Everybody knows that the world revolves around one thing, and one thing only – money. But much like independent farmers, tiny businesses in the financial sector must contend with onerous laws that favor the big companies.
The financial business is subject to a plethora of laws and regulations that must be followed. We shouldn’t think it exists because the great majority of it doesn’t safeguard consumers or individual investors. Politicians use it as an excuse to divert the public’s attention from the fact that very large corporations and broker firms dislike competition from smaller businesses. Because they can afford to pay for the regulations, whereas the little corporations cannot, they bind the tiny businesses in red tape. However, it is not for the investor’s benefit. They use this action to support large brokerage businesses seeking to shield themselves from rivalry.
Naturally, the revolving door occurs when politicians leave their positions in government to take well-paying positions at the businesses they formerly oversaw. They so oscillate between the government, the industry, and the government again, and in reality, what they are doing is selling their influence. They enter politics in order to gain power, cultivate relationships, and then sell that power to the highest bidder.
Regretfully, the finance sector could provide the clearest example of how large business and government are entwined. Consider the case of Jacob Lew, who served as Treasury Secretary from 2013 to 2017. It has been revealed that he received a 950,000 USD bonus from his previous company Citigroup simply for accepting a position at the Treasury. From 2006 until 2010, he served as Citigroup’s (Alternative Investment Unit) Chief Operating Officer. Jacob Lew managed the hedge fund that placed a gamble on the collapse of the housing market while serving as Citigroup’s Chief Operating Officer. The third-biggest bank in the United States, Citigroup, was given $45 billion in bailout money in 2008.
To witness the evidence of fascism, one need only examine four uncomplicated terms: The combination of corporate and state power is TOO BIG TO FAIL. The entire landscape shifted in 2008 with the American financial crisis. The banks encountered difficulties. They presented Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs from 1998 to 2006 and U.S. Secretary of Treasury from 2006 to 2009, and claimed they had to save the banks because they were too big to fail.
Neel Kashkari was put forth by President Bush in November 2007 for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Economics and Development. Wall Street was bailed out thanks to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Kashkari created and administered. Known by his stage name “The Bailout Czar,” Kashkari worked as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in bailout funds in 2008. They paid out $48 billion in bonuses that year.
The largest economic collapse since the Great Depression occurred during the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. The financial media called for tighter rules on the banking sector during the crisis. Because the problems were being caused by the Federal Reserve and the US government, some economists were discussing the housing crisis as early as 2002. Some economists contend that the regulators’ collusion with the financial industry was the primary cause of the crisis, rather than just Wall Street. The regulation was the root cause of the issue. The Federal Reserve lowered the interest rate to 1% in order to boost the economy. This made it possible for consumers to purchase homes with more affordable loans.
Additionally, the government was guaranteeing the mortgage during this period. The actual issue was this. People desire a safe location to keep their money, which is how the market controls banks. They will therefore search for a safe location. As a result, banks are forced by market forces to take responsible measures in order to draw deposits. However, once the government steps in and guarantees that the client’s money will always be safe, the consumer no longer values safety because it has been assured by the government. Government regulation has two problems: it becomes politicized and is ineffectual. Therefore, the government was driving the drive to lower the standards during the housing days as landing standards were continually being dropped.
Because housing was promoted as a means of achieving financial success and because the government was forcing banks to reduce down payments, voters were compelled to purchase more homes. Due to the government’s efforts to set things right and provide citizens with the assurance that they would be taken care of if something went wrong, the banks and mortgages became hazardous, and as a result, no one seemed to care.
And then when it doesn’t work, capitalism gets a bad name as if anything of this has anything to do with capitalism.
How do governments collude with corporations, lobbyists, NGOs and academia to suppress your freedom? (14)
Everybody knows that the world revolves around one thing, and one thing only – money. But much like independent farmers, tiny businesses in the financial sector must contend with onerous laws that favor the big companies.
The financial business is subject to a plethora of laws and regulations that must be followed. We shouldn’t think it exists because the great majority of it doesn’t safeguard consumers or individual investors. Politicians use it as an excuse to divert the public’s attention from the fact that very large corporations and broker firms dislike competition from smaller businesses. Because they can afford to pay for the regulations, whereas the little corporations cannot, they bind the tiny businesses in red tape. However, it is not for the investor’s benefit. They use this action to support large brokerage businesses seeking to shield themselves from rivalry.
Naturally, the revolving door occurs when politicians leave their positions in government to take well-paying positions at the businesses they formerly oversaw. They so oscillate between the government, the industry, and the government again, and in reality, what they are doing is selling their influence. They enter politics in order to gain power, cultivate relationships, and then sell that power to the highest bidder.
Regretfully, the finance sector could provide the clearest example of how large business and government are entwined. Consider the case of Jacob Lew, who served as Treasury Secretary from 2013 to 2017. It has been revealed that he received a 950,000 USD bonus from his previous company Citigroup simply for accepting a position at the Treasury. From 2006 until 2010, he served as Citigroup’s (Alternative Investment Unit) Chief Operating Officer. Jacob Lew managed the hedge fund that placed a gamble on the collapse of the housing market while serving as Citigroup’s Chief Operating Officer. The third-biggest bank in the United States, Citigroup, was given $45 billion in bailout money in 2008.
To witness the evidence of fascism, one need only examine four uncomplicated terms: The combination of corporate and state power is TOO BIG TO FAIL. The entire landscape shifted in 2008 with the American financial crisis. The banks encountered difficulties. They presented Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs from 1998 to 2006 and U.S. Secretary of Treasury from 2006 to 2009, and claimed they had to save the banks because they were too big to fail.
Neel Kashkari was put forth by President Bush in November 2007 for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Economics and Development. Wall Street was bailed out thanks to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Kashkari created and administered. Known by his stage name “The Bailout Czar,” Kashkari worked as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in bailout funds in 2008. They paid out $48 billion in bonuses that year.
The largest economic collapse since the Great Depression occurred during the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. The financial media called for tighter rules on the banking sector during the crisis. Because the problems were being caused by the Federal Reserve and the US government, some economists were discussing the housing crisis as early as 2002. Some economists contend that the regulators’ collusion with the financial industry was the primary cause of the crisis, rather than just Wall Street. The regulation was the root cause of the issue. The Federal Reserve lowered the interest rate to 1% in order to boost the economy. This made it possible for consumers to purchase homes with more affordable loans.
Additionally, the government was guaranteeing the mortgage during this period. The actual issue was this. People desire a safe location to keep their money, which is how the market controls banks. They will therefore search for a safe location. As a result, banks are forced by market forces to take responsible measures in order to draw deposits. However, once the government steps in and guarantees that the client’s money will always be safe, the consumer no longer values safety because it has been assured by the government. Government regulation has two problems: it becomes politicized and is ineffectual. Therefore, the government was driving the drive to lower the standards during the housing days as landing standards were continually being dropped.
Because housing was promoted as a means of achieving financial success and because the government was forcing banks to reduce down payments, voters were compelled to purchase more homes. Due to the government’s efforts to set things right and provide citizens with the assurance that they would be taken care of if something went wrong, the banks and mortgages became hazardous, and as a result, no one seemed to care.
And then when it doesn’t work, capitalism gets a bad name as if anything of this has anything to do with capitalism.