Monday, December 22, 2008
Normally Calm Reporter Goes Off
TW: Mike Scherer is a journalist for Time, he normally seems fairly calm. But he must have checked his 401K statement over the weekend because now he is pissed off...and besides we just do not get a chance to quote HL Mencken nearly enough...
From Time:
"The Associated Press has crunched the numbers: "Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals."(TW- btw why people are just now putting two and two together is beyond me)...
Yes I know, private schools cost a lot, and these are hard working men, and by gosh, they had no idea they were profiting for years on a scheme that now imperils every hardworking family in the world. Yes I know, some did better than others, and we need them now to help clean up the mess. Some have even been so noble as to announce they are taking pay cuts next year. But to all that I will also say this. This current financial crisis, we now know, began in the summer of 2007, a year and a half ago. And these men are already rich--ridiculously so. And they have failed, in many cases almost completely, in their mandates, not just to protect their own investors, but to protect the public trust...
It all calls to mind the words of H.L. Mencken, who wrote in 1922 of the country he loved and ceaselessly exposed:
From Time:
"The Associated Press has crunched the numbers: "Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals."(TW- btw why people are just now putting two and two together is beyond me)...
Yes I know, private schools cost a lot, and these are hard working men, and by gosh, they had no idea they were profiting for years on a scheme that now imperils every hardworking family in the world. Yes I know, some did better than others, and we need them now to help clean up the mess. Some have even been so noble as to announce they are taking pay cuts next year. But to all that I will also say this. This current financial crisis, we now know, began in the summer of 2007, a year and a half ago. And these men are already rich--ridiculously so. And they have failed, in many cases almost completely, in their mandates, not just to protect their own investors, but to protect the public trust...
It all calls to mind the words of H.L. Mencken, who wrote in 1922 of the country he loved and ceaselessly exposed:
And here, more than anywhere else I know of or have heard of, the daily panorama of human existence, or private and communal folly--the unending procession of governmental extortions and chicaneries, of commercial brigandages and throat-slittings, of theological buffooneries, of aesthetic ribaldries, of legal swindles and harlotries, of miscellaneous rogueries, villainies, imbecilities, grotesqueries, and extravagances--is so inordinately gross and preposterous, so perfectly brought up to the highest conceivable amperage, so steadily enriched with an almost fabulous daring and originality, that only the man who was born with a petrified diaphragm can fail to laugh himself to sleep every night, and to awake every morning with all the eager, unflagging expectation of a Sunday-school superintendent touring the Paris peep-shows."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/21/the-bank-executive-bailout-shame/
Thank You Barry Ritholz!
"Here’s one of the simple truisms that gets lost in the political (i.e., bumper sticker) discussions.
Don’t regulate the free markets! Don’t interfere with innovation! Don’t stifle incentives!
What bullshit.
One of the best ways to win a debate is to control the language used. This was one of the elements George Orwell was discussing in 1984, and why the language in the novel was degraded to phrases like “double plus good.” All nuance was dismissed. He who controls the language controls the political economy is what Orwell was saying. In modern times, its done not with boot-jacks and guns, but with catchphrases and clever marketing. Its not as heavy handed, its just more insidious.
When we discuss “Regulations,” we are talking about regulating human behavior. And that behavior can range from following misplaced incentives to falsifying accounting data to overtly legal but destructive actions — like putting people into loans they knew (or reasonably should have known) were likely to default.
What a terrible sham the no “regulation cry” has been. It is really a vote for no rules against illegal and/or criminal behavior . . ."
Don’t regulate the free markets! Don’t interfere with innovation! Don’t stifle incentives!
What bullshit.
One of the best ways to win a debate is to control the language used. This was one of the elements George Orwell was discussing in 1984, and why the language in the novel was degraded to phrases like “double plus good.” All nuance was dismissed. He who controls the language controls the political economy is what Orwell was saying. In modern times, its done not with boot-jacks and guns, but with catchphrases and clever marketing. Its not as heavy handed, its just more insidious.
When we discuss “Regulations,” we are talking about regulating human behavior. And that behavior can range from following misplaced incentives to falsifying accounting data to overtly legal but destructive actions — like putting people into loans they knew (or reasonably should have known) were likely to default.
What a terrible sham the no “regulation cry” has been. It is really a vote for no rules against illegal and/or criminal behavior . . ."
Dick Cheney a Jerk Who Never Stops Being a Jerk
Chris Wallace Republican Fox News: Did you really tell Senator Leahy, to fuck himself?
