This is frankly a non-response. You're defining corruption as "things I don't like". If you're going to argue that someone is corrupt, you need to be specific as to what you're accusing them of, and how that fits into a theory of corruption.
Your "case in point" points out the obvious: that people lost a lot of money in a market crash and economic downturn. But market crashes don't require any wrongdoing.
In this case there is in fact evidence that some people were criminally dishonest. Some mortgage brokers who were complicit in applicants' lies, for example. But it's not readily apparent that investment banks did anything wrong, other than make bad decisions for themselves and their customers.
This to me sounds more or less like the meant-to-confuse arguments given by the people involved and their lawyers to confuse the general public until they throw up their hands in despair. I followed the financial crisis closely enough to know that there were numerous laws broken all over the place, and nothing happened.
And no, I'm not going to participate in some nonsense back and forth posting articles to "prove" this, es the ultimate "proof" is always going to be what was decided in a court of "law", which simply demonstrates OP's claim of widespread corruption, but only if you're willing to look honestly.
You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed any of the examples I gave to support your argument. To my knowledge these are mostly widely-reported, commonly viewed cases of corruption. Perhaps you could meet me In the middle and try to convince me of why you are right that they aren't, and use more respectful language rather than just lashing out repeatedly "that's ridiculous?"
Here is Bernie Sanders on the Fed: ""This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
I guess I thought that was self evident in my posts, though?
Individuals did get bailed out from their mortgages. And the banks paid back the bailout money with interest; the government made a profit.
I'm not sure myself whether the bailouts were the right policy, but they were motivated by genuine policy considerations. People feared that letting the banks fail would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. But even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn't make you corrupt.
From your original post:
The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head.
We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality.
These aren't claims about corruption, it's a list of things you don't agree with.
The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically.
If you don't think police killing people and getting away with it is evidence of corruption, or government lying to go to war for profit, etc, etc... then first I would have to ask what your definition of corruption is? The fact is why most people view these as corruption, so what's wrong with that viewpoint?
How about this: what in your mind is an example of corruption?
>"The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically."
There is no reason the Fed would have been paid back. The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks. The architect of TARP was Timothy Geitner the then Treasury Secretary.
The Fed didn't lend any money. The Fed is essentially a nonprofit, after their expenses any profits are always transferred to the US Treasury.
And you are also wrong about the government not making a profit:
Come on, if you read my post you would be aware that the TARP program you are referencing was only a small fraction of the bail out.
The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money! They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates, but they also lend through something called the discount window, and by other means. Where in God's name are you getting so misinformed regarding what the Fed does?
>The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks
You would be further behooved to know that since the financial crisis, the Fed has even bought an enormous share of the MBS market, and even other toxic assets! So no, the Fed actually bought many times more assets from the banks than the TARP program.
>The Fed didn't lend any money.
Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have: I don't know where you got it from, and why you are so insistent on reiterating that I am wrong, silly, etc. Here is the reality:
>"Fed facilitated bailouts to financially troubled institutions by invoking its so-called emergency lending authority. The government even forced some banks to take the money against their objections"(1)
So no, no, and no!
And the Fed doesn't need to pay anyone back because they simply print their own money and go buy an asset with it. It is really that simple! It doesn't mean you can get something for nothing, they're just dilluting everyone else's wealth.
Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation.
You've responded aggressively to me like this to me multiple times, and it's coming across as targeted. If you have some personal issue just let me know what your grievance is and we can work towards a solution.
Also see (yes they're biased, but it's a great, thoroughly-sourced article nonetheless)
www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/report/quantitative-easing-the-feds-balance-sheet-and-central-bank-insolvency
>"The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money!"
The primary function of the Fed is NOT to lend money. That statement is so egregious and just plain wrong! And you have the nerve to ask other where they are getting so misnformed? Wow.
The primary function of the Fed is the stability of the US economy. Here you can read the statement here on the Fed's website:
>"The myth that the Federal Reserve prints money only became prevalent following the Great Recession when many were concerned about the unconventional policies of the central bank, which included intervention in the commercial paper market, mortgages and outright purchases of debt to keep the system from collapsing. By the end, the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet by nearly $4 trillion."
