Skip to main content

View Diary: ENOUGH (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The diarist makes it plain and simple that the law (14+ / 0-)

    is broken. No justice when the law itself is broken. So doing what you suggest is moot.

    Hope has a hole in it when Republicans come, bringing shackles and sorrow; branding their greed on the backs of the poor. - Wendy Connors

    by Wendys Wink on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:15:34 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Be specific (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rfall, Statusquomustgo

      Let's start with a specific law, federal or state.

      Unfortunately, there's no law that covers lying generally, or being a hypocrite, or being greedy, etc.

      •  what about contract law (4+ / 0-)

        with respect to derivatives?  Having direct ties to what you are insuring.  If I insured someone's house other than the one I own (well, that the bank owns ... how ironic is that?!?!?), and I try to make a claim, wouldn't I be doing something illegal?  What about derivatives for which the owner of said derivative doesn't hold the deed (e.g. a CDO with mortgages)?  Isn't THAT illegal?

        "Without viable unions to serve as a counterweight to corporate power, America's working people and their families are at the mercy of the largest and most powerful economic organizations on the planet."

        by billlaurelMD on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:08:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          A contract is just an agreement between parties; what provision would you allege has been broken? And usually only parties to that contract have standing to enforce it.

          In fact,  there was a particularly odious thing Phil Gramm was involved in (remember him?), that had to do with selling investments backed by life insurance taken out on retired teachers (so called "death bonds.")

          The investors had no ties to the people whose lives they were taking out policies on, and the heirs of those teachers wouldn't see a penny from those policies. No, as ghoulish as the setup was, it wasn't illegal.

          Remember, for something to be illegal, there has to be a law somewhere against it. As long as there was no securities fraud in the sale of derivatives (investors received an offering document describing the risks) there wouldn't be any securities fraud. And although I never saw any of the offering documents for these securities, I would be amazed if they did not disclose the risk of the underlying properties losing value. Investors just brushed off this risk, believing (wrongly) that there would never be a market wide collapse.  

        •  Phil Gramm and his ilk made sure that all of (0+ / 0-)

          that stuff would be 'nebulous' enough that nothing could be nailed down.

          "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

          by Bluefin on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 06:50:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are referring to an "insurable (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          The CDOs were illegal in that they were insurance, which is regulated but they weren't called  insurance and that is how they got around it.

          "They" will insist it was a counter bet. But it was insurance. The risk was high and sliced up and spread around. THAT is insurance. Except there weren't any reserves to pay off in case of default. Everything was leveraged.

          The other obvious thing is that legitimate insurance begets income and that income is invested, and it ended up, you guessed CDOs and CDSs. AIG got caught eating its own tail and GS called in the marker. GS was covered on both sides. But they won twice because AIG got bailed out and paid GS back.

          TARP and the other assorted bailouts actually paid off mortgages, but the mortgagees got to keep the houses too. Face it, they sucked out more than half of the assets of this country and beyond [Iceland was bankrupted] and they're still operating with impunity. Housing values are down, wages are are flat or down, but a window still costs what it did when the bubble was full. Food and energy prices are through the roof.

      •  How about Securities Fraud? (6+ / 0-)

        Here is the law defining securities fraud:  
        § 240.10b-5 Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices.

            It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

        (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

        (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

        (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

        17 CFR 240.10b-5

        Lying about anything that affects the price of a security is securities fraud.  So is keeping quiet, if keeping quiet makes a statement affecting the price of a security misleading.    

        So, where are all the investigations for the largest fraud in history?  Oh, that's right, we live is a corrupt country where the financial supporters of our politicians cannot even be investigated for crimes.      

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site