Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, May 28, 2009

What He Said

Posted by on Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Matt Taibbi, at TrueSlant:

Having written one of many articles identifying [former AIG chief] Cassano as a key cause of the crisis, I guess I and people like me should have seen this coming — that at some point down the road a general consensus would form blaming some rogue individual for the financial crisis. And while Joe Cassano is certainly as guilty as a person can be, the notion that he alone is responsible for this mess is not only appalling but extremely dangerous. The people who would believe such a thing are the same people who believe that this crisis might have been avoided if a few minor changes had been made. I’ve heard people say, for instance, that much havoc could have been avoidded if there had just been a law mandating margin requirements for CDS contracts, so that people like Cassano couldn’t make bets without the money to pay off.

This is bullshit. And it’s dangerous bullshit. The problem isn’t a few technical glitches in the system that allowed the Cassanos of the world to drive Mack Trucks of leverage through a loophole or two. The problem is, at its roots, a profound collapse of morals on Wall Street that would have found its way to financial destruction using any available set of instruments and laws. We are talking about people who sold giant rafts of bullshit mortgages to pensions, who stuck municipalities, innocent taxpayers, with time-bombs of subprime debt. And not just one trader here and there, but thousands of them, with the sober approval of the highest level executives in the biggest firms. On its most basic level what these people did is rip off huge institutional investors — old people, taxpayers, you and me — by finding ways to game the system and trick the big institutional fund managers into buying what they thought were safe investments, but were actually financial lemons that could barely make it out of the lot.

It doesn’t matter what tools they used. That’s immaterial. Is it true that the CDO made it easier to fool the ratings agencies, made it simpler to sell crap as AAA-rated paper? Yes. But the operative problem here isn’t the CDO but the fact that someone who makes a million dollars a year was willing to sell crap as a safe investment to pensioners. An honest man does not do this. Are there used-car dealers who would? Sure. But that’s why we joke about used car dealers, and only trust them about as far as we can throw them, and generally don’t buy used cars until we’ve had our mechanic look under the hood.

With one amendment. There is nothing new about this sort of amoral, sociopathic and ultimately catastrophic behavior on Wall Street.

 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
Look, the problem is that our system makes it so that risk has little or no consequence - and may even lead to bonus payments as your firm is liquidated - so it's all upside.

This is why we need trials with imprisonment until found guilty for these folk - and trust-busting of all the "too big to fail" firms.

All of them.

Every single one.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 28, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Vince 2
The stock market is a pyramid scheme. If you put your money there, you are a sucker. Plain and simple.
Posted by Vince on May 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM
3
I make 25k a year and signed up for a 40 year interest only mortgage on a 500k house and financed 100% of a spankin new Hummer (with big rims), but this is all the fault of these big wall street assholes. I bear no blame at all. I mean how could I have possibly understood that I can't afford to buy these things no matter what someone tells me? Well, I should go now, I have to take the wife and 6 kids out to eat at Applebees and run up more credit card debt. Because when you use a credit card, you never have to repay that either, right?
Posted by john cocktosin on May 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Collin 4
Getting pissed at Wall Street for only being interested in the bottom line at the expense of morality is like a PETA member getting pissed at a lion for eating a gazelle. It only serves to exasperate you, and confuse the aggressor.

The only thing that works to regulate Wall Street are (GASP) regulations. With actual enforcement of those regulations.

Its the job of Wall Street traders to maximize profit. Period. Nothing else. Do you really want Wall Street traders to be the vanguards of morality?

Its the job of the government to make and enforce rules. The cause of this collapse was the removal of rules that helped to stabilize the economy and made the potential and actual penalties for the remaining regulations too soft and too unlikely to be enforced. People on wall street made a judgment that their potential return outweighed potential risk (profit maximizing...see how that works).

The fixes? Re-regulate. Make the potential risk more likely and make it greater than the potential return on breaking the rules.
Posted by Collin on May 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Julie in Eugene 5
I would add this link link to your "there is nothing new" amendment. I picked this book up after Enigma's review a couple months ago, and let's just say the earliest financiers in this country were equally amoral and sociopathic.

Most people are inherently selfish and don't care who they screw over to get ahead (depending on how cynical I'm feeling this varies from "some" to "all"). This is perhaps more true of people who are attracted to high-level, high-paying careers on Wall Street. The purpose of regulation is to try to stay one step ahead of these guys to limit the amount of damage they do.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on May 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The Amazing Jim 6
You know, football would be so much better without the rules and referees. Like wall street.
Posted by The Amazing Jim http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=100000076496291&ref=profile on May 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 7
Yeah, but what would John Galt do?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on May 28, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Will in Seattle 8
John Galt would avoid military service, he hates America that much.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM
eclexia 9
This is a re-hash of the old Confucian/legalist debate in China centuries ago.

One side says that you much instill moral behavior in the people. The other side says you must assume the people are immoral and construct a system of rewards and punishments to get a desired behavior.
Posted by eclexia on May 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy