CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Grand Theft Treasury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Grand Theft Treasury

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Naomi Klein on how the greedy logic of the Green Zone in Iraq now holds sway over this country's economy. Here's an excerpt from Klein's must-read piece in this month's Rolling Stone:

Quote:
It didn't have to be this way. Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.

In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What's more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.

No wonder it took just one hour for Paulson to convince all nine CEOs to accept his offer — less than seven minutes per bank. Not even the firms' own lawyers could have drafted a sweeter deal.

The day after it met with the nation's top banks, Treasury announced that it had selected the firm that would receive the juiciest contract of all: that of "master custodian." The winning company will be to the bailout what Halliburton is to the military: the contractor of contractors. It will purchase toxic debts from Wall Street, service them and auction them off in the future — a so-called "end-to-end process." The contract is for a minimum of three years.

Seventy firms applied for the gig; the winner was Bank of New York Mellon. Describing the scope of the megacontract, bank president Gerald Hassell said, "It's the ultimate outsourcing — because the Federal Reserve and the Treasury do not have the mechanics to run the entire program, and we're essentially the general contractor across the entire program. It's going to cross our entire company."

This raises an interesting point: Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around? Is it Treasury that has been partially privatized by Wall Street, its massive rescue plan now entirely in the hands of a private bank it is directly subsidizing?

Shortly after receiving the contract, Hassell told investors that his institution is now well-positioned to profit from the market meltdown. "There's a lot of new business that's going on even in this chaotic marketplace," he said, "and so some of those things have been very positive to us." Just how positive, we don't know, because Treasury has blacked out the 10 lines of the "master custodian" contract that reveal how much Bank of New York Mellon will be paid. Though Treasury says it will release the information eventually, the secrecy goes beyond anything the Bush administration attempted in Iraq. Even Halliburton's dodgy contracts came with price tags attached.
The whole, ugly story is here.
post #2 of 17
Thanks for the link, yt. This whole thing is appalling.
post #3 of 17
Thanks a lot for that link!

But it is hard to digest. The audacity of greed is simply stunning. After all these years this might be the most poised legacy of these cronies. Which by all measures is not a small achievement.
post #4 of 17
My Lord, after these last eight years, who could have possibly for seen this?
post #5 of 17

You can't really be surprised that people are still easily confused into acquiescence. All Americans needed to know was that they'd still have Monday Night Football, pizza and beer when the dust settled.

Now, judging from appearances, the alarm finally went off belatedly last week for a good deal of folks. While this is the most vulnerable time for more hijinks, as people stumble around in a bleary stupor, there's a tiny bit of comfort in the fact that people come alive after their morning coffee and the new guy running the shop is going to give it to us black.
post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
My Lord, after these last eight years, who could have possibly foreseen this?
This exact sentiment. If you didn't see something like this coming starting from around the end of 2001, you're a dope. I didn't know what exact form the epic cash grab would take, but after the power grab of 2001 I figured it was inevitable.
post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 
I'm shocked SHOCKED to see that gambling is going on here!

I do hope, though, that when he takes office Obama will grab these thieves by their little tails and delay their trip to whatever aquifer-rich island they bought.
post #8 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
My Lord, after these last eight years, who could have possibly for seen this?
After the last eight years this is not really something out of the blue as I have alluded to in my last post. But, and please correct me if I am wrong, hasn´t this bailout and the subsequent measures been approved by all branches of government, meaning the democratic senate and house as well? It seems to be a bit easy to just blame it on Bush and his cronies. Especially in the light of the historic election mere weeks ago. Considering this why hasn´t there been any notable opposition? Why hasn´t there been at least an attempt to forge something that reassembles public debate? Why haven´t the democrats drawn a line knowing they´ll be in power soon enough?

I absolutely agree with the fury and hatred towards this deceitful and thieving laws. But still the question remains why neither the media, or what is left of journalism over there, nor the opposition even moved the slightest finger to reconfigure this measures.

Calling and hoping for Obama surely is a nice thing. But it will be very likely way to late coming Jan. 20th to even make a difference.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
After the last eight years this is not really something out of the blue as I have alluded to in my last post. But, and please correct me if I am wrong, hasn´t this bailout and the subsequent measures been approved by all branches of government, meaning the democratic senate and house as well? It seems to be a bit easy to just blame it on Bush and his cronies. Especially in the light of the historic election mere weeks ago. Considering this why hasn´t there been any notable opposition? Why hasn´t there been at least an attempt to forge something that reassembles public debate? Why haven´t the democrats drawn a line knowing they´ll be in power soon enough?

I absolutely agree with the fury and hatred towards this deceitful and thieving laws. But still the question remains why neither the media, or what is left of journalism over there, nor the opposition even moved the slightest finger to reconfigure this measures.

Calling and hoping for Obama surely is a nice thing. But it will be very likely way to late coming Jan. 20th to even make a difference.
Especially when you consider it was the lack of Republican votes that prevented the initial version consisting of even less terms and oversight to go through.

Text from the original plan which was voted down:

Quote:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
post #10 of 17
And you all realize that it is mainly the Democrats that now want to broaden the scope of this plan to include the auto industry, correct?
post #11 of 17
And I personally wouldnt have a problem with the Treasury NOT buying up these crummy assets as long as there was some sort of dividend rights on the preferred shares the governments purchased via the capital injection.

In my opinion, purchasing the assets shouldnt have been the objective from the beginning. Direct capital injection (with more accountability and terms than there currently are) would have been the quickest and most effective way to get the job done.
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Especially when you consider it was the lack of Republican votes that prevented the initial version consisting of even less terms and oversight to go through.

Text from the original plan which was voted down:
Quote:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Not to get into that partisan blame game about who has actually been worse but your quote irritates me. I think a non-review clause is something that is deemed to be voted down. Giving literally billions of tax-payers dollars into the hand of the government without anything remotely reassembling judicial or economical overview is just an invitation for fraud if the power is accumilated in the hand of a few or only one person.

Granted, this is not even touching all the other sensitive issues that play a role in a bailout, but this is just plain irresponsible and wrong.
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Not to get into that partisan blame game about who has actually been worse but your quote irritates me. I think a non-review clause is something that is deemed to be voted down. Giving literally billions of tax-payers dollars into the hand of the government without anything remotely reassembling judicial or economical overview is just an invitation for fraud if the power is accumilated in the hand of a few or only one person.

Granted, this is not even touching all the other sensitive issues that play a role in a bailout, but this is just plain irresponsible and wrong.
I agree, and if you have had the misfortune of coming across some of my previous posts youll see Im not big on the partisan blame game as well. I hate pretty much all politicians equally.

But suggesting that this is all the fault of Dubya and his cronies and nobody else is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I agree, and if you have had the misfortune of coming across some of my previous posts youll see Im not big on the partisan blame game as well. I hate pretty much all politicians equally.

But suggesting that this is all the fault of Dubya and his cronies and nobody else is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
While I happen to disagree with you more often than not I definitely have to give you credit for not really playing that partisan blame game. Personally, I have not really a stake in it anyway since it happens that I am European. Political bias not withstanding.

But you know perfectly well that my last post you responded to was anything but soreley blaming Bush for that disaster.

Still the question remains why the hell your executive and legislative branch made such an atrocious bill possible. Looking at Great Britain, Germany or other countries one can´t deny that these governments, while as imperfect as it gets in politics, have at least been able to legislate some safety clauses for their citizens and their money.

But the situation is just to grave to point fingers and laugh at the US now. Because at the end of the day the world will have its fair share to pay the price for this disaster as well.
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
And you all realize that it is mainly the Democrats that now want to broaden the scope of this plan to include the auto industry, correct?
Yes, but the string attached is that they have to start moving to alternative fuels.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post

Still the question remains why the hell your executive and legislative branch made such an atrocious bill possible. Looking at Great Britain, Germany or other countries one can´t deny that these governments, while as imperfect as it gets in politics, have at least been able to legislate some safety clauses for their citizens and their money.
The biggest difference I believe (even though its not really touched upon) is the voting rights. It seems as if the Europeans had no problem actually nationalizing the financial industry. The government having the ability to actually control the future actions of our banks is something that was never going to be accepted.

What a lot of people dont realize is that the big players...JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc would have been fine keeping the CMOs/CDOs on their books and not taking any handouts from the government. They had more than enough cash and various other forms of liquidity to weather a much stronger storm than this one. Over the next few years the underlying holdings in the debt obligations would have stabilized in value and the positions could have been sold. They would have been just fine and dandy.

The problem is that they wouldnt want to part with a single dollar they had. No credit for consumers. No credit for businessess. LIBOR spiking to 6.8%+ after Lehman collapsed was a perfect example of the type of environment we would have had to live with for months and possibly years instead of days.

The Treasury, Im sure, did originally sit down with the banks and propose some sort of dividend schedule and voting rights...and the banks simply said "fuck off." And why wouldnt they? At the end of the day their only responsibility is to themselves and their shareholders. The Treasury needed the banks, not the other way around.

So, in a nutshell, Paulson and his team got bent over. Big time.

Anyway, like I mentioned above, what they should have originally done was to ignore the bad assets and simply give money to the banks with the explicit stipulation that they lend every single dollar filtered through them. This way, the Treasury could become the official creditor of the US (for a short period of time) without the pesky "nationalization" word being tossed around. For a perfect example, look at the Swedish bank rescue in the '90s. Or the Bear Sterns deal, for a more recent example.

Like any good politician, they decided to make the process much more difficult than it had to be and fucked it all up in the process.
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
IIRC, the House Republicans were protesting because they wanted to reduce corporate taxes and capital gains taxes in the bill, and that wasn't added.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Grand Theft Treasury