[RD] 1,000,000 Obamas

Granted, my worldview at ~14 wasn't so hot, but I don't recall any real indication that America was not only ready but on the verge of eating the rich through Obama-fueled fervor.

Eating the rich is always a good idea, and at the time it was probably a marketable idea. The question, as always, was whether they would have been digestible. Past experience says that eating the rich leads to violent illness for an extended period of time. While I'm usually well poised for surviving the collapse of civilization, I do not relish it.
 
Oh? You know for a fact what the outcome of doing things differently would have been? That's interesting. How?

For the same reason that I can say that the endstate of some physical system would be different if the initial conditions were different. I understand enough of the moving parts that it's not just a magic black box to me.

You may think that the banks played no part in the recovery. I think that is unrealistic. You may think that the banks would have done their part even if the SEC was rolling up bankers for trial. I think that is even more unrealistic.

The banks played no part in the recovery, except hindering it. The recovery from the actual financial crisis occurred very quickly and consisted of the federal government spending trillions to restore the largest banks to solvency. The banks played no role in this except receiving the money.

The whole idea that the 'stability' of the banking system depended on, in essence, granting amnesty to the fraudsters, was a lie told then and sadly it is evidently still believed in some quarters. Reality is precisely the opposite. You cannot have any kind of "stable" or "normally working" financial system if fraudulent actors are allowed to operate with impunity. Fraudulent business drives out honest business every time.

So in reality, Obama's failure to restore the rule of law to the banking system has turned it chronically unstable, ensuring that it will lurch from crisis to crisis until it is fixed, or collapses completely from wider social unrest.

Granted, my worldview at ~14 wasn't so hot, but I don't recall any real indication that America was not only ready but on the verge of eating the rich through Obama-fueled fervor.

You don't remember how things were then. People were scared, and angry, and Obama certainly could have directed some of that anger to constructive outcomes.

We're not talking about some kind of socialist revolution here, we're talking about simply maintaining the rule of law. Americans were absolutely ready to see criminals brought to justice. If Congress had tried to interfere, I have no doubt whatever that they'd have been swept out of office and replaced with people willing to allow Obama to do his Constitutional duty and enforce the law. Particularly if there were already criminal proceedings ongoing which would mean the introduction of evidence, and a narrative tying that evidence together, into the public record.
 
Past experience says that eating the rich leads to violent illness for an extended period of time.
It's those Taco Bowls that they eat, I think.
 
For the same reason that I can say that the endstate of some physical system would be different if the initial conditions were different. I understand enough of the moving parts that it's not just a magic black box to me.

You do recognize how spectacularly arrogant this sounds, right?

That aside, it's easier to be certain from the sidelines. At the time there were a whole lot of people predicting that an "endstate" of chaos was actually unavoidable no matter what. For the person who was actually responsible to have embraced "things are going to be fine, so much so that we can gut the entire financial system and it will still work out" would have required a degree of brass that hasn't existed in an elected leader ever.
 
You know for a fact what the outcome of doing things differently would have been?

The comment I am about to make is utterly tangential to this thread overall and is only connected to this comment in that this comment invokes historical counterfactuals.

If flashed through my mind yesterday that I have one reason for being happy Trump won the presidency. It's a small reason, and it only lasted for the length of that flash, after which I returned to being properly depressed over having Trump as president.

I was thinking about what if Hillary had been elected. I was thinking to myself that this past year and change would just have been a mess. She wouldn't have gotten anything done. The Republican congress would have been at least as obstructionist as they were to Obama, and in fact would probably have charged her with crimes concerning Benghazi, e-mails, etc. Utter governmental disfunction. In that world, a Trump presidency would have been the counterfactual, if you get what I mean. We would only have been able to speculate how bad it might have been. Some people would have argued that he would of course have become "presidential" upon becoming president, and we'd have had no way of positively refuting that view. The flash was this: Well, at least it's been good to have confirmed that Trump would be as bad as we all guessed he would. Trump is, in other words, the more interesting counterfactual of the two about which to have the opportunity to see it actually play out.

I don't know if that makes any sense.
 
The comment I am about to make is utterly tangential to this thread overall and is only connected to this comment in that this comment invokes historical counterfactuals.

If flashed through my mind yesterday that I have one reason for being happy Trump won the presidency. It's a small reason, and it only lasted for the length of that flash, after which I returned to being properly depressed over having Trump as president.

I was thinking about what if Hillary had been elected. I was thinking to myself that this past year and change would just have been a mess. She wouldn't have gotten anything done. The Republican congress would have been at least as obstructionist as they were to Obama, and in fact would probably have charged her with crimes concerning Benghazi, e-mails, etc. Utter governmental disfunction. In that world, a Trump presidency would have been the counterfactual, if you get what I mean. We would only have been able to speculate how bad it might have been. Some people would have argued that he would of course have become "presidential" upon becoming president, and we'd have had no way of positively refuting that view. The flash was this: Well, at least it's been good to have confirmed that Trump would be as bad as we all guessed he would. Trump is, in other words, the more interesting counterfactual of the two about which to have the opportunity to see it actually play out.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

It does, but I find your counterfactual unlikely. Only Trump winning maintained the Republican control of congress is another speculative that can be applied. In 2016 I was actually quite hopeful for not only Hillary Clinton continuing the general direction of the Obama administration, but having the democrats controlling congress and helping that along.
 
You do recognize how spectacularly arrogant this sounds, right?

What I think is happening here is that you're interpreting my claims as being more sweeping than they actually are.

gut the entire financial system

Like this here. I'm not sure where in the conversation "put people who commit thousands of felonies in jail" became "gut the entire financial system" but at some point apparently it did...

The essential "recovery" from the crisis consisted of the federal government paying out trillions of dollars to restore solvency to banks and other financial institutions. This was already pretty much done by the time Obama took office. Realistically, Obama couldn't have done much to interfere with that, either.

Criminal prosecutions wouldn't have messed up the recovery. Neither would bailing out underwater homeowners. $75 billion was appropriated for this purpose, and almost all of it was paid to mortgage servicers in the hope that it would 'trickle down' to homeowners (sound familiar?).

And that's sort of the problem with what you've argued so far. It sounds plausible when we're talking in general terms (and I might add you very admirably made me look like a jackass above, simply for stating that I know about something I've spent almost all my adult life learning about) but if we get into the specifics of what Obama did, what he could have done, your argument will be revealed as obvious nonsense.

Because again, we're not talking about some kind of radical socioeconomic transformation here. At bottom, we're talking about simply enforcing the laws against fraud, which are arguably the necessary cornerstone for any kind of business activity to take place! The idea that criminal should have to make restitution of some kind to their victims is also not radical...
 
You don't remember how things were then. People were scared, and angry, and Obama certainly could have directed some of that anger to constructive outcomes.

We're not talking about some kind of socialist revolution here, we're talking about simply maintaining the rule of law. Americans were absolutely ready to see criminals brought to justice. If Congress had tried to interfere, I have no doubt whatever that they'd have been swept out of office and replaced with people willing to allow Obama to do his Constitutional duty and enforce the law. Particularly if there were already criminal proceedings ongoing which would mean the introduction of evidence, and a narrative tying that evidence together, into the public record.

Not too sure about this given there were many who gleefully called Obama a monkey back then and wide swathes of people indifferent to the banks. Unless in your recollection of the past Republicans would also be swept aside by this apparent American society that was ready for Obama to maintain the "rule of law". Again, I was just a kid back then with a poor understanding of the world and not much interest in figuring it out, but you make it sound like America was on the verge of some revolutionary swing that was only stopped by Obama's failure to follow through. That doesn't seem to jive with the America of today, or even five years ago.
 
My previous belief that it was prudent not to seek convictions because they'd be hard to get, took a bit of a hit last week, when bank executives got found guilty for fraud in connection with recession shenanigans.

I still think there were legitimate arguments against aggressively pursuing executives for criminal charges, but in hindsight it looked really, really bad. What good are laws against fraud if people can just wantonly lie and commit fraud and destroy the global economy and many people's lives and get their companies bailed out in the process?
 
And they still got their golden parachutes....
 
Not too sure about this given there were many who gleefully called Obama a monkey back then and wide swathes of people indifferent to the banks. Unless in your recollection of the past Republicans would also be swept aside by this apparent American society that was ready for Obama to maintain the "rule of law". Again, I was just a kid back then with a poor understanding of the world and not much interest in figuring it out, but you make it sound like America was on the verge of some revolutionary swing that was only stopped by Obama's failure to follow through. That doesn't seem to jive with the America of today, or even five years ago.

It is remarkable to me that people can interpret enforcing the laws that are supposed to maintain capitalism as a "revolutionary wave."

My previous belief that it was prudent not to seek convictions because they'd be hard to get, took a bit of a hit last week, when bank executives got found guilty for fraud in connection with recession shenanigans.

This was silly (and @Timsup2nothin, pay attention here) because the DoJ declined to seek these convictions in defiance of their own long-standing policy.

“It is well known that the Antitrust Division has long ranked anti-cartel enforcement as its top priority. It is also well known that the Division has long advocated that the most effective deterrent for hard core cartel activity, such as price fixing, bid rigging, and allocation agreements, is stiff prison sentences. It is obvious why prison sentences are important in anti-cartel enforcement. Companies only commit cartel offenses through individual employees, and prison is a penalty that cannot be reimbursed by the corporate employer. As a corporate executive once told a former Assistant Attorney General of ours: “[A]s long as you are only talking about money, the company can at the end of the day take care of me . . . but once you begin talking about taking away my liberty, there is nothing that the company can do for me.”(1) Executives often offer to pay higher fines to get a break on their jail time, but they never offer to spend more time in prison in order to get a discount on their fine.

We know that prison sentences are a deterrent to executives who would otherwise extend their cartel activity to the United States. In many cases, the Division has discovered cartelists who were colluding on products sold in other parts of the world and who sold product in the United States, but who did not extend their cartel activity to U.S. sales. In some of these cases, although the U.S. market was the cartelists’ largest market and potentially the most profitable, the collusion stopped at the border because of the risk of going to prison in the United States.”

but in hindsight it looked really, really bad.

