2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
PedroMendez said:
Eric Holder went from Covington & Burling to "attorney general" back to Covington & Burling. Covington & Burling has all the big banks as their clients. They kept an corner office for him. Do you really think that this is not a problem?
Click to expand...

From my knowledge of the workings of the crash, if some people have a dream of seeing Investment Bank CEOs do jail time, they seem to be the least likely to actually stick a charge to. They were far removed from details and therefore unlikely had knowledge or ordered any sort of fraud be committed.

My honest opinion is that this was truly a case of collective delusion regarding the US housing markets and its implications. If it were fraud, and the banks knew they were creating assets that were going broke, they wouldn't have turned around and sold CDSs to investors that wanted to take the opposite positions and then kept the position, and UBS wouldn't have been increasing their positions in the last few weeks of the debacle with the world already crumbling around them.

Goldman did design some nasty CDSs with John Paulson (not to be mistaken with Hank) and sell them to investors. But these investors were professionals, ACA and IKB. This isn't something that I approve of or would ever do to clients myself (although I don't work in this part of the business), but ACA and IKB are f'ing idiots too for not reading properly. I'm not a lawyer, but the whole mess doesn't violate any laws I know of, since most in place look to protect smaller investors, professionals are supposed to know what they're getting into.

Beyond that everyone generally involved from Lehman, Bear Sterns, AIG, Citi, JPM, ML, RBS, UBS, they just grossly overestimated the quality of the assets and run their own firms into the ground. If it were just one of the firms you'd probably let it fail or be bought cheap, and laugh at management for being so incompetent, but you wouldn't bring charges against them because I don't think there are any to be made (I'm possibly overreaching, because there are many many laws, and I'm aware of so few, but in general I've never been told that being stupid is illegal).
 
Neutral said:
:nod:

This is not just donors, lots of conservative groups and think tanks are also leaning this way....fine the demographics might be against us in General Elections, but so what? If we control things at ground level - a democratic president will be largely ineffective.
Click to expand...
"See, this is why democracy doesn't work!"

-Homer Simpson
 
MarceloFalcon said:
From my knowledge of the workings of the crash, if some people have a dream of seeing Investment Bank CEOs do jail time, they seem to be the least likely to actually stick a charge to. They were far removed from details and therefore unlikely had knowledge or ordered any sort of fraud be committed.

My honest opinion is that this was truly a case of collective delusion regarding the US housing markets and its implications. If it were fraud, and the banks knew they were creating assets that were going broke, they wouldn't have turned around and sold CDSs to investors that wanted to take the opposite positions and then kept the position, and UBS wouldn't have been increasing their positions in the last few weeks of the debacle with the world already crumbling around them.

Goldman did design some nasty CDSs with John Paulson (not to be mistaken with Hank) and sell them to investors. But these investors were professionals, ACA and IKB. This isn't something that I approve of or would ever do to clients myself (although I don't work in this part of the business), but ACA and IKB are f'ing idiots too for not reading properly. I'm not a lawyer, but the whole mess doesn't violate any laws I know of, since most in place look to protect smaller investors, professionals are supposed to know what they're getting into.

Beyond that everyone generally involved from Lehman, Bear Sterns, AIG, Citi, JPM, ML, RBS, UBS, they just grossly overestimated the quality of the assets and run their own firms into the ground. If it were just one of the firms you'd probably let it fail or be bought cheap, and laugh at management for being so incompetent, but you wouldn't bring charges against them because I don't think there are any to be made (I'm possibly overreaching, because there are many many laws, and I'm aware of so few, but in general I've never been told that being stupid is illegal).
Click to expand...

I actually agree with most of what you say. Especially the part about the crisis being a case of collective delusion.

My point stands so. He had to negotiate settlement agreements with banks, that are big clients of the company, that he worked for (he also went back to them). That is a huge conflict of interest.
But even if we put that aside, he is socialised in an environment, that gives him a very very friendly and one-sided perspective on wall-street. I have no doubt that he believes in his "collateral consequences" nonsense, but that is pretty much the end of the rule of law and a free market economy.
I understand that the perspective and knowledge of experts is important, but in the current system, ONLY "experts", who are clearly biased, have privileged access to most top politicians. That is the biggest problem of the current system in the USA. Not open corruption.
 
PedroMendez said:
I actually agree with most of what you say. Especially the part about the crisis being a case of collective delusion.

My point stands so. He had to negotiate settlement agreements with banks, that are big clients of the company, that he worked for (he also went back to them). That is a huge conflict of interest.
But even if we put that aside, he is socialised in an environment, that gives him a very very friendly and one-sided perspective on wall-street. I have no doubt that he believes in his "collateral consequences" nonsense, but that is pretty much the end of the rule of law and a free market economy.
I understand that the perspective and knowledge of experts is important, but in the current system, ONLY "experts", who are clearly biased, have privileged access to most top politicians. That is the biggest problem of the current system in the USA. Not open corruption.
Click to expand...

