Posted on 03/06/2013 4:19:18 PM PST by Neidermeyer
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today:
I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions [banks] becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy
As weve repeatedly noted, this is wholly untrue.
If the big banks were important to the economy, would so many prominent economists, financial experts and bankers be calling for them to be broken up?
If the big banks generated prosperity for the economy, would they have to be virtually 100% subsidized to keep them afloat?
If the big banks were helpful for an economic recovery, would they be prolonging our economic instability?
In fact, failing to prosecute criminal fraud has been destabilizing the economy since at least 2007 and will cause huge crashes in the future.
After all, the main driver of economic growth is a strong rule of law.
Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy wont recover:
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Please goto and read the link.
*******************FULL TITLE************* The Government Has It Bass-Ackwards: Failing To Prosecute Criminal Fraud by the Big Banks Is Killing NOT Saving the Economy ******************************************
This works both ways, the rules cannot be such that 'the powerful' are automatically in the wrong, for the obvious reason that in that situation they are not 'the powerful', but instead being used as scapegoats by those making the rules.
(i.e. theft from the rich does not cease to be theft because "they can afford it" -- but neither are those things which are sized fraudulently* theirs.)
* This applies to abstract things like using power or lies to seize 'authority' (or rather the appearance thereof) which the law does not grant -- like a legislative act to do something unlawful and call it 'the law'.
Your first mistake is mentioning Stiglitz. He’s the Marxist’s favorite economist. If you’re blaming the banks for the crisis, you’ve learned nothing.
They are working on destroying the smaller banks and everybody who worked in them or ran them with some sort of decision authority.
This administration wants 3 banks - nationwide. All the easier to control.
You, sir, are among those who get it.
These are not big bad Republicans saying this. These are known socialist espousing the very fundamental philosophy that they campaign against.
I swear I must be living in a different universe.
Yes, I agree its all about power and control. Hugo would be proud of our little dictator
There will never be serious prosecution of “Wall Street” because the financial people there learned all their bad habits from the government - it was Fannie Mae that first started pushing the subprime and nodoc mortgages that the private lenders later gorged on - same for peddling shaky mortgage deriviatives that led to the collapse of credit in 2008 - take too close a look at what happened back then and half the ‘rat party, including Cuomo, Waters, Cisneros, Clinton, Dodd, Frank, and James Johnson, will end up in jail.....
http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
Your first mistake is mentioning Stiglitz.
********************************************
I don’t know him and don’t care ... he’s speaking the truth.
Read “The Housing Boom and Bust” By Tom Sowell and/or “The Great American Bank Robbery” by Paul Sperry. Forget leftist nincompoops like Stiglitz. His intent is to focus attention to the financial institutions and away from the federal government which was the true creator of the disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.