SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: NOW who wrote (106819)1/19/2010 2:06:04 AM
From: mishedlo4 Recommendations  Read Replies (5) of 116555
 
There is a difference between a conspiracy to profit from the implosion and a conspiracy to CAUSE an implosion to profit by it.

Many here, I thought you included but the debate got so heated it is hard to tell, believe Bernanke and the banks purposely caused an implosion to benefit the larger banks.

I think Bernanke is a "brilliant dunce" lacking in all common sense and that is what Occam's Razor suggests as well.

Now, that issue out of the way, and I don't want to debate that issue (I just want to make my position crystal clear), there is a question about "conspiring to profit from the implosion".

As I explained already but will try once more (again no debate, I just want to clarify) depends on what one means by conspiracy.

I do not believe individual banks hiring lobbyists to press Congress for rules constitutes a conspiracy. If you do believe that constitutes a conspiracy, then by YOUR definition, I agree.

Now, if you tell me that CEOs from JPM, C, BAC, etc got together and agreed to press for such legislation, then I would call that a conspiracy. I just do not think that happened. Again, Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise simply because each bank, on its own accord would have reason to press for rules to benefit it and it just so happens that said rules would benefit all the big banks.

However, and I have been very clear on this from the beginning.... I fully believe Geithner, Bernanke, Lewis, and Paulson WERE all involved in various conspiracies to defraud taxpayers to bail out banks. They have also lied to cover it up. I believe these conspiracies are crystal clear.

I never said otherwise. Indeed my blog posts prove my position. However, and again to clarify my position, I do not think anyone in that group (Geithner, Bernanke, Lewis, Paulson) got together before the crisis and said "let's cause a crisis for the benefit of the big banks."

Others here have said that.
If you did not say that then I apologize for mistaking you for someone else.

So yes, there were conspiracies, in the WAKE of the collapse, not to CAUSE a collapse and the difference is immense.

Mish
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext