CEO of subprime mortgage broker fined $29,000 for dropping 73 f-bombs during deposition

Discuss

66 Responses to “CEO of subprime mortgage broker fined $29,000 for dropping 73 f-bombs during deposition”

  1. aluxeterna says:

    RRSAFETY: Maybe the big corporations get called out more often because the magic of marginal gains means that the bigger you are, the cheaper it is to be evil to yet another person. As the cost of evil goes down, it becomes more attractive. ?:^E

  2. Lagged2Death says:

    yuubi: I could see a CEO who recognizes that he has little left to lose taking great pleasure in making rudeness harder to get away with.

    I think this sort of outburst, far from making it harder to “get away with” being rude to the defendants, would only serve to justify being rude to the defendants.

  3. rrsafety says:

    aluxeterna, I have no problem calling out big business when it is applicable, but this lawsuit is actually the reverse. It is GMAC (a multi billion dollar corporation) that is suing a little guy mortgage broker.

  4. Purly says:

    Would love to read the full transcript! This guy sounds like a real character.

  5. Gamera says:

    He seems a bit cavalier about continuing the depo before a judge (which is kind of a last resort when a deponent is stonewalling). I doubt he’s going to make a great impression on the judge who has to sit through this and moderate. Frankly he’s likely his own worst enemy. His own lawyer is probably too cowtowed to actually do a decent job representing him, which would mean getting him to dial it down a few notches.

  6. Apreche says:

    Much of the blame for the economic crisis does fall on these people, and a great deal also falls on the underwriters. However, I don’t see anyone putting any blame whatsoever on the financially irresponsible people who got these mortgages. I’m not saying it’s all their fault, but when you have someone who goes and gets a loan they can not afford to pay back, then uses it to buy something they can’t afford at all, you can’t say that wasn’t part of the problem.

  7. Dustin Driver says:

    RRSAFETY: Maybe the big corporations get called out more often because the magic of marginal gains means that the bigger you are, the cheaper it is to be evil to yet another person. As the cost of evil goes down, it becomes more attractive.

    Aluxeterna: I love that idea! We should start tracking the “Cost of Evil.” The “Cost of Evil Index.” It would be a better indicator of overall well being of the country than the GDP.

  8. Another Aaron says:

    The majority of folks who took these loans took these loans on good faith, and because of the fine print, did not understand how far the interest rate would rise down the road.

    They were conned…on purpose. That’s why you don’t hear anyone blaming them.

  9. bakelblog says:

    >>[G]uys like Wider were part of a movement of savage rapine of the world’s economies and exploitation of the poor and disenfranchised, something that went all the way up to the big trading houses and their regulators.

  10. zuzu says:

    I’m taking a break. Fuck him. You open up the document. You want me to look at something, you get the document out. Earn your fucking money, asshole. Better get used to it. You’ll retire when I’m done.

    “Cocaine: It’s a hell of a drug.”

  11. mark says:

    “guys like Wider were part of a movement of savage rapine of the world’s economies and exploitation of the poor and disenfranchised, something that went all the way up to the big trading houses and their regulators”

    Wow.

    Balanced analysis that.

  12. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    What justification? You don’t act like that during legal proceedings. Sure, emotions may have been running high. That’s normal. Trials aren’t about subjects that bore everyone concerned.

    Aaron Wider was verbally abusing the lawyer who was trying to depose him, and he was making everyone else listen while he did it. He was also wasting everyone’s time, and making it clear that he holds the legal process in contempt.

    You betcha you can get popped for that.

    Mark (1): you are mistaken about the point of journalism, probably because you’ve been exposed to too much of the bad American variety. Journalists are supposed to be finding out and reporting what’s true. If a story is about a genuine difference of opinion, “balance” should mean they report both sides. However, if a person or organization is making wildly mendacious statements, “balance” doesn’t consist of finding someone saying otherwise, then reporting both opinions and pretending it makes sense. “Scientists, Administration Disagree on Shape of Earth” is not a balanced analysis. Or, as Xopl (18) put it, “If those facts overwhelmingly point to somebody being a schmuck, it isn’t the journalist’s job to find an equal number of facts pointing to that somebody NOT being a schmuck.”

