I want to steal TRILLIONS of dollars.

[azulmagia]

I think the majority of people, most of the time, have no problem following the law. On the other hand, when the pay-off appeals to someone, and they can definitely get away with it, why on Earth should anyone WANT to obey the law?

Take stealing, for instance. The pay-off is pretty good, because it's actual money, or merchandise. It's not necessary sadistic in nature. But how much money should a person steal.

OK, so let's say I want to steal. $1000 is a sum I could probably easily obtain by theft, but is probably not worth the trouble, since it's not that much money, and the chances are good I'll be apprehended and jailed, because you never be totally sure you're the only one who knows. So it has to be a bigger sum.

Now, since Eric Holder is resigning as Attorney-General, it strikes me that the perfect sum must be one in the trillions of dollars. Not trillions of Gaia gold, trillions in U.S. dollars. The only trouble is actually stealing the trillions of dollars, but I think I can know, based merely on precedent, that if I can steal that kind of money, nobody will dare even charge me, even if everyone knows I did it. I could totally get away with it. It is literally the Holy Grail of criminality, the perfect crime.

Why have I come to this conclusion? Consider the following conversation between Bill Moyers and a former bank regulator:

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: Yet Eric Holder didn't bring one criminal case against any executives in charge of the banks' lending. You've called this the greatest strategic failure in the history of the Department of Justice.

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yeah, in baseball terms they’re batting 0.000. But they’re not just batting 0.000, they took called strikes. They never got the bat off their shoulder and even swung. They didn't even try.

BILL MOYERS: Do you remember when President Obama told “60 Minutes,” I think it was late December of 2011 that, “Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street…wasn’t illegal?”

WILLIAM K. BLACK: I do.

BILL MOYERS: What did you think?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: I thought that he was wrong. That in fact if he listened to what the United States of America has demonstrated in court and through investigations, the activity was clearly illegal, it was a violation of a whole series of laws that make it felonies.

And these are just the frauds that caused the crisis. In addition to the frauds that caused the crisis, which are massive and we could talk about, we have the largest cartel in world history. This was the bid rigging of Libor, which is an international standard that sets the prices on over $300 trillion in contracts.

A trillion is a thousand billion, right? And then we have the foreclosure frauds where we have false affidavits. Over 100,000 felonies in that context. And then we have the bid rigging on bond prices where all the major banks, according to the Justice Department, were involved.

And then we had the Federal Housing Finance Administration, a federal agency suing virtually every largest, of the largest 20 banks in the United States of America, saying they defrauded Fannie and Freddie through false sales. And it goes on and on.

The savings and loan debacle, we made over 30,000 criminal referrals. Here, zero criminal referrals as far as we can get any public information. So the first thing Holder should’ve done is reestablish the criminal referral process. Because, you know, banks don’t make criminal referrals against their own CEOs.

BILL MOYERS: Do you tell yourself, well, there is a justifiable and understandable reason why they don't prosecute?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: No, there is no justifiable reason. Apparently modern financial regulators are vastly more sophisticated than we were as financial regulators 25 years ago. Because we had never figured out that the key to financial stability was leaving felons in charge of the largest financial institutions in the world.

(link)

So what are your thoughts?

[the reverend silver]

azulmagia

So what are your thoughts?

The government's subordinate to the banks, been saying it for years. *Yawn.* Yes, a guy might be mad, but nobody's going to get shot over it so everything's just fine and dandy.

[azulmagia]

the reverend silver

azulmagia

So what are your thoughts?

The government's subordinate to the banks, been saying it for years. *Yawn.* Yes, a guy might be mad, but nobody's going to get shot over it so everything's just fine and dandy.

Well, it's not fine and dandy. These unparalleled frauds had a lot to do with our economic woes both then, and by implication, now.

You give them a pass and they'll happily do it again.

[N3bu]

Is it actually stealing though?

I assume we're talking about the financial collapse right?

So the banks pushed sub-prime mortgages for more then they could reasonably risk because people were employed and the money was good. Stupid, but not illegal. Then they all insured those assets against risk, probably also not illegal. They also traded those assets away under misleading risk classification, also as a way of moving risk off their books, fraud probably did occur there.

So, none of that is actually theft, the banks just decided to be monumentally stupid and sabotage themselves and their industry for a quicker buck then they were already getting.

[azulmagia]

N3bu

Is it actually stealing though?

I assume we're talking about the financial collapse right?

So the banks pushed sub-prime mortgages for more then they could reasonably risk because people were employed and the money was good. Stupid, but not illegal. Then they all insured those assets against risk, probably also not illegal. They also traded those assets away under misleading risk classification, also as a way of moving risk off their books, fraud probably did occur there.

So, none of that is actually theft, the banks just decided to be monumentally stupid and sabotage themselves and their industry for a quicker buck then they were already getting.

Well, you can't exactly steal billions of dollars in money in the same way you lift somebody's wallet, right? You have to defraud it away from your victims.

Now, I don't know what you call fraud, but if dealing in toxic assets, knowing that they are toxic, whilst betting against those very same assets, is not fraud, then I do not suppose there is such a thing as fraud.

And to be sure, it is difficult to prove all steps beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the official apologia as to why these prosecutions have not happened). On the other hand, you can't tell me with a straight face that there wasn't, within this welter of systemic fraud and abuse, at least one top Wall Street dog culpable of this s**t.

[N3bu]

azulmagia

N3bu

Is it actually stealing though?

I assume we're talking about the financial collapse right?

So the banks pushed sub-prime mortgages for more then they could reasonably risk because people were employed and the money was good. Stupid, but not illegal. Then they all insured those assets against risk, probably also not illegal. They also traded those assets away under misleading risk classification, also as a way of moving risk off their books, fraud probably did occur there.

So, none of that is actually theft, the banks just decided to be monumentally stupid and sabotage themselves and their industry for a quicker buck then they were already getting.

Well, you can't exactly steal billions of dollars in money in the same way you lift somebody's wallet, right? You have to defraud it away from your victims.

Now, I don't know what you call fraud, but if dealing in toxic assets, knowing that they are toxic, whilst betting against those very same assets, is not fraud, then I do not suppose there is such a thing as fraud.

And to be sure, it is difficult to prove all steps beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the official apologia as to why these prosecutions have not happened). On the other hand, you can't tell me with a straight face that there wasn't, within this welter of systemic fraud and abuse, at least one top Wall Street dog culpable of this s**t.

But stealing, whether physically or digitally, needs money to be taken illegally from one party to another. To say what happened was theft would imply that the money that what happened was that the bank essentially took money from other people to line their own pockets.

Fraud generally requires purposeful deception or misrepresentation. As I understand the betting against toxic assets was legal and well known, what wasn't well known, and likely where fraud might have been committed was the classification of risk those assets presented. Keep in mind, that prior to the collapse those assets weren't widely considered Toxic, but risky, toxic of course meaning that they are dead weight liabilities.

In the case of investment banks, people loaned them money, already on the premise that they were going to make moderately risky investment decisions, money wasn't take, it was given.

Now certainly the case can be made that Investment banks were responsible for fraudulently classifying assets of incorrect risk, and someone should be held liable. But I don't think there is a case for theft.

[N3bu]

In truth, if you want to talk about theft, the bank, if they were said to have stolen money, would have stolen it from other banks.

They would sell risky assets to other banks with bad classifications, essentially selling lemons, and taking money in return. So overall, all the banks revenue streams and cash was being converted into interest bearing assets, which were starting to no longer bear interest (revenue).

When those assets go bad, the revenue the bank thought they had dries up, their expenses start to eclipse their remaining revenue, and when insurance agencies like AIG can no longer pay off the assets (because way too many go bad at once) then those banks are left in a financial hole 6 feet deep.

Now IIRC this was before they started merging ordinary banks and investment banks so normal depositors weren't at so much risk, but it did mean a lot of business funding dried up real quick which is what caused most of the recession.

The banks basically didn't ******** the people, so much as they ******** other banks to the point that nobody was left to help fund the daily running costs of the Economy.

[Chieftain Twilight]

jeesus, you people ******** scare the s**t out of me. all you folks who would kill and steal and rape just because you can get away with it are disgusting.

I mean, s**t, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, or that it would be fun. I certainly don't think that violence against others (and theft is violence) is inherently pleasurable for it's own sake.

[shadowswhiskers13 -]

I think people don't steal because of the idea of prison....

[Sugarbeary]

thou shall not steal.

Plus, how do you go about stealing 1 trillion dollars?

I think that someone would stop you in the act of throwing wad after wad of cash in a bag.

[village midget]

N3bu

In truth, if you want to talk about theft, the bank, if they were said to have stolen money, would have stolen it from other banks.

They would sell risky assets to other banks with bad classifications, essentially selling lemons, and taking money in return. So overall, all the banks revenue streams and cash was being converted into interest bearing assets, which were starting to no longer bear interest (revenue).

When those assets go bad, the revenue the bank thought they had dries up, their expenses start to eclipse their remaining revenue, and when insurance agencies like AIG can no longer pay off the assets (because way too many go bad at once) then those banks are left in a financial hole 6 feet deep.

Now IIRC this was before they started merging ordinary banks and investment banks so normal depositors weren't at so much risk, but it did mean a lot of business funding dried up real quick which is what caused most of the recession.

The banks basically didn't ******** the people, so much as they ******** other banks to the point that nobody was left to help fund the daily running costs of the Economy.

Simplify this down to the most basic black and white idea you can. The money in any bank is ultimately money belonging to "the people". They ******** the people. And now they continue to pay themselves bonuses.

[GSK Lives]

Steal a trillion dollars? Get into an Equity Firm. Learn from Bain Capital. Those ******** pulled off Mafia tactics LEGALLY.

[the reverend silver]

azulmagia

the reverend silver

azulmagia

So what are your thoughts?

The government's subordinate to the banks, been saying it for years. *Yawn.* Yes, a guy might be mad, but nobody's going to get shot over it so everything's just fine and dandy.

Well, it's not fine and dandy. These unparalleled frauds had a lot to do with our economic woes both then, and by implication, now.

You give them a pass and they'll happily do it again.

Oh, don't mistake that for a pass. I hate it. I hate them. I just don't think you guys would necessarily support me if I were to, say, hypothetically, take them all out behind the barn and do 'em like Ol' Yeller.

[the reverend silver]

LoveLoud837

thou shall not steal.

Plus, how do you go about stealing 1 trillion dollars?

Well, it's easy when you own the economy. All you have to do is rig the markets juuuuust right... and boom, you've just stolen the entire ******** GDP.

[Sugarbeary]

the reverend silver

LoveLoud837

thou shall not steal.

Plus, how do you go about stealing 1 trillion dollars?

Well, it's easy when you own the economy. All you have to do is rig the markets juuuuust right... and boom, you've just stolen the entire ******** GDP.

riiiiiiiiiight..