Display:
Are you implying that the Obama administration has been aggressive in its efforts to prosecute those responsible for the financial crisis in global capital markets which came to a head in 2007?

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
by redstar on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 10:15:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No.

Glad I could clear that up for you. But just in case you need further illustration, the argument "Prayers prevented war in the 1940s so the failure of the Obama administration to pray caused wars now" is a false argument, whether or not one applauds the foreign policy of the Obama administration. Or in terms of logic, one can object to "False implies Q" without saying anything about Q.

by rootless2 on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 11:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ah, I think I see the problem.

I don't think there is anyone on ET who doesn't know that the oversight and regulation of the global financial has been a complete joke for a few decades and that is most especially true in the USA.

So, Black's assertion that the S&L fraud were vigorously pursued is something that all here would agree is a fatuous lie somewhat undermined by the historical record. So, equally we might have some sympathy with the using of this "record" as a stick with which to beat the Obama administration is mendacious to say the least.

Nevertheless, where I think many of us would depart from the narrative is the belief that the dishonesty of the comparison exonerates the OA from their apparent refusal to prosecute any of the several hundred deserving culprits in the current fiasco.

Or, more simply, just because Black is an arse doesn't stop Obama being one too

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 11:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok getting somewhere. But "exonerates" is a term I don't get in this discussion. If we want to know why the OA does what it does, "they suck" strikes me as not too illuminating. Maybe there are few prosecutions because it's an enormously complex and time consuming project that takes years to start up. Maybe 30 years of Law and Econ judicial decisions have made prosecutions impossible. Maybe the OA has decided to work on other issues and the states AGs who should have primary jurisdiction don't have resources or political will. Maybe Goldman-Sachs paid off Holder. Maybe Holder is incompetent and Obama is fearful. But if one argued any of these without starting from Black's nonsense, you'd get a very different perspective - one that has a potential to tell you something useful.

From my point of view, prosecutions would be losing political theater. If you gave me a choice, I'd much rather the OA Department of Justice invest time and energy fixing up the nightmare ICE than making show trials on Wall Street - trials I think  they would lose. And I'd much more want the OA to be them to be pushing crowdfunding and expanding SBA and direct funding and the kinds of consumer protection disclosure's than prosecuting. Perhaps there is a case to be made that the OA has let drop a great opportunity to smash wall street in the courts, but I have not seen that case argued - except as with Black, based on a kind of ideological fraud.

by rootless2 on Fri Feb 3rd, 2012 at 12:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just don't find myself caring all that much about what Obama does or doesn't do, it's more or less irrelevant to me, and I always chuckle a bit to see the elite press here in Europe report in such great detail about the goings on in the United States, as if it mattered all that much to us.

It doesn't, unless of course you are an elite looking for validation of your neo-liberal biases.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Mon Feb 6th, 2012 at 10:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series