Reddit reviews The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry

Nice try, BoA.

I will refrain from hyperbowling in this space, but your response is either ignorant or willfully misleading. Yes, you do an excellent job of explaining the simple goals and incentives of the system -- "just doing my job" middle managers can defend themselves with it. However, your explanation exists in a vaccuum/fantasy world where regulatory agencies do their jobs without external pressures and financial institutions are staffed only by morally upright people doing "God's work." I'm sorry Dr. Pangloss, but it don't work that way.

For example, you left out the parts about MERS robo-signing; regulatory capture and "revolving door hiring" practices; and credit ratings agencies that gave everyone a passing grade.

I have personally reported on victims of seedy lenders. They were incentivized to sell as many mortgages as possible because they knew they could sell the "good" paper to other banks. I spent time with a woman who got scammed: A 56-year-old janitor with zero credit history, who had never even bought a new car, raising six grandchildren and who was battling cancer. She was bullied by a co-worker who (one must speculate) received finder's fees from the lending institutions. He kept saying "you have GREAT credit." If this is not fraud, I don't know what is.

This was not an isolated case. Many banks knowingly bundled shitty mortgages together and sold them as Grade A, then bet against them.

OP should read Naked Capitalism and Bill Black's book, "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."

IMO, there have been no prosecutions for several reasons:
1)Regulatory capture
2)Lack of political will by elected leaders to admit that the whole economic system was based on crime and fraud
3)There is a chance that the SEC and FBI are actually conducting thorough investigations and that arrests are pending (not holding my breath, but I've read articles giving this impression)

Yeah, I was just reading the latest Economist while on the john the other day, and they were talking about how governments everywhere were re-regulating. Conservatives and libertarians do NOT have a nuanced view of this at all. Here, try this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292706383

It's by a former bank regulator who was very involved in teh Keating 5 scandal. He points out that 'the wrong regulations' were removed. Notice he admits that some regulations are bad.

Liberals know that regulation is needed, but that bad regulations inevitably happen. The libertarian subreddit claims 'the market' will sort it all out, and the last few times I ventured over there, claimed that MORE deregulation was needed in the banking sector.

Your argument seems to be taht because the banking sector is the most heavily regulated, that it proves that it is too much regulation. Is it? Banking is pretty damn complex, and has gotten more complex in the last few decades, has it not? I would think that to argue for less regulation that you would need to give specific examples of what regulations are bad, and why they cause problems.

I could have the most regulated industry in the world, but still remove just a few rules... and crash everything. JUST because it is highly regulated does not mean that deregulation did not cause the crash. Some regulations were removed, and it appears many serious sources cite that as the reason for the crash ala Glas Steagal.

Are you really claiming to have a nuanced view, and then say 'oh there are so many regulations, of course we need to get rid of them just because there are a lot of them'? Really?

edit: it is easy to see that iwth a name like DaddyGovernment, that you are a very nuanced person. lol Just like in that last issue of the Economist, where they chastised conservatives for being so polarized, and their example was how people would say that 'government is always bad'. EVEN the economist is tired of the anti-government rhetoric...

I have a stockbroker who is not a big bank, thank you very much. You need to read, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.

this book i think:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292706383

the author has been a guest on his show

>Ahh, so now we can't quantify happiness but you can 'prove' economic theories that change depending on how people react.

No. Proven economic theories are valid no matter how people act.

>The income gap increases crime, did I link to the book The Spirit Level yet? People are happier when the income gap is lower.

Which people? Those who have less and are jealous of those who have more and cannot stand that they are not as wealthy? Since when did jealousy constitute a foundation for laws or rights? Emotions cannot serve as a foundation for just laws.

>"Government has substantially grown since the time that "taxes were higher." That means more violence in society. " Really? You can't quantify happiness but you have proof that more government equals more violence?

Yes. Government is by nature society's institution of compulsion and coercion. When the state grows, so too does compulsion and coercion.

>People are happy when they feel safe and secure.

The state makes people less safe and less secure, because the state itself is a violator of safety and security.

>30-40 years ago people had jobs that they could work their entire life at, and retire fairly comfortably, if they just worked hard. Everyone had health insurance.

30-40 years ago, we had less government intervention.

>Now look at how things are today and tell me people are just as happy. really.

Stop taking your personal unhappiness and smearing it on everyone else as if everyone else is unhappy too. You can't quantity happiness.

>>Do you have any theory that can explain what you see? All you see is lower taxes on the wealthy, globalization, and increased wealth inequality. You must have a theory if you're going to connect these facts. You can't just presume that correlation implies causation. You would be ignoring other factors that could be the cause for greater inequality, and you would be ignoring the possibility that lower taxes on the wealthy and globalization did not have any causal effect on inequality, they just happened to have taken place alongside the growth in inequality. What are those other factors? Have you considered inflation? Have you considered greater government involvement in the economy? Have you considered the increased regulation that makes it much more difficult for small businesses to compete on the basis that they cannot afford the additional costs of regulation but larger and already established firms can? Have you considered the growth in welfare, which rewards unproductive activity and punishes productive activity? Have you considered anything except "DERP! THE RICH ARE GETTING TAXED LESS AND THEY'RE MOVING JOBS OVERSEAS! HERP!"

