Periodicamente volto a este assunto. Mas primeiro, uma notícia introdutória:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists
Interesses privados escrevem leis que apenas beneficiam quem as escreveu. Isto noutro qualquer país seria categorizado (e criticado) como oligarquia. Mas, excluindo este pormenor, aqui está um excerto de uma conversa entre um político (neste caso uma política) e o CEO do JP Morgan, um dos maiores bancos do mundo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/elizabeth-warren-jamie-dimon_n_6972182.html
'Hit me with a fine. We can afford it'. E como já escrevi inúmeras vezes, o setor financeiro está acima da lei (arrastando o mundo inteiro para o abismo) não só porque financiam os legisladores mas também conseguem destruir (financeiramente) um país. Quando dá bronca, inevitavelmente as ameaças apocalípticas aparecem (recordando a crise de 2008):
Recentemente houve afirmações ridículas:
Escrevo ridículas porque antes disso:
Por fim:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/b...billion-to-settle-us-investigations.html?_r=0
Cometer crimes impunemente? Basta ser banqueiro (sénior).
A year ago, Mother Jones reported that a House bill that would allow banks like Citigroup to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money was written almost entirely by Citigroup lobbyists. The bill passed the House in October 2013, but the Senate never voted on it. For months, it was all but dead. Yet on Tuesday night, the Citi-written bill resurfaced. Lawmakers snuck the measure into a massive 11th-hour government funding bill that congressional leaders negotiated in the hopes of averting a government shutdown. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation.
"This is outrageous," says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "This is to benefit big banks, bottom line."
The Citi-drafted legislation will benefit five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions control more than 90 percent of the $700 trillion derivatives market. If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there's another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business.
In May 2013, the New York Times reported that Citigroup's proposed language was reflected in more than 70 lines of the House financial services committee's 85-line bill. Mother Jones was the first to publish the document showing that Citigroup lobbyists had drafted most of the legislation.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists
Interesses privados escrevem leis que apenas beneficiam quem as escreveu. Isto noutro qualquer país seria categorizado (e criticado) como oligarquia. Mas, excluindo este pormenor, aqui está um excerto de uma conversa entre um político (neste caso uma política) e o CEO do JP Morgan, um dos maiores bancos do mundo:
When the conversation turned to financial regulation and Dimon began complaining about all the burdensome rules his bank had to follow, I finally interrupted. I was polite, but definite. No, I didn’t think the biggest banks were overregulated. In fact, I couldn’t believe he was complaining about regulatory constraints less than a year after his bank had lost billions in the infamous London Whale high-risk trading episode. I said I thought the banks were still taking on too much risk and that they seemed to believe the taxpayers would bail them out -- again -- if something went wrong.
Our exchange heated up quickly. By the time we got to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we weren’t quite shouting, but we were definitely raising our voices. At this point -- early in 2013 -- Rich Cordray was still serving as director of the consumer agency under a recess appointment; he hadn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate, which meant that the agency was vulnerable to legal challenges over its work. Dimon told me what he thought it would take to get Congress to confirm a director, terms that included gutting the agency’s power to regulate banks like his. By this point I was furious. Dodd-Frank had created default provisions that would automatically go into effect if there was no confirmed director, and his bank was almost certainly not in compliance with the those rules. I told him that if that happened, “I think you guys are breaking the law.”
Suddenly Dimon got quiet. He leaned back and slowly smiled. “So hit me with a fine. We can afford it.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/elizabeth-warren-jamie-dimon_n_6972182.html
'Hit me with a fine. We can afford it'. E como já escrevi inúmeras vezes, o setor financeiro está acima da lei (arrastando o mundo inteiro para o abismo) não só porque financiam os legisladores mas também conseguem destruir (financeiramente) um país. Quando dá bronca, inevitavelmente as ameaças apocalípticas aparecem (recordando a crise de 2008):
Recentemente houve afirmações ridículas:
Escrevo ridículas porque antes disso:
Por fim:
On Thursday, that trail led to Commerzbank of Germany, which agreed to pay nearly $1.5 billion and dismiss some of its employees to resolve an array of charges in the United States. The case, the latest black eye for a giant global bank accused of sending tainted money through the American financial system, closes the book on several investigations into Commerzbank, one of Germany’s largest lenders.
One strand of the case focused on Commerzbank’s dealings with Iranian companies blacklisted by the United States, showing that the bank processed hundreds of millions of dollars through New York on their behalf. Prosecutors also accused the bank of enabling the Olympus Corporation, the Japanese manufacturer of medical devices and cameras, to orchestrate a huge accounting fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/b...billion-to-settle-us-investigations.html?_r=0
Cometer crimes impunemente? Basta ser banqueiro (sénior).