Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Fraud Gets You Put In Jail, as Long as You're Not a Bankster

This is the definition of hypocrisy -
A Connecticut man who tricked hundreds of investors into giving him more than $100 million on a promise of fat profits on diamonds and distressed properties has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Michael Goldberg was also ordered to undergo substance abuse and mental health evaluations. He must report to prison by July 18th.

The 40-year-old Goldberg pleaded guilty last year to wire fraud charges. Authorities recommended a 12- to 15-year sentence as well as restitution.

Goldberg's lawyers sought a lighter sentence, saying he turned himself in before authorities started investigating him and cooperated with investigators.

His victims lost $30 million in the scheme. Some said at a sentencing hearing earlier Monday that they lost homes, retirement savings and their children's college funds.
The Real Effect
So what is the material difference between this individual who is promising large returns on an "investment" and the originators of many of the Credit Default Swaps, CDOs and other such bogus financial instruments which are predicated upon fraudulent housing loans?

What is the difference between this man's plan and some of the "insurance" plans which are hammered into place under penalty of imprisonment if you do not purchase them?

Or how about the TARP program in which the government purported that they didn't need the funds for "toxic assets" the day after the "tanks in the streets" talk died down?

Finally, what is the difference between this individual and the current central banking system called the Federal Reserve?

What many in this country are coming to belatedly realize here is that there are several issues they have failed to anticipate:
  1. Some people like being criminal.
  2. These people gravitate towards the money.
  3. It is far easier to do things "legally" and build your fortune, then to do them illegally. 
  4. Therefore, the criminals gravitate towards the mechanisms of control (government) in order to build their fortunes.
This is nothing new, and was common wisdom at the founding of the country. In order to protect the people from the criminals, the founders put massive constraints on the government to stop the criminals from "legally" robbing you.

Now, stop and think - Who would have wanted to remove these safeguards? Criminals or non-criminals?

Further, do you think the criminals are going to admit they're robbing you?

No comments: