Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

#71

Post by newman314 »

jbooth wrote: post #57
tedunangst wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who think three bid systems actually work? Everyone I've ever talked to about three bid systems knows they mostly exist to give a faint dusting of propriety to the fact that somehow the mayor's brother in law is always the guy winning the contract. Are there roads in your town? Do you think they were paved by the honest lowest bidder?

You're pretty far off, here. I used to be in an elected position and would sign off on stuff like this. The "lowest bid" thing does actually tend to be enforced, at least where I was, and it was a huge pain in our butt for totally different reasons. You're presuming that every deal is a gladhanded corruption thing. Sometimes, but not most of the time. Often we would know what we wanted, have a good deal for it, it's…

Any reason not to do an open bid instead?

Also, I'm more familiar with commercial than federal contracts. Did your contracts have not-to-exceed clauses or any penalties built in to manage overrun issues?

Re: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

#72

Post by tedunangst »

newman314 wrote: post #71
jbooth wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're pretty far off, here. I used to be in an elected position and would sign off on stuff like this. The "lowest bid" thing does actually tend to be enforced, at least where I was, and it was a huge pain in our butt for totally different reasons. You're presuming that every deal is a gladhanded corruption thing. Sometimes, but not most of the time. Often we would know what we wanted, have a good deal for it, it's…

Any reason not to do an open bid instead? Also, I'm more familiar with commercial than federal contracts. Did your contracts have not-to-exceed clauses or any penalties built in to manage overrun issues?

If I bid $100 and you see it, you can bid $99 and win. The theory is that if you can't see my bid, you'll bid $80 instead because you don't know how low to go.

Re: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

#73

Post by [deleted] »

newman314 wrote: post #71
jbooth wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're pretty far off, here. I used to be in an elected position and would sign off on stuff like this. The "lowest bid" thing does actually tend to be enforced, at least where I was, and it was a huge pain in our butt for totally different reasons. You're presuming that every deal is a gladhanded corruption thing. Sometimes, but not most of the time. Often we would know what we wanted, have a good deal for it, it's…

Any reason not to do an open bid instead? Also, I'm more familiar with commercial than federal contracts. Did your contracts have not-to-exceed clauses or any penalties built in to manage overrun issues?

[deleted]

Re: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

#74

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

tedunangst wrote: post #63
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to say? The argument that "everyone knows it's crooked" does not make it legal. It does not make a prosecution impossible.

Of all the ways that municipalities and hospitals and whatnot get cheated, banks skimming a little interest is among the least interesting. What would have been interesting is a nice shiny pie chart showing where all the graft goes, but that would relegate this particular scandal to a sideshow.

"least interesting" or "smallest amount of money" ? They're not necessarily the same.

In the article, Matt Taibbi says it's "a business worth $3.7 trillion". A few percentage points of that is still interesting amounts.

Re: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

#75

Post by prostoalex »

grlthgn wrote: post #25
prostoalex wrote: post #9

So municipalities tried to game the system by instituting closed auctions instead of the open ones, and then got mad, when it turned out that some parties are willing to pay to peek into the sealed bids? An open auction system would not have created the peeking problem in the first place. Both parties tried to institute unreasonable complexity to get an upper hand.

mmm.. I don't get your point. Even in an open auction, bidders in an auction could still collude to submit lower bids and divide their winnings. Problem is that there are only a couple of large banks who control a large portion of money. If there were more banks, one bank will eventually break the collusion and offer a competitive bids, and other banks will follow.

Yeah, you nailed the core of the problem. Banks don't so much "control" the money (most of such bonds flow to mutual funds and ETFs), it's just hard for average citizens to participate in the process. Large issuers have set up direct shops like http://www.buycaliforniabonds.com/

Re: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia

#77

Post by mjwalshe »

mjwalshe wrote: post #68
16s wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

33% (or slightly more) of homeowners have no mortgage at all. Edit - Some sources: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/04/debunking-the-housing-r... http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfsneyqlidgb/rss2/

Well don't forget that in the USA housing is reltivly cheap.

Realy moded down try looking at house prices in London compared to SV before you pull the trigger
Post reply on HN