Comments on: Stress tests: The results are in, now what? Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Benny Acosta Tue, 12 May 2009 03:35:17 +0000 Gd, your comments speak to my point exactly. These people won’t do what’s right. Either because they have an interest in the way things are, or they just have no idea how to do things differently, or both.
They work in the interests of their own and themselves.

An automated system just allocates money where it’s needed in order to balance everything out. Humans don’t want balance in the true sense. We want power, balanced in our favor. Tim and Ben are living proof. So are Hank Paulson, Allen Greenspan, and Barney Frank. Look at Specter’s naked grab for power by switching to the Democratic party.

Human “leaders” can only be trusted to grab what they can for themselves. And this they will do until there is nothing left to have. Money as a resource was meant to be shared by all and not used as a medium to exert control over others.

There is no other technical fix for this economy unless money is put back in its place, and profit is no longer a motive.

By: gd Mon, 11 May 2009 23:51:12 +0000 I hope Tim and Ben once they have retired as public servants don’t take a cent from wall street in “consulting fees” ( or maybe we should call them kickbacks for the trillion dollar handouts at taxpayers expense) Tim and Ben should be forced to sign agreements now that would state they will not make any money in the future due to their present generosity. NOT LIKELY!

By: daniele adami Mon, 11 May 2009 15:25:16 +0000 Just one thing more should happen after your points.
Banker’s income should be decoupled from share value and company’s profits. The remodelling of their income not fully connetced to equity stakes and involved interests, should/could help, in addition to your 4 point remarks, to refocus on recalibrated risk-taking.

By: Benny Acosta Mon, 11 May 2009 14:45:44 +0000 It’s true that humans write the software. But code can be fixed. Human behavior is impossible to externally control to any meaningful degree.

But if that software were to created to meet specific objectives and nothing more, then it becomes much easier to identify and correct flaws.

Human beings like to hide behind excuses. Wealth allocation and utilization will never be equitable while a few humans control the majority of available resources. Nor will it be equitable while humans control the accounting system.

Money by design was intended to be a universal resource to facilitate REAL resource exchange. This idea was thrown out in favor of a model that uses money as a means of control. If all human beings posses an equal ability to purchase resources, it will be impossible for any one to control anyone else on the basis of denial of resources. This opens a whole new set of social challenges. But it is a much more productive goal for our collective human brilliance than simply figuring out how to stay in survival mode by fixing this outdated economic caste system.

By: Anubis Mon, 11 May 2009 13:46:42 +0000 There is just one problem with computer controlled financial markets and industries. Humans write the software. On the surface everyone having a stake in the company they work for or institution they bank with sounds good. The privileges and authority of board members would need to be seriously curtailed. I think an analogy to congress is useful here.

Most would agree if all private financing of political campaigns were outlawed then candidates would have to win on the issues not the best fund raising abilities to pay for air time. The hitch is that would not favor the incumbent who usually has the biggest financial war chest. So how do we bring about change. The British passed legislation to ban all corporate and business funding from elections. That, for the United States, would be a huge start. This would greatly limit the influence industries have upon Congress and putting citizens back in Congress’ ear.

The air ways belong to the American People. Television and radio broadcasting companies pay modest licensing fees to provide programing across these airways. In return many of these corporations make millions if not billions of dollars. In the interest of public service, broad casters should be required to provide equal time to any candidate who’s name appears on any election ballot free of charge.

Further the debate organizers should be prohibited from excluding any candidate who’s name appears on a ballot from participating in said debate. Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of this in Presidential debates for decades. Even more sickening is the candidates practice of approving which questions will be allowed to be asked during the debate.

We need something like the “Prime Ministers Questions” in British Parliament all throughout U.S. political discourse. Our leaders need to be put on the hot seat. Particularly the President.

By: Benny Acosta Mon, 11 May 2009 13:07:21 +0000 This economy is going to get worse. That much is certain. Nothing is being done in our interests. Money is being shifted around. “New rules” are being forged but that’s only because most Americans recognize the fact that there are plenty loopholes in our business law. So now they have to make new loopholes we don’t know about, that they can use to suck more money out of the obedient working class.

If you work for a living you are not in control of your life. If you own the resources people need in order to do their work, then you have control over other people to he degree that they need what you own. And those who control wish to retain that control.

We don’t value work and innovation any more. We value money for its own sake. And when you value money for its own sake, the idea of human suffering becomes nothing more than a statistic. And those who actually care about human suffering and speak up on it, are simply ignored or thought of in some negative light.

Keep talking about how to fix this system in the technical sense and you will miss the point of this whole fiasco. Any system that requires that there be human losses in order to work is fundamentally wrong.

Those who ignore this fact do so to their own detriment. The bankers, lawyers, and politicians want you to believe the idea that if they can take your money to fix their systems up again, you can go right back to work for them and continue your happy abusive relationship of living paycheck to paycheck. And maybe you can make enough money to get that HD TV you’ve been eyeing since you lost your job. Maybe that will dull your pain.

If all you want is for this system to be fixed, then you deserve what ever suffering befalls you. It’s not like Americans don’t already know they’re being screwed by the powers that be. But like beaten wives, most of us don’t know anything else, and so we are content to let Wall Street and Washington abuse us, tax us and hurl us into poverty once our usefulness has been extracted.

By: SVN Mon, 11 May 2009 12:47:58 +0000 As long the powerful and corrupt Financial OLIGARCHY is controlling the regulators and the Congress, all the discussions are MOOT!

By: Survivor? Mon, 11 May 2009 05:21:21 +0000 “bankers and regulators should increase the effective use of risk-management and planning tools in managing bank-related risk.”
How many functions of a bank could work more effectively if the credit issue model, rules and process were “open source”.
How many functions of a bank require a richpigs club and contacts, and the wholesale intimidation and extortion of politicians and taxpayers.
When AIG paid $100Ms of bonuses to “retain the skills” to clean up the hidden mess of unwinding CDSs, one prof said he could do it with his graduate class and some basic office labour.
The US/western financial system has enlarged and turned cancerous and the huge tumor is draining the blood supply, and constricting breathing, and only the rich have pain killers.

By: The Bell Mon, 11 May 2009 04:21:57 +0000 Q: How does the U.S. government currently stress-test zombies?

A: By how much taxpayer flesh the zombies can eat with nothing in return.

By: gd Mon, 11 May 2009 00:23:58 +0000 Taxpayers around the world now are either the largest shareholders in these big banks or guaranteeing the asset. So if in the name of transparency this stress test is the best the US government can offer we are indeed back into the dark ages. Taxpayers should be offered total access to these banks accounts so we can make up our own minds, not this bullshit stress test that it the amounts of capital needed seem to change if the banks don’t like the figures they were given. Come on Tim and Ben who are you representing?