Matt Taibbi: Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?

White CollarI have been a fan of Matt Taibbi’s work for quite some time, looks like he is asking the really “big” question in his most recent article (one that Danny Schechter, who Disinformation has worked with, has focused his work upon). I encourage you to read this article in Rolling Stone. Matt Taibbi writes:

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

“Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail,” he said. “That’s your whole story right there. Hell, you don’t even have to write the rest of it. Just write that.”

I put down my notebook. “Just that?”

“That’s right,” he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. “Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there.”

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

Read Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone

, , , , , , , ,

  • E.B. Wolf

    Great article. Taibbi is the only worthwhile read in RS anymore.

  • E.B. Wolf

    Great article. Taibbi is the only worthwhile read in RS anymore.

  • grooveboss

    They don’t go to jail because they are the ones who rule the world and make the money in the first place

  • grooveboss

    They don’t go to jail because they are the ones who rule the world and make the money in the first place

    • You_hoo

      study economics, dude.

      if consumers stop spending on a particular company, investors pull their money out and the company goes bankrupt or nearly so (e.g., A&P supermarket chain, Blockbuster Video, Delorian cars, etc…)

      • Hadrian999

        study real life, niche cars and movie rentals are what you equate the power of investment bankers and multinational corporations at?

      • Malikai

        If that was true, GM would be history. Yet, GM is still here. Your assumptions need revisitation.

      • grooveboss

        you need to shut up and stop trying to look smart on top of my comment son. You don’t study economic, economics studies you. Now if you are going to side with the jackals prepare for some hard opposition with nothing to lose. Companies are in ties with the world of finance (control), the ones that go under are the ones that are not essential with the basic control over the masses, thats why banks and gm got bailed out and not the trivial ones you listed. if you knew what disinformation.com is all about you would not be posting this lie here you tourist. Now be gone!!!!! Its not just money that is dealt in business it goes much much deeper.

  • Anonymous

    Of course, one response would be to public photographs of the principals–Baharara, Khuzami, etc, etc. so that people recognize them on the street, and treat them like the pariahs that they are. Kind of like the old “Captain Boycott” treatment they perfected in dear old County Mayo so many years ago.

    Ah, but I’m just dreaming, aren’t I? Imagine it: these guys become so isolated from human contact that they cold wander Manhattan for hours before finding someone who’d so much as sell a roll of tp to them. Then, of course, they’d be forced to use their golden parachute contracts for the purpose God REALLY intended them . . .

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Of course, one response would be to public photographs of the principals–Baharara, Khuzami, etc, etc. so that people recognize them on the street, and treat them like the pariahs that they are. Kind of like the old “Captain Boycott” treatment they perfected in dear old County Mayo so many years ago.

    Ah, but I’m just dreaming, aren’t I? Imagine it: these guys become so isolated from human contact that they cold wander Manhattan for hours before finding someone who’d so much as sell a roll of tp to them. Then, of course, they’d be forced to use their golden parachute contracts for the purpose God REALLY intended them . . .

  • Anonymous

    Why should this be some kind of great mystery? Wake up, America. Nothing has changed one bit. It’s called, “MONEY TALKS!”

  • StillAtMyMoms

    Why should this be some kind of great mystery? Wake up, America. Nothing has changed one bit. It’s called, “MONEY TALKS!”

  • You_hoo

    study economics, dude.

    if consumers stop spending on a particular company, investors pull their money out and the company goes bankrupt or nearly so (e.g., A&P supermarket chain, Blockbuster Video, Delorian cars, etc…)

  • You_hoo

    why aren’t Barney Frank and Maxine Waters in jail? Oh, that’s right: one’s a gay Jew, the other’s a black woman, and they’re both leftists; therefore they can do no wrong…

    House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

    Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . .

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

    Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
    * * *

    House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

    Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
    * * *

    House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

    Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place. And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

    Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.

    This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

    Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

    Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

    Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

    Mr. Raines?

    Mr. Raines: No, sir.

    Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

    Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

    Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

    Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

    Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission. And I don’t think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don’t believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

    Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

    Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we’re trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we’re trying to avert?

    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

    What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .

    Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don’t know how we do it.

    I mean, you’ve alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It’s important, is it not?

    Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .

    Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don’t want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that’s been done here. And that shouldn’t be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

    Sen. Schumer: I’ll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don’t think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don’t undo Fannie and Freddie.
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

    Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.

    I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .

    Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . . .

    Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we’re dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of — the best we can say is, “It’s no Enron.” Now, that’s a hell of a high standard.

  • You_hoo

    why aren’t Barney Frank and Maxine Waters in jail? Oh, that’s right: one’s a gay Jew, the other’s a black woman, and they’re both leftists; therefore they can do no wrong…

    House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

    Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . .

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

    Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
    * * *

    House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

    Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
    * * *

    House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

    Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place. And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

    Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.

    This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

    Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

    Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

    Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

    Mr. Raines?

    Mr. Raines: No, sir.

    Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

    Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

    Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

    Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

    Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission. And I don’t think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don’t believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

    Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

    Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we’re trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we’re trying to avert?

    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

    What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .

    Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don’t know how we do it.

    I mean, you’ve alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It’s important, is it not?

    Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .

    Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don’t want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that’s been done here. And that shouldn’t be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

    Sen. Schumer: I’ll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don’t think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don’t undo Fannie and Freddie.
    * * *

    Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

    Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.

    I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .

    Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . . .

    Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we’re dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of — the best we can say is, “It’s no Enron.” Now, that’s a hell of a high standard.

    • Adamsshadow

      Of course Democrats are complicit in this mess; and here’s something that needs to be said a lot more on Disinfo: so are SOME of the people who took out home loans without any realistic idea of how they would be able to pay them back (adjustable-rate mortgages and the like). We can’t just say all subprime lenders, financiers, and bankers are evil (although my personal suspicion is that the majority of them are), and everyone else is good.
      But here’s my problem: folks like you seem to believe that pure, unfettered capitalism is the end-all and be-all of socioeconomic systems, and that if we simply had a global free-market system with no government oversight or regulation of any kind, everything would be right with the world and nothing bad would ever happen; or, if it did, it certainly wouldn’t be John Galt’s fault. On which I call bullshit. Venture capitalists, stockbrokers, and various and sundry other financial services employees are not these modern, innovative heroes of industry that they are made out to be by libertarian-types, and often lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their ends; this last point in particular is so obvious and the facts supporting it so ubiquitous that you cannot simply ascribe it to the foul left-wing media (which of course seeks only to destroy hard-working, ingenuous entrepreneurs such as yourself). In short, these “Wall Street types” are not the Devil or his minions, but many of them are garden-variety greedy douchebags who commonly and actively fuck people over.
      Oh, and dude, there is no need to change your name every time you post here: it’s not particularly creative, you’re not fooling anyone, and no one is going to hurt you. It’s ok.

      • arsonists_daughter

        I always thought of bankers not unlike doctors. Doctors guide you to the best practices to maintain your health, and so to I thought bankers had a professional responsibility to guide their customer to the best economic course of action… Clearly, bankers were not acting as advocates for any of those who have had to foreclose due to not being able to afford the mortgage. It’s even more clear that bankers are just one more group of elites that are given a pass on civic responsibility simply because they allegedly provide a necessary service.

    • arsonists_daughter

      Why aren’t Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in jail? Are they liberal, gay and black too?

      • Toggle

        They don’t have to be liberal, gay or black. They are hoodlums. They lie and abuse their authority and then lie about abusing their authority. Their gangster buddies are in the highest courts in the land. Nobody wants to or can challenge their authority in a legal fashion. The fix is in. The three you mentioned need to be shot and pissed on. They will never be punished for their crimes in a court of law in the Excited States of America.

    • DRLECHCTER

      i guess your an example of what moderators are for.

      and dido on “Your assumptions need revisitation”

  • Adamsshadow

    Of course Democrats are complicit in this mess; and here’s something that needs to be said a lot more on Disinfo: so are SOME of the people who took out home loans without any realistic idea of how they would be able to pay them back (adjustable-rate mortgages and the like). We can’t just say all subprime lenders, financiers, and bankers are evil (although my personal suspicion is that the majority of them are), and everyone else is good.
    But here’s my problem: folks like you seem to believe that pure, unfettered capitalism is the end-all and be-all of socioeconomic systems, and that if we simply had a global free-market system with no government oversight or regulation of any kind, everything would be right with the world and nothing bad would ever happen; or, if it did, it certainly wouldn’t be John Galt’s fault. On which I call bullshit. Venture capitalists, stockbrokers, and various and sundry other financial services employees are not these modern, innovative heroes of industry that they are made out to be by libertarian-types, and often lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their ends; this last point in particular is so obvious and the facts supporting it so ubiquitous that you cannot simply ascribe it to the foul left-wing media (which of course seeks only to destroy hard-working, ingenuous entrepreneurs such as yourself). In short, these “Wall Street types” are not the Devil or his minions, but many of them are garden-variety greedy douchebags who commonly and actively fuck people over.
    Oh, and dude, there is no need to change your name every time you post here: it’s not particularly creative, you’re not fooling anyone, and no one is going to hurt you. It’s ok.

  • Simiantongue

    I’d like to sit here and circle jerk with Tiabbi and you fine people over all this terrible injustice. There is a false assumption that the whole screed is based upon, which is; this is not the way things are supposed to be, that this is “injustice”. I’m sorry but that is a very wrong assumption. The entire socioeconomic system is working out swimmingly and as intended.

    The worst delusion anyone can have is that our socioeconomic system has gone astray, somehow if we could just tweak it a bit then we would reach a more balanced system for the bottom 90% of the population. It’s a carrot you fools. The carrot is, “If we could only complain enough” in order to alter the game rules, then that would make for a better society. Well, the problem isn’t that the game rules need to be tweaked. It isn’t that the table is rigged, or that the dealers are dirty. The problem is the casino. A casino is no way to run a society. This shit has got to stop now.

  • Simiantongue

    I’d like to sit here and circle jerk with Tiabbi and you fine people over all this terrible injustice. There is a false assumption that the whole screed is based upon, which is; this is not the way things are supposed to be, that this is “injustice”. I’m sorry but that is a very wrong assumption. The entire socioeconomic system is working out swimmingly and as intended.

    The worst delusion anyone can have is that our socioeconomic system has gone astray, somehow if we could just tweak it a bit then we would reach a more balanced system for the bottom 90% of the population. It’s a carrot you fools. The carrot is, “If we could only complain enough” in order to alter the game rules, then that would make for a better society. Well, the problem isn’t that the game rules need to be tweaked. It isn’t that the table is rigged, or that the dealers are dirty. The problem is the casino. A casino is no way to run a society. This shit has got to stop now.

  • Hadrian999

    study real life, niche cars and movie rentals are what you equate the power of investment bankers and multinational corporations at?

  • jchadbou

    Recently someone smashed my windshield and the police didn’t even give the guy a ticket. The police just aren’t looking out for our best interest, they’re only interested in guns, drugs, and money.

  • jchadbou

    Recently someone smashed my windshield and the police didn’t even give the guy a ticket. The police just aren’t looking out for our best interest, they’re only interested in guns, drugs, and money.

  • arsonists_daughter

    Why aren’t Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in jail? Are they liberal, gay and black too?

  • arsonists_daughter

    I always thought of bankers not unlike doctors. Doctors guide you to the best practices to maintain your health, and so to I thought bankers had a professional responsibility to guide their customer to the best economic course of action… Clearly, bankers were not acting as advocates for any of those who have had to foreclose due to not being able to afford the mortgage. It’s even more clear that bankers are just one more group of elites that are given a pass on civic responsibility simply because they allegedly provide a necessary service.

  • Malikai

    If that was true, GM would be history. Yet, GM is still here. Your assumptions need revisitation.

  • DRLECHCTER

    i guess your an example of what moderators are for.

    and dido on “Your assumptions need revisitation”

  • Toggle

    They don’t have to be liberal, gay or black. They are hoodlums. They lie and abuse their authority and then lie about abusing their authority. Their gangster buddies are in the highest courts in the land. Nobody wants to or can challenge their authority in a legal fashion. The fix is in. The three you mentioned need to be shot and pissed on. They will never be punished for their crimes in a court of law in the Excited States of America.

  • http://rideprestige.com Silvertongue62

    Sad to say the least…

  • http://rideprestige.com Silvertongue62

    Sad to say the least…

  • http://rideprestige.com Silvertongue62

    Sad to say the least…

  • http://rideprestige.com Silvertongue62

    Sad to say the least…

  • grooveboss

    you need to shut up and stop trying to look smart on top of my comment son. You don’t study economic, economics studies you. Now if you are going to side with the jackals prepare for some hard opposition with nothing to lose. Companies are in ties with the world of finance (control), the ones that go under are the ones that are not essential with the basic control over the masses, thats why banks and gm got bailed out and not the trivial ones you listed. if you knew what disinformation.com is all about you would not be posting this lie here you tourist. Now be gone!!!!! Its not just money that is dealt in business it goes much much deeper.

  • grooveboss

    you need to shut up and stop trying to look smart on top of my comment son. You don’t study economic, economics studies you. Now if you are going to side with the jackals prepare for some hard opposition with nothing to lose. Companies are in ties with the world of finance (control), the ones that go under are the ones that are not essential with the basic control over the masses, thats why banks and gm got bailed out and not the trivial ones you listed. if you knew what disinformation.com is all about you would not be posting this lie here you tourist. Now be gone!!!!! Its not just money that is dealt in business it goes much much deeper.

  • Beltonaki

    Palmstruch probably recognized as the first the fact that the value of money insists purely on confidence for the return and used this for its advantage, which critical contemporaries would call criminal. Today it is the principle of each bank.[1]

    This along with giving the control of quantity of issued money and the fractional reserve lending are the root causes to this worlds economic problems. The “casino” like someone said is a good metaphor. The casino will always win. Solution, forbid government borrowing, interest and retake control of quantity. Creating money out of thin air like today is truly not the way to go. Bank controlled issue has always failed historically and the derivatives market has already been proven fraudulent. What does it take to stop this shit?

    [1] http://www.economypoint.org/p/palmstruch-bank.html

  • Beltonaki

    Palmstruch probably recognized as the first the fact that the value of money insists purely on confidence for the return and used this for its advantage, which critical contemporaries would call criminal. Today it is the principle of each bank.[1]

    This along with giving the control of quantity of issued money and the fractional reserve lending are the root causes to this worlds economic problems. The “casino” like someone said is a good metaphor. The casino will always win. Solution, forbid government borrowing, interest and retake control of quantity. Creating money out of thin air like today is truly not the way to go. Bank controlled issue has always failed historically and the derivatives market has already been proven fraudulent. What does it take to stop this shit?

    [1] http://www.economypoint.org/p/palmstruch-bank.html

  • Pingback: How The Banksters Got Away With The Biggest Rip-Off Ever | Disinformation()

  • Lea

    Why don’t we just turn the Capitol into a Prison, since most of the crooks in this country do business there. Harry Reid, Nancy Palosi, etal.

  • Lea

    Why don’t we just turn the Capitol into a Prison, since most of the crooks in this country do business there. Harry Reid, Nancy Palosi, etal.

21