>"Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have:"
The only lending the Fed does is called the "Discount Window" and it's made available to member banks for the sole purpose of meeting reserve requirements and for a very short term. A bank is not allowed to do anything with money that is borrowed via the Fed's Discount Window. It literally just sits in a vault for the sole purpose of meeting the reserve requirements. Making use of the Discount Window traditionally has had a stigma attached as well and so it is not used very often. Also the rate is higher than banks can get from borrowing from each other. So again it is generally not done.
>"They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates..."
And what are they buying in selling through those FOMC operations? US Treasury Notes! So yes their main tool to influence the money supply is an asset that is owned and issued by the US Treasdury.
Here from the Fed's own FAQ:
"The Federal Reserve purchases Treasury securities held by the public through a competitive bidding process. The Federal Reserve does not purchase new Treasury securities directly from the U.S. Treasury, and Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury securities from the public are not a means of financing the federal deficit."[1]
>"Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation."
I don't need to Google about how the Central Bank in the US works, I have an education in it.
Perhaps your incomplete and incorrect understanding of the US Central Bank and US Treasury is because you have simply chosen to "Google" about it instead of sitting down and reading books or enrolling in a University level course?
I'm guessing that's the case. But more egregious than your own incomplete and incorrect understanding of the US financial system is the outsized arrogance you have when displaying your lack of understanding. It's actually anti-social.
Ponder for a second what it means for the Fed to "buy" Treasury Notes by simply increasing the database entry for the seller's account. I think you will see that Wallace is right that this is effectively "printing money".
Let's take a deep breath, and step back. And please, stop it with the personal attacks and vitriol.
There are 3 major themes of disagrement here:
1.) You defend the Fed as noble. You view the Fed as it sells itself as an altruistic technocracy: to serve and protect the US economy through its dual mandate, and return all profits to taxpayers.
I view the Fed as a private corporation, undemocratically appointed, and profit-seeking entity. The first two are facts of the Fed, the last is a truth about all entities which are the first two.
-Reasonable people can disagree here
2.) Arguing about basically economics 101 stuff
-This can be settled by looking at a textbook
3.) Your attacks and speculation with regard to my personal character, not on my arguments
-This adds nothing of value and is simply unacceptable.
Now, on to a few points about what you wrote:
>Here from the Fed's own FAQ:
When buying notes you are giving money in exchange for a promise that money will later be returned with interest. This is the essence of lending, and why even the very source you linked to says:
>"The Fed lends money to banks"
Further, the Fed is commonly known as "The Lender of Last resort."
So 1.) what the Fed does is lending even if you call it investing or purchasing assets, whatever; 2.) Everyone knows the Fed does this, which is why it's stated as such in your sources, and basically everywhere; 3) I don't care if you call the Fed giving money to banks lending, investing, or an insurance policy, it doesn't matter for the sake of this disagreement. The issue is that the Fed expands the money supply and in this process props up the banks.
Also, as I said in my last post, you would be behooved to check the references I gave you that describe the Fed's lending. This is just economics 101 reading. Additionally, the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to over 4 trillion recently becausd they bought non-traditional securities such as MBSs and "toxic assets." So you are also wrong about your point that it is only treasury notes. I just explained this all in my last post, actually!
Why don't you address these facts in your argument, and read your own sources?
>And no the Fed also does NOT print money.
Everybody knows that the Fed is responsible for expanding the US money supply. However, the only thing you are right about in your post is that the printing press for physical dollars is technically in the treasury. It doesn't mean the treasury has any say or authority with the US money supply.
> instead of sitting down and reading books or enrolling in a University level course?
In fact I actually have an honors degree in econ from a good university. That fact doesn't matter, though. What matters is the arguments and facts themselves. Milton Friedman has a Nobel Prize, it doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about some things. You need to rely less on ad hominens and speculation, and more on adding to the conversation.
You started this conversation with attacks on my credibility, and then posted misinformation. I gave you sources and explained why you were wrong, but then you did worse and became even less respectful me as a user here.
I don't know why you are posting. These posts are not interesting, and add nothing to the conversation other than for me to defend against condescending personal attacks and you spreading misinformation. They are not worth reading.
Your "case in point" points out the obvious: that people lost a lot of money in a market crash and economic downturn. But market crashes don't require any wrongdoing.
In this case there is in fact evidence that some people were criminally dishonest. Some mortgage brokers who were complicit in applicants' lies, for example. But it's not readily apparent that investment banks did anything wrong, other than make bad decisions for themselves and their customers.