> banking regulators, particularly Treasury

> Secretary Geithner, continuing to disobey the law?


So, can we agree that both Paulson and Geithner, have not fulfilled their job description or their obligations to enforce regulatory governance.


Can we also agree that because of the aforementioned negligence, a greater debt has been created, and is in the process of being kicked down the road?


Can we also agree that the debt crisis, has and is bleeding into sovereign debt?

Well Nexus, the fact is that Paulson and Geithner's refusal to comply with the law has already cost the taxpayers scores of billions of dollars in unnecessary costs. And Geithner indicated (back in February) that he would continue to flout the law. If he is allowed to do so it will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the eventual cost to taxpayers.


The way I see things is that the amount of taxpayer money wasted due to Paulson and Geithner's violations of the prompt corrective action law will exceed the total present value cost of resolving the S&L debacle, $150 billion ($1993). I also believe that the waste will take the form of the U.S. taxpayers subsidizing the officers, shareholders and subordinated debt holders of failed banks -- who are disproportionately wealthy, frequently profited from the accounting fraud that caused the banks to fail, and are often foreign.


And let's not forget that the prompt corrective action law was passed in large part to prevent such a subsidy!!

You're right, regulators turned a blind eye too often to high risk trading practices, falling for the same false hope that risk analysis had defeated risk rather than merely being "an airbag that works all the time, except when you have a car accident."


Finally I see the light, rapture will happen imminently, can you buy assault rifles from Amazon or do I need to do a bit of a shopping spree in downtowm Misrata?

Nice utopian middle class pipe dream; to quote one of my favourite cinematic characters:

"Shiiit, you gotta be rich in the first place to think like that." Mockney Piers




So you think the only people who can attempt to teach there children or offer them another way of life is


middle class people, gotta say the above has caused a lot of laughs here.



NN I looked up PCA and FDIC but to be honest it just sounds like another meant to be independant group,


who regulates the regulators?



I welcome experts but also have a problem with the kind who do not believe they have anything else to learn.


The ones who speak down to people and believe they know whats best.


I wonder how many people reading this thread, feel they could not post there thoughts cause theres to many


experts trying to put people in there place, a nice safe little slot.

Yes, that's exactly what I said *rolls eyes upwards*, but yes, I should know better than to bring class into it, just lazy stereotyping on my part.


I liked the 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' paraphrasing though.


I think most people refrain from posting on here because it's a)tedious b)pointless and c)err....that's it.

I do it because either a)I'm an idiot b)I'm a masochist or c) a & b

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And let's not forget that the prompt corrective

> action law was passed in large part to prevent

> such a subsidy!!


Indeed - let us not.


It is remarkable that the system, the phrase, and the law have disappeared from the coverage of the banking crises.

I hear you, Jeremy.


But surely the PCA's premise was that regulatory discretion led to cover-ups of failed banks and excessive losses to the taxpayers? The PCA solution (if I understand it correctly) was to require higher capital requirements and to mandate that the regulators take over troubled banks before they deteriorated to the point that the failure would impose a cost on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).


Stop me if if I'm stating the obvious here, of course!

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well Nexus, the fact is that Paulson and

> Geithner's refusal to comply with the law has

> already cost the taxpayers scores of billions of

> dollars in unnecessary costs. And Geithner

> indicated (back in February) that he would

> continue to flout the law. If he is allowed to do

> so it will add hundreds of billions of dollars to

> the eventual cost to taxpayers.

>

> The way I see things is that the amount of

> taxpayer money wasted due to Paulson and

> Geithner's violations of the prompt corrective

> action law will exceed the total present value

> cost of resolving the S&L debacle, $150 billion

> ($1993). I also believe that the waste will take

> the form of the U.S. taxpayers subsidizing the

> officers, shareholders and subordinated debt

> holders of failed banks -- who are

> disproportionately wealthy, frequently profited

> from the accounting fraud that caused the banks to

> fail, and are often foreign.

>

> And let's not forget that the prompt corrective

> action law was passed in large part to prevent

> such a subsidy!!


Thank you, this was helpful and informative.


Now can we all see that the rulebooks have been set on fire.


Clear prima facie evidence, has been place before regulators of fraud and beaches in regulation.

The aforementioned Paulson, Geithner, plus others, have not only turned a blind eye, but have actively block cases, from reaching court.

who's really in charge of running this world? i'm so confused about it all! the problem is the more high profile you become, the more careful you've got to be about upsetting other high profile people.. because other high profile people share your club..it's a bit tribal really..they look after one another...good example of this was when Blair shook hands with Gaddafi..that kind of thing..power met power..good met bad! i had an experience of complaining once to the local government ombudsman and they were useless..later on i found out that a high number of the ombudsman employees used to work for local government...they protect one another...tribal again.


Puff!!

Voyageur Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ......christ.......a..... plague.....

> of.....dots........



................. .......................... ................................... ...................... yes.. the.. black death.. ...................

"There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock."



Silly boy. Just spin round three times and pray to St. Anthony.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Who are you and what have you done with

> sarcastic

> > *Bob*?

>

> Loz, are you sitting comfortably?


I am now. :-$

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So that suggests the consultations with 'community' are just a tick box exercise where information given cannot be relied on. Not a good look. I hope Renata Hamvas who is the local councillor, as well as licensing, finds a way to stop the wholesale, spreadingmonetisation of an important green space in summer. If they get this it'll end up like Brockwell Park before you know it.
    • I’m broadly in agreement with you, Dogkennelhillbilly. But why the meme? It’s a very unfair representation of Sean Dyche, a man who to my knowledge has never engaged in any culture war bollocks. From his Wikipedia entry: Dyche features in an internet meme criticising modern trends in football, in which the phrase "utter woke nonsense" is attributed to him; he said "I wish I'd copyrighted it. Considering I didn’t actually say it, it does follow me around".
    • Whisky Macs, like Harvey's Bristol Cream and Cinzano Bianco & lemonade, are a taste of Christmas past sadly lost to many. A little Whisky Mac and icing sugar whisked through whipping cream makes a festive accompaniment to stollen or Christmas pudding.
    • Legal matters are notoriously slow.  There is no rule that communication has to be via email, fax or letter. If the issue is that you want to claim damages to the property because of poor practice, you would have to lodge a complaint with the ombudsman, but surely the one to suffer the most is the “gold digger” beneficiary?    If that is not the wrong that needs righting, what is? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...