>Yeah, as taxes were cut on the rich, their wealth snowballs.

But the wealthy pay most of the wages and make most of the investments that grow the economy. When you cut taxes on those who make investments and those who pay wages, then they have more money with which to invest and pay wages. That's where growth comes from. Growth does not come from government taking people's money and then spending it on themselves and those the government gives the money to. That shrinks the economy because it leads to wealth being taken out of the economy with no wealth being put it prior.

>more money equals more corruption, more ways are created and exploited to tip the system in their favor.

If more money means more corruption, then you should be against the state getting more money through taxes, because it will corrupt the individuals in the state. Oh that's right, I forgot. More money equals more corruption except when the government gets more money. Then it's more money equals less corruption because government is not made up of people.

>Its like this drinking game I played when i was young, called Asshole.

So you're a cranky old fart who is worried about his SS checks. That's why you want to tax the rich more.

>Does it take a fucking brainiac to figure out this is how a representative democracy will turn out? When you can just sway or bribe 1 person and control the votes of thousands or millions of people?

You're speaking as if democracy is not inherently evil, it's just run by evil men.

>Here is another book, when you pointedout that there is too much regulation I had to gag.

When you said there is not enough, I had to think that you're not paying attention to the world around you, you're only paying attention to your ideology in your mind.

>Of course much of the regulation is just like me changing the rules of who dealt, but the problem is too many people just assume that MORE REGULATIONS MUST MEAN THEY ARE ALL BAD OR THAT ALL OF THE ADDED REGULATIONS ARE BAD. Who knows, really? Have you read them all?

Any law or regulation that is based on initiating coercion/violence/aggression against consenting adults in trade, are immoral and unjust, and cause destruction not construction. That means all government regulations other than ones that protect against violations of private property.

>http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292706383
This is a good book showing how removing regulations - and leaving the wrong ones in place - can create a lot of trouble.

Banks are perhaps the most regulated industry in the country. The government OWNS the money production machine. You can't get any more regulated than that.

>It also shows how powerful politicians can be easily fooled.

I wonder if the author has the faintest clue about economics.

>I've considered a lot of it, thanks for the insulting 'herp derp' stuff. A welfare state actually HELPS the economy because people are less resistant to change, and improvements that put people out of work.

No, that HURTS the economy for the exact same reason that letting your grown child live in your basement until they are 55 years old is bad for their morality and productivity.

>Did a new technology come out that will wipe out an entire industry?

Did that new technology create an entirely NEW industry? Oh my God! Change! We can't have change!

>Without any safety net, people argue to keep the new technology out of the society, but if society helps them, retrains them, then they know they will be safe and are more likely to realize that the overall benefit to society will eventually help them too.

False dilemma. There are more options than the Luddite fallacy and welfare.

>I also think it is funny when you talk about how I haven't thought about any of this.

I know you haven't, because you're parroting the same myths that have been refuted ages ago. If you did think about it, you would have known about these refutations of myths, and discoveries of new theories.

>So far you are just regurgitating the same old crap that any economist on CNN will tell you.

That's how I know I'm right. Economists on CNN are almost all totally clueless.

>Have you looked into the opposing view?

Absolutely.

>I bought a few pro-free trade/libertarian books first, then bought that book called Bad Samaritans, then the book by the bank regulator.

Which free trade / libertarian books are you talking about? Don't say Wealth of Nations or I'll slap you and your dog.

>At this point I wouldn't consider myself an expert AT ALL, but I think I have some knowledge, and it appears that .. big surprise... there is more to the story than we are first told.

You're not an expert, but you have an expert's mouth.

>Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work, and even famous free market economists would agree.

Laissez faire capitalism does work, and all free market economists would agree.

>Milton Friedman wanted a negative income tax, basically taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. FA Hayek warned that sometiomes 'competition fails' and that the government should step in - citing environment protection and social programs as examples.

Milton Friedman and FA Hayek were social democrats. They were not laissez faire economists. If you want laissez faire economists, you look to Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe.

>I see why competition is important, and how regulations can be abused. I see how they can become barriers to entry, etc. I see how free trade can be a beneift. I also see why regulations are necessary and how free trade can be damaging.

Free trade is not damaging. Free trade benefits all those who take part.

Regulations aren't abused. Regulations are by nature abusive.

>But what do you say? The same old 'herp derp'. Too much regulations, taxes have caused all our problems, lets keep deregulating and lowering taxes, because we all know repealing Glas Steagal was a HUGE FUCKING SUCCESS...

Glass Steagall doesn't stop credit expansion. Glass Steagall is a response to the destruction of the government encouraging and soliciting credit expansion. Glass Steagall is a band aid solution to a government created problem.

You say the same old same old tired and worn out "there's not enough regulation, the market caused all our problems, let's keep regulating and increasing taxes, because we all know North Korea is a huge fucking success."

>sigh. carry on.

I don't need your approval to "carry on." All you need to do is stay out of my way.