    Jeff (3), I don’t think you looked up the deposition. And even if a lawyer is being a jerk — which is kind of a professional skill for them — it doesn’t justify that kind of behavior.

    As for the underlying causes: a lot of people have only a hazy understanding of compound interest, and it’s not altogether their fault. They don’t get it like some people don’t get geometry or prose style. There’s also a natural human tendency to hope that the future is going to be better than the present. This is why so many of Americans roll up debts on credit cards that charge 23% interest.

    What you can’t say is that the people running investment banks and mortgage companies don’t understand compound interest. They understand it just fine. It’s their business.

    I also understand compound interest. When these weird new mortgages first came out, I looked at them, thought about it a while, and said “This is a way to spend your entire life paying on a mortgage, and at the end of it not own your house.”

    What choice did people have when the market started to inflate, and house prices just kept drifting upward? Nobody needs to invest in a hedge fund, but everyone needs a place to live.

    Home ownership is the single biggest vehicle of capital accumulation for most American families. Paying rent accumulates no equity. The tax laws favor home ownership. So do a lot of our social patterns. In many parts of the country, if you’re a nuclear family with kids and you want to live in a decent neighborhood with good schools, renting isn’t going to be much of an option.

    People need homes. They aren’t perfect AdamSmithian economic units deciding to buy or not to buy, depending on their perfectly well-informed assessment of the current market. They’re human beings with complicated hopes and responsibilities who are looking for a place where they can settle down and get on with the rest of life.

    I’ll put a question to you and the other people in this thread who are saying it’s the homeowners’ fault: have you spent the last decade watching housing prices soar, and mortgages get weirder and weirder, and said, “We need to become a nation of renters”? Did you even notice it was happening? I’m betting a lot of you didn’t. I’m betting you didn’t see this coming either. I sure haven’t heard you talking about it.

    The people running the banks and the mortgage companies knew it was unsustainable. Did they try to stop it? Not as far as anyone can tell. They take their cut out of the money that flows through their system, and more and more money was flowing through. They kept a lot of it. It’s the same stupid mistake we keep making: we let the financial markets “self regulate,” they privatize the profits, and we wind up paying off the losses. Most of the people who built this crisis will still have their high wages and commissions and bonuses as a component of their net worth years from now, when the rest of us are still paying off this atrocious shortfall for them.

    As for the people left holding the bag, with their uncertain incomes and unpayable mortgages? They’re screwed. A lot of them will have paid as much as they could before going into default. People are like that, especially the poorer sort. They buy a house, it becomes their home, and they do everything they can to hold on to it, because it’s all they’ve got. Savvier consumers would have walked away from those unpayable mortgages. Now they’re wiped out: no equity, lots of debts, and someone else owns their house.

    Don’t tell me they were just being greedy. I ride the subway to work. For years now I’ve seen the come-ons: REALIZE YOUR DREAMS. YOU CAN OWN YOUR OWN HOME. WE SPECIALIZE IN HELPING POORER FAMILIES ACHIEVE HOME OWNERSHIP — in ads that had a slightly clunky “public service” look to them. It took me a while to realize that they were private firms, capitalists all the way. “You can move in with little or no down payment” wasn’t presented as a scam people could get away with. It was presented as a really good deal they could get in on (for once), one that would make it possible for them to even think about buying a house.

    They didn’t know. Long-term money management hasn’t been a feature of their lives. Most of them live from paycheck to paycheck. I doubt it ever occurred to them that banks would give them a loan if they didn’t think they could pay it off.

    But the money guys? They knew better.

    Remmelt (15), “instantiate the unfuckatron” is one of Joel’s phrases. I want Boing Boing to put it on t-shirts. It works out to “fix the problem.”

    Maddy (29), we may rejoice at their downfall, but nobody deserves to get raped.

  13. RyanH says:

    Well, you have to admit that it’s a nice turn of phrase. Besides, assuming that he was involved in raping the economy, why is it unbalanced to say it?

  14. Jeff says:

    I can see why he would talk that way. There’s nothing like a deposition conducted by a real jerk wad of an attorney. Wider’s lawyer should have worked a little harder to keep things calm. Yes, a lot of people took advantage of the system that allows for capitalism to work. And remember, five years ago people were lauding how great it was that lower income people were able to buy a home. The American Dream! The investment banks and hedge fund managers are to blame more than anyone, since many of them used bundled junk morgages to borrow huge amounts of money. Using junk morgages as securities is what went wrong. At its peak, one million in “security” could allow a hedge fund to borrow (from a bank) upwards of 100 million. Silly banks. And to think, all those Harvard B. school bankers got it sooo wrong. So much for experts and education.

  15. jjasper says:

    @ Apreche – # 40

    Much of the blame for the economic crisis does fall on these people, and a great deal also falls on the underwriters. However, I don’t see anyone putting any blame whatsoever on the financially irresponsible people who got these mortgages.

    None of the people who got the mortgages packaged them, inflated the value, passed it on, and continued the chain moving up the line until it became evident that it was nothing but a paper castle.

    Plus, the ‘irresponsible’ people who took the mortgages are actually suffering. Most of them have lost their homes, and life savings. See, if you take out a mortgage, you’re responsible for that. If your company screws the entire economy, you’re probably so wealthy you could already retire anyhow.

  16. Halloween Jack says:

    I think that he ought to be fined for that horrifically ugly website. My eyes hurt after looking at it.

  17. yuubi says:

    As I understand it, lawyers often mark the relevant bits of files to save time when examining witnesses. Not doing so would seem to be a breach of etiquette, and I can see being disinclined to do the job of the guy trying to hang you. If I had an appointment with the hangman and he asked me for help tying the noose, I’d be inclined to tell him to tie his own fucking noose, even if I did deserve to hang.

    NOTE: My theory of his annoyance at the lawyer in no way excuses the dishonesty that led to the subprime crisis. Lots of dishonest people saw quick bucks to be made, and it’s coming back to screw us all. I’m merely saying that this exchange isn’t proof of this CEO’s bad character.

  18. TJ says:

    @Mrk – r y nw rnd hr ;-?

    Nt lt f flks cm t BngBng xpctng blncd nlyss frm Cry.

  19. mrfitz says:

    That fine is a mere pittance for a CEO.
    It’s like me going to burger king for lunch.

  20. Another Aaron says:

    Balanced analysis? So at what point are intelligent allowed to get off the fence? Are you telling us there isn’t enough evidence yet?

    That one exchange should be more than enough…you hand out a loan to someone, you should know what that person does for a living.

  21. BlueDartFrog says:

    It’s guys like this that that give “fuck” a bad reputation and take all the fun out of using it.

  22. Mikey Likes BoingBoing says:

    Dick Cheney called. He wants to know how to reach this guy and offer him a senior staff job.

    Of course, Dick dropped only one F bomb on the Senate floor, so he feels a little, ah, inadequate compared to this guy’s oh-so-virile 73 F bombs.

  23. spencerluck says:

    The shit companies wrote these tickets and should bear the liability for them, recession or not.

    If these allegedly educated people think that, of all people, a poor/low-income person can tolerate a 40% variance in their payments and still make it, they’re crazy.

    The only people I know who can float that are rich people.

    It would be Healthier for the country as a whole, if there were a low-cost lending authority, like SLMA, Freddie-Mac, Fannie Mae, Whatever, etc. that qualified low-income people for affordable mortgages on houses they could Both afford to Own + Maintain (ie: TCO).

    If there were to be a recession because of Countrywide, BearStearns, etc., -So Be It. That is the market cleaning out unhealthy players, and probably the best implementation of a Recession possible.

    A propos what Theresa just said, after the Great Crash/Depression, there were Minimum reserve requirements enstated (along with FDIC, etc.) for the Deposits side, so that banks would never fail again. -Similarly, there should be some type of reg. on the Exponenting of this type of leverage on mortgages.

