> “Noncompliant” explores one of the darkest chapters in modern American history, but with a crook and unabashed narcissist occupying the Oval Office, its lessons are proving remarkably timely.
The chapters in question took place during Obama's terms, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act was a bipartisan effort. Yet that sentence is implying that, if someone superficially decent was President (R or D), then this would somehow get fixed/those responsible would be prosecuted. I think it's pretty obvious that, if you want to go after Wall Street, you either need a third party, or to substantially change the two main ones.
I think you're assuming more meaning in that statement than was intended. I somehow doubt that "timely" as used here implies that untimely means fixed.
I saw this interview with David Icke, the lizard-people guy. He was like, “did you know that there are families that control a lot of land and hold a lot of power and they’ve been in Europe for centuries.’ And the host was like, ‘hahaha yo dude, how old are you that you’re just finding this out?!?’
I took liberty with the words, but yeah, hey everyone, guess what?! People do fucked up shit to get more resources. Turns out, we’re animals after all.
What your statement misses is that the problem is confounded by most people simply not believing it. They will believe that "people do fucked up shit to get more resources", while simultaneously believing that government is good, central banking in necessary, the money system is sound, the commercial banks are solvent, voting works, the justice system is blind, the wars are necessary and so on and so on.
And people who point out the truth of this corruption are derided, ridiculed, called a conspiracy theorist, compared to David Icke and so on.
I would concede you your point if people en masse really did think that Icke's statement was common knowledge, but it is clearly not. The myths that keep the common person conforming to the powers that shouldn't be run deep in the psyche.
TFA mentions Brookley Borne's efforts to blow the whistle on the risky financial instruments behind the financial collapse.
Frontline on PBS did an excellent episode looking at her efforts to regulate derivatives under the Clinton administration.
>"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says.
In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.
By objective measures, the US is by far the most corrupt nation in the world. China aspires to the title, and may get it, and Russia dreams of it, but just doesn't have the volume to match us..
We don't like to think so, but consider: did anybody get charged with fraud over the crash of 2008? Why not? We have laws on the books making what everyone did a writhing, toxic mass of felonies.
And what objective measures do you have for nations like China, Russia, Iran, and plenty of despotic dictatorships in Africa? There isn’t some magic measure that goes filters through all the lies perpetuated by those countries. There is definitely some degree of corruption in the US but there isn’t really evidence for the strength of your assertions. I suspect China is probably a lot worse because of the opacity/concentration of power of the communist party. I’d also be interested to hear what felonies perpetuated 2008. The government incentivized individuals to buy homes, and the banks looked the other way as long as people signed their mortgage agreements. A lot of the laws that would’ve prevented this were repealed in the 90’s.
If you don't know about the fraud, it can only be that you have not been paying attention.
Fabricated signatures on thousands upon thousands of mortgage documents is hard to get confused about. Goldman Sachs paying multibillion-dollar fines for deliberate misrepresentation, without anybody there charged personally with a crime, is easy to find in the public record. A Goldman Sachs corporate officer becoming Obama's Secretary of the Treasury in the middle of it all, likewise.
The chapters in question took place during Obama's terms, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act was a bipartisan effort. Yet that sentence is implying that, if someone superficially decent was President (R or D), then this would somehow get fixed/those responsible would be prosecuted. I think it's pretty obvious that, if you want to go after Wall Street, you either need a third party, or to substantially change the two main ones.