If you still don't get it, you have to understand that she was talking to the regulators who know and then go back to the 6th grade and brush up on the concept of context. Nobody is dodging here. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.
You are blatantly dodging (no firm has been named). What firms does Warren think the regulators should bring to trial? She is accusing the regulators of letting them off easy. So what firms does she claim the regulators let off easy and on what charge? I know I will never get an answer to this very basic question. That would be harmful to the witch hunt.
Page 2 of this thread lists 7 specific examples. Conveniently, you ignored those posts and those to respond to the ones that didn't have examples and say people aren't giving examples. If you're not going to acknowledge the responses you get, why bother?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...1_libor-rates-barclays-traders-interest-rates thank you, come again
If she is complaining about deals agreed to by the regulators, basic logic would dictate that the firms are the specific firms that have agreed to deals. You are either blindly trying to save face or you are a complete idiot. It isn't a witch hunt if you have seen them turning people into frogs.
If anything, the Fed Funds rate is a LIBOR derivative, depending on how you believe Taylor Rule guidance is being implemented in the Bernanke era (whether or not it is consistent with Fed public statements on this matter). LIBOR is one of the closest things to a private "pure" inter-temporal interest rate as there can be. well, it was until the world found it was being rigged. Insofar as the Fed looks to SLOOS for guidance, I am sure they look to LIBOR as well (though you'd probably have to scrutinize the FOMC minutes to tease that out). (yes, large Fed Funds Rate changes such as those in 2008 will drastically affect LIBOR---but it's not as simple as that. in times of relative stability, there's a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma here.)
And what firms is she referring to? If you accuse someone of murder you might want to mention who they murdered.... wouldn't you say who they turned into a frog?
Not if I was addressing a group of people who all saw it too. It would be apparent that my audience would know the witches I was referring to. It's pretty clear that this piece of basic logic eludes you. I would have preferred if Brown had been re-elected, but it doesn't make Warren wrong on this.
I'm sorry that the conservative party of this country attracts people like tallanvor, Refman. You deserve better.
I think I loss brain cells reading tallanvor's posts. Any case I'm glad she brought up the hypocrisy of the two legal systems. Imagine if drug dealers received plea bargains for 50 hours community service because trial was too much trouble. http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/3vk26x/chappelle-s-show-tron-carter-s-law---order
Doc Tal, Northside Storm listed the names of the firms in multiple posts in this thread. If anyone is dodging, it's you. Why are you dodging? You've gotten your answer several times and just ignored it. Have some self respect, and stop making yourself look bad.
OK, I didn't realize just how little you know about this stuff. Regulation does not necessarily "abolish" anything, it limits the actions one can take, requires disclosure of actions one takes, requires that the seller provide complete information about what they are selling to potential investors, and a myriad of other things that don't involve "abolishing risk taking" which was your claim. Regulation is what we do to make sure that the actions of free marketeers (Wall Street) actually meet with the definition of a "free market," things like complete and accurate information about investments, a lack of fraudulent or false claims about the products being sold, and legal recourse to make sure that those who engage in illegal actions end up facing penalties which match up with the level of criminal activities engaged in. It is about all of the above. It is about making sure that we actually have a "free market," not a rigged market, and it is about making sure that lawbreakers face the penalties prescribed by law.
WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, MOMMY, HE WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS BELIEVE LIES AND INACCURATE INFORMATION, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Keep believing the lies, the truth will still be here when you decide to look at reality.
Exactly. What some in this thread fail to realize is that financial regulations are not unlike any other law. The regulators have been making deals kind of like the DA making plea agreements. Warren's talks with the regulators is not unlike the mayor asking the DA why they are making so many plea deals with burglars. The mayor would not name each one by name.
Jesus, Warren is like Obama with a vagina (redundant?); all hopenchange, stringemup, with out any specifics about what, when, how, who..the why however is self evident: them that's got shall get, them that's not shall lose.
