[RD] 1,000,000 Obamas

[Lexicus]

Well, since no one has questioned the culpability of the bankers that's a perfectly reasonable position, but how are you going to have a dispute?

Posting in this thread

Also I feel like you've questioned the culpability of bankers on a few different occasions in this thread, but always in a way that made it look like you were just doubting the possibility of holding them legally responsible.

 

[metalhead]

Nicely argued counselor, turning my own analogy. However, if the store manager that hands you the gum has you sign a document that says you paid for it can you claim you were unaware of the lie you were signing?

I can claim I didn't possess the mens rea for theft. In order to be guilty of theft, I have to intend to deprive the store of the pack of gun without permission. If someone with apparent authority tells me I am authorized to take the gum if I sign a form saying I paid for it, than I haven't committed theft.

It depends on the situation. If the manager informs me the form is intended to trick the store owner, then I've committed a conspiracy. But if he's just like, "Oh this is for stock-keeping purposes," I'm not. His authority, just like the loan officer's, puts him on the hook, not me, unless I have reason to doubt the legitimacy of his authority.

And in the case of these loans, the banks had full knowledge and condoned the fraudulent loan applications anyways. You can't steal from someone who agrees to give you something, even if you have to lie in the process. You can't defraud someone who participates in the deception, or in this case, who puts you up to it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Posting in this thread

Also I feel like you've questioned the culpability of bankers on a few different occasions in this thread, but always in a way that made it look like you were just doubting the possibility of holding them legally responsible.

That's because I do doubt the possibility of holding them legally responsible. And as I said when this dispute started I really doubt that holding them legally responsible was obviously easy and could certainly have been pursued without interfering with the economic recovery, said recovery at the time looking unlikely to be accomplished at all, much less in conjunction with such a courtroom crap shoot. It's all good to look back and say "hey, we recovered after all" and MMQB about what we shoulda woulda coulda done at the same time, but I generally don't play that game.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can claim I didn't possess the mens rea for theft. In order to be guilty of theft, I have to intend to deprive the store of the pack of gun without permission. If someone with apparent authority tells me I am authorized to take the gum if I sign a form saying I paid for it, than I haven't committed theft.

It depends on the situation. If the manager informs me the form is intended to trick the store owner, then I've committed a conspiracy. But if he's just like, "Oh this is for stock-keeping purposes," I'm not. His authority, just like the loan officer's, puts him on the hook, not me, unless I have reason to doubt the legitimacy of his authority.

And in the case of these loans, the banks had full knowledge and condoned the fraudulent loan applications anyways. You can't steal from someone who agrees to give you something, even if you have to lie in the process. You can't defraud someone who participates in the deception, or in this case, who puts you up to it.

You make a very interesting case. I think that you would have to prove the case against the store manager to succeed with this defense, but it's certainly worth the play.

I would think that the statement above the signature block that says "submitting false information on this form is a CRIME" would give pretty much anyone pause, but if someone wants to claim they just didn't understand that simple statement who am I to question their stupidity...

 

[Lexicus]

That's because I do doubt the possibility of holding them legally responsible. And as I said when this dispute started I really doubt that holding them legally responsible was obviously easy and could certainly have been pursued without interfering with the economic recovery, said recovery at the time looking unlikely to be accomplished at all, much less in conjunction with such a courtroom crap shoot. It's all good to look back and say "hey, we recovered after all" and MMQB about what we shoulda woulda coulda done at the same time, but I generally don't play that game.

Business cycles do work in predictable ways...and massive injections of Federal money into the economy have predictable consequences.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Business cycles do work in predictable ways...and massive injections of Federal money into the economy have predictable consequences.

Within certain bounds. How the money is injected affects the results. How much is injected obviously affects the results. Whether there would be enough to inject, based on the process chosen and the uncertainty regarding effectiveness of that process, was the question.

 

[metalhead]

I would think that the statement above the signature block that says "submitting false information on this form is a CRIME" would give pretty much anyone pause, but if someone wants to claim they just didn't understand that simple statement who am I to question their stupidity...

I don't think the papers say that. Mine didn't, anyway, and I applied well after the crash. It's pretty much on the lender to verify claims on the paperwork. That's not to say you can't get in trouble for lying, but again, in this situation the applicants weren't lying to anyone.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Everywhere I ever worked the signature blocks were prefaced with "Applicant warrants that the above information is true and correct. Providing false information when applying for credit is against the law; XXXXXXXXX," where that last part was a reference number to California criminal codes that I no longer remember. Car dealers may be more inclined to make sure their customers know their obligations though.

 

[aelf]

Who's that?

Those who think that if we just let fools speak, they'll discredit themselves; that once Trump proves himself incompetent, he will naturally lose the support of the right.

 

[Lexicus]

It is as if one million Obamas cried out in terror...and were suddenly silenced

 

[Lexicus]

Within certain bounds. How the money is injected affects the results. How much is injected obviously affects the results.

That's true. The Bush and Obama administrations overwhelmingly injected money in a way that shored up the balance sheet positions of rich individuals and large, rich institutions. The recovery would have been far more robust and rapid had they allowed the banks to go insolvent, cancelled the debts and bailed out the homeowners, and spent lots of money directly putting people to work. But of course that was "politically impossible"...

Whether there would be enough to inject, based on the process chosen and the uncertainty regarding effectiveness of that process, was the question.

The federal government has i n f i n i t e d o l l a r s, so there was...certainly...no uncertainty about whether there would be enough to inject.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Those who think that if we just let fools speak, they'll discredit themselves; that once Trump proves himself incompetent, he will naturally lose the support of the right.

That might have worked, but nothing will make him lose the support of Republicans. My glib "Who's that" was in recognition that even if we have people who hold moderate positions, a two party choice makes for no moderate vote. To lose the support of a Republican, Trump would have to turn them into a Democrat, not just convince them that he is an incompetent idiot.

That's true. The Bush and Obama administrations overwhelmingly injected money in a way that shored up the balance sheet positions of rich individuals and large, rich institutions. The recovery would have been far more robust and rapid had they allowed the banks to go insolvent, cancelled the debts and bailed out the homeowners, and spent lots of money directly putting people to work. But of course that was "politically impossible"...

A treasury department worker on every street corner with a wheelbarrow full of cash? Like it or not, money is like water, it requires an infrastructure. Banks are the plumbing. The bottom of the financial crisis wasn't the time to scrap the plumbing system and hope we could just turn on a firehose and spray it where we needed it.

The federal government has i n f i n i t e d o l l a r s, so there was...certainly...no uncertainty about whether there would be enough to inject.

Sure. I notice that congress can always be counted on to recognize that and act accordingly. Oh, wait. No, counting on congress is seldom a good idea.

 

[Lexicus]

Money exists as a series of digital spreadsheets. You don't need banks to manage that system, really.

 

[metalhead]

It would seem to be a much more easily automated occupation than just about any other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Full automation. The wheelbarrows full of cash on the corners can be motorized and we don't even need someone to push them out there to inject money into the economy.