Bobevenson's AEP manifesto

[bobevenson]

Your professed attitude to fraud is that it ignores the creditors of the failed banks, which includes everyone who has money saved in a bank.

I guess you never heard of the FDIC, huh?

[Obvious Leo]

I guess you never heard of the FDIC, huh?

I'm not quite following the connection here, Bob. Are you suggesting that if a bank insures its depositors' accounts against fraudulent behaviour by its own bank employees then those bank employees cannot be found guilty of fraud?

[bobevenson]

I guess you never heard of the FDIC, huh?

I'm not quite following the connection here, Bob. Are you suggesting that if a bank insures its depositors' accounts against fraudulent behaviour by its own bank employees then those bank employees cannot be found guilty of fraud?

You were suggesting that bank depositors can lose the money in their account.

[bobevenson]

I guess you never heard of the FDIC, huh?

I'm not quite following the connection here, Bob. Are you suggesting that if a bank insures its depositors' accounts against fraudulent behaviour by its own bank employees then those bank employees cannot be found guilty of fraud?

You were suggesting that bank deposits are at risk.

[Obvious Leo]

You were suggesting that bank deposits are at risk.

Try and pay attention, Bob. I wasn't the one talking about risk, mate, I was the one talking about fraud. If you choose to quote one of my comments in your post then you should address the substance of the comment which you choose to quote from. Everybody's bank deposits are at risk if the officials of the bank behave dishonestly but that is not the question at issue here. What I want to know is if you agree that bank employees should not be found guilty of a crime if they have indemnified their depositors against financial losses incurred as a result of their criminal behaviour?

[bobevenson]

Everybody's bank deposits are at risk if the officials of the bank behave dishonestly.

Listen, pal, you're just an ignorant foreigner trying to tell an American how our banks operate. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), all deposits are safe regardless of fraud, bankruptcy or anything else.

[Obvious Leo]

Listen up, Bob, and try and stick to the point. Undoubtedly I know more about how the US banking system works than you do but this is not the topic under debate. I'm well aware of the fact that FDIC guarantees bank customer deposits against all manner of possible catastrophes but my question was directed at the nature of criminal liability for fraud. For your exclusive benefit I've tried to phrase my question in words of few syllables but what I'm seeking to establish is whether you agree that FDIC also indemnifies bank employees against criminal sanctions for their conduct? Do you actually understand this question, Bob, because it goes right to the very heart of the GFC scandal?

[bobevenson]

You must be psychotic. You said, "Everybody's bank deposits are at risk if the officials of the bank behave dishonestly." I advised you that the FDIC protects depositors from officials of a bank behaving dishonestly, and yet you are still arguing the point. See a doctor, my friend.

[Obvious Leo]

Forget it, Bob. It seems we've got some sort of language barrier happening here.

[bobevenson]

Forget it, Bob. It seems we've got some sort of language barrier happening here.

You could have fooled me, I thought we were speaking English.

[Obvious Leo]

I thought we were speaking English.

No doubt you did, Bob. I've noticed over the years that many Americans fall into a similar error.

[bobevenson]

I thought we were speaking English.

No doubt you did, Bob. I've noticed over the years that many Americans fall into a similar error.

Hey, let me know when you stop calling the hood of a car a bonnet, OK?

[mickthinks]

Mick: Bob, you are trying to change the subject, which was whether you believe that nothing went wrong with the free investment banking market in the lead up to the global financial crisis, and indeed, whether you deny that there was a global financial crisis. And the problem you gloss over with that "caveat emptor" doctrine (apart from it being inconsistent with your professed attitude to fraud) is that it ignores the creditors of the failed banks, which includes everyone who has money saved in a bank, life insurance or pension fund.
Bob: I guess you never heard of the FDIC, huh?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?! lol

Bob, your faith in financial institutions and their ability to bail everyone out in the event of the collapse of the financial markets they depend on, is as touching as it is naîve. It seems you have no understanding of global finance and the depth of the crisis that nearly overwhelmed us in 2008 and may yet still do so.

The FDIC is a sticking plaster. Sure it will cope with a minor cut, but it's no use in a hospital ward full of cardiac arrest cases.

[Obvious Leo]

the crisis that nearly overwhelmed us in 2008 and may yet still do so.

It remains a ticking time bomb, Mick. The US managed to shift the cost of its bank bailouts onto smaller nations elsewhere by the clever use of quantitative easing, which effectively devalued its own currency. This is the way the US has always paid its debts but this time around the rest of the world is biting back. The Japanese, Chinese and Europeans are now all printing money like crazy and this will slowly undo the gains which the US made by this process. In the meantime the banks which were too big to fail in 2008 are now even bigger and still remain unregulated so the the fall of the axe is inevitable under the pressure of a continuing world-wide property bubble.

[mickthinks]

It remains a ticking time bomb, Mick.
I agree, Leo. It is also moving OT, I think