Fair enough regarding Holder, not the ideal background for AG at the time. The problem is that a lot of prosecutors move in and out of private firms during their career here in the US (I just checked the Loretta Lynch also spent 9 years as a partner at Hogan & Hartson). I read in Michael Lewis' Boomerang that in Germany public officials don't do it so much, which if true I would agree leads to government not so buddy buddy with all sort of private interests.
 
I have read, that there was a big change in the culture of hiring AGs/top prosecutors during the last 20 years. I am not familiar enough with the details to comment on that.
In Germany most of the top prosecutors are "career-civil-servants"; at least to my knowledge.
 
One more comment on Wall Street prosecutions: I was just watching Frontline's The Untouchables on why no one was prosecuted, etc. and I got what to me is a misunderstanding plain and simple: Sen. Kaufman who was a political leader of trying to convict people and firms on Wall Street argues that it must be fraud when Goldman Sachs sells assets to clients when GS themselves are taking the opposite position. But that has been true of investment banks ever since Wall Street began and in markets all around the world, and every participant is well aware of this (they're not always taking the opposite position, but they can). From GS's clients point of view, who is a professional investor or investment manager, it is their job to appraise the value of what they are buying and selling from anyone, not to call up GS and ask them "what do you think is good?".

It absolutely isn't fraud, I don't think there are any laws in place which would make it fraud (or WS will have been practicing fraud every minute of every day since the 1920s). As an investment manager you are solely responsible for your investment decisions, which is why any manager worth anyone's time does 99% of analysis in-house and listens to outside opinions only as a test of his own convictions. It would only be fraud if GS or any other firm misrepresents any characteristic of the asset itself, or if someone had GS hired as an investment manager themselves and GS failed to police its internal chinese walls.
 
I doubt anyone who is serious about a political future will want to be associated with Trump let alone be on the ticket with him.

Even if he wins the nomination he most likely will lose the general. You dont want to be on a losing ticket especially on Trump's.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
I doubt anyone who is serious about a political future will want to be associated with Trump let alone be on the ticket with him.

Even if he wins the nomination he most likely will lose the general. You dont want to be on a losing ticket especially on Trump's.
Click to expand...

Can Clinton or Sanders really win the general? Aren't they both fairly divisive in the Democratic Party. Is there a chance they would both split the Democratic vote or is the perception that any Democrat is better than any Republican to the American left?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Can Clinton or Sanders really win the general? Aren't they both fairly divisive in the Democratic Party. Is there a chance they would both split the Democratic vote or is the perception that any Democrat is better than any Republican to the American left?
Click to expand...

Hillary is adored by the Dem base, it's the independents she has a problem wooing now, but with Marcobot sinking I don't think she'll be disadvantaged against either Trump or Cruz.

Sanders is really hard to tell. He's likeable, but not inspirational; trustworthy, but doesn't come off especially warm/cool the way Obama did. His policies have gone largely without scrutiny so far, so no one really knows how the moderate and right leaning independents will take to him in the GE. Odds are, it won't be easy.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
One more comment on Wall Street prosecutions: I was just watching Frontline's The Untouchables on why no one was prosecuted, etc. and I got what to me is a misunderstanding plain and simple: Sen. Kaufman who was a political leader of trying to convict people and firms on Wall Street argues that it must be fraud when Goldman Sachs sells assets to clients when GS themselves are taking the opposite position. But that has been true of investment banks ever since Wall Street began and in markets all around the world, and every participant is well aware of this (they're not always taking the opposite position, but they can). From GS's clients point of view, who is a professional investor or investment manager, it is their job to appraise the value of what they are buying and selling from anyone, not to call up GS and ask them "what do you think is good?".

It absolutely isn't fraud, I don't think there are any laws in place which would make it fraud (or WS will have been practicing fraud every minute of every day since the 1920s). As an investment manager you are solely responsible for your investment decisions, which is why any manager worth anyone's time does 99% of analysis in-house and listens to outside opinions only as a test of his own convictions. It would only be fraud if GS or any other firm misrepresents any characteristic of the asset itself, or if someone had GS hired as an investment manager themselves and GS failed to police its internal chinese walls.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what they paid the rating agencies to do?
 
berbatrick said:
No, their greatest success is controlling 31 state governemnts, and affecting paractical issues for their benefactors (fracking, etc.)

For example, I now live in NC. The governor was a director in an energy firm. The firm was recently ound to have poisoned many groundwater sources. The federal govt did what it could in terms of a fine, but the state signed a deal which limited the compensation to lower 6 figures and no liability for any later spills. The NC state govt is now suing environmental groups who were trying to get a better settlement. The state education budget has been reduced quite drastically, and the state has fallen behind on most educational indicators. The last remaining Dem in office recently lost her senate seat. The governor is facing a challenge...from his legislature, for not signing some of the more right-wing bills they have passed.
They are, to use Trump's favourite word, winning. If I was a donor and my economic interests were represented by the tea party, I would have no reason to reverse course on this strategy which loses the presidency, blocks the federal govt, and controls practicalities on the ground.
Click to expand...
State legislature is a very good point actually, and they control re-districting as well huh.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Hillary is adored by the Dem base, it's the independents she has a problem wooing now, but with Marcobot sinking I don't think she'll be disadvantaged against either Trump or Cruz.

Sanders is really hard to tell. He's likeable, but not inspirational; trustworthy, but doesn't come off especially warm/cool the way Obama did. His policies have gone largely without scrutiny so far, so no one really knows how the moderate and right leaning independents will take to him in the GE. Odds are, it won't be easy.
Click to expand...

Cheers.
 
How is superdelegates a thing? Seems to be a completely undemocratic idea. The people have voted and their decision should be final
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Isn't that what they paid the rating agencies to do?
Click to expand...

The rating agencies provide what amounts to an investment recommendation as well, or a risk profile you could say. They screwed up too, and because of it I certainly wouldn't care what grade they've given an asset if I managed a credit portfolio, I'd rely mostly on my own analysis.

What I meant about misrepresenting a characteristic would be if you got the list of underlying loans on an asset to conduct analysis and it wasn't the real deal, or any other terms or figures on paperwork received were not genuine. But mostly everyone traded these things without caring what they actually were, just walking around like "its MBS rated AAA, who cares?". Some of the few that did care are the subject of the book and movie The Big Short, which I'm sure many of you have watched/read.
 
Ubik said:
State legislature is a very good point actually, and they control re-districting as well huh.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's the final piece of the puzzle.
I'm curious, because in India constituency maps are drawn by an independent commission. Is it the same in UK (since we copied your system in many ways)?
 
berbatrick said:
Yup, that's the final piece of the puzzle.
I'm curious, because in India constituency maps are drawn by an independent commission. Is it the same in UK (since we copied your system in many ways)?
Click to expand...
Yeah we have boundary commissions, but the Tories have still found a way to game it, namely by putting an act through parliament requiring a cut in the number of MPs (650 to 600) and an equalisation of constituency populations regardless of local factors. I can't remember the exact projections of how much they'd benefit as a result, but suffice to say it was a fair amount.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
The rating agencies provide what amounts to an investment recommendation as well, or a risk profile you could say. They screwed up too, and because of it I certainly wouldn't care what grade they've given an asset if I managed a credit portfolio, I'd rely mostly on my own analysis.

What I meant about misrepresenting a characteristic would be if you got the list of underlying loans on an asset to conduct analysis and it wasn't the real deal, or any other terms or figures on paperwork received were not genuine. But mostly everyone traded these things without caring what they actually were, just walking around like "its MBS rated AAA, who cares?". Some of the few that did care are the subject of the book and movie The Big Short, which I'm sure many of you have watched/read.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the film but I'm sure I will watch it at some point in the future and feel assured about the impossibility of a repeat of events.

I don't think its correct to dismiss the risk analysis of these products as irrelevant or a simple matter of inaccuracy.

What were the rating agencies paid to do if not to provide exactly that AAA security for inverters. Then look at who paid them and how accountable they were for their independent opinions.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Can Clinton or Sanders really win the general? Aren't they both fairly divisive in the Democratic Party. Is there a chance they would both split the Democratic vote or is the perception that any Democrat is better than any Republican to the American left?
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat

It would be an epic failure for the Dems to lost this one. Not quite the upset of Lester winning the league, but still notable.
 
Bloomberg may be the choice for the Democratic Party because if the last news about Hillary emails is true she's doomed, she forward top secret emails to people not authorized, Obama is having a big laugh over Hillary-bitch you tried to kick my dog-
 
Bloomberg if he runs will run as an Independent, but he will hurt the Democratics a lot more than the Republicans. A life long Democratic who only became a Republican to run for Mayor of New York. He is a classic Eastern Liberal, , supports abortion rights, same-sex marriage, strict gun control measures, and citizenship for illegal immigrants. I can't see many traditional Republican voters supporting him.

Sanders as the Democratic nominee and Bloomberg as an Independant, gives the Republicans the White House, no matter who their nominee is in my opinion.
 
Canuckred64 said:
Bloomberg if he runs will run as an Independent, but he will hurt the Democratics a lot more than the Republicans. A life long Democratic who only became a Republican to run for Mayor of New York. He is a classic Eastern Liberal, , supports abortion rights, same-sex marriage, strict gun control measures, and citizenship for illegal immigrants. I can't see many traditional Republican voters supporting him.

Sanders as the Democratic nominee and Bloomberg as an Independant, gives the Republicans the White House, no matter who their nominee is in my opinion.
Click to expand...

More than anything, if no-one gets an electoral college majority, the House votes on the President.
Arise President Ryan. :/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.