  24. technogirl says:

    So who wants to bet that if you go through this creeps DVD collection you’re gonna find Goodfellas?

  25. bardfinn says:

    I’m liking the notion of an index that tracks the Cost of Evil. We could have it in three different flavours:

    Absolute Cost of Evil, expressed in monetary valuation;
    Relative Cost of Evil, expressed in percentage of corporation’s market capitalisation;
    Tendency to Valuate Evil, expressed as the product of Absolute to Relative costs.

    I caught Michael Shermer on CSPAN last night giving a talk at (urgh) the CATO Institute about his latest publication, The Mind of The Market. (MythBusters was not yet on.)

    He noted that humans have a tendency to be susceptible to being suckered, by the way a fact or question is framed.

    Ask someone whether they’d be willing to walk four blocks to save fifty bucks on a $100 purchase, and they’re all for it!

    Ask someone whether they’d be willing to walk four blocks to save fifty bucks on a $1200 purchase, and they routinely respond “Nah! It’s just fifty bucks!”

    I’m sure the same thing happens to the capitalists who profited from the mortgage bubble. “It’s just $500 extra on a $120,000 house!” “It’s just $1100 extra! Less than 1%!”

    At the very least, I think they’re aware of that and used it.

  26. rrsafety says:

    And people borrowed money from that guy?!!??

    If he offered to lend me money I’d say “no thank you” and keep on walking.

    The ability of people to throw common sense out the window when it comes to money is mind boggling.

  27. Elysianartist says:

    “”Robreno noted that Wider used the “F word” or variations of it 73 times during the deposition and that the video shows that his lawyer, Joseph R. Ziccardi of Chicago, at one point “snickered” at his client’s conduct.””

    How long until the video hits the tubes?!?

  28. Ari B. says:

    Technogirl @11:

    Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs…

  29. Myopic Phrenologist says:

    >> #25

    I don’t know who said it, but “Money doesn’t make nice people.”

    I think the phrase you heard was actually “Money doesn’t make people nice.”

  30. Overclocker says:

    This mess is yet another example of why laissez-faire economics can’t work, at least not now. It’s another utopian dream that depends on people not being schmucks to each other. Where was the oversight?

  31. Antinous says:

    #63,

    What message are you trying to convey?

  32. Jeff says:

    Teresa, I looked at it enough to relate, then laugh, then stopped. You are correct in as much as I don’t think this guy was acting rational. When in court, play by the court’s rules.

  33. remmelt says:

    Did he mention he was going to instantiate the unfuckatron though?

  34. ScaleOvenStove says:

    not sure what this has to do with any “disenfranchised” people. What does the right to vote have to do with subprime lending again?

  35. rrsafety says:

    Also…

    Tin Men

    but mostly, Glengarry Glen Ross

  36. ripley says:

    Teresa

    That was a great summary of why blaming the victims of the mortgage crisis is a total misreading of the situation. I have seen a lot of people saying that, and it totally ignores the reality of information, power, culture and history. Please post it more publicly?

  37. asuffield says:

    It’s not really about him saying “fuck” – if it was just that, the judge would probably have just warned him off (once). It’s more that he was persistently refusing to answer fair questions, and wasting the time of everybody involved. Judges are very busy people, and if there’s one thing they really hate, it’s people who waste time.

  38. Stefan Jones says:

    One thing we really need schools to teach is economic education. Not the high-faluting theoretical stuff that the convention suite libertarians wank off too, but survival skills.

    The problem is, if it’s at all good, it could come across as seriously paranoid anti-business ranting with a helping of seriously dour social commentary.

  39. xopl says:

    This assertion that journalism should be fair and balanced completely misses the point. Journalism should report the facts. Period.

    If those facts overwhelmingly point to somebody being a schmuck, it isn’t the journalist’s job to find an equal number of facts pointing to that somebody NOT being a schmuck.

