The Financial System Is Rigged in Favor of the Rich

...nothing upsets people like the perception that the rules don't apply equally to everybody..., what many people felt after the 2008 bailouts of the financial system. The system was certainly at risk, and some government intervention was just as certainly necessary. Yet it ... didn't escape most Americans that TARP was the largest welfare program for corporations and their investors ever created in human history. ... TARP wasn't just the triumph of Wall Street over Main Street; it was the triumph of K Street over the rest of America.

One reason they objected was their perception that lobbying interests had influenced the intervention: 50 percent of respondents, for instance, thought that Paulson had acted in the interest of Goldman Sachs, not the United States.

But a stronger reason, presumably, was that the bailout made the system suddenly look fundamentally unfair. Why should outsourced workers, whose only fault was to have entered the wrong sector, bear the burden of market discipline, while rich bankers were offered a government safety net? ...

"paneocon is posting articles advocating social justice?"
#4 | POSTED BY ZARATHUSTRA

I'm advocating profiting off you gig government command and control socialists.

#5 | POSTED BY ZARATHUSTRA

I'm so touched about you concern for my finances, don't worry I still earn enough to pay the taxes that support you.

#7 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

I like this one better.

Bill Clinton's $80 Million Payday, or Why Politicians Don't Care That Much About Reelection

December 21, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis. Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City. A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.

#16 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

NORTHGUY3 didn't do his home work once again. What a surprise.

Conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, we are all getting screwed here. The primary article suggests that we must participate to take advantage of the rigged market. Only people with savings and the ability to put a portion of those savings at risk can participate. Also you have to consider that you have to profit in excess of your taxes, costs and inflation to have any meaningful gains. The rest of the folks are just standing around with their hand in their pockets while Ben Bernanke reduces the value of what ever assets they have.

Support politicians that want an end to "too big to fail"
Support politicians that will require higher collateralization for investment houses with large derivative positions.
Support politicians that want to throw the brakes on fractional trading.

If we get enough of these people in Washington there is a chance K Street can be slowed down.

#21 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

No my 1099's from my investments.