Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Miscellaneous 118

1) The problem with the greedy bankers theory (relative to the financial collapse) is that bankers and Wall Street have ALWAYS been greedy. That's a constant. Ergo, something other than that HAD to have been thrown into the mix, back in the 90s, to further unleash that pure greed. And I would argue that it was government policy; the FED distorting interest rates, the national and New York FEDs creating a bailout culture, various government initiatives to facilitate home ownership, regulators at HUD basically being asleep at the switch, the SEC giving special privileges to investment banks over commercial banks, etc.. I mean, I know that it's far more in-fashion to blame the private sector and all but, still.............2) Of all the professional sports halls of fame, the most perplexing to me is the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I just don't understand it. Take the case of former receiving great, Art Monk. When Mr. Monk retired in 1996, he was the NFL's second all-time leading receiver (trailing only at that time the great Jerry Rice). He ended his career with 940 receptions for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns. I mean, no, he wasn't the fast guy in the world and there were other receivers who were far more dangerous deep-threats. But in terms of moving the chains, going over the middle to make the tough catch in traffic (I only saw him drop one ball and when he did I pinched myself), there's never been anybody better than Art Monk. Sounds like a sure first ballot hall of famer, no? Well, not according to whoever it is who does the voting over there. Nope, those sons of bitches made Mr. Monk wait FOURTEEN YEARS (well, actually nine - everybody has to wait five). It was absolutely disgraceful, I think.............3) And they're damn doing it again! This go-round to Cris Carter and Tim Brown (both of who retired with over a thousand catches). I don't know, folks, they must have something against wide receivers or something.............4) That, or they're frigging idiots!

8 comments:

w-dervish said...

Will: The problem with the greedy bankers theory...

Who said greedy bankers were the only factor?

WHO?

Will: ...it was government policy...

Specifically the policies of the GWb Administration...

William K. Black (2/7/2011) GWb was an ardent anti-regulator. He appointed the nation's leading anti-regulators to run the regulatory agencies. Bush appointed Harvey Pitt... to run the SEC because he was the leading opponent of vigorous securities regulation & effective accounting. On 10/16/2001, Enron announce massive losses... On 10/22/2001, SEC Chairman Pitt addressed the AICPA Governing Council (his former client) & bemoaned the fact that the SEC had not always been a “kinder and gentler" place for accountants. He called accountants the SEC's “partners”.

[Pitt said] “I am committed to the principle that government is & must be a service industry”.

[Timmy Geithner, in his role as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, when called to testify before Congress said] “I was never a regulator”. [end quote from Black article]

Will: I know that it's far more in-fashion to blame the private sector and all...

Huh? WHO is saying the private sector was exclusively to blame?? WHO???

Will: ...the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I just don't understand it.

Me neither.

BB-Idaho said...

Jerry Cramer, Alex Karras, Jim Marshall?

The Heathen Republican said...

w-dervish, since you pulled the Black quote, I assume you're willing to defend it. If GWB was an anti-regulator, can you give me the number of regulations he removed during his administration? Are we talking a dozen, a hundred, a thousand?

I don't suppose he added any regulations during his administration, did he?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I addressed this before, wd. The budget for financial regulation went up demonstrably under Bush, and so, too, did the number of regulations (the code of regulations exceeded 75,000 pages for the first time in U.S. history under this "free marketeer") on the books. Did the regulators themselves fall down on the job? I suppose.............As for the SEC, I think that it probably suffered far more under Christopher Cox. He's the one who spearheaded the rules change in 2004 that gave investment banks an unfair advantage over traditional lending banks (but even here the effect is unclear in that a lot of these same banks were actually leveraged higher prior to 2004).............Geither, wd? You're defending Geithner? He's one of the guys who used a bunch of loopholes to push through the frigging Bears Stearns bailout, for Christ. Mr. Obama appointing him and claiming to be a significant change artist is laughable.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

BB Idaho, Alex Karras isn't in the Hall of Fame? Now THAT is an outrage.............Good point, HR. Mr. Bush was about as much of a degegulator as......(I'm trying to come up with a good analogy here but it's late).

w-dervish said...

Heathen Republican: If GWB was an anti-regulator...

The quote says "anti-regulator" not "deregulator". Did you not read all of it? It says the "regulators" didn't regulate. They thought they were "partners" with the entities they were supposed to be regulating.

Will: I addressed this before, wd.

No you didn't. Increasing a budget and pages of regulations doesn't mean the regulators were doing the job they should have been.

Will: Did the regulators themselves fall down on the job?

No. They didn't understand what their job was.

Will: Geither, wd? You're defending Geithner?

I don't know WTF gave you that idea. Timmy Geithner is one of the villains in the financial meltdown. Appointing him is one of the MAJOR issues I have with Obama.

But Will, you didn't say who said the greedy bankers were the only factor or who said the private sector was exclusively to blame. It was my impression that you meant me, but I never said that.

dmarks said...

"..Specifically the policies of the GWb Administration..."

And even more the policies of the Clinton administration, when the "CRA" was created.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, if you're argument is that the Bush administration did a shitty job of regulating the financial sector, THAT I could possibly be on board with. That argument makes a lot more sense to me than the deregulation theory.............Wow, and we totally agree on Geithner (AKA, Paulsen clone), too. This isn't going to be good for the ratings, wd.