  40. Chris Tucker says:

    Actually, the fellow was just doing his impression of Harlan Ellison.

    And quite a spot on impression it is, too.

  41. Jamie Sue says:

    @ #4

    I agree. That is a small slice of hell.

  42. Ceronomus says:

    A couple years back a friend of mine went to work at a mortgage lender and quit when she realized that they were writing bad loans. Of course, the loans get sold in packages, so THAT company got their money and a profit and passed the crap off to someone else.

    People like this guy are the reason that people are losing their homes and things are spiraling out of control. They raped the system by committing massive fraud.

    Those lower income families that were able to purchase houses? Now they’ve lost their houses AND all the money they invested in the house while guys Wider are sitting comfortably with their ill-gotten gains.

  43. MidnightZulu says:

    “…something that went all the way up to the big trading houses and their regulators.”

    Maybe so, but it also went all the way to the bottom. *Everyone* was taking advantage. I experienced the insanity myself watching mine and my neighbors’ houses being bid to incredible levels, and that wasn’t done by the “big trading houses”. That was done by the people who were speculating that what was cheap now would be worth a lot in the future. They got easy loans (and they knew it) and expected phenomenal returns.

    They got hammered, and so did the lenders. It takes two to tango.

  44. Lagged2Death says:

    Jeff: I can see why he would talk that way. There’s nothing like a deposition conducted by a real jerk wad of an attorney.

    Follow the links to here and there are some more pretty choice quotes:

    …you’re a piece of shit and a piece of garbage and I’m the only person in your life that is fucking up your world and I enjoy it.

    Maybe it’s a failure of my imagination, but I’m having trouble imagining what the opposing counsel could possibly have said or done to make such a retort comprehensible, let alone justified. Judge Robreno presumably observed the conduct of lawyers on both sides of this little imbroglio when he reviewed the video, but he only took issue with one of them.

  45. insomma says:

    IANAL, but Christopher M. Fairman, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, published a 78-page study on the implications of the F-word in legal proceedings that I came across a few years ago (doing god-knows-what.) It is available online as a PDF download aptly titled “Fuck”. It’s a fun read and this post made me think of it. From his introduction:

    “A trilogy of events motivated me to start this project. The first occurred during my second year of law teaching. In my Professional Responsibility course, the lesson for the day was attorney racist and sexist behavior. The case I assigned from a leading casebook was liberally sprinkled with fuck, cunt, shit, bitch and the like. Sensitive to the power of language, I recited the facts myself rather than ask a student as was my norm. After the course was over, I was reviewing my student evaluations and discovered this: “I was a little disturbed by the way he seemed to delight in saying ‘cunt’ and ‘fucking bitch’ during class. I think if you’re going to say things like that in class, you should expect it to show up on the evaluation.” Now I was the one a little disturbed. How could any educated adult, much less a graduate student in a professional program, be offended by hearing these words read from a court opinion? I decided then to explore this topic…”

    I’m not very e-savvy or I would’ve linked to it directly. It’s easy enough to find, though.

    Enjoy

  46. Spinobobot says:

    The problem is not that any individual or corporation is evil, it’s that there are inherent problems in our economic system. That doesn’t mean we should eliminate capitalism, but that we shouldn’t view regulation of the market as though it were some sort of profanation of the sacred order of things.

    If we want to be able to continue to benefit from all the pluses of markets, then we need to establish the right kinds of incentives through regulation, so that self-interest coincides more with the common good.

    If people are rewarded by being assholes, like this guy, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our social order. This is no case of “a few bad apples”, because under the current system, the only people who can succeed are those willing to be unscrupulous.

    How hard is it to see that there’s something fundamentally wrong with that? In the end, none of us benefit in this arrangement. Since wealth, power, and prestige are the kinds of goods that depend on being better off than others, we’re dealing with a zero-sum game not worth playing as a society.

    Furthermore, money does not make us happy, because we constantly strive for more and more and are never satisfied. It’s a case of the hedonic treadmill: no matter how much one acquires, one always has to move forward just to remain in the same place. (I’m not making this stuff up; it’s based on empirical observations in positive psychology. See, e.g., Jon Haidt’s Happiness Hypothesis for a nice overview of research on human well being.)

  47. madjo says:

    Un-f’ing-believable, and such characters run loan corporations and actually sell loans?

  48. yuubi says:

    >>37

    I didn’t say it was productive, but I bet it sure did feel good.

    Teresa >>44

    Lawyers are supposed to do their jobs instead of demanding that the bad guy do it. I understood someone to claim upthread that he couldn’t possibly *understand* what the CEO was talking about. I gave the example of telling the hangman to tie his own fckng noose. The plaintiffs’ lawyers are, in fact, supposed to do their own jobs, even though they’re on the side of the angels. Note that understanding doesn’t mean agreement.

    I think that CEO just doesn’t know any better techniques than profanity for dealing with people who don’t want to do their jobs. It probably got him through life up to that point, even though it’s not right.

    Disclaimer: That CEO is probably not someone I’d want to bring into my personal life.

  49. Chocolatey Shatner says:

    I don’t know who said it, but “Money doesn’t make nice people.”

    UPDATE: I googled the phrase. Apparently I must have said it.

  50. yuubi says:

    >>23

    Perhaps the plaintiffs’ lawyers were getting away with being rude to most of the defendants because the plaintiffs, as a whole, were in the right and the defendants, as a whole, were in the wrong. I could see a CEO who recognizes that he has little left to lose taking great pleasure in making rudeness harder to get away with.

  51. kuanes says:

    while i rarely agree with Cory’s heavyhanded critique of Big Business, et al….

    yet another example of the bigshot CEO/CFO thinking he act/say whatever he wants because he’s been been the big fish in a small pond.

    i actually tried to read some of the deposition quotes out loud to my across-the-way cubicle mate. didn’t go too well. ;)

  52. MidnightZulu says:

    Quoting Teresa:
    ‘”You can move in with little or no down payment” wasn’t presented as a scam people could get away with’

    That’s what our built-in BS detectors are for. Such ads sets my alarm bells ringing.

    Quoting again:
    ‘I’m betting you didn’t see this coming either. I sure haven’t heard you talking about it.’

    My wife and I did. Like, hairs on the back of the neck, “We need to sell the house cuz this is crazy”-kind-of-feeling. And we did sell. A couple of years ago when prices were still going up.

    Again:
    ‘They didn’t know. Long-term money management hasn’t been a feature of their lives. Most of them live from paycheck to paycheck.’

    All I can say to them is welcome to the real world. Are we going to bail people out for being naive?

  53. Ned613 says:

    This is obviously not his first deposition. He seems to know the routine. I wonder how man times Wider has been sued before.

  54. Maddy says:

    When bankers get thuggy … well, he’ll be inside the REAL thug culture soon enough (whr hpflly thg wll pt hmslf nsd f ths dd) …

  55. remmelt says:

    Teresa @44, Unfuckatron: I know! I read your comment in the other thread (the one with the profanity/fingerprinting airlines) and Googled the phrase, only finding it here.

    Just doing my part in sharing this wonderful thing with the world.

  56. MidnightZulu says:

    And for what it’s worth, I wasn’t in favor of the Bear Stearns bailout. So, apparently, we are going to bail people out for being naive. This was a top-to-bottom screwup.

  57. pendraphen says:

    My favorite part of the article is that Wider’s lawyer tried to explain the behavior away as an anxiety disorder.

    @5

    “As I understand it, lawyers often mark the relevant bits of files to save time when examining witnesses. Not doing so would seem to be a breach of etiquette, and I can see being disinclined to do the job of the guy trying to hang you. If I had an appointment with the hangman and he asked me for help tying the noose, I’d be inclined to tell him to tie his own fucking noose, even if I did deserve to hang.”

    My guess (not having read a transcript or seen the video) is that the lawyer was trying to point out that Wider had no clue as to the content of the files. I believe he succeeded.

    That being said, where IS the video and/or full transcript? I know I’m not the only one who would love to read it.

  58. noen says:

    These people are nothing more than gangsters, they’re thugs. We are ruled by the Bush mafia.

  59. Songe says:

    #18 Here here, I completely agree. I just realized last night how weird it was how much idiotic commentary always comes with the facts. So much pre-done thinking. People just seem to choose the opinion that they immediately identify with. I know this blog isn’t journalism, but I still would prefer if the posts had a few less adjectives.

    And yeah, both sides are guilty in this case. You need to take responsibility for your own life, there’s no substitute for that – I don’t get it why people are so eager to make excuses for these poor idiots, it seems almost disrespectful. I say they should have read the contracts, understood them as well as they do now, and learned their lesson. Fool me once and all that.

  60. hubbledeej says:

    While not directly relevant, I just learned that according to our harassment policy at work, “fuck” (and variants) doesn’t add up to much, but if you say, “fuck you” it’s harassment. Hah!

  61. Ugly Canuck says:

    Big chunks of mortgage documents are dictated by statute and/or regulation and/or well-settled business custom. Have been for hundreds of years, and the parts that aren’t have been thoroughly interpreted by the courts.

    Mortgages are legal documents – something the Legislatures are well equipped to Rule and Regulate. That they did not do so is to be laid at their doorstep, not the tent flap of people who normally see but one mortgage document in their lifetime, while the Banker sees thousands, and knows from experience what happens if the borrowers screw up .

    The fundamental difference in bargaining power and the relative state of ignorance of the parties to this transaction as well as the importance of home-ownership to our society demands adequate regulation of the Banks.

    Why not bail out or otherwise relieve mortgage borrowers, instead of Bear,Stearns an institution that the Fed doesn’t even regulate?

    Hint: Carlyle Amsterdam, a foreign entity…

    But the house price bubble has been a long time a’comin’. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2757699799528285056 , which is http://www.speculativebubble.com‘s “Real Estate Roller Coaster” video.

  62. Bat Guano says:

    I just wonder, who is going to stand up for the rich and powerful, taken advantage of by people they gave mortgages to?

    Who? (single tear rolls down cheek)

  63. rrsafety says:

    The problem with the “big business is evil” in this mortgage mess is the fact that most of these crappy loans were done by independent mortgage brokers and mortgage brokers companies of very small size. Even large companies like Countrywide relied very heavily on “little guys” to write these mortgages.

    This dirt bag of a mortgage broker is a “CEO” in name only…

  64. aluxeterna says:

    RRSAFETY:

    Totally valid point. And for sure, I’ve had enough interactions with shady small companies to be convinced of the small-time capacity to be evil.

    What can any of us do but continue to call out bullshit in all of its myriad forms and sizes?

    A corporation is not necessarily evil. And the little guy is not necessarily good. Gotta remember there are people at the heart of each of these things, and sometimes that heart is healthy, and sometimes that heart is cold and dead.

  65. fltndboat says:

    #44, # 47, # 51 Negotiating an agreement in consciousness as to the purpose of being human could find you on the same page. Very few of us have been blessed with healthy emotions. Add the perfume of Money as the way to achieve your wildest illusions as presented by the ads, and you have a classic pyramid scheme. First in, first out at the right time, Get your megga – Yacht on order and ignore the pain of the last in that is being harvested. Simply remember we live on a sphere. While looking East to pat yourself on the ass for being such a winner, something may creep up on you from the West that makes your money useless. I have been experimenting with using this losers language on local posts to see how much support is there for his mind set. Turns out to be pretty much limited to Neo-Cons. Potty mouth Turd-Blossom stuff that would have never gotten out of kindergarten in the public schools. Some how it has thrived since 2000. May be because the path to mental, and emotional health was stuck on masturbating in a coffin. Emotionally intelligent people can Love till they die. It does not cost a penny.

  66. Lauren O says:

    Can somebody explain to me why swearing led to a $29,000 fine? Is it just for harassing the lawyer he was swearing at?

Leave a Reply