Phil Angelides: Enforcement of Wall St. is “Woefully Broken”
You know, one piece of information that we released were documents from Clayton Holdings, who performed due diligence for two dozen banks, who were buying mortgages from the Countrywides, the Ameriquests, the New Centurys, packaging those loans up and selling them to investors. What they show is in each of these banks they were buying loans, Clayton Holdings was finding that a substantial portion of the loans, I think overall from January of 2006 to March of 2007, that 28 percent of the loans did not meet the standards of the lender or of the bank buying those loans. These banks would hire Clayton to look at the loans they were buying. At the very core of this is that a lot of the focus for the last few years has been on individual transactions, individual cases where it’s been identified that institution X sold bad loans to institution Y. And if you talk to someone like Lisa Madigan, the attorney general of Illinois, she points out there’s a much bigger fraud going on here, which is the whole mortgage origination machinery of the 2000s were companies pushing fraudulent no-doc, low-doc loans into the marketplace, making those loans so they could make their fees and then passing those bad loans up through the system. I’ve always felt – take particularly the Clayton instance – that what we laid out was a roadmap, again, in black and white, stark numbers, clear evidence that banks knew of defects, and notwithstanding that, passed on millions of loans to investors. As far as what you could see, it was intentional behavior on the part of the banks to pass these loans on? You have people inside of Wells Fargo, a woman named Darcy Parmer, , who’s quoted in a report saying that on a routine basis that evidence of fraudulent loans [is] ignored by the banks. You have Angelo Mozilo in 2004 and 2005 warning that the option ARMs – you know, these are these loans where people can pay less than principal so the amount of principal accelerates – warning that these loans could bring financial and reputational catastrophe to the company. You had people who were making lots of money, being paid big fees, and not just people who were originating loans, packaging loans, selling loans – along the way, everyone’s making a fee. Whether you’re a mortgage broker, whether you’re a lender, whether you’re a bank securitizing loans, you’re making a fee.
“Conscious Capitalism” Is Not an Oxymoron
There is a growing network of people – including the leaders of companies such as the Container Store, Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, Patagonia and Whole Foods Market – building their companies based on the idea that business is about more than making a profit. One of the most predictable responses we get from people when we mention the idea of conscious capitalism is, “That’s an oxymoron!”. We define it as being mindful and awake, seeing reality as it is rather than as we wish it to be, recognizing and being accountable for all the consequences of our actions, having a better sense of what is right and what is wrong, rejecting violence as a way to solve problems and being in harmony with nature. The interest in and widespread confusion surrounding these ideas is evident from the fact that the most searched word of 2012 on Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary was “Capitalism,” followed by “Socialism.” Type “Define capitalism” into Google’s search box and one of the first entries is “An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.” That is a value-laden definition – especially the words “Controlled” and “For profit.” We think of capitalism in simple and benign terms: it is simply the co-existence of free markets and free people, or economic and political freedom. Consider what has happened in just the past 200 years or so, a time when capitalism really took root as an idea in many societies. Adjusting for quality and affordability, it is estimated that the average American is 100 times better off today than 200 years ago. We therefore hold these truths to be self-evident: business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence and it is heroic because it lifts people out of poverty and creates prosperity. Free enterprise capitalism is the most powerful system for social cooperation and human progress ever conceived. “Conscious Capitalism” is a way of thinking about capitalism and business that better reflects where we are in the human journey, the state of our world today, and the innate potential of business to make a positive impact on the world.
Is capitalism better than socialism?
Although capitalism involves creation of some sort of inequality it always provides a potential for a healthy competition, and a free market, unlike socialism which restricts any private ownership, forget any competition amongst the industrials who mostly contribute to healthy competition and development of the nation. It has been constantly proved throughout the course of the history that though socialism has been attractive to many because of the many subsidies and freebies provided, capitalism has thrived better throughout. Dheqwiufwqgc79rwguehr4hyrhrhrhr ehrehehe hrehrehrhehre hrehrehreh re gb f f f f f f f f f f f f f u u u u u u u u c c c c c c k k k k k k k k k m m m m e e e e. Capitalism is selfless, while Socialism is Selfish. You know how parents teach kids to say thank you when you get a gift or ice cream? In socialism, they would reply with “What am I entitled to” as a response, showing the immaturity and irresponsibility of Socialism, not to mention the fact that they basically put human naturebin slavery by picking out what they think is the best thing for and forcing you to like it. To correct some idiocy out there, socialism does not fail because some “Pure” notion of it was not adhered to. In almost every case the free market wins the former, while socialism conforms to the latter. Capitalism allows people to strive towards higher goals, whereas socialism allows people to be lazy. Capitalism causes people to go out and work hard for a living, whereas people who believe in socialism feel as though the world owes them something, and are willing to accept benefits for doing nothing. If socialist countries can offer to help the poor rise into poverty, then why is it that countries with centrally planned economies and subsidized health care have weak, low growth economies and higher rates of poverty than the US? It’s because not only does socialism go against human nature and human history, it leads to rationing and long waits for worse goods and services. Socialism doesn’t promise to lift everyone up, it promises a subsistence economy and a stagnant life path, which not only is contrary to the human spirit, but also leads to lesser quality goods and services, including healthcare, medicine, and even education.