Elizabeth Warren slams JPMorgan Chase...

[Dot Com]

How many businesses do you know of that operate on that model? Can you name even one? Furthermore, if you buy product 'P' without knowing a thing about business 'A,' then you deserve to be swindled because you're a gullible moron.

Big corporations don't do that, now small time rip off operations do it all the time, we just have a dishonest person trying to apply one for all.

BTW, ever heard of Enron, Bernie Madhoff, Drexel Burnham Lambert and Michael Milken

See, you lied again. Post where I wrote my comment applied to all and I'll offer my Mea Culpa. Since you can't 'cause I didn't, I stand by my comment - you are a liar.

'lest we forget, CPA firm Arthur Anderson that got busted cooking the books for that texas *cough* "enery company". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal

 

[Rocko]

for giving a raise to CEO Jamie Dimon.

The Wall Street giant had to pay $17 billion in fines for illegal activity in 2013
"Speaking during a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren noted how government regulators have much work to do when it comes to changing the culture of Wall Street, pointing specifically to the example of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

"The JPMorgan Chase example is simple and instructive: Despite the fact that the megabank spent much of 2013 negotiating with federal regulators, and ultimately was fined billions of dollars, the board decided to increase CEO Jamie Dimon’s compensation to $20 million."

Link:

Elizabeth Warren slams JPMorgan Chase for giving a raise to CEO Jamie Dimon - Salon.com

And yet her Republican colleagues in the Senate voted down an extension of the minimum wage law.

Over the last year JP Morgans shares have preformed tremendously. If I was on the board, I'd have no problem voting to give him a raise, and as a shareholder, which I am, I consider it very fair.

 

[Wry Catcher]

for giving a raise to CEO Jamie Dimon.

The Wall Street giant had to pay $17 billion in fines for illegal activity in 2013
"Speaking during a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren noted how government regulators have much work to do when it comes to changing the culture of Wall Street, pointing specifically to the example of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

"The JPMorgan Chase example is simple and instructive: Despite the fact that the megabank spent much of 2013 negotiating with federal regulators, and ultimately was fined billions of dollars, the board decided to increase CEO Jamie Dimon’s compensation to $20 million."

Link:

Elizabeth Warren slams JPMorgan Chase for giving a raise to CEO Jamie Dimon - Salon.com

And yet her Republican colleagues in the Senate voted down an extension of the minimum wage law.

Over the last year JP Morgans shares have preformed tremendously. If I was on the board, I'd have no problem voting to give him a raise, and as a shareholder, which I am, I consider it very fair.

You do? How do you feel about the R's failure to extend UE benefits? Is that fair? Do you agree or not that the message to other CEO's is harmful?

 

[MisterBeale]

So, what I've read is a personal attack on Sen. Warren with an allegation she is, " A tool of the corporatist international banking elites" sans any proof. Do you have any idea of her background, education and experience? Without proof you've posted nothing but an effort to assassinae her character and that alone makes you incredulous.

Took me a minute and an half.

You got me, I will apologize, it does seem that her top contributor is from Emily's list, so it would seem she is first and foremost a women's candidate. This is a good thing. For that, I apologize for making her seem like she is just another establishment candidate. It is best to remember though, women's issues need not be couched in terms of a left/right paradigm. You have to admit though, most of her rhetoric is not about equality and respect for the roles of women in society. Her rhetoric is about stripping men AND women of their self respect, individuality, and sovereignty, and handing it over to the state. All this so that she and her ilk can some how re-engineer a society for the less fortunate from some far off centralized authority.

Beyond Emily's list though, yes, let's look at where she gets most of her funds, at who she is in bed with.

The next five top contributors after Emily's list are all part of the corporatocracy and have no intention or desire of real inherent change in the system.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00033492&newMem=Y&type=I

2 Moveon.org $448,517 $129,540 $318,977
3 Harvard University $309,800 $309,800 $0
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology $76,200 $76,200 $0
5 Boston University $73,700 $73,700 $0
6 Brown Rudnick LLP $68,077 $67,077 $1,000

Soros, the Scientific and foundational dictatorship, and Wall-street corporate lawyers. It's like a who's who of A Brave New World. The only thing missing are drug companies and Monsanto.