An understatement. It totally destroyed public trust in our institutions. It paved the way for Donald Trump to be elected, because there was too much truth in "all politicians are like him, at least he tells it like it is".
 
It is remarkable to me that people can interpret enforcing the laws that are supposed to maintain capitalism as a "revolutionary wave."

I mean, yeah. Rich people not playing by the rules has been the standard since... well... before capitalism. This is not a shock.
 
What I think is happening here is that you're interpreting my claims as being more sweeping than they actually are.



Like this here. I'm not sure where in the conversation "put people who commit thousands of felonies in jail" became "gut the entire financial system" but at some point apparently it did...

The essential "recovery" from the crisis consisted of the federal government paying out trillions of dollars to restore solvency to banks and other financial institutions. This was already pretty much done by the time Obama took office. Realistically, Obama couldn't have done much to interfere with that, either.

Criminal prosecutions wouldn't have messed up the recovery. Neither would bailing out underwater homeowners. $75 billion was appropriated for this purpose, and almost all of it was paid to mortgage servicers in the hope that it would 'trickle down' to homeowners (sound familiar?).

And that's sort of the problem with what you've argued so far. It sounds plausible when we're talking in general terms (and I might add you very admirably made me look like a jackass above, simply for stating that I know about something I've spent almost all my adult life learning about) but if we get into the specifics of what Obama did, what he could have done, your argument will be revealed as obvious nonsense.

Because again, we're not talking about some kind of radical socioeconomic transformation here. At bottom, we're talking about simply enforcing the laws against fraud, which are arguably the necessary cornerstone for any kind of business activity to take place! The idea that criminal should have to make restitution of some kind to their victims is also not radical...

You are talking about "enforcing laws" as if there was someone standing on a streetcorner with a smoking gun and a dead body. Financial regulations don't work like that. Sending busloads of SEC investigators combing through books brings an institution to a grinding halt. As you point out, trillions of dollars had just been pumped into keeping them going. Calling that counterproductive seems pretty obvious.
 
Not really though, the evidence is all electronic these days. The actual evidence of fraud - intent and such - would have been found by combing through email archives. We already know what dishonest things they did; you could probably get that stipulated to. The hard stuff to prove wouldn't have cost a dime of institution time.

I agree that large scale prosecutions of all or most bad actors was not realistic. But to not prosecute anyone is just a total abrogation of their sworn duty to uphold and enforce the law. Show trials get a bad rap, but sometimes they are crucial in maintaining public trust. And Lexicus is right, that failure absolutely contributed to Trump.
 
I mean, yeah. Rich people not playing by the rules has been the standard since... well... before capitalism. This is not a shock.

Perhaps the most tragic consequence of Obama's inaction back in 2009 is precisely this kind of cynicism.

You are talking about "enforcing laws" as if there was someone standing on a streetcorner with a smoking gun and a dead body. Financial regulations don't work like that. Sending busloads of SEC investigators combing through books brings an institution to a grinding halt.

edit:
Not really though, the evidence is all electronic these days. The actual evidence of fraud - intent and such - would have been found by combing through email archives. We already know what dishonest things they did; you could probably get that stipulated to. The hard stuff to prove wouldn't have cost a dime of institution time.

this too

What you don't seem to get is that the investigations were carried out. The books of all these institutions were thoroughly reviewed, and of course it did not "bring them to a grinding halt" in any sense of those words. The problem is that this happened during the course of civil investigations launched by the DoJ - which resulted in slap-on-the-wrist monetary settlements - after the decision not to launch any criminal prosecutions had already been taken.

You want to tell me you know more than William K. Black about prosecuting financial crimes, fine, but I hope you know how spectacularly arrogant that sounds.
 
Not really though, the evidence is all electronic these days. The actual evidence of fraud - intent and such - would have been found by combing through email archives. We already know what dishonest things they did; you could probably get that stipulated to. The hard stuff to prove wouldn't have cost a dime of institution time.

I agree that large scale prosecutions of all or most bad actors was not realistic. But to not prosecute anyone is just a total abrogation of their sworn duty to uphold and enforce the law. Show trials get a bad rap, but sometimes they are crucial in maintaining public trust. And Lexicus is right, that failure absolutely contributed to Trump.

The hard stuff to prove...which really amounts to which humans become the human sacrifices...would only not bring the institutions to a halt if everyone working in those institutions was willing to cooperate in keeping them operating during the selection process. How much do you count on people just going on doing their jobs knowing that some of them are going to be thrown to the wolves? In a more likely reality the rats going over the side would have sunk the ship as they went.

You have a great deal more respect for the public than I do, by the way. As I recall, the vast majority of the public was more inclined to just pretend it never happened than to have a show trial and blame some designated scapegoats. Their "public trust" wouldn't have come through any better from dragging things out.
 
Rich people get to bend the rules because rich people obviously have money, and money is power. And with power it is possible to influence poorly designed systems.

If you want the system to be more air-tight, you will probably have to wait until a hyper-intelligent AI rules every aspect of our lives. And that isn't happening for a while
 
Back
Top Bottom