nice points~ I would tend to concur that it’s, a lot, like that.

though, maybe more simply, there cannot be any kind of ‘Transparency’ of the kind(s) you give rise to. For, surely, if the full-scope of the looting was made known, the “Wall Street/WDC”-axis would, forever, be spindled.
~~
Also, the ‘media cluster’ was meant to stand-in for the idea that the MSM, speaking with a single voice, aids and abets the chicanenery of WDC, and its cohorts..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chicanery

So why exactly are we playing this charade? Oh, I know.

Highway to Hell.

Granted some bad actors were not prosecuted like they should have been (more favoritism) but at least some firms were exposed for what they were doing that was socially irresponsible; resulted in making example of what is NOT desired. [See Home State Savings Bank of Cincinnati, Midwest Federal Savings & Loan of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Lincoln Savings and Loan, Silverado Savings and Loan, Imprudent real estate lending: many banks lent far more money than was prudent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis#cite_ref-multiple1_4-0
)]

“The banking problems of the ’80s and ’90s came primarily, … from unsound real estate lending.” http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/vol2/panel3.pdf Page 57, paragraph 4

“It is instructive to note that the real estate boom and lending fiasco appears to have started in the United States….U.S. banks tried leveraged buyouts (LBOs) and Latin American loans. But the largest growth in lending was in new loans for commercial real estate.”

Under Paulson and Geithner, and by way of omission involving federal reserve oversight, we do not even have a 3rd party accounting firm reviewing the loan books of these firms, reviewing their compensation history and bonus records (in the ten years prior to 2008), nor the shareholder registries to see who has owned bank shares (for example are there any federal reserve board of governors who have benefited from the corporate practice of extracting cash from the balance sheet, to pay dividends, in prior ten year period, so that firm would have no cash in the 11th year or claim to be undercapitalized in some way, out of money).

They want to rewrite the law, and oh in the meanwhile, forsake scrutiny of where positive cash flow coming into the firm in the last 10 years, went out? Is bank claiming to be undercapitalized, giving money to profitable subsidiary entities, or sister firms? How much? How much does the mother firm give to its children, annually, in the last 7 years, that it would come now in the 8th year and say it is out of cash?

(Been running around the mansion wearing the wigs too long. Playing make believe they are regulators. Now they want to rewrite the law? Of course. …Matilda, come out of the kitchen and give these “regulators” some milk and some cookies.)

Omission in the above mandates, serve to manage neglect on those who are being injured. Neglect of important laws, serves to enable favoritism and give competitive advantage to socially irresponsible firms (which are favored banks of the Federal Reserve entity).

Rewriting new law is about masking failure of key officers, to uphold laws that are already on the books.

It seems touched: to try to write new law, without first upholding the law that you have.

.

A word about repackaging: Take for example the cereal box. Marketers are known to change the label, on an old cereal, by tacking on the emblem “new and improved.” Inside it is essentially the same cereal, with maybe one or two additives or preservatives, put in or taken out.

I have the impression that by writing “new” laws, fed board of governors or Treasury or advisers of same, are trying to skirt some important laws in existence.

It is hard to make a short list, but thankfully for all here, I will try.:)

U.S. Code, Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o Prompt Corrective Action (b)(2)(B)(i) and (d)(1)(A). Capital distributions (dividends) and share buy back programs restricted.

U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o Prompt Corrective Action (f)(2)(F) The appropriate Federal banking agency shall* carry out this section by taking 1 or more of the following actions … (F) Improving management. … (i) New election of directors. Ordering a new election for the institution’s board of directors. (ii) Dismissing directors or senior executive officers. Requiring the institution to dismiss from office any director or senior executive officer who had held office for more than 180 days immediately before the institution became undercapitalized.…

U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o. Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(A)(B)(C)(D)(F)1 …Restricting activities of critically undercapitalized institutions: To carry out the purpose of this section, the Corporation shall*, by regulation or order— restrict the activities of any critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; and at a minimum (emphasis added), prohibit any such institution from doing any of the following:

(A) Engaging in expansion or acquisition of competing firms
(B) Extending credit for any highly leveraged transaction
(C) Amending the institution’s charter or bylaws.
(D) Making any material change in accounting methods.
(F) Paying excessive compensation or bonuses.

*The term ’shall’ above is used to denote mandates.

Tried to nutshell some of the more important laws.

This brings me to an important consideration: Rewriting “new” law in the middle of the crisis, is a questionable practice in my mind. The current law seems to me, to be sufficient, if properly administered.

Like the idea of consumer watch dog entity that has teeth, but this seems like a small bone or traded off if they intend to continue to neglect important laws or seek to rewrite laws to change some of the more important laws above.

One law in particular, I would like to emphasis: U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o. Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(B) …Extending credit for any highly leveraged transaction.

Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, by way of omission, acted to enjoin Americans as guarantor for highly leverage transactions involving derivatives and guaranteeing transactions in the derivatives market. This is in violation of the above statute. This is opposed to letting banks involved in the derivatives market fail and be cast off into bankruptcy court (at least expense to tax payers).

12 USC 1831 o Prompt Corrective Action:
(a) Resolving problems to protect Deposit Insurance Fund.

(1) Purpose: The purpose of this section is to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions at the least possible long-term loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund. (IE: Least expense to tax payers).

(2) Prompt corrective action required: Each appropriate Federal banking agency and the Corporation (acting in the Corporation’s capacity as the insurer of depository institutions under this chapter) shall* carry out the purpose of this section by taking prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions.

Frankly, I was happy with our capitalist market before the crisis, and I often marveled how the market had a nose for bad corporations and banks; would sniff them out and finally give them the boot. Kick the bad bank or firm out of the free market, and into bankruptcy – let us know that firm does not belong. Essentially the market would act like a homeowner to “clean out” the junk and excess from the garage. Work that needed to be done from time to time.

I was glad to see the market perform and I miss it terribly.

Back on point: Rewriting law?

In the PPIP and in the TALF programs to give incentive to private investors to partner with government, Mr. Geithner and Fed board of directors, are seeking to continue a course, to violate the established law at U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831o. Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(B) … Extending credit for any highly leveraged transaction.

From my perspective, I see the writing of “new and improved” law as un-necessary. If the treasury and board of fed wig-wearers, would stop interfering in the market, the market will act like it always has.

Rewriting law is about masking failures in leadership. Left alone, the market protects Americans from tyrannical rule of a few dishonorable leaders, who are making bad decisions.

The standing law is also sufficient, if simply upheld by good stewards.

A company cannot … seek to stay in business by transferring their debt obligation to others, who did not sign for it. This is not a good business practice.

We do not need new laws. We simply need people who will uphold the laws we have.

To borrow from Tony Blair, its not the law that is the problem, it is the people.

To date: The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, neither Treasury office, and neither of the last two administrations, have made an example of any firm.

From a regulatory perspective, this is not the way to reign in bad business practices.

It is written with the benefit of hindsight. SMARTER to me means fewer clearly written high-level regulations and principles that provide the foundation for guidance and teeth for prosecution placing the onus back on the financial community to live up to their fiduciary responsibility. It feels to me like we are moving toward codifying every single wrong-doing. If it is not written down explicitly to be avoided then it is fair game to be exploited. Going down this path is a losing proposition with no end.

I am less optimistic that spelling out explicit criteria as to what is legal (or what no longer is) will exploit an approach by the financial crowd to pay experts to come up with cracks in the code to continue the financial shenanigans that got us into this mess in the first place.

Financial institutions that are big enough to threaten the security of the entire financial system should be broken up. I know none of the financial institutions want to hear that; but, it is common sense. There are many accepted benefits to breaking up large companies releasing more targeted core competencies in each of the resulting smaller companies. This is a fact. It is just not one the financial industry wants to hear.

Lastly, the FED is at the core of the problems we now find ourselves in. Giving someone more power who has proven to be slow on the uptake or is politically compromised to the point that they can not do their job is the wrong direction to be going.

Had the FED not continually pushed down interest rates over the last 25 years as candy for the markets and friends of the FED, we would not find ourselves here now. Had the FED allows interest rates to move back up to a more traditional level between 5% to 10% during recoveries, this one thing alone would have provided more long term stability than any law that can now be written. With a reasonable cost of money, marginal projects rightfully so do not get funding. That is the way capitalism is supposed to work. Now, things are so short term oriented, all things financial are nothing more than gambles with your money.

It all starts and ends with the cost of money. The problem now is that we do not have the where-with-all to be able to return to a reasonable cost of money. We could never refinance the massive principle debt we have created for ourselves. The FED in retrospect is actually the most guilty party of all. Akin to creating more debt to solve our debt problems now is analogous to giving more power to the FED when the FED is a very large part of the problem it is now empowered to resolve. This caps a perverse line of thinking.