“That would include new powers to examine the books of any institution deemed to represent a potential threat to the proper functioning of the overall financial system” How does everyone here enjoy living under Bush fascism? So BSC gets clobbered and the Fed steps in. “We’ll protect you!”, but they don’t tell us the price is that if the government decides that you might be a threat to the overall financial system, you need to open up your books. So what level of threat is that? LTCM was a threat so I guess that means any hedge fund could be a threat (just throw around some of those bogus leverage numbers). Drexel was a threat so I guess any two-bit investment bank could be a threat. Continental Illinois was a threat (all banks). Lincoln Savings was a threat (all S&L’s). Geez, maybe if I forget to pay my home equity loan I’m a threat. They came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up
It’s the curse of this modern age. Nobody likes responsibility anymore so why not implement lots of rules that can deal with those things. Responsibility… that’s equal to swearing nowadays.
"LTCM was a threat so I guess that means any hedge fund could be a threat (just throw around some of those bogus leverage numbers). " Bogus leverage numbers? What do you mean - how were they bogus?
private wealth regulation isn’t much better. you have Finra regulating themselves into obscurity as registered reps flock towards ria or financial planner status to avoid the current regime. apparently finra has seen the writing on the wall and have created a focus group to lobby for oversight of rias and planners. it’s a mess.
I am not saying I disagree with the general sentiment but… Unfortunately, since it didn’t involve calculations I pretty much slept through civics class in HS. Still there are three branches of the gov’t and it is a two party system. “Bush fascism” is beginning to sound more like a mainstream effort to lay the blame solely on the chief executive and therefore quietly excuse others involved including the legislative branch. Congress votes on legislation and a congressman only serve a 2-year term. So if Bush’s lies were the jumping off point for our ills, we had 3-4 tries to get some people in there to alter course. I am worried that we are allowing ourselves to be convinced by political action groups and the media that our current problems are 100% a result of “Bush’s lies”. I feel they have a clear motive to simplify it to that. If the slow-crony-cowboy notion is accepted then the focus is taken off the opposition who pretty much played along as things unfolded and even now offer little vision or alternatives. (“I voted for that, before I voted against it”… “If I knew then what I know now I wouldn’t have voted for authorization” etc. etc.) Anyway, I agree this is getting a little too “big brother”. I just wonder what the definition of change is by those who promise it and if we will ever really get the kind of change we need to reverse this albatross our gov’t has devolved into. Lastly, I am not jewish but to compare high regulation to a holocaust or a US Gov’t figure to Hitler, well I know what you meant but still. I expect to hear that sort of thing from Code Pink.
First, I didn’t compare anyone to Hitler and I think that poem ought to be part of everyone’s processes about how they think of all kinds of things. Next, I didn’t say anything about Bush lies, although I sure have plenty to say about that. I absolutely think that Congressional leadership has dropped the ball. I have never had much confidence in courts to protect civil liberties and the record of the court is pretty mixed (they have support sedition laws, imprisonment of Japanese-Americans for being Japanese, etc…). I also think that the stuff in civics class about checks and balances is half fantasy. The President has some extraordinary power particularly in matters military that Congress can’t do much about except defund him. We did that in Vietnam and it didn’t work out well. And as far as civics - when in civics class did we ever hear about the Constitutional authority of the Fed to give taxpayer money to investment banks in $100B chunks? I must have slept through that part too.
Well put. What I was trying to express was this. First to your main point, I believe we are in agreement that we don’t need a bloated gov’t to determine what is a threat to the financial system. That is just asking for trouble. Second, I think we agree that Congress has failed us. However, I do not feel that checks and balances were intended as a fantasy. They are intended to be a central theme in our system of gov’t. If that principle has been weakened it is our responsibility to correct it and the election of representatives is, unfortunately, the means. That may not make a great soundbite or a viable campaign theme but it is where I feel the blame lies. I feel career politicians are no longer public servants. Their self serving nature has devalued the system and resulted in these events, not a single evil, dumb, crony and the helm. It speaks to our “need it now” nature that we want the solution to be surgical. Remove the cancer and all is well. Unfortunately, I fear that is not plausible. Lastly, that poem has a moving and powerful meaning. Because of that I think the original context cannot really be ignored. It is a personal opinion that it is frequently cited to silently draw a parallel, and it is used too freely for my liking. I apologize for implying you intended to compare Bush to Hitler. I wrongly assume that linking someone or some thing to that type of pure evil is the intention when this passage is inserted into a discussion like this.
It is their job to determine that banks are healthy and able to survive in the long run in order to avoid a bank crisis. These are guidelines they can review and improve. They already to it today so if they think they have underestimated that risk; set new guidelines. “New powers”… haven’t got a clue what he means.
Why not just increase margin requirements and reduce leverage ?
slouiscar Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Lastly, that poem has a moving and powerful > meaning. Because of that I think the original > context cannot really be ignored. It is a > personal opinion that it is frequently cited to > silently draw a parallel, and it is used too > freely for my liking. I apologize for implying > you intended to compare Bush to Hitler. I wrongly > assume that linking someone or some thing to that > type of pure evil is the intention when this > passage is inserted into a discussion like this. I’m ok with that.