Attitudes that Many on Wall Street would call Acceptable

[Lamplighter]

Well, that didn't last long, did it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Well, that didn't last long, did it.

Especially when 'left' and 'right' are myths. Only moderates and extremists exist. Moderates do not invent and need bogeyman to justify righteousness.

Honest people do exist even on Wall Street. Problems stem from empowerment of dishonest people by one simple and corrupt concept. The purpose of a company is its profits. Never was. But then some also believe greed is good. Greed and accomplishment are somehow same concepts? In corrupt organizations that nurture and promote corrupt people.

Contracts and other business transactions must result in both parties prospering. Any transaction designed to screw the other party is a perfect example of corruption. Too many on Wall Street believe they must even make profits at the expense of their counterparty. Corruption.

[classicman]

Problems stem from empowerment of dishonest people by one simple and corrupt concept.

And this administration has borne that out as previously stated here.

In corrupt organizations that nurture and promote corrupt people.

OMG?!?!?!?! Did tw really just take a justifiable shot at his beloved Obama?
Can it be? Retraction/deflection in 5...4...3...2...

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

And this administration has borne that out as previously stated here.

Which demonstrates that, despite overt and publically encouraged corruption, many on Wall Street are still honest and ethical. And want government that advances the country and mankind.

Demonstrates that some from Wall Street still have an attitude and fundamental grasp necessary to even become a good regulator. Many on Wall Street desire and appreciate heavy regulation due to a venue widespread with corruption.

We know this economy was saved by a combination of responsible and informed people including some from Wall Street. We know this economy was truly on the precipice because wacko extremists did so much harm due to low intelligence or their political agenda. Same people who sent 5000 American soldiers to unnecessary deaths in Mission Accomplished also said they want Obama and America to fail. No wonder people who have ethics want noderates; leaders with intelligence. Not a political agenda or religious doctrine.

How to identify those manipulated by a political agenda? They play political games of 'left' and 'right' rather than learn facts, honesty, and ethics.

The purpose of any honest business is its product and the resulting advancement of mankind.

[classicman]

many on Wall Street are still honest and ethical.

The rest went to work for the Obama administration or as lobbyists.

We know this economy was saved by ...blah blah blah

We are talking about attitudes on Wall Street, not the same old spin & deflection again.
Perfect, thank you for that. As anticipated in the bottom of this post.

The more you scream moderate, the more evident it is that you are anything but.

The purpose of any honest business is its product and the resulting advancement of mankind.

Through the sale of its products and/or services, perhaps?
What a frikkin concept.

[classicman]

I've seen a few lists. Some have SO MANY names on there, its ridiculous.
Politifact discredited MANY of them back in 2010, but they have, uncharacteristically, stayed away from the issue since then.
One can only wonder why.

[Lamplighter]

One item of behavior (?) among lists that I find unusual/interesting/curious...

It seems to me that if I go onto certain kinds of websites, often there is a "list of names".
Sort of like Madame Defarge knitting her list for the guillotine.
Maybe it's some kind of "Après la révolution !"

If it's there is no actual list, there seems to be paragraph after
paragraph of sentences linking one name to another to another...,
as if just the association to one another alone is enough for damnation.
One list I came upon by Googling recently had Supreme Court Justice Kagan
as one of the undesirables in the Omaba government.

Maybe I'm just not going to enough of the more "liberal" websites
to see the same phenomenon among them.

But I just don't get it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If you're going to regulate Wall Street, you have to recruit people who know how it works, where it cheats, and where the bodies are buried.
I just want to know who's checking on the checkers?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If you're going to regulate Wall Street, you have to recruit people who know how it works, where it cheats, and where the bodies are buried.
I just want to know who's checking on the checkers?

this is a good point. Having worked on Wall Street should not be an automatic condemnation. If this is the standard, why would we bother with the fellow who wrote the letter as he quit?

We can't, more importantly, we shouldn't try to avoid contact with people who've worked on Wall Street ( or big oil or big pharma or defense, whatever) on that basis only. Where would we recruit our leaders from? Sports teams? Joe the Plumber? It is important to have actual expertise in such technical areas in order to have a chance to be competent in such areas.

Who's checking the checkers? Another good point. We are those checkers, ultimately. But there are other checks and balances in our systems of government, auditors, oversight offices, open government laws, etc. WA has a good reputation as an open government, as states go. Laws that reassert the sovereignity of the people to make decisions as to what's important to know and what's not are crucial tools for keeping our elected officials honest. They are just as human as we are after all.

[Lamplighter]

I've completely lost track of which threads followed the securities/mortages fraud of 2008.
So I' putting this article here just because Goldman Sachs has been mentioned.

It's a very interesting read for the background of the SEC court cases,
and I recommend going to the original article in the link below.

This conviction of a mid-level employee may be the lever to open the way
to some higher-ups who were actually more culpable... or maybe not.

Dealbook
SUSANNE CRAIG and BEN PROTESS
8/1/13

Former Trader Is Found Liable In Fraud Case

A former Goldman Sachs trader at the center of a toxic mortgage deal
lost a closely watched legal battle on Thursday, giving Wall Street’s top regulator
its first significant courtroom victory in a case stemming from the financial crisis.

A federal jury found the trader, Fabrice Tourre, liable on six counts of civil securities fraud
after a three-week trial in Lower Manhattan. The case had given both sides
— the government and Mr. Tourre — a chance to repair their reputations.<snip>

The S.E.C. threw innumerable resources at Mr. Tourre’s case,
underscoring its importance to the agency. The onslaught began when
the S.E.C. opened an investigation into Goldman after the 2008 crisis.<snip>

Some critics have questioned why the agency chose to make Mr. Tourre
— a midlevel employee who was stationed in the bowels of Goldman’s mortgage machine — the face of the crisis.
Rather than aim at a high-flying executive, the agency pursued someone barely known on Wall Street.<snip>

For its part, the S.E.C. notes that it has won about 80 percent of its trials under Mr. Martens
and has sued 66 chief executives and other senior officers in cases related to the financial crisis.
S.E.C. officials also note that the agency files cases only where they can be proved,
even if that means not pursuing top executives insulated from the bad acts of their employees.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

One item of behavior (?) among lists that I find unusual/interesting/curious...

It seems to me that if I go onto certain kinds of websites, often there is a "list of names".
Sort of like Madame Defarge knitting her list for the guillotine.
Maybe it's some kind of "Après la révolution !"

If it's there is no actual list, there seems to be paragraph after
paragraph of sentences linking one name to another to another...,
as if just the association to one another alone is enough for damnation.
One list I came upon by Googling recently had Supreme Court Justice Kagan
as one of the undesirables in the Omaba government.

Maybe I'm just not going to enough of the more "liberal" websites
to see the same phenomenon among them.

But I just don't get it.

That's the basis of a lot of conspiracy theories. I'd guess you could find those types of associations in discussions of the Koch Brothers.