The post Fraud in the USA shows:
- Alan Greenspan saying how corrosive it is to not prosecute banks that have committed fraud.
- The former bank regulator William Black calling for the firing of Holder, Geithner and Bernanke for covering up bank fraud.
HR 3808 makes it easier for the banks to evade the existing requirements of law in connection with foreclosures. If passed over the pre-election presidential veto it will mark a move from:the:
Let no one doubt the damage being done to the cultural capital that enabled America to become wealthy in the first place.
We can but hope that Karl Denninger and http://4closurefraud.org are wrong. That America has not fallen so far that it would consider passing such a measure. Except it already has, hence the initial pre-election veto.
I still can’t really believe that I am contemplating that this is true. That alone speaks volumes, enough to justify this post.
Truly those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
The Veto was upheld.
The Market Ticker Guy is on his high horse because nearly all Republicans voted to override the veto. Most Democrats voted to uphold it.
Yves Smith posted prior to the vote:
This move is strictly procedural, an objection to Obama’s use of the so-called pocket veto rather than an effort to revive the measure. From a Constitutional perspective, a pocket veto is not a legitimate action, but it can’t be overridden by Congress. The House vote is effectively a complaint, tantamount to, “We accept your veto of this bill, but it’s not a pocket veto because those don’t exist.”
FireDogLake provided a similar take as of earlier today; my source did further checking and confirmed that this move is strictly procedural, and not an effort to revive the measure.
Yves position explains the voting. I also agree with her:
It’s nevertheless good to see the quick alerts issued on this front. In the effort to try to rein in stealth efforts to help out the banks, you are bound to get the occasional false positive. But it’s better to err in these cases on the side of excessive vigilance.
The USA can not afford too many more gifts to the banks. Already it is far too much of a kleptocracy. Perhaps Dmitry Orlov will be proved right. If so, best brush up on his best practices for social collapse.
Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies makes interesting reading.
Yves has a post detailing some central banking failings:
The leading monetary economist told the Wall Street Journal that this was not a liquidity crisis, but an insolvency crisis. She said that Bernanke is fighting the last war, and is taking the wrong approach (as are other central bankers).
Nobel economist Paul Krugman and leading economist James Galbraith agree. They say that the government’s attempts to prop up the price of toxic assets no one wants is not helpful.
BIS slammed the easy credit policy of the Fed and other central banks, the failure to regulate the shadow banking system, “the use of gimmicks and palliatives”, and said that anything other than (1) letting asset prices fall to their true market value, (2) increasing savings rates, and (3) forcing companies to write off bad debts “will only make things worse”.
BIS also cautioned that bailouts could harm the economy (as did the former head of the Fed’s open market operations). Indeed, the bailouts create a climate of moral hazard which encourages more risky behavior. Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof predicted in 1993 that credit default swaps would lead to a major crash, and that future crashes were guaranteed unless the government stopped letting big financial players loot by placing bets they could never pay off when things started to go wrong, and by continuing to bail out the gamblers.
These truths are as applicable in Europe as in America. The central bankers have done the wrong things. They haven’t fixed anything, but simply transferred the cancerous toxic derivatives and other financial bombs from the giant banks to the nations themselves.
But the central banks have overseen the continued transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens to the financial sector. Was this intended or unintended? If unintended could it be an extension of regulatory cognitive capture? What’s good for the financial sector is good for [insert your country].