If you don't understand how our major centers of education and our tax free foundational system support the establishment and social engineering goals of the elites, I suggest you look into the Dodd-Reece hearings that were held in the 50's and then were promptly shut down by the elites by what they revealed. Both progressives and conservatives alike didn't want the average American to know how the culture of their nation was being socially engineered with out them having a vote on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_to_Investigate_Tax-Exempt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations

Although the promotion of internationalism and moral relativism by foundations concerned the committee, it saw their concentrated power as the more central threat. Even if benign, this power posed a threat to democratic government. The Reece Committee's report, submitted in the midst of the ultimately successful efforts to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy, failed to attract much attention. McCarthy's fall led to a discrediting of all efforts that ' smacked of redbaiting '.[4]

The report conceded that, with several exceptions "such as the Institute of Pacific Relations, foundations have not directly supported organizations which, in turn, operated to support communism." However, the report did conclude that

Some of the larger foundations have directly supported 'subversion' in the true meaning of that term--namely, the process of undermining some of our vitally protective concepts and principles. They have actively supported attacks upon our social and governmental system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas.

What does this mean? It means she is working for institutions that believe the government has a role in determining winners and losers in the economy. It means she has no problems with the concept of social engineering. Our American Statists don't believe in classical socialism, they believe in government using their power to regulate too big to fail monopolies. As long as it is the government that gets the final say, setting the prices, telling the corporation how much it can pay it's employees, charge it's customers, or else. Or else what? Or else it will end the nice cozy government granted cartel, and the industry will no longer be, "too big to fail."

And you know what? The folks on Wall-Street like it that way. Why? Because it keeps out competition. They don't want more competition. They are just fine with the conservatives and progressives bickering and distracting everyone from the fact, that capitalism died, a LONG LONG TIME AGO. High prices, high CEO salaries, few choices, they like that. The only thing we are left with is fascism. You wanted it, you got it.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Americans don't really like competition, do we? Can you imagine what it would be like if our food choices looked like the craft beer market? Who would want that, too many choices. When's the last time you heard of a Micro-Brew Ceo getting a multimillion dollar bonus? You think the folks at micro-breweries get sub-minimum wages? Think again.

Irony of Ironies, some say Carter was responsible for deregulation of the beer industry. Guess that would make him the greatest President in History in my book.

Deregulation. It's a good thing.

 

[Rocko]

for giving a raise to CEO Jamie Dimon.

The Wall Street giant had to pay $17 billion in fines for illegal activity in 2013
"Speaking during a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren noted how government regulators have much work to do when it comes to changing the culture of Wall Street, pointing specifically to the example of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

"The JPMorgan Chase example is simple and instructive: Despite the fact that the megabank spent much of 2013 negotiating with federal regulators, and ultimately was fined billions of dollars, the board decided to increase CEO Jamie Dimon’s compensation to $20 million."

Link:

Elizabeth Warren slams JPMorgan Chase for giving a raise to CEO Jamie Dimon - Salon.com

And yet her Republican colleagues in the Senate voted down an extension of the minimum wage law.

Over the last year JP Morgans shares have preformed tremendously. If I was on the board, I'd have no problem voting to give him a raise, and as a shareholder, which I am, I consider it very fair.

You do? How do you feel about the R's failure to extend UE benefits? Is that fair? Do you agree or not that the message to other CEO's is harmful?

How long do you think we should have kept the UE benefits going? Make them permanent? The message to other CEO's is you get paid based on performance. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Silhouette]

It's none of her ******* business what a private company pays one of it's employees.........

Doesn't she have a form to falsify or something?.....

Actually it is the job of Congressional committes and oversight to regulate the backbone of the US economy so that it doesn't collapse. Rampant greed and shady dealings in that particular private industry has the uncanny and unique ability to immediately destroy many American lives and the economy itself, if not closely monitored and whipped back into line now and again.

Part of that $20 million could have been used to create more jobs, increase the strength of that bank etc by lending. The days of hoarding superwealthy CEOs are over. There is a limit in one man's life to how much he can spend. I know a little bit about banks. They're quite a lot like other industries. The people who do the most get paid the least, and, as they march upwards or are born into that position or bribe their way there, more commonly, the less they actually do for the company.

A chair-warmer shouldn't get paid a $20 million bonus in this economy while pleading for bailouts from taxpayers. That would be like a welfare queen getting food stamps and insisting on owning a fleet of Lexus SUVs, one a different color for each day of the week. We wouldn't stand for that and we shouldn't stand for what Chase Morgan has done.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Over the last year JP Morgans shares have preformed tremendously. If I was on the board, I'd have no problem voting to give him a raise, and as a shareholder, which I am, I consider it very fair.

You do? How do you feel about the R's failure to extend UE benefits? Is that fair? Do you agree or not that the message to other CEO's is harmful?

How long do you think we should have kept the UE benefits going? Make them permanent? The message to other CEO's is you get paid based on performance. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess I take a pragmatic look at what you and MisterBeale see ideologically. I see American families in economic trouble for reasons far beyond their control, and the power elite in this nation doing very well. I don't see cabals planning on making our nation into socialism lite (or taking the Communist Manifesto as our bible as the more extreme members of the political spectrum suggest).

Having graduated from CAL I have personal experience with the instruction and instructors there (1965-1967, 1969-1971) it an they were very diverse. As for any hidden agenda to remake society into a utopia or dystopia (depending on one's perspective) I don't have the foggiest. I do know (or once did) that the American voter has kept our nation on an even keel, and when extreme elements hoped to foster rapid change the voters rebelled.

What does ring true is there is some effort at social engineering, and I admit some of it is very appealing from my pragmatic world view. Without the effort to educated and legislate 'fairness' where would we be today?

Our tradition of Freedom from persecution commenced well before the United States existed exclusively in terms of religious beliefs., but even in those long gone days those who held beliefs which conflicted with scripture suffered indignations, at best. Later, and still well before the Revolutionary War, Africans were kidnapped from their homes and brought to our shores as slaves. And isn't it interesting that black males were legally allowed to vote before white women? Of course literacy requirement and poll taxes, etc. kept many black men for their right to vote.

Ending slavery and expanding voter rights are aspects of social engineering, are they not? I could go on, but my experience tells me when a post is more than three paragraphs most people will ignore it.

 

[eflatminor]

I have no clue, or no ******* clue - I get confused when morons like you realize your full of shit clichés get challenged. Oh wise one, tell me all about '"Capital Markets", how they work, how the protect the consumer, the environment and their investors, unless 'big brother' regulates them?

You have no clue...got it.

For example, Capital Markets don't have investors...they are the investors.

Yep, you clearly have no ******* clue...

Capital Market is the part of a financial system concerned with raising capital by dealing in shares, bonds, and other long-term investments. So how does Mitt Romney and his investors protect employees, protect consumers, and protect our environment? They don't; Bain Capital and other such concern only concern is earning money, not how they impact the microeconomic health of a region.

Which only further proves that you were wrong is stating that Capital Markets have investors. I can't help it if your ignorance is showing.

Now its time to put to rest your red herring, which had nothing to do with the point of this thread. You claimed "Markets" would control business practices which harmed consumers. I claim without government regulations your claim is ridiculous.

Let's assume no government regulation, something the radical right wing seems to want. How would a product that has long term risks to the health of a consumer be 'regulated' by the market? You claimed it, convince me.

I never said "NO" government regulation. We have plenty of laws to punish any individual or group of individuals (like a company) that harms or takes from another. What I said was that a company that makes bad decisions (like some banks did with real estate) should be subject to the wrath of consumers and face bankruptcy vs the way your central planners approached it, which was to steal from taxpayers to bail them out then apply meaningless fines.

We've been increasing regulations in all markets for over 100 years now, yet still the market crashed. Once again, your meddling did more harm than good...and only led to further meddling. If we didn't learn that central planning does not work from the ultimate meddlers like the Soviet Union, there really is no hope for someone like you.

Sorry comrade, you don't know what's best for everyone else. Markets exact true punishment for companies that misbehave. All you do is bail them out. Pass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You have no clue...got it.

For example, Capital Markets don't have investors...they are the investors.

Yep, you clearly have no ******* clue...

Capital Market is the part of a financial system concerned with raising capital by dealing in shares, bonds, and other long-term investments. So how does Mitt Romney and his investors protect employees, protect consumers, and protect our environment? They don't; Bain Capital and other such concern only concern is earning money, not how they impact the microeconomic health of a region.

Which only further proves that you were wrong is stating that Capital Markets have investors. I can't help it if your ignorance is showing.

Now its time to put to rest your red herring, which had nothing to do with the point of this thread. You claimed "Markets" would control business practices which harmed consumers. I claim without government regulations your claim is ridiculous.

Let's assume no government regulation, something the radical right wing seems to want. How would a product that has long term risks to the health of a consumer be 'regulated' by the market? You claimed it, convince me.

I never said "NO" government regulation. We have plenty of laws to punish any individual or group of individuals (like a company) that harms or takes from another. What I said was that a company that makes bad decisions (like some banks did with real estate) should be subject to the wrath of consumers and face bankruptcy vs the way your central planners approached it, which was to steal from taxpayers to bail them out then apply meaningless fines.

We've been increasing regulations in all markets for over 100 years now, yet still the market crashed. Once again, your meddling did more harm than good...and only led to further meddling. If we didn't learn that central planning does not work from the ultimate meddlers like the Soviet Union, there really is no hope for someone like you.

Sorry comrade, you don't know what's best for everyone else. Markets exact true punishment for companies that misbehave. All you do is bail them out. Pass.

Yep, I assumed Bain and others like it did seek out capital from investors, guess what: "Historically, Bain has primarily relied on private equity funds, pools of committed capital from pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, fund of funds, high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors."
Bain Capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no expert in Macroeconomic as you seem to believe you are, but I do know the failure to bail out the auto industry would have created a greater crisis. That the bail out of too big to fail banks/insurance companies made sense for their failure would have exacerbated the crisis; however, those in charge who committed illegal act should have been charged and if convicted fined heavily and put in prison; those who knowingly profited from the illegal actions should have been fined and in some cases imprisoned too.

 

[driveby]

It's none of her ******* business what a private company pays one of it's employees.........

Doesn't she have a form to falsify or something?.....

Actually it is the job of Congressional committes and oversight to regulate the backbone of the US economy so that it doesn't collapse. Rampant greed and shady dealings in that particular private industry has the uncanny and unique ability to immediately destroy many American lives and the economy itself, if not closely monitored and whipped back into line now and again.

Part of that $20 million could have been used to create more jobs, increase the strength of that bank etc by lending. The days of hoarding superwealthy CEOs are over. There is a limit in one man's life to how much he can spend. I know a little bit about banks. They're quite a lot like other industries. The people who do the most get paid the least, and, as they march upwards or are born into that position or bribe their way there, more commonly, the less they actually do for the company.

A chair-warmer shouldn't get paid a $20 million bonus in this economy while pleading for bailouts from taxpayers. That would be like a welfare queen getting food stamps and insisting on owning a fleet of Lexus SUVs, one a different color for each day of the week. We wouldn't stand for that and we shouldn't stand for what Chase Morgan has done.

Despite your marginal marxist ravings, the salary of an employee at a private company is none of hers or your ******* business.....

 

[driveby]

You do? How do you feel about the R's failure to extend UE benefits? Is that fair? Do you agree or not that the message to other CEO's is harmful?

How long do you think we should have kept the UE benefits going? Make them permanent? The message to other CEO's is you get paid based on performance. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess I take a pragmatic look at what you and MisterBeale see ideologically. I see American families in economic trouble for reasons far beyond their control, and the power elite in this nation doing very well. I don't see cabals planning on making our nation into socialism lite (or taking the Communist Manifesto as our bible as the more extreme members of the political spectrum suggest).

Having graduated from CAL I have personal experience with the instruction and instructors there (1965-1967, 1969-1971) it an they were very diverse. As for any hidden agenda to remake society into a utopia or dystopia (depending on one's perspective) I don't have the foggiest. I do know (or once did) that the American voter has kept our nation on an even keel, and when extreme elements hoped to foster rapid change the voters rebelled.

What does ring true is there is some effort at social engineering, and I admit some of it is very appealing from my pragmatic world view. Without the effort to educated and legislate 'fairness' where would we be today?

Our tradition of Freedom from persecution commenced well before the United States existed exclusively in terms of religious beliefs., but even in those long gone days those who held beliefs which conflicted with scripture suffered indignations, at best. Later, and still well before the Revolutionary War, Africans were kidnapped from their homes and brought to our shores as slaves. And isn't it interesting that black males were legally allowed to vote before white women? Of course literacy requirement and poll taxes, etc. kept many black men for their right to vote.

Ending slavery and expanding voter rights are aspects of social engineering, are they not? I could go on, but my experience tells me when a post is more than three paragraphs most people will ignore it.

That's one of the longest farts I've ever heard.......

 

[Wry Catcher]

How long do you think we should have kept the UE benefits going? Make them permanent? The message to other CEO's is you get paid based on performance. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess I take a pragmatic look at what you and MisterBeale see ideologically. I see American families in economic trouble for reasons far beyond their control, and the power elite in this nation doing very well. I don't see cabals planning on making our nation into socialism lite (or taking the Communist Manifesto as our bible as the more extreme members of the political spectrum suggest).

Having graduated from CAL I have personal experience with the instruction and instructors there (1965-1967, 1969-1971) it an they were very diverse. As for any hidden agenda to remake society into a utopia or dystopia (depending on one's perspective) I don't have the foggiest. I do know (or once did) that the American voter has kept our nation on an even keel, and when extreme elements hoped to foster rapid change the voters rebelled.

What does ring true is there is some effort at social engineering, and I admit some of it is very appealing from my pragmatic world view. Without the effort to educated and legislate 'fairness' where would we be today?

Our tradition of Freedom from persecution commenced well before the United States existed exclusively in terms of religious beliefs., but even in those long gone days those who held beliefs which conflicted with scripture suffered indignations, at best. Later, and still well before the Revolutionary War, Africans were kidnapped from their homes and brought to our shores as slaves. And isn't it interesting that black males were legally allowed to vote before white women? Of course literacy requirement and poll taxes, etc. kept many black men for their right to vote.

Ending slavery and expanding voter rights are aspects of social engineering, are they not? I could go on, but my experience tells me when a post is more than three paragraphs most people will ignore it.

That's one of the longest farts I've ever heard.......

Even when you try to be slick, it still comes out as dumb.

 

[eflatminor]

Capital Market is the part of a financial system concerned with raising capital by dealing in shares, bonds, and other long-term investments. So how does Mitt Romney and his investors protect employees, protect consumers, and protect our environment? They don't; Bain Capital and other such concern only concern is earning money, not how they impact the microeconomic health of a region.

Which only further proves that you were wrong is stating that Capital Markets have investors. I can't help it if your ignorance is showing.

Now its time to put to rest your red herring, which had nothing to do with the point of this thread. You claimed "Markets" would control business practices which harmed consumers. I claim without government regulations your claim is ridiculous.

Let's assume no government regulation, something the radical right wing seems to want. How would a product that has long term risks to the health of a consumer be 'regulated' by the market? You claimed it, convince me.

I never said "NO" government regulation. We have plenty of laws to punish any individual or group of individuals (like a company) that harms or takes from another. What I said was that a company that makes bad decisions (like some banks did with real estate) should be subject to the wrath of consumers and face bankruptcy vs the way your central planners approached it, which was to steal from taxpayers to bail them out then apply meaningless fines.

We've been increasing regulations in all markets for over 100 years now, yet still the market crashed. Once again, your meddling did more harm than good...and only led to further meddling. If we didn't learn that central planning does not work from the ultimate meddlers like the Soviet Union, there really is no hope for someone like you.

Sorry comrade, you don't know what's best for everyone else. Markets exact true punishment for companies that misbehave. All you do is bail them out. Pass.

Yep, I assumed Bain and others like it did seek out capital from investors, guess what: "Historically, Bain has primarily relied on private equity funds, pools of committed capital from pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, fund of funds, high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors."
Bain Capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh honey, they're ALL part of the Capital Market, they are the investors...but let's not get bogged down in semantics.

I'm no expert in Macroeconomic as you seem to believe you are,

I do have an advanced degree in Economics and a lifetime of studying economic history. Expert is a subjective word, but yes, I have extensive experience with macroeconomic models and theory.

but I do know the failure to bail out the auto industry would have created a greater crisis.

No, you don't know that. Huge companies have gone through a regular chapter 11 bankruptcy and come out clean on the other side (Texaco, Inc, Delta Airlines, Marvel, PG&E). Others have been acquired by competitors (Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers). Gigantic companies have failed and not brought about further crisis (Enron for example).

Further, you cannot say with any level of certainty that had GM gone through bankruptcy that other competitors (new or existing) wouldn't have stepped in to meet demand...and may very well have done so in more efficient and sustainable manner.

That the bail out of too big to fail banks/insurance companies made sense for their failure would have exacerbated the crisis;

Nope, you don't know that either. Same reasons as stated above. Of course, after the bail out, those banks ARE EVEN BIGGER. Once again, federal meddling in markets has made the problem worse!

however, those in charge who committed illegal act should have been charged and if convicted fined heavily and put in prison; those who knowingly profited from the illegal actions should have been fined and in some cases imprisoned too.

In most cases, they were doing EXACTLY what the government wanted them to do, which was to ensure everyone and their brother could get a loan. Have you forgotten the Progressive cries for everyone to experience "The American dream of home ownership"?

Personally, I would have rather seen those banks face the wrath of consumer loss of confidence, while the banks that did not engage in such careless risk taking reaped the profits and enhanced market share.

Same holds true for AIG. There were many insurance companies that did not engage in foolish risks...they DESERVED to capture AIG's market share but instead, the feds stole from taxpayers to the detriment of those companies that made wiser financial decisions than did AIG. That's not only unfair, it's unconstitutional (illegal!).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which only further proves that you were wrong is stating that Capital Markets have investors. I can't help it if your ignorance is showing.



I never said "NO" government regulation. We have plenty of laws to punish any individual or group of individuals (like a company) that harms or takes from another. What I said was that a company that makes bad decisions (like some banks did with real estate) should be subject to the wrath of consumers and face bankruptcy vs the way your central planners approached it, which was to steal from taxpayers to bail them out then apply meaningless fines.

We've been increasing regulations in all markets for over 100 years now, yet still the market crashed. Once again, your meddling did more harm than good...and only led to further meddling. If we didn't learn that central planning does not work from the ultimate meddlers like the Soviet Union, there really is no hope for someone like you.

Sorry comrade, you don't know what's best for everyone else. Markets exact true punishment for companies that misbehave. All you do is bail them out. Pass.

Yep, I assumed Bain and others like it did seek out capital from investors, guess what: "Historically, Bain has primarily relied on private equity funds, pools of committed capital from pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, fund of funds, high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors."
Bain Capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh honey, they're ALL part of the Capital Market, they are the investors...but let's not get bogged down in semantics.



I do have an advanced degree in Economics and a lifetime of studying economic history. Expert is a subjective word, but yes, I have extensive experience with macroeconomic models and theory.



No, you don't know that. Huge companies have gone through a regular chapter 11 bankruptcy and come out clean on the other side (Texaco, Inc, Delta Airlines, Marvel, PG&E). Others have been acquired by competitors (Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers). Gigantic companies have failed and not brought about further crisis (Enron for example).

Further, you cannot say with any level of certainty that had GM gone through bankruptcy that other competitors (new or existing) wouldn't have stepped in to meet demand...and may very well have done so in more efficient and sustainable manner.

That the bail out of too big to fail banks/insurance companies made sense for their failure would have exacerbated the crisis;

Nope, you don't know that either. Same reasons as stated above. Of course, after the bail out, those banks ARE EVEN BIGGER. Once again, federal meddling in markets has made the problem worse!

however, those in charge who committed illegal act should have been charged and if convicted fined heavily and put in prison; those who knowingly profited from the illegal actions should have been fined and in some cases imprisoned too.

In most cases, they were doing EXACTLY what the government wanted them to do, which was to ensure everyone and their brother could get a loan. Have you forgotten the Progressive cries for everyone to experience "The American dream of home ownership"?

Personally, I would have rather seen those banks face the wrath of consumer loss of confidence, while the banks that did not engage in such careless risk taking reaped the profits and enhanced market share.

Same holds true for AIG. There were many insurance companies that did not engage in foolish risks...they DESERVED to capture AIG's market share but instead, the feds stole from taxpayers to the detriment of those companies that made wiser financial decisions than did AIG. That's not only unfair, it's unconstitutional (illegal!).

Forgive me, but Economics is a soft science, one might better predict economic events using psychology. I'm a pragmatist, my degrees are in Poli Sci and U.S. History (double major) and a Masters in an interdisciplinary curriculum (psychology, sociology, Social Psychology, anthropology, philosophy and counseling). Allowing GM to fail, or go into bankruptcy, would have had a powerful impact on the nations people - fear, which was already prevalent by Oct. 2008. I credit no drama Obama for getting us past panic and no credit to the GOP for fostering fear solely for partisan purposes.

There was no game plan in January 2009, no road map and no historical record of what needed to be done. 20-20 hindsight isn't helpful nor posting a game plan five years later.

 

[Papageorgio]

I responded to this, "Big corporations don't do that, now small time rip off operations do it all the time".

Scum, that's not very nice, suggests you do care what I think of you. Otherwise, why default to third grade level insults.

Again, you said that one company would just change their name and open another business, Maddoff and Enron did no such thing, small rip off companies do that, not big corporations. If you can't keep up or follow dialogue, don't get pissy with me.

Okay, you've made your point, one which must make you feel accomplished. As a good liberal why would I deny someone their fantasy?

So you were wrong and then you play this silly game.

Interesting.

 

[driveby]

Again, you said that one company would just change their name and open another business, Maddoff and Enron did no such thing, small rip off companies do that, not big corporations. If you can't keep up or follow dialogue, don't get pissy with me.

Okay, you've made your point, one which must make you feel accomplished. As a good liberal why would I deny someone their fantasy?

So you were wrong and then you play this silly game.

Interesting.

Typical may be the more appropriate word.....

 

[Papageorgio]

It's none of her ******* business what a private company pays one of it's employees.........

Doesn't she have a form to falsify or something?.....

Actually it is the job of Congressional committes and oversight to regulate the backbone of the US economy so that it doesn't collapse. Rampant greed and shady dealings in that particular private industry has the uncanny and unique ability to immediately destroy many American lives and the economy itself, if not closely monitored and whipped back into line now and again.

Part of that $20 million could have been used to create more jobs, increase the strength of that bank etc by lending. The days of hoarding superwealthy CEOs are over. There is a limit in one man's life to how much he can spend. I know a little bit about banks. They're quite a lot like other industries. The people who do the most get paid the least, and, as they march upwards or are born into that position or bribe their way there, more commonly, the less they actually do for the company.

A chair-warmer shouldn't get paid a $20 million bonus in this economy while pleading for bailouts from taxpayers. That would be like a welfare queen getting food stamps and insisting on owning a fleet of Lexus SUVs, one a different color for each day of the week. We wouldn't stand for that and we shouldn't stand for what Chase Morgan has done.

Despite your marginal marxist ravings, the salary of an employee at a private company is none of hers or your ******* business.....

but...but....but...It's not fair!!!!

 

[eflatminor]

Yep, I assumed Bain and others like it did seek out capital from investors, guess what: "Historically, Bain has primarily relied on private equity funds, pools of committed capital from pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, fund of funds, high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors."
Bain Capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh honey, they're ALL part of the Capital Market, they are the investors...but let's not get bogged down in semantics.



I do have an advanced degree in Economics and a lifetime of studying economic history. Expert is a subjective word, but yes, I have extensive experience with macroeconomic models and theory.



No, you don't know that. Huge companies have gone through a regular chapter 11 bankruptcy and come out clean on the other side (Texaco, Inc, Delta Airlines, Marvel, PG&E). Others have been acquired by competitors (Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers). Gigantic companies have failed and not brought about further crisis (Enron for example).

Further, you cannot say with any level of certainty that had GM gone through bankruptcy that other competitors (new or existing) wouldn't have stepped in to meet demand...and may very well have done so in more efficient and sustainable manner.



Nope, you don't know that either. Same reasons as stated above. Of course, after the bail out, those banks ARE EVEN BIGGER. Once again, federal meddling in markets has made the problem worse!

however, those in charge who committed illegal act should have been charged and if convicted fined heavily and put in prison; those who knowingly profited from the illegal actions should have been fined and in some cases imprisoned too.

In most cases, they were doing EXACTLY what the government wanted them to do, which was to ensure everyone and their brother could get a loan. Have you forgotten the Progressive cries for everyone to experience "The American dream of home ownership"?

Personally, I would have rather seen those banks face the wrath of consumer loss of confidence, while the banks that did not engage in such careless risk taking reaped the profits and enhanced market share.

Same holds true for AIG. There were many insurance companies that did not engage in foolish risks...they DESERVED to capture AIG's market share but instead, the feds stole from taxpayers to the detriment of those companies that made wiser financial decisions than did AIG. That's not only unfair, it's unconstitutional (illegal!).

Forgive me, but Economics is a soft science, one might better predict economic events using psychology. I'm a pragmatist, my degrees are in Poli Sci and U.S. History (double major) and a Masters in an interdisciplinary curriculum (psychology, sociology, Social Psychology, anthropology, philosophy and counseling). Allowing GM to fail, or go into bankruptcy, would have had a powerful impact on the nations people - fear, which was already prevalent by Oct. 2008. I credit no drama Obama for getting us past panic and no credit to the GOP for fostering fear solely for partisan purposes.

There was no game plan in January 2009, no road map and no historical record of what needed to be done. 20-20 hindsight isn't helpful nor posting a game plan five years later.

Yea, pass.

Sorry, but history makes clear your gloom and doom predictions are unfounded.