9 votes

It's Not Left vs Right, it's the People vs Fraudulent Bankers - Dylan Ratigan

http://youtu.be/kP3oRwXI558

David DeGraw, William Black, Dylan Ratigan Show 10/17/11



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's not Left vs Right, or Warfare State vs Welfare State,

or Govt's Fault vs Bankers' Fault, nor is it until now, the People vs the Fraudulent Bankers.

It is all about a systemic crime that's been going on for a century straight: A Symbiotic relationship between our govt. and the bankers that has to end sooner than later or our young nation is over. Many posts here have talked about the nature of this relationship. It's also why RP is running for President, to end the symbiosis, which includes the Military Industrial Complex.

Catheryn Austin Fitts named this lawless symbioses aptly: A Financial Coup d'etat. But an attempt to overthrow America by any other name.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Education

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/drexel.PDF

http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=2948&html=1

http://mises.org/daily/1885

http://blog.mises.org/5327/the-problem-with-fraud-fraud-thre...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/weiner7.html

This should make a pretty good start!

Edit: It wouldn't be complete not to mention the role of the Rockefellers, amongst others.

http://mises.org/resources/1223

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

The core problem is fraudulent banking - counterfeiting

Until you understand the core problem, you will not understand the correct solution, ending fractional reserve banking and unsound paper currency once and for all.

You could get lost in a lifetime of research without even realizing the core problem - many others have.

Yes WTP, I know...

All I have to do is understand that the state itself is not the problem.....the state isn't what enables these things to occur....and voila!

I guess I am one of the lost you mention....

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Who controls who?

Does the government control the bankers, or do the bankers control the government?

WTP,

you're conflating causation with correlation. I have been trying to point this out to you (and some others) all along.

I would encourage you to look closer at the logic you are employing on this issue. You seem bright enough to figure it out if you're willing to take the time necessary.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Answer the question, SpaceCowboy.

Do bankers control the government or does the government control the bankers?

I am happy that I finally

I am happy that I finally watched this one.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Good vs. Evil

imo.

donvino

Git 'em boys!

David DeGraw, William Black, Dylan Ratigan

So let me get this straight, we're suppose to let the banksters

have their way, look the other way, because well, what do we expect from them besides fraud, RICO violations, because, well it's a free market and the gov. they own [and everyone knows, you got no recourse against the gov. except when the next election comes around] so we should just lay down and take it? Is that about right? I guess I'm confused about this r3volution thang. Thought this post was about law & order. Thought I was on the Daily Paul. My bad.

Seriously, when did no law & order become "vs." or "the norm in a free-market system" when, afterall the govt allowed it-so, so should we allow it— is truly beyond me. The internet is littered with fraud by the TARP babies, TBTF collusion-RICO web sites. The best resource I could possibly offer is the stock, commodity and bond market every day- pure manipulation.

Need to change my moniker to gobbsmacked.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

1

1

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

0

0

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

It is not how you identify root causes, it is solutions offered

that matter.

Ratigan, DeGraw and Black are die hard progressives who believe government is the only answer. They want more government spending and regulations. They want central planning, not free market. So be careful. When you talk to progressives it always takes a while to know their real intentions. Most of them like to portray themselves centrists.

Just seeing Bill K Black's face was enough to click +

*author of "Best Way To Rob a Bank is to Own One"
*Special Prosecutor for Reagan. Put 1,500 bankers and investors behind bars for the S&L fraud.
*Has already testified in front of Congress about the realestate crimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CqaHTygSc&feature=related
*Has publicly said he's ready to go anytime Congress is if they need a SP for the realestate investigation.

Second only to RP, Statist roaches hide when they see Black coming. Woo-Hoo! He's also second only to Paul in Black Outs and Black Listings.

Great post.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

JPS,

Where did you get your information?

Black is a statist and an D.C. insider if there ever was one and he's been a tax-feeding, sleazeball for decades so, yes, I'm sure he does know the best way to legally steal tax-payers hard-earned money is to own the banks that are protected by the governments monopoly racket.

And the only thing many of those S&L investors that were put behind bars in the 1980's were guilty of was having the guts to take risks in the market without the moral hazard of the FDIC to protect them and not being politically well- connected. Can you tell me what Michael Milken's real crime was? And yeah, being a "Special Prosecutor" (read "human liberty violator for the state apparatus") for Reagan, the patron saint for all things conservative, means Black is really a trustworthy, honorable and noble voice of reason.

Furthermore, since Black allegedly understands economics and has been a D.C. insider for decades, surely he would have recognized the impending "real estate crimes" well before 2008 (a la, say, Ron Paul), so why didn't he speak up then?

Further still, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Black would LOVE to go to Congress related to any "investigations" so he can continue to feed out of the public trough and wreak havoc on what should ideally be a justice system, not a legal system (I'm sure Black has done quite well for himself and indoctrinated thousands of people with his poisonous teachings with that one!).

And lastly, "second only to RP...." Don't make me laugh.

Frankly, I would be embarrassed to have posted what you did regarding Black. You sound like a meme for the state.

Edit: And when I ask if you know what Mr. Milkens real crime was, I mean without looking at a reference of some sort. You know, like, off the top of your head like you know what you're actually talking about?

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Ron Paul believes...

one of the few valid roles of government is to prosecute fraud. Misrepresenting financial investments or using insider information or taking advantage of one's position of authority is fraud. Defining fraud in law is not meddlesome regulation anymore than is defining murder and theft as prosecutable.

If Black can bring forth actionable evidence of fraud with regards to the derivatives abuses and out-of-control money printing then more power to him.

Oh, and less than 15% of libertarians are anarchists and anarchists did not invent nor do they define libertarianism. They are just a small sect and relative late-comer to the game...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

And btw weebles,

Using the argument from authority as a basis for your argument is a logic fallacy, so while I highly respect, admire and support RP, he is not the Alpha and Omega.

He is not God and citing him does not make him the final court of arbitration in all things good and evil or anything else and I don't believe even he would disagree with this.

You're going to have to do better than that.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Are you serious? :D

I in NO WAY used "argument from authority". I did NOT justify an assertion by appealing to the opinion of an authority. I said a financial authority using their position of power and inside knowledge to reap financial gain for themselves or others is fraud.

Get a grip! (or read more slowly or brush up on your logical fallacies) :p

Also, if a supporting point of an assertion is in the form of a logical fallacy it does NOT mean the supporting point is always, or even usually, fallacious. It is just an analytical tool.

I'm no greenfoot kollege stoodint! That took place decades ago. Try again young grasshoppah! Wax on... wax off... :)

Your logic: "if a statement contains the word 'authority' then it is an appeal to authority"

FAIL!

Also, you are conflating the authority I mentioned with Black for some reason. I was speaking of a hypothetical wrong-doer that Black would be bringing evidence against.

Further, a statement of evidence, even when given by authorities, is just mere hearsay until the evidence is examined and corroborated.

Perhaps you were tired or in a hurry when you replied to my comment. :)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Yes, you did

attempt to use the argument from authority. You did this when you responded to my post when you stated "Ron Paul believes......".

Let's be clear here: No one is arguing fraud shouldn't be prosecuted, but we have to define what constitutes fraud first, do we not?

It's not until we define "fraud" can we say Milken or anyone else in the 1980's S&L collapse was actually guilty of it. You did not offer an answer to this, yet you responded to my post as if it's a brute given that he, and they, were guilty of it. This is where it appears to me that you attempted to use the argument from authority with "Ron Paul believes...".

Again, since no one has asserted that they believe true fraud should not be prosecuted, your statement "Ron Paul believes..." is out of place in the context of my post as anything other than an argument from authority (though I will concede the statement "Ron Paul believes..." could be just a simple, factual statement. This would be in a different context though and not when you are automatically assuming Milken or anyone else was guilty of fraud. Were they really is the question and a different one than I'm addressing here....maybe we'll get to that later).

I'm only going to deal with this one issue for now since I'm pressed for time at the moment. Thanks.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Well...

what Ron Paul believes is what this website is all about. Most of the people on DP are guilty of respecting him as an authority and wise sage. Sue me. In the absence of opportunity to research a relevant topic more thoroughly I feel very comfy going with whatever Ron Paul says about it until further investigation can be accommodated. :)

Fraud is super simple: misrepresenting something for financial or other gain. Basically it is lying.

With regards to Milken, neither I nor JPS addressed Milken specifically and my reply was not regarding him. Having said that, what is FACT about Milken is that he pioneered assembling diversified chunks of junk bonds into more benign sounding unified portfolios that were difficult to ascertain the true nature of the contents. It is a FACT that his sales force aggressively marketed these instruments to his clients without giving them an honest assessment and description of the quality and risks (fraud).

With regards to his involvement in the S&L crisis I have never taken the time to investigate either the charges or speculations. Also, his specific case is not relevant to the points of my original reply to your comment. In any case, the fact that he invented bundling chunks of trash into more benign and friendly appearing packages is enough for me to conclude he is guilty of being a criminal scoundrel and fraudster. :)

By the way, want to invest in my Super Dynamic God-Bless-America Diversified Fund I've put together? You could get very rich off of it! It contains a lot of known troubled assets but you don't need to know that because this is Amerika baby! Convince your grandparents to dump some money in my fund and I'll give you a commission! :D

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

In other words...

you don't really know much about economics, principles of the free-market and what really does and/or does not constitute fraud (even though you believe that you do) other than the government-approved version.

In other words, you haven't really taken the time to consider many of the nuances of these subjects for a more full-orbed and informed perspective.

I understand.

I would highly recommend looking into the matters discussed from somewhere other than your usual sources before drawing hasty conclusions on the 1980's S&L "frauds" and "collapse" since they were neither from a libertarian perspective.

I would also highly recommend taking a second look at Black, his anti-freedom philosophy and his role as a "Special Prosecutor" for the state and what all of this means from a libertarian perspective.

This day and age it's all easily accessible. Not to do it before publicly making false claims and mischaracterizations is simply irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

If you would like specifics, I would be more than willing cite and source for you.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Fraud...

fraud - Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; an attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means, particularly deception in contracts, or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth. (webster's 1828)
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fraud

fraud = a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting (merriam-webster's 11th edition)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Exactly what I said it was. And the definition was the same in 1828 as it is today. :)

Bundling known troubled assets into a package and then failing to inform the buyer of its quality and condition and/or portraying the package as a sound/healthy investment is FRAUD. Plain and simple. Always has been and always will be.

Your shifting to ad hominem (the logical fallacy of "argument from personal attack") changes nothing.

Milken pioneered financial instrument bundling fraud and paved the way for today's multi-QUADRILLION $ debt derivatives and mortgage fraud that is currently bringing the global economy to its knees and destroying the pensions of untold millions of people(and perhaps billions). Milken is the "Father of Modern Bankster Fraud"...

*shrugs*

You are conflating "free markets" with anarchy and market darwinism. Ron Paul's vision of free markets insists on honest contracts(non-FRAUDulent ones) and Ron Paul believes that contract enforcement and prosecution of fraud are valid, proper and necessary roles of governance.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

So weebles,

let me get this straight re: "insider information" and "fraud".

If I'm a trader in the market and I have a friend or aquaintance who's also a trader in the market and my friend happens to share something with me of importance that may profit me and I'm willing to take the risk(s) involved, he and I are guilty of "fraud" because this is "insider information", but, if I am, say, a plumber who happens to have a plumber friend or aquaintance who happens to share some information with me that if I am willing to take advantage of and risk on, I am not guilty of fraud or abusing my position to profit from? Is that correct? If so, what is it exactly that makes these two scenarios fundamentally different regarding their unlawfulness and prosecution?

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

OK...

If you, as a plumber, share info about prospective customers to your plumber buddy, then the only "danger" is that your buddy gets some new business at the expense of some other plumber.

If you, as an insider or regulator of the financial industry, use your knowledge of legally private financial activities to give someone heads up then you very well could be destroying the financial well-being (and sometimes physical lives) of thousands and even millions of innocents through collateral indirect losses in related third-party financial instruments.

If insider info in the financial and investment industry was legal then it would be nearly impossible for anybody but the insiders to make long-term positive gains on investments. And as financial investments are the backbone of retirements, pensions and bank holdings the potential for absolute widespread devastation of millions of lives is very very real and imminent. And in fact, this is precisely what has happened and what Ron Paul is railing against! (the multi-quadrillion $ debt derivatives crimes)

Insider info is in NO WAY any kind of fair competition. It is nothing but a rigged casino (fraud)...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

SC— youre making me laugh-youre entitled to your opinion,

your sophmoric poppy-cock, your mealy-mouthing hyperboly, but making you laugh? Whose trying to make whom laugh here?

Your 'disagreements' are not persuasive. But I welcome you to keep trying. May try using a few resources next time to support your, uh, opinions(?). I referenced mine.

I stand by the points I made regarding Black. You seem to have nothing less than disdain for the man. That much I get. Happy?

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

I notice you didn't

cite your source(s) even after I asked where you got your information from. I honestly didn't believe you would anyway.

And before you call anyone "sophmoric" again, you may want to double-check your punctuation and spelling. It's usually learned well before high school.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

My favorite sign is.......

On one side:

CONVICT
OBAMA for
TREASON &
WAR CRIMES

On the other side:

Convict
GW BUSH for
TREASON &
WAR CRIMES

When the 99% hold up that sign,.... I'm joining.

Aw the heck with it, I'm going to go make it.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Be Clear - The Fraud is Gov Monopoly on Fractional Reserve Debt

Don't get hung up on the Blah Blah Blah of Economic PhDs, using dialectic to confuse the masses (only to install something worse....)

The FRAUD is FRACTIONAL-RESERVE LENDING.

That fraud gets worse when made a monopoly by government, as in the case of the Feudal Reserve.

For anyone other than government-sanctioned Banks, if you only have $1000 in real money (gold, silver, or other assets, and NOT promises...), and you "lend" out $30,000 in PHONY "bills of credit" - that is the FRAUD.

29 people now hold title to the very same $1000 of true money assets - that is FRAUD.

Worse! - the Bank will receive title to REAL assets, on default of some percentage of the fraudulent "loans" they "made"!

To receive real assets as collateral, on defaults from payback of the phony "loans" the Banks made, (with the FED at the top), Banks must align themselves with the "thumb-breakers" (police, courts and armies) of government for "enforcement" - which they all of course, have!

Sir Josiah Stamp - Director of Bank of England - "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits (i.e. FRACTIONAL RESERVES...), and with the flick of the pen (ONLY), they will create enough deposits (PHONY "RESERVES") to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes such as mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money (OUT OF NOTHING) and control credit."

The Fed is...

a PRIVATE monopoly on money creation. The Constitution demands that the Govts are restricted to only use gold and silver while leaving private groups to engage in a free market (competition) of currency creation.

The Constitution does NOT forbid the People from trading in whatever currency they wish or create. Prior to the Civil War, and especially during the Free Banking Era, private banks created their own currencies all the time with all kinds of backings (land, crops, other metals, etc).

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~