User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 60 of 60

  1. #51
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As I said, I don't really want to have this discussion, as I've had it a million times, and when you're talking with people who don't know what they're talking about, about a matter that you do know what you're talking about, it's not really enjoyable. It's like Galileo trying to tell people of his time that the Earth revolves around the Sun. They simply lack the knowledge to understand why what he says is true.



    In any matter there is uncertainty.

    That does not change the fact that, if you actually understood the situation we were facing, and understand the ramifications of not coming in as the lender of last resort, and bailing out the entire financial system, that the damage would have been incredible. Truly unbelievable. And, frankly, I don't think you actually understand it. I doubt you have a strong enough understanding of the financial system and its role in the economy to accurately understand these ramifications.



    By your merely stating this, I cannot help but feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I see a lot of what they say about enneagram 8s in your response: you know what you would do, and think everybody else should follow it, but that doesn't mean that what you would do actually has any strong or reasonable connection to reality whatsoever. This is not a personal attack, it is an observation. As you should know, I agree with you on a lot of stuff when it comes to politics, far more than most people. But you simply are wrong about this matter. And it's not simply a matter of "you disagree with me, therefore you're wrong" (as some [ignorant] people have accused me of before). You simply were (and therefore are) not in a position to understand the consequences of not stepping in and doing what we did.



    Once again, when I read this, I can't help but feel it's coming from someone who genuinely has no idea what he's talking about. Once again, not an attack, it's just, no one who actually understands these matters would talk in this way. It just isn't in sync with how things work/would have worked had you attempted it. What you think should have been done isn't actually a feasible solution, and it would have led to disaster.



    New Century Financial: gone.

    Bear Sterns: gone.

    Lehman: gone.

    Merrill: gone.

    Countrywide: gone.

    Washington Mutual: gone.

    427 banks: gone.

    I wouldn't say the worst offenders in the crisis have gotten through unscathed.

    Even of those that have survived: look at their stock prices compared to before the crisis.

    Bank of America and Citi, the two biggest behemoths before the crisis, now look like the walking dead.



    Once again, this reeks of not knowing what you're talking about.

    The private market would've been effectively gone.

    I don't think you understand the spillover effects of a complete financial system collapse.

    And yes, there would have been a complete collapse of the financial system had they not stepped in as they did.

    And, following that complete collapse of the financial system, would have come a devastating collapse of the entire economy.

    Look how bad it already was:



    And, had we not intervened, it would've been far worse.
    You probably have me on the financial specifics.

    But the gist of my argument stands.

    Let me make it as clear as I can.

    I was willing and ready to accept anything up to and including a total financial melt down.

    Yes there are 427 fewer banks, but the assets of those banks were absorbed into other banks.

    Our first problem was letting private financial entities get to a size where an individual corporation's failure would impact the people to such an extent, that the government takes it upon itself to prevent that failure. That is a failure of capitalism. Entities that pursue policies that fail should answer to the market for their failure, not be given money to continue those practices.

    This is the heart of my argument, and it's beyond specific monetary policy, which you seem to know more about than I do.

    Without any mechanism (market or regulation) for holding entities above a certain size accountable for their actions we have begun to replace capitalism with oligarchy.

    There are fewer banks, but the remaining banks have grown substantially making the problem worse than it was before.

    It was my hope that the economy would crash hard enough to force our government into actual substantive action on the issue. That did not happen. We soothed the symptoms and let the root grow.

    Sorry if I seemed to claim a greater level of financial knowledge than I actually have.

    EDIT - I think you and I are arguing two different things here.

  2. #52
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The electoral problems I mentioned, are what allows money to play as large a role as it does.

    The whole reason politicians are coin operated is because of how expensive its become to run a campaign.

    If you fix campaign finance, politicians won't need an amount of $ to get elected that pushes them into the deep pockets of corporate benefactors.
    Ban television, radio, and print advertising endorsing candidates.

    Edit:

    Also telephone solicitation.

    ^In fact this might be the solution to a lot of problems that exist in capitalism overall. That way not as many people rely on a single product (like the iphone) and monies can be more equally distributed to foster innovation. Fuck advertising!
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  3. #53
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You probably have me on the financial specifics.

    But the gist of my argument stands.

    Let me make it as clear as I can.
    Ok, but so does the gist of mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I was willing and ready to accept anything up to and including a total financial melt down.
    This I cannot agree with, and I am certain that if you and I were to sit down and discuss the actual ramifications of this (i.e., what would have happened had we just let it collapse), so that I could detail out how terribly this would have turned out, and why (i.e., how this would have weaved its way through the entire economy, crippling everything [I'm talking ma & pa hardware stores, grocery stores, literally everything]), that you would change your mind and agree that TARP was completely necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Our first problem was letting private financial entities get to a size where an individual corporation's failure would impact the people to such an extent, that the government takes it upon itself to prevent that failure. That is a failure of capitalism.
    This, though, I can completely agree with, and you are correct.

    We never should have let any of the banks get too big to fail, but that would require more and better regulation, and the free-market, anti-regulation fervor of the 90s and especially the 2000s was vehemently opposed to any such thing. Now we need to fix these things as we go forward, and, as flawed and imperfect as it may be, Dodd-Frank is a start to this, but must still be worked with in order to get the right regulatory framework in place. Unfortunately, what I fear is that we lack the intelligence and political will to actually get the right job done. Furthermore, the gridlock in the capital, along with Wall Street's strong lobbying efforts, very well may prevent what needs to get done from getting done. What we need is a team of INTJs to run our country for a few years, and set us up on a sustainable and effective path; unfortunately, that is the army that we need, not the army that we have. Our political system, as it stands, doesn't seem like it's gunna get the job done.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Entities that pursue policies that fail should answer to the market for their failure, not be given money to continue those practices.
    Agreed, but when you've already let them get too big to fail, then such a policy is merely cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

    The problem was letting it get this way in the first place; when it's already like this, though, you can't just let it all collapse.

    I know you want to think differently, but I'm telling you, as someone who knows, it is a horrible idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    EDIT - I think you and I are arguing two different things here.
    I think I want you to realize that the bailouts were necessary, but yes, we absolutely need to reform, among many other things, our financial system, so as to not allow this to happen again. Unfortunately, along with you (I believe), I think Washington lacks the leadership, courage, integrity, and intelligence to actually get the job done.

  4. #54
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post


    And, had we not intervened, it would've been far worse.
    Zara, it is already bad enough as it is. Whether saving those banks were effective enough to stave off the economy from going into a downward spiral or not, it affected the whole entire world. What we are seeing happening around the world these days are the consequences of those actions. Those actions, along with not having people to blame and put on trial just made it even worse.

    http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/...ing-countries/


    Most every country, even in the U.S. (as the graph above shows U.S. youth unemployment) have youth unemployment above the national average (with the few exception of some nations that effectively stave off the incoming crisis.) It is why such nations like Syria and Egypt went on an uprising (their youth unemployment was way above the average unemployment levels.)

    Whether you choose to accept it or not, in my eyes, my constituents are living in a Great Depression. And, none of these people in Congress are willing to truly do something about it without putting their damn egos aside. IF, the financial sector would of fell apart, how would Congress react to these issues? How would the president react to these issues? Would they have put their egos aside? Or would they have chosen to put business as usual(as they are now?) The financial sector hasn't learn, the lobbyist hasn't learn, congress hasn't learn. Everything has been about the debt, about medicare, about tax cuts. None of these issues truly matter to me. What matters to me is, why are we not putting these people in the firing line? And why is our youth force to put up with this......

    And, if we are put into the mix, it is either tax the rich, or cut something from another portion of civilization. If it was between burning the economy or having the chance the government can learn to work together, I would choose to burn the economy so that the government can actually work and fix it. Are we seeing them work together right now (and for "good" reasons?)

    NO, because Congress is working on business as usual. Wall Street and K Street are working on business as usual.

  5. #55
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,371
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  6. #56
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Ok, but so does the gist of mine.



    This I cannot agree with, and I am certain that if you and I were to sit down and discuss the actual ramifications of this (i.e., what would have happened had we just let it collapse), so that I could detail out how terribly this would have turned out, and why (i.e., how this would have weaved its way through the entire economy, crippling everything [I'm talking ma & pa hardware stores, grocery stores, literally everything]), that you would change your mind and agree that TARP was completely necessary.



