Economy

Rant

How Much More Are We Going to Take from Wall Street?

Posted 13 months ago|9 comments|406 views
Written by
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
In what's simply the latest, perhaps most beguiling, insight into what makes Wall Street, NY the envy of the greed-driven in the world, a new report issued by Congress (see here) illustrates the wanton abandon with which Goldman-Sachs took its own clients to the cleaner and they profited off it. What could be more brilliant creating your own financial instruments designed to fail, sell them to customers of your own, and then profit by short selling the instruments? If that sounds complicated, part of the entire problem with the financial industry is that it's complicated, filled with jargon, and run by a handful of cabals that have convinced themselves that what they do is the most important thing in the world. These are the people who have brought to us our lasted round of $3.50+ / gallon of gas utilizing the trust funds of major universities and retirees, these people have run up the cost of oil again based on their speculating. These are the same people who gave out mortgages like they were candy to anyone with a pulse and then wanted a government bail out when the real estate market collapsed. How long are we going to let this go on? The primary cause of the problem is a little word that's a tenet of conservative beliefs and that is "deregulation". There philosophy is that if we deregulate industry, the free market will take over and do so much better on its own. Unfortunately, deregulation has caused these mega-financial institutions that are "too big to fail". Notice how they aren't called banks any more. They used to be banks and brokerage houses, and securities firms, and so on. Now, that they are all allowed to merge and join up and enjoy all those cost savings and benefits designed to save the consumers money....LOL!

Sorry, time to go back to some simple regulations. Time to separate the institutions back to the way they were and insulate the crooks from each other. There is a time and place for regulations, this is one of them.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
13 months ago: Time for a few extended prison sentences along with confiscation of entire family fortunes and a added tax to boot.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I couldn't agree more. What really disturbs me most is to listen to these people go on and on about how they are worthy of the levels of compensation they receive. It's hard not to want to become a far-left socialist and demand equal pay for all after one of their speeches of granduer. Some of these people earn bonuses that exceed the combined annual income of everyone on my block. It's utterly absurd.
13 months ago: Admit it. Your a hard core Tea Partier.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
13 months ago: Ask Obama. He's in their hip pocket.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I think the Wall Street Journal would beg to differ.
13 months ago: Is that a jab at FOX?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: No, it's a truism that the WSQ being the paper of Wall Street is not overly pro-Obama.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
13 months ago: Actually the Wall Street Journal is categorized as being more liberal than conservative.

One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal", notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is", Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized."

December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
13 months ago: Good article and post. Unfortunately the free market says that bankers and crooks can skate as close to the legal lines as they dare to cheat people out of their money and we can't do anything about it.

In a civilized nation income inequality could be addressed with an equitable progressive tax code. In the past we had 91% top tax rates to force the war profiteers to share their good fortune with those who actually fought for the country and did the actual work. Today the richest 400 people in the country only pay 16.6% of their income as taxes. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/1...

To discourage the type of reckless speculation on currency, leveraged investments and derivatives, a simple transaction tax of .2% would raise trillions of dollars to pay off the deficit. It would discourage speculation because it would require some "Skin in the Game" but it wouldn't be felt much at all by regular folk.

Republicans have vowed to oppose any and all taxes for any reason because they think it will discourage trade and hiring, but a transaction tax only discourages harmful activities and is too small to discourage regular investments. Nor would major corporations move to other countries to escape these minimal taxes because most other countries will also have a similar tax.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/201...

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.