Obama Dissed, Volcker Speaks Out Against Bankers Gone Wild
If anything about the financial crisis made you beet-red angry, then you must read Simon Johnson. Johnson is a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund who wrote one of the best pieces on the financial crisis in print, the Quiet Coup. This week he urges people to pass on the message of Paul Volcker, former head of the Fed Reserve (before Greenspan), and now the head of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Obama met this week with the heads of the major banks in an attempt to discuss regulation and the return of stability to the financial system. Guess who decided to attend the meeting with the President of the Free World only by phone? If you guessed Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs; John J. Mack, chairman of Morgan Stanley; and Richard D. Parsons, chairman of Citigroup you got it right. (Thanks guys, cause that shows how much you appreciated the use of all our taxpayer dollars!!)
The meeting continued with discussions about executive compensation, regulation, and making more loans available to small business. From the NY Times:
…the banks are seeking to restore executive pay to high levels and asserting that the government’s demand that they hold bigger financial buffers against possible losses makes it hard for them to issue more loans. During the hourlong meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Mr. Obama prodded the executives to stop fighting the regulation legislation intended to deal with the problems that led to the financial crisis”
Paul Volcker was one of the few outspoken critics of the unprecedented response by the Federal Reserve in the financial crisis. Far oversimplified, he did not agree that it was a good idea to bail out failing banks at all.
After President Obama’s meeting with the top banking executives, Volcker had this to say (emphasis added):
Every day I hear financial leaders saying that they are necessary and desirable, they are wonderful and they are God’s work. Has there been one financial leader to stand out and say that maybe this is excessive and that maybe we should get together privately to think about some restraint?
I hear about these wonderful innovations in the financial markets, and they sure as hell need a lot of innovation. I can tell you of two—credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations—which took us right to the brink of disaster. Were they wonderful innovations that we want to create more of? [...] Wake up, gentlemen. I can only say that your response is inadequate. I wish that somebody would give me some shred of neutral evidence about the relationship between financial innovation recently and the growth of the economy, just one shred of information.
Paul Volcker and Simon Johnson for the win.
Confessions of a Liberal
It’s tough to be a progressive these days, really tough. When Bush was sauntering around the world, cocky and ignorant (dangerous combo), life was easy. We could rail on fundamental religion, bemoan aggressive US foreign policy, argue for more funding of all the take-better-care-of-the-people programs because back then, at least we weren’t broke.
But like so many Americans, massive debt does not fly with me. It doesn’t turn me into a Republican, I’d still rather see more money going to inner cities than to buying Israel, but it does bring out the conservative STFU mentality (as in, “Times are tough? Too bad. STFU and quit whining.”) Now all that’s left to debate is who needs to STFU over what. I’ll give you this at the get-go: Liberals need to STFU about expanding social programs in a time of scarcity, but then, that’s tough when the bankers are rolling in swine flu shots and bonuses.
Healthcare is simple, really. Drug companies? STFU and deal with the competition that the rest of us have been dealing with. All that overseas cheap labor that everyone from manufacturers to tech workers have had to compete against? Yes, YOU my big fat US corporations, can compete against cheap drugs from Canada just like the rest of us have had to deal. This gets complicated since our man Obama has apparently caved massively on this issue. Aging populations whining over their Medicare benefits getting trimmed? STFU, because we’re your kids and grandkids, remember?? We are going to inherit the debt you are insisting upon every time you refuse to allow Medicare coverage to be reeled in. Do I support government funded healthcare for the elderly? Absolutely. But yes, it does need to be rationed. We ration our own money every day.
Wall Street needs to STFU. All the newly converted, anti-Obama faux-Libertarians need to STFU. Why? Because (cue overarching Liberal premise) money begets money and money protects money and we have a tacit agreement in the US that we’ll try to keep equal opportunity alive by supporting some form of income wealth redistribution. If we didn’t have a mixed economy we’d end up back where we started: feudal lords and fiefdoms. Goldman Sachs is a feudal lord, you are a peon. Don’t delude yourself that it’s any different. Regulation ensures that these players stick to the rules of fair play. Have you heard the arguments from investment bankers? That regulations “curb innovation”?? You can call CDOs “instruments” but keep in mind, these are not actual products. They’re pyramid schemes. Not my definition of innovation.
So, enough with the STFU. I am aware, painfully aware, that I also could use to STFU. And I have. No posts for months now. Because Obama has not been the great fixer he set out to be, and it’s taken some time to sort out the complexity of going from a righteous progressive during the Bush era, to being a disillusioned progressive today.
If there’s one thing I’m certain of it’s this (and then I really will STFU): the parties, Dems and Repubs, are irrelevant. Easy answers do not lie on either side of the fence. Times are so complex that a massive realignment and reshuffling seems in order. My hope is that pragmatism rules the day.
I Dream of a Comment God
If I Could Write the Code… I’d create a comment-sorting algorithm. The idea is to send the most useful comments to the top so that I don’t have to search so hard to find the sharpest responses in the proverbial haystack. The closest thing we have now is the reader’s choice buttons for ‘recommend’ or ‘don’t recommend’. Usually this doesn’t change the order of the comments, just flags them. I want the juicy, witty, clever, insightful comments to float to the top. Here’s my suggested weighting of comment characteristics:
Forcing Us to Listen Demerit
-15 points: Uses more than one exclamation point attempting to emphasize!! what logic and reasoning can’t sustain. Occasionally overlooked when the exclamation points are contained in a response and to an ignorant poster and are justified subtext for “I’m sorry but you are a blatant dumbass!”
A for Effort Credit
+25 points: Cites legitimate sources; does not include Fox News, Glenn Beck’s show, Rush Limbaugh’s show, blogs with a readership as small as mine, etc.
Times Have Changed Demerit
-10 points: Begins an argument with “when I was a kid…”
Humility Indication Credit
+10 points: Begins an argument with “I probably don’t know what I’m talking about, but…” or any IMHO variant.
Cogent Response Credit
+20 points: Begins comment with “I agree.” or “I disagree.”
Anger Demerit
-25 points: Writes in ALL CAPS forcing me to place hands over my ears
Making It Personal Demerit
-15 points: Lectures the author using their first name. Newsflash–I already have a Mom.
Bicker-stopping Smackdown Credit
+50 If you can come up with that rare witty retort, that gem of an inside joke, that sweet vengeance plus humor argument-ender, you win the thread. :)
I love blogs and citizen reporters. The unwashed masses who come out to comment? Not so much. You? You’re great!
-
-
About
Welcome to duh pookie where we work hard to bring you sparkly new thoughts.
-
- RSS Feed
-
Visit Political Voices of Women Community