    This, though, I can completely agree with, and you are correct.

    We never should have let any of the banks get too big to fail, but that would require more and better regulation, and the free-market, anti-regulation fervor of the 90s and especially the 2000s was vehemently opposed to any such thing. Now we need to fix these things as we go forward, and, as flawed and imperfect as it may be, Dodd-Frank is a start to this, but must still be worked with in order to get the right regulatory framework in place. Unfortunately, what I fear is that we lack the intelligence and political will to actually get the right job done. Furthermore, the gridlock in the capital, along with Wall Street's strong lobbying efforts, very well may prevent what needs to get done from getting done. What we need is a team of INTJs to run our country for a few years, and set us up on a sustainable and effective path; unfortunately, that is the army that we need, not the army that we have. Our political system, as it stands, doesn't seem like it's gunna get the job done.



    Agreed, but when you've already let them get too big to fail, then such a policy is merely cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

    The problem was letting it get this way in the first place; when it's already like this, though, you can't just let it all collapse.

    I know you want to think differently, but I'm telling you, as someone who knows, it is a horrible idea.



    I think I want you to realize that the bailouts were necessary, but yes, we absolutely need to reform, among many other things, our financial system, so as to not allow this to happen again. Unfortunately, along with you (I believe), I think Washington lacks the leadership, courage, integrity, and intelligence to actually get the job done.
    We clearly agree on much here.

    But there is one very important distinction.

    From your arguments, it would seem that you believe that our government is capable (willing to) of making the kind of changes that will be required to forestall another collapse in the future.

    The farther we move along, my hope that that is possible diminishes.

    I don't think we're going to be able to fix it. By the time we have the political will, I think the window of opportunity to have done something about it will have passed.

    And by not taking our medicine now... allowing the market to restabilize after the banks failed. We are dooming ourselves to a worse fate later.

    I hate to sound maudlin, but the more and more I think about it, the only thing that seems likely to change the flaws inherent in our current economic paradigm is burning that paradigm to the ground.

    The system seems to be so rotten, that no amount of regulation will change what we are discussing here.

    When I say I was prepared for a total financial collapse I meant it.

    I mean, gas costing a $100 a gallon. The electrical grid failing.

    I mean anything up to zombie apocalypse levels of social distress.

    I truly hope that I'm not right.

    That we can overcome the challenges posed by our current economy, and political gridlock.

    But I fear I am right, and to the extent I can I will prepare for that rainy day should it occur.

  7. #57
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Zara, it is already bad enough as it is.
    Yes, and it would have been even worse had we not done TARP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Whether saving those banks were effective enough to stave off the economy from going into a downward spiral or not, it affected the whole entire world.
    It was enough to put the economy on triage. That is where we are now. We're still in the hospital, and will be for some time. We certainly are not healthy and good. We still have IV bags, a bed pan, and maybe even a respirator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    What we are seeing happening around the world these days are the consequences of those actions.
    And the bailouts were the consequences of 10, 20, 30, 40, and, in some cases, 60-70 years of bad policy-making.

    The bailouts did not make all this happen; they were the reaction to everything bad that was already happening.

    And, had we not gone through with them, this all would've been a whole lot worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Those actions, along with not having people to blame and put on trial just made it even worse.
    As I said in the days before the crisis: this thing won't be over til some CEOs are in jail.

    I thought Angelo Mozilo (who I watched daily selling his stock at the end of 2006) was gunna be one of em, but he managed to escape with a $60MM+ fine.

    A number of hedge fund/asset managers have gotten it (Madoff, Stanford, Rajaratnam), but none on the sell-side, or mortgage origination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Whether you choose to accept it or not, in my eyes, my constituents are living in a Great Depression.
    I have been saying since 2004 that we were heading towards the second Great Depression.

    If you had access to my facebook account, you would see that I say this all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Everything has been about the debt, about medicare, about tax cuts. None of these issues truly matter to me.
    They should.

    Increases in Medicare spending over the coming years will cause a vast expansion in our debt load to completely unsustainable levels that will trigger the next crisis, if we don't fix it first.

    That should concern you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    What matters to me is, why are we not putting these people in the firing line?
    I understand that you're angry, but that really is not the solution.

    I do, however, believe that we need to kick the baby-boomers out of office.

    Support young, up-and-coming politicians from the Millennial generation, if you want to see things fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    And why is our youth force to put up with this......
    Because, for the most part, we don't vote, and we don't understand the issues.

    If we did, we would realize how much the older generations have already and are continuing to screw us.

    If we did, we would realize how much our vote matters, and we'd kick the assholes out of office, and bring in fresh blood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    If it was between burning the economy or having the chance the government can learn to work together, I would choose to burn the economy so that the government can actually work and fix it.
    I understand the sentiment, but that ain't reality.

    There would also be so much pain from this, it's highly dubitable as to whether it would be worth it.

    There's also no guarantee that they would be any better at working with each other in that scenario as this one.

    My recommendation: first off, be happy that we're lying in a hospital bed, and not dead on the street.

    Second, learn more about the issues, be proactive, and encourage your friends to do the same.

    The only way we're gunna fix this is by learning more, and getting out the vote.

  8. #58
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As I said in the days before the crisis: this thing won't be over til some CEOs are in jail. I want every single gain from the banks taken back.

    I thought Angelo Mozilo (who I watched daily selling his stock at the end of 2006) was gunna be one of em, but he managed to escape with a $60MM+ fine.

    A number of hedge fund/asset managers have gotten it (Madoff, Stanford, Rajaratnam), but none on the sell-side, or mortgage origination.
    I want their assets frozen, I want their money appropriate back to the people, I want them jail, but that is exactly as you said.

    I want the banks ability to take over foreclosed homes because of their lack of accountability lose its power.

    It is why I like the Occupy Movement so much. You can target people, but it doesn't mean the end of the movement. Would be nice to go to the NATO Summit. It is too bad the G8 Summit isn't going to be in Chicago though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    They should.

    Increases in Medicare spending over the coming years will cause a vast expansion in our debt load to completely unsustainable levels that will trigger the next crisis, if we don't fix it first.

    That should concern you.
    The more immediate dire situation right now is the student loan debt, it ain't going anywhere because part of those debt is owned to the banks because they decided to screw us over. Medicare and social security were sustainable until Congress decided to use those hedge funds and appropriate it to something else. I think tax cuts were part of the reason. (couldn't vote one bit until the U.S. was in a dire situation)

    The healthcare reform could be helping most of the younger generation, and IS helping the younger generation (even though the scope of it is huge.) But with the current events, I think even that is going to get thrown out the window if the more conservative justices decide not to look through what they decide to throw out or leave in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I understand that you're angry, but that really is not the solution.

    I do, however, believe that we need to kick the baby-boomers out of office.

    Support young, up-and-coming politicians from the Millennial generation, if you want to see things fixed.

    Because, for the most part, we don't vote, and we don't understand the issues.

    If we did, we would realize how much the older generations have already and are continuing to screw us.

    If we did, we would realize how much our vote matters, and we'd kick the assholes out of office, and bring in fresh blood.
    Unfortunately, the vast majority of politicians are either Boomers or GenX

    My vote matters, but I live in a democrat majority. Whether I vote or not, I'm already covered. I do trust my representative though. Though I'm planning to help kick-out a neighboring representative(don't like him, and the last I check, he is one of the most likely members of congress to get thrown out.) It is hard trying to get people to vote though

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Second, learn more about the issues, be proactive, and encourage your friends to do the same.

    The only way we're gunna fix this is by learning more, and getting out the vote.
    Ever since SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/CISPA, that is all I've been doing. It can only get worse with "those" congress members. We can vote, but I want to make Grover Norquest's power null. Completely ZIP. I want to make it known, if you follow Grover Norquist's rules I'll get people to kick you out.

    It has awoken the inner activist in me.
    Last edited by Rail Tracer; 05-09-2012 at 04:53 PM.

  9. #59
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Update from Politico:

    President Obama's Wall Street problem

    The giant $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase highlights a central problem in President Barack Obama’s case for a second term: Four years after the financial crisis nearly brought the nation to its knees, very little appears to have changed.

    No high-profile bank executives are in jail. Special multi-agency task forces to go after financial fraud and mortgage market abuses appeared in State of the Union addresses, only to issue a few news releases and mostly vanish from public view.

    And now one of the largest banks in the United States, headed by a Democrat and operating with government guarantees, has turned in the kind of headline-grabbing, casino-style loss that drives voters crazy and that Obama’s financial reform bill was supposed to stop. It’s led to the immediate retirement of Ina Drew, the bank’s chief investment officer, along with a statement from Dimon that JPMorgan remains “strong.”

    (See also: 10 facts about Jamie Dimon)

    Senior administration officials make a nuanced and largely credible case that they pushed for the toughest law they could get through Congress. They say the JPMorgan trades might not have happened if banks were not lobbying like crazy to water down financial reform. And they argue that higher capital requirements mean banks can better handle large losses such as those suffered by JPMorgan. If a giant bank fails now, they say, it will be liquidated without taxpayer support.

    Obama campaign officials point out that their presidential opponent, Republican Mitt Romney, wants to get rid of the Dodd-Frank overhaul legislation entirely. They launched a fresh assault on Romney’s experience at Bain Capital Monday morning, attacking their opponent with a new ad and website for the job losses and profits he made as a venture capitalist.

    But average voters don’t attend Commodities Futures Trading Commission hearings or read comment letters on complex proposals like the Volcker Rule provision in Dodd-Frank that is supposed to ban banks from making such huge bets. Instead, they open newspapers and turn on televisions and see what looks like 2008 all over again.

    “The guy in the street in 2008 and 2009 was worried about his or her deposits, and now it’s clear they should still be worried,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian and professor at Manhattan College. “An average person looks at this and thinks, ‘What exactly happened here? How could this happen again?’ And they don’t want excuses as to why it happened. They just want it to go away. But it’s not going away.”

    JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s comments Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” did not help the administration’s case that its financial reform bill has improved the system. Dimon said he didn’t think JPMorgan had broken any laws — but he wasn’t really sure.

    “So we’ve had audit, legal, risk, compliance, some of our best people looking at all of that. We know we were sloppy. We know we were stupid. We know there was bad judgment. We don’t know if [violating laws or rules] is true yet,” he said. “Of course regulators should look at something like this — that’s their jobs. So we are totally open to regulators, and they will come to their own conclusions.”
    The Obama team may have caught a break by drawing an opponent it can try to cast as a product of Wall Street who would slash financial regulations and return the industry to its Wild West days. And it has hit Romney for exactly that in the wake of the JPMorgan story. In a statement Friday, Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith called Romney’s advocacy of repealing Dodd-Frank a “reckless” stance that would risk a new financial crisis.

    Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams responded by saying the former Massachusetts governor wants simpler, more transparent Wall Street reform. “JPMorgan’s reported $2 billion trading loss demonstrates the importance of oversight and transparency in the derivatives market, something Gov. Romney has called for in the past,” Williams said.

    But the debate over what Romney would or wouldn’t do misses a much larger political problem for Obama. Reelection campaigns are referendums on a president’s job performance. The JPMorgan debacle raises a critical question: Has the president demonstrated enough strength in taking on Wall Street?

    It is much like the president’s problem on the economy, where Romney enjoys stronger polling numbers. The president has to convince skeptical voters that while things are not great yet, they could be a lot worse.

    He does not have tremendous support for that argument among financial-reform advocates.

    “Rather than a sustained assault to push reform through the agencies by funding them and supporting them at every turn, the administration has mostly just let the process play out, which is the same as handing it over to Wall Street and the lobbyists,” said Dennis Kelleher, a former senior Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill and now president of the reform group Better Markets.

    Polls suggest that just as voters are unsure whether to trust the president on the economy for another four years, they are evenly split on whether the Dodd-Frank bill was good for the country.

    A recent Washington Post/ABC News survey found that 49 percent had a favorable view of new financial industry regulations while 44 percent had a negative view. Those numbers are likely to get significantly worse in the wake of the JPMorgan disaster and make it much harder for Obama to run as the sheriff who cleaned up Wall Street.
    Critics of the administration say that more intense White House pressure and involvement could have produced far stronger legislation than the version of Dodd-Frank currently muddling its way through the rule-writing process.

    “There is no way we should even be talking about whether Dodd-Frank might have prevented this,” said a former senior regulator who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely about the White House. “The administration could have pushed for and passed the SAFE Act, which would have banned this kind of trading. Even [Senate Banking Committee ranking Republican Richard] Shelby said he would have voted for the SAFE Act. They just chose not to push it.”

    Critics on the left and right say Dodd-Frank was something of an afterthought for an administration that made health care and the stimulus its top priorities.

    Obama had a historic opportunity to take Wall Street to the woodshed and fix the broken financial regulatory system at a time when public anger at banks was off the charts, these critics say. Voters of all persuasions, from the tea party to Occupy Wall Street, wanted to see criminal cases and reform with real teeth. Such reform could have included breaking up the nation’s largest banks and demanding the return of big bonuses earned through risky bets that burned down the economy and sent unemployment to 10 percent.

    “It was the triumph of ideology over practicality,” said James Rickards, partner at JAC Capital Advisors, a hedge fund. “What should have been on the political and economic agenda was curing the problems afflicting our financial system. But they chose to do health care. They couldn’t ignore Wall Street altogether so they did Dodd-Frank. But they did not use any real political capital, so what we got was something that hasn’t made the system any better.”

    In fact, Rickards said the system is arguably worse. “The only way to get rid of ‘too big to fail’ banks is to break them up. If smaller banks fail, who cares? But all they did was institutionalize too big to fail,” he said. “There is a larger concentration of assets in the five biggest banks than there was before the crisis.”
    Administration officials strongly reject these arguments. They say the system is safer as a result of Dodd-Frank, and the JPMorgan loss shows why final rules must be written as soon as possible. Treasury officials, who took the lead role in helping to shape Dodd-Frank, say banks have added $400 billion in capital since the financial crisis and are significantly less reliant on short-term funding than in 2008.

    Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, also dismissed the idea that the administration pushed health care at the expense of Wall Street reform. “I don’t understand the difference in the timing and what that would have meant,” she wrote in an email. “We signed health care in March, we signed financial reform in July of the same year, two major pieces of legislation the president spent a lot of political capital on to get done and there was obviously a lot of work being done on both in tandem.”

    The fact that the $2 billion loss hit JPMorgan makes things even more complicated for the administration, which has had a tortured relationship with Wall Street.

    In a 2009 interview, Obama told ABC News that not all banks were bad and praised JPMorgan in particular. “There are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well-managed,” he said. “JPMorgan being a good example. Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don’t think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio.”

    But Obama stepped up his anti-Wall Street rhetoric later that year during the financial reform debate. He told CBS he did not become president to “be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street.”

    That sort of talk and elements of the Dodd-Frank bill ended Wall Street’s love affair with the president. Dimon told David Gregory during two interviews taped last week for “Meet the Press” that he “would call myself a ‘barely Democrat’ at this point” and that he thinks the “anti-business behavior” is “very counterproductive.”

    Repeated efforts by Obama campaign officials, including campaign manager Jim Messina, to rekindle the flame with Wall Street have fallen pretty flat. Now the administration has the worst of both worlds. Wall Street executives think the White House beat up on them unfairly. And critics think the administration let bankers off way too easy. They point out that multiple task forces announced to bring big cases stemming from the financial crisis haven’t done much of anything.

    On MSNBC Friday, Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general and chairman of the current residential mortgage securities fraud task force, a successor to a similar task force launched in 2009, defended the group’s work so far. “The nonglamorous work of issuing subpoenas, reviewing documents and conducting depositions is going forward,” he said.

    But the clock is ticking. And it would help Obama’s reelection campaign if Schneiderman gets around to the more glamorous work of putting people in handcuffs sometime in the next six months.

  10. #60
    Senior Member durentu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    413

    Default

    the reason is

    wall street > president

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - jefferson

    yes, he's talking about the federal reserve
    "People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds; it is something one creates." - Thomas Szasz

Similar Threads

  1. Hillary won't reign in Wall Street
    By SearchingforPeace in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-29-2016, 10:16 PM
  2. Why do people keep comparing the US to Europe?
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 06:48 PM
  3. Why Prayer is a SIN and affront to God
    By nozflubber in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 11:08 AM
  4. Some reaons why McCain and Obama are both BS
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 09:05 PM
  5. [INTJ] Why do a lot of people seem to have lots of negative views about INTJs?
    By bai_lin83 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 12:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO