Why we feel poorer...

[bigmac]

Originally Posted by dabdab

Real wages have been declining ever since except the executives ,specially in the financial sector , there's are rocketing to an absurd numbers , nevertheless , they can't produce any thing except sh*t and every body is drowning in there sh*t .

Yes, we need to return the financial, insurance, and real estate sector to their historical role of supporting the real economy.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Yes, we need to return the financial, insurance, and real estate sector to their historical role of supporting the real economy.

Please describe, exactly, what that historical role you are discussing. Keep in mind the world is a very different place from thirty years ago. Even ten years ago.

[dabdab]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Please describe, exactly, what that historical role you are discussing. Keep in mind the world is a very different place from thirty years ago. Even ten years ago.

different in what since ? gambling and ponzi schemes are now good investment ?? , then yes that the change that have to be rolled back financial institutions like banks has to go back to there traditional role , which is a pool to keep the saving of the society and to lend it back to the real engines of the economy the producers of goods and services with the necessary guarantees . but when the barrier between gambling and banking was blurred every thing began to change .bundling the mortgages and securitizing them , transformed those mortgages from a loan grantees into commodity sought after for a gambling purpose. That in turn transform houses from a commodity sought after for there utility for the demand side into source of feedstock for wall street bubble machine ,thus the demand for it is from wall street . since there isn't enough responsible customers to quench wall street thirst for mortgages they started to attract the not so responsible costumers thoese with no income or Down payment of any sort . and why not as long as the lender will dumb this so called sub mortgage into someone Else's lap .this is what is known as lair's loans and the resultant collateralized debt obligations is what is know as toxic assets . you know that very will because according to you , you were involved as a paper shuffler . As for the insurance . please be advised that the insurance business is a mere gambling business but allowed for necessity to meet disasters and unexpected losses . and the insurer was supposed to cover the losses and his profits of the some by the total of policy fees that requires him to do an Actuarial study to make sure the fees are sufficient to cover losses . as you can see there in't any added value other than that . so when the insurance company began to invest this money in wall street bubbles they lost and since the bank and insurance company can all be part of one company there looses were put on the bank books by many clever accountant tricks . there has to be a fire wall between investment banks and insurance and fractional banking to limit the speculation with the customer Deposits.

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by dabdab

different in what since ? gambling and ponzi schemes are now good investment ?? , then yes that the change that have to be rolled back financial institutions like banks has to go back to there traditional role , which is a pool to keep the saving of the society and to lend it back to the real engines of the economy the producers of goods and services with the necessary guarantees . but when the barrier between gambling and banking was blurred every thing began to change .bundling the mortgages and securitizing them , transformed those mortgages from a loan grantees into commodity sought after for a gambling purpose. That in turn transform houses from a commodity sought after for there utility for the demand side into source of feedstock for wall street bubble machine ,thus the demand for it is from wall street . since there isn't enough responsible customers to quench wall street thirst for mortgages they started to attract the not so responsible costumers thoese with no income or Down payment of any sort . and why not as long as the lender will dumb this so called sub mortgage into someone Else's lap .this is what is known as lair's loans and the resultant collateralized debt obligations is what is know as toxic assets . you know that very will because according to you , you were involved as a paper shuffler . As for the insurance . please be advised that the insurance business is a mere gambling business but allowed for necessity to meet disasters and unexpected losses . and the insurer was supposed to cover the losses and his profits of the some by the total of policy fees that requires him to do an Actuarial study to make sure the fees are sufficient to cover losses . as you can see there in't any added value other than that . so when the insurance company began to invest this money in wall street bubbles they lost and since the bank and insurance company can all be part of one company there looses were put on the bank books by many clever accountant tricks . there has to be a fire wall between investment banks and insurance and fractional banking to limit the speculation with the customer Deposits.

One has to wonder... who watches the gatekeepers of the firewall...




gotta marvel at the snazzy cufflinks that Jamie Dimon wore during his Capitol Hill appearence

[dabdab]

Originally Posted by tonynyc

One has to wonder... who watches the gatekeepers of the firewall...

the fire wall is a legislation like The Glass–Steagall Act and there has to be independent banks regulators to enforce the law .

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by dabdab

the fire wall is a legislation like The Glass–Steagall Act and there has to be independent banks regulators to enforce the law .

Dabdab: here's an interesting read on Glass-Steagall...


Could Glass-Steagall Have Stopped JPMorgan Loss?
by NPR Staff


May 19, 2012

Following JP Morgan's disclosure of a $2 billion loss, a small but increasingly vocal group of lawmakers and economists are arguing that a 60-year-old piece if financial legislation should never have been repealed in 1999.

They say the law, known as the Glass-Steagall Act, was so consequential that there's a direct link between its repeal and both the 2008 financial meltdown and JPMorgan's huge loss.

Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression. The original intent was to prevent the kind of speculation and bank runs that led to the catastrophic stock market crash in 1929. But by 1999, the overwhelming consensus on Capitol Hill was that it was time for a change.

Then-President Bill Clinton and his treasury secretary, Larry Summers, urged Congress to ease the regulations that separated commercial and investment banks.

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or, years down the road, Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said on the Senate floor.

Just eight senators voted against the repeal, including Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. The former senator tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz that at the time, he warned that repealing the law would fuel consolidation on Wall Street and raise the likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts.

"I was very concerned about what this was going to mean for the future of the country," he says.

Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who is running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, says she wants to bring Glass-Steagall back. She tells Raz that banks that offer commercial services — checking, savings and deposit accounts — should not be in the business of making financial bets that can result in massive losses — like at JPMorgan. That should be left to the Wall Street trading firms, she says.

"Glass-Steagall says there needs to be a wall between those two kinds of activities," Warren says. "It's not going to work to let the biggest financial institutions just go out and do what they want."

The Volcker Rule, part of the Dodd-Frank Act passed two years ago, is meant to keep those risky activities in check by having federal regulators watch the big banks. But Warren says that's not enough.

"If that's not working, if we don't have regulators who are able to be strong enough [and] write tough enough rules to keep that distinction in place, the Volcker Rule won't be able to do its job," she says.

What Happened To Dodd-Frank?

Back in 2010, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the president hailed it as a turning point. The law was supposed to do things like prevent predatory lending, ban big banks from taking risky bets with taxpayer money and limit speculators from inflating prices of commodities. ....


Source:

NPR- Glass Steagall - JP Morgan

[dabdab]

Originally Posted by tonynyc

Dabdab: here's an interesting read on Glass-Steagall...


Could Glass-Steagall Have Stopped JPMorgan Loss?
by NPR Staff


May 19, 2012

Following JP Morgan's disclosure of a $2 billion loss, a small but increasingly vocal group of lawmakers and economists are arguing that a 60-year-old piece if financial legislation should never have been repealed in 1999.

They say the law, known as the Glass-Steagall Act, was so consequential that there's a direct link between its repeal and both the 2008 financial meltdown and JPMorgan's huge loss.

Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression. The original intent was to prevent the kind of speculation and bank runs that led to the catastrophic stock market crash in 1929. But by 1999, the overwhelming consensus on Capitol Hill was that it was time for a change.

Then-President Bill Clinton and his treasury secretary, Larry Summers, urged Congress to ease the regulations that separated commercial and investment banks.

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or, years down the road, Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said on the Senate floor.

Just eight senators voted against the repeal, including Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. The former senator tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz that at the time, he warned that repealing the law would fuel consolidation on Wall Street and raise the likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts.

"I was very concerned about what this was going to mean for the future of the country," he says.

Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who is running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, says she wants to bring Glass-Steagall back. She tells Raz that banks that offer commercial services — checking, savings and deposit accounts — should not be in the business of making financial bets that can result in massive losses — like at JPMorgan. That should be left to the Wall Street trading firms, she says.

"Glass-Steagall says there needs to be a wall between those two kinds of activities," Warren says. "It's not going to work to let the biggest financial institutions just go out and do what they want."

The Volcker Rule, part of the Dodd-Frank Act passed two years ago, is meant to keep those risky activities in check by having federal regulators watch the big banks. But Warren says that's not enough.

"If that's not working, if we don't have regulators who are able to be strong enough [and] write tough enough rules to keep that distinction in place, the Volcker Rule won't be able to do its job," she says.

What Happened To Dodd-Frank?

Back in 2010, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the president hailed it as a turning point. The law was supposed to do things like prevent predatory lending, ban big banks from taking risky bets with taxpayer money and limit speculators from inflating prices of commodities. ....


Source:

NPR- Glass Steagall - JP Morgan

the the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act can't and wouldn't handle the problem if only for the fact that the enforcement of the law is left to the federal reserve bank , which is a private bank still , and it is the mother of all ills . you can't trust the fox to guard the hen house . the federal reserve bank is the main cause of the problem ,being the last resort lender for the fractional banking ; and without any supervision what soever; and with the banks being able to be both a fractional bank and investment or speculator bank and phoney product manufacturer at the same time is as bazaar as it can get it is as if Bernard Madoff has no limit .AS for trying to rival London or Frankfurt do it there way (at that time ) not by converting the fractional banking into a ponzi scheme . that what it is when you allow it produce CDO .and the likes .

[tonynyc]