Wall Street Makes Mafia Small -Timers
The New York Mafia runs illegal rackets...Scams, protection, union
deals, gambling, drug distribution, prostitution, etc. Most of their
activities are unlawful and there are efforts made by law enforcement
to control such activities.
Wall Street does not violate many laws because our legislators and regulators are paid not to write laws that protect the average investor. The only illegal activity that gets much attention is insider trading. Candidly speaking, if you aren't getting profitable tips and you are working on Wall Street, you are either very honest or very stupid. I strongly believe that the "real" profit made in the finance industry stays in New York or is transferred to off-shore accounts.
I am not knowledgeable relative to Mafia involvement with Wall Street. If I had knowledge, I can assure you that I wouldn't paint a bulls' eye on my chest by posting it here. Smarter folks than I are paid generous salaries to seek out those types of connections. Plus, they have subpoena powers and body guards.
Wall Street does not violate many laws because our legislators and regulators are paid not to write laws that protect the average investor. The only illegal activity that gets much attention is insider trading. Candidly speaking, if you aren't getting profitable tips and you are working on Wall Street, you are either very honest or very stupid. I strongly believe that the "real" profit made in the finance industry stays in New York or is transferred to off-shore accounts.
I am not knowledgeable relative to Mafia involvement with Wall Street. If I had knowledge, I can assure you that I wouldn't paint a bulls' eye on my chest by posting it here. Smarter folks than I are paid generous salaries to seek out those types of connections. Plus, they have subpoena powers and body guards.
Advertisement
















http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLa_NCAf_kU
October 24, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - I disagree. There's many many many people on Wall Street who make a ton of money irregardless of whether regulators write laws to protect small investors. All of the M&A, LBO and other bankers make tons of money, and I don't think it's because of lack of regulation.
The "Wall Street" that people see ala Gordon Gecko and the other movies is just a very small part of the overall business. But somehow people get caught up in the media.
October 24, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What color is the sky in your world MCB? Wall Street has destroyed the middle class and may have destroyed the worlds' financial balance! Casinos are regulated...Wall Street has bought and paid for its' own regulators. The appointed regulators have dogs in the fight and the legislators are no more than whores. I know nothing about you, but I wouldn't take you to a shit fight to use you for a shield!
October 25, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just like to see some facts or reasoning behind all your accusations and grand statements. The profits stay in New York or transferred to off-shore accounts? Mafia involvement? C'mon.
October 25, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/31/2009-05-31_mafia_wanted_killer_deal_on_wall_st_plot_to_whack_a_suspected_rat_is_caught_on_t.html
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/russian-mafia-in-bed-with-wall-street-ceo-says-1.342694
http://www.wallstreetscandals.com/PARTI/criminal_activity/mafia3.html
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Steal-When-Mafia-Street/dp/0446528579
October 25, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point of those articles is that the Mafia is trying to steal from Wall Street. But you made it sound like they are controlling Wall Street or running it. I don't believe that's the case and there's a big difference between controlling/running it and trying to steal FROM it. They are going to attempt illegal scams just like Madoff, Stanford, Boesky and others. But because there are crooks within the system doesn't make the system crooked.
October 25, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClassBill:
I want to apologize for the previous negative comment I made to you. I get overly defensive from time to time and turn into a "keyboard warrior." Again...My apologies!
October 25, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accepted. My view is that there are bad apples on Wall Street. But the majority of people in the industry are not crooked nor can they be blamed for the current credit crisis. Unfortunately we are in a mess right now that was driven by a few but affects many.
October 25, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
irregardless y tu McBill?
October 25, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, first off, we already have a CT and Chuck is Chuck. Let's differentiate, because there's a huge world of difference there.
Second...there is no such word as irregardless. It's simply "regardless". Trust me on this one.
Third...there's many, many people making tons more on Wall Street than they used to make, and that's because of deregulation. There are also many, many people going homeless and jobless, and that is also because of deregulation.
If you want to think that we all hate the Gordon Gecko's without us realizing what's going on behind the scenes, then you're watching too many films, and not seeing enough of what's really going on in the real world.
October 25, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did deregulation help people make more money? How is deregulation making people jobless?
October 25, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phil Gramm and his wife (an Enron board member)were deeply involved in implementing today's financial fiasco.
Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis.[8][9] The Act is most widely known for repealing portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry.[10]
Gramm responded to criticism of the act by stating that he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was caused in any way "by allowing banks and securities companies and insurance companies to compete against each other."[11] The Act passed the House by an overwhelming majority and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, though it was introduced on the last day before Christmas holiday and never debated by either congressional body. [12]
Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.[13]
In its 2008 coverage of the financial crisis, The Washington Post named Gramm one of seven "Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives", for having "[p]ushed through several major bills to deregulate the banking and investment industries, including the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that brought down the walls separating the commercial banking, investment and insurance industries".[14]
2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman, a supporter of Barack Obama, described Gramm during the 2008 presidential race as "the high priest of deregulation," and has listed him as the number two person responsible for the economic crisis of 2008 behind only Alan Greenspan.[15][16] On October 14, 2008, CNN ranked Gramm number seven in its list of the 10 individuals most responsible for the current economic crisis.[17] In January 2009 Guardian City editor Julia Finch identified him as one of twenty-five people who were at the heart of the financial meltdown.[18] Time included Gramm in its list of the top 25 people to blame for the economic crisis.[19]
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".
October 25, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure your source. But I don't agree that the GLB Act was the reason why we got into the mess we're in right now. I think people like Krugman definitely are biased and it's hard to listen to what he has to say.
People incorrectly (in my opinion) think that the GLB Act repealed Glass Steagall, which separated investment banking from commercial banking. But before the GLB Act, investment banks were already allowed and were active in trading and underwriting those toxic mortgage securities that many people have read about. Commercial banks already had Section 20 subsidiaries that were allowed to underwrite securities and do "investment banking" type activities.
The shift of investment banks into holding substantial trading portfolios resulted from their increased capital base as a result of most investment banks becoming publicly held companies, a structure allowed under Glass-Steagall.
Two of the bigger failures - Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers - weren't really impacted by the GLB Act. They were pure investment banks that didn't decide to merge with commercial banking companies. They would have still made all the wrong risk decisions even if GLB had never passed. The off-balance sheet activities of Bear and Lehman were allowable prior to the act's passage. Nor did these trading activities undermine any affiliated commercial banks, as Bear and Lehman did not have affiliated commercial banks. Additionally, those large banks that did combine investment and commercial banking have survived the crisis in better shape than those that did not (such as Chase and Bank of America and Wells Fargo).
And as for the "unregulated" derivatives market - I don't think that increased regulation would have prevented what happened. I don't think the regulation (such as putting derivatives on to a common clearing system or exchange) would have prevented AIG from writing massive amounts of CDS contracts. Derivatives do not create losses, they simply transfer them; for every loss on a derivative position there is a corresponding gain on the other side; losses and gains always sum to zero. Transferring that risk to a centralized counterparty with capital requirements would have likely been no more effective than was aggregating the bulk of risk in our mortgages markets onto the balance sheets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
October 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB:
I should have referenced my previous post. It was copy\pasted from Wikipedia. (Which "is" a derivative of opinions.)
Since I have no expertise in high-finance, I depend on the statements of people that, supposedly, are. According to your posts we are delusional...The financial system couldn't be better. What more can I say?
October 25, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I didn't use the term delusional nor did I say that things couldn't be better. But in times like this we like to look for scapegoats and find things easy to blame without really digging in.
Here's one thing from the NYTimes and there's also info on factcheck.org
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/did-deregulation-cause-the-credit-crisis/
October 25, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think that there has been a lack of regulation and there is plenty of evidence to that affect. The point is, has the change in Administrations changed this condition or not?
That is the issue. I know that an awful lot of agencies, including Interior, State, DOJ, have changed drastically in their aims, purposes and approaches.
BUT I DO NOT TRUST BANKERS RUNNING THE DAMN FED AND SEC.
THE END
October 25, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most priceless comments during one set of hearings on financial matters was made by Timothy Geithner: 'As Head of the New York Fed, I wasn't a regulator.'
Well, he just put the problem in a nutshell; for that was exactly his job description.
I watch Frontline 'The Warning" again last night; it's impossible to feel hopeful that there will be any shake-up in regulatory reform. When our President went to Wall Street to make his, 'now, now, boys; no more of that' speech, the big banks didn't even send representatives to the room.
By the by, we should all be sending candy-grams to Brooksley Born for her heroic efforts at preventing some portion of the meltdown. And Elizabeth Warren, head of the Consumer Protection Agency, is also Not For Sale. FDIC head Sheila Baer (spelling?) also rocks, and Maria Cantwell is on the case in the House. What is up with these women today? Braving the Lion's Den and all that; I am so bleeping proud of them!
October 25, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink