So its been a while. blah blah blah. Enough small talk. I've only got a little bit of time, but I've got a get my head around this somehow. So lets get right to it.
For some reason, even though there was a seemingly near-criminal investigation into the financial world post-crisis, there is no one in prison.
oh, my bad, ONE guy is in prison.
and probably just because SOMEONE had to go. Someone had to feed the masses rage-hunger
Without going into too much detail, there is an ABUSRD amount of evidence to put quite a few people in prison from anything from money laundering, to fraud and embezzlement--among other things. But all we (the public) got for being blatantly used and taken advantage of was one man.
I only need to illustrate the absurdity of this using one simple parallel. In trading, one cannot trade with oneself. there must be at least two people involved for it to be a 'trade'. So why, if our economy was demolished by financial securities TRADING, is there only one man behind bars?
would i be satisfied if they threw another guy in and called it a day? Of course not. That would just mean one less thing for me to be furious about.
These men are in fact criminals. There are precedents for this. I cannot take out a student loan and spend most of it in a casino rather than on books and food. However, a bunch of financial bankers can take OUR money and use it for a 'pseudo-casino'.
The fact that this occurred, was exposed, and yet there has been essentially no consequences for the actions of the few bankers is painful. Clearly, the finance boys have a diamond studded collar around the dogs in the government, and a firm grip on their balls.
Or I'm sorry, there is no negative coercion going on. Consider this is DC men we're talking about, its definitely positive coercion. And by positive coercion i mean that the men and women that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people of the United States and paying off their debts at the expensive of ours.
I'll leave my angry views on campaign finance for another post, but in short, the reason practically nothing gets done in terms of policy is because lobbies pay for elected officials campaigning to get elected. If/when the official gets elected, that money spent on annoying plastic signs and commercials needs to be paid back. Not in money, necessarily, but in favors. Favors, or government backing of certain areas, protection from foreign markets, etc.
Or in the case of said financial sector, we bail them out when they lose it all on the roulette table. Why? look how much money those guys are making--if Goldman Sachs decides to support say....Obama, the amount of other lobbies he needs to ask for campaign financing is very very low.
the problem becomes when Goldman Sachs loses a few hundred billion performing illegal activities.Because then our elected official (in this case Obama) is very strongly obligated to repay Goldman Sachs for the oodles of money he cost them to get elected.
Was there ever a real debate about the bailout for the banks? I strongly doubt it. in fact, i think the 'debates' were just a show to make it seem we were not being swindled.
To make matters even more atrocious, for the second time this year, the US government has avoided a government meltdown at the very last minute.
What seems all too convenient for me, is that the US credit rating is no longer a AAA rating. Even with the debt ceiling increased, its no longer AAA. its not in a BAD rating, but its not the flawless rating we've had since, practically, our formation. These potential 'meltdowns' our government keeps having has been weakening the credit rating and thereby making our financial assets not a guaranteed solid investment. THe flip side of that coin is that if one trades them on the, oh i dunno, financial market that Goldman Sachs (among others) got in trouble with in 2008, they essentially become more valuable. mainly more valuable in that they are more risky, therefore the spreads are larger, and therefore, there is more money to be made.
Which according to a report by Keiser Report (financial publication), thats exactly what theyve been doing.
For me, it seems pretty obvious that the government is tossing more than just a bone to the financial market. Its beginning to look like they're tossing them the entire roast. Our roast. I'm alright if politicians want to pay their debts. But when they start paying their debts and making them a priority over ours, i think there should be some serious consequences.
It astounds me that the title of our politicians is still technically 'civil servant'. In my opinion, 'civil servants' should be like they were throughout the rest of history. You get paid to compensate for participating in government (but not the highest wage, nor the lowest), and you are a SERVANT or the people. A representative. Neither of those titles can afford half the things a politician makes.Nor should they.
ARGH.Lets just vote them all out, make campaign finance limits, and start fixing whats wrong with this country.
Thats my rant. If you bitch enough or provide a good enough argument i'll give you evidence to back my harsh words above.
Call this the last straw for me. If i can find a way to get even ONE more of these to answer for this catastrophe i'll consider my life to have fulfilled something great.
For now, my next goal is simple. Have the words 'Masters in Finance Law" printed (among others) on my final degree.
No comments:
Post a Comment