CHENEY: I did.
WALLACE: Any qualms or second thoughts or embarrassment?
CHENEY: No, I thought he merited it at the time. And we've since, I think, patched over that wound and we're civil to one another now
TW: Nice. Dick.
CHENEY: I did.
WALLACE: Any qualms or second thoughts or embarrassment?
CHENEY: No, I thought he merited it at the time. And we've since, I think, patched over that wound and we're civil to one another now
TW: Nice. Dick.
The Zim (Zimbabwean) Dollar...
TW: ...and this one...yes our economy is messed up but lets hope we do not quite catch up to Robert Mugabe's mess.Things I Like - Humor
Some signs that made me laugh - be sure to read the fine print on the 3rd one.
1968...What Were We Thinking?
TW: Click on chart to enlarge. I find these retro looks on opinion fascinating. There is much to ponder above. We do not say "negroes" anymore and given the 1968 attitudes, for good reason. It does not surprise me that folks had such an optimistic view of Nixon (he had just been elected after all) but it speaks to how ephemeral Obama's popularity might be. The "beliefs" surprise me, the number of folks believing in heaven and hell has barely budged, but then maybe that is just my bias. And that huge cultural event, Jackie O's marriage received a great deal of attention. Some things seem far more important at the time than they do ultimately, we most definitely have not overcome that bias.Sunday, December 21, 2008
Drew Carey...Calm Down Already
TW: I used to watch Price Is Right many years ago while at my grandmother's. I was vaguely aware of Bob Barker no longer being the host, but Drew Carey needs to pick it up, I mean that dude nailed it...that cannot happen very often.
Reading List
1) Nick Kristof explaining how heroes come in many forms
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/opinion/27kristof.html?scp=1&sq=kristof%20giving%20thanks&st=cse
2) New Yorker article on the anatomy of a soup kitchen
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/frazier-new-yorker-chelsea-soup-kitchen.html
3) The market for recylables has collapsed amidst the recession, setting back environmental programs across the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/08recycle.html?_r=1&ref=business
4) A Fortune writer who covered Detroit for decades takes a trip down memory lane to assess how it has all gone wrong. In the story the write somewhat admits that he was Detroit's flack but does not really since after all that would be to acknowledge complicity in the great demise.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/21/magazines/fortune/taylor_generalmotors.fortune/index.htm
5) Slate article on how foreign automakers have become a huge employer in the American South (and user of state subsidies)
http://www.slate.com/id/2206525/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/opinion/27kristof.html?scp=1&sq=kristof%20giving%20thanks&st=cse
2) New Yorker article on the anatomy of a soup kitchen
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/09/frazier-new-yorker-chelsea-soup-kitchen.html
3) The market for recylables has collapsed amidst the recession, setting back environmental programs across the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/08recycle.html?_r=1&ref=business
4) A Fortune writer who covered Detroit for decades takes a trip down memory lane to assess how it has all gone wrong. In the story the write somewhat admits that he was Detroit's flack but does not really since after all that would be to acknowledge complicity in the great demise.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/21/magazines/fortune/taylor_generalmotors.fortune/index.htm
5) Slate article on how foreign automakers have become a huge employer in the American South (and user of state subsidies)
http://www.slate.com/id/2206525/
Obama Will Not Replicate Bush Foreign Policy
TW: Another good one from Barnett, as usual he does a great job framing his topic. This week it calmly outlining how destructive the Bush foreign policy was while de-bunking the somewhat amazing effort by the neo-cons (the WSJ editorial page is toxic and has been forever) to claim Obama will continue their deeply flawed policies.
From Tom Barnett:
"The Wall Street Journal has been running an editorial campaign designed to convince the American public that the Barack Obama administration will constitute a third Bush term in foreign policy. Arguing that the president-elect's cabinet choices in national security portend more continuation than change, we are treated to a highly deceptive repackaging of the Bush legacy.
The truth is that the Bush administration bankrupted America's international standing through a half-decade of vigorous unilateralism that began before 9/11 and was turbocharged thereafter, the most stunning example being our government's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in December 2001 - the first time we've ever broken a strategic arms limitation agreement...
But the fact remains that on basically every big call, Bush-Cheney went out of their way to assert America's perceived primacy in great-power politics.
We toppled Saddam on our timetable and ran the postwar occupation with no regard to the interests of other states.
Based on our own declarations of authority, we have routinely intervened militarily inside numerous sovereign states in search of terrorists of our own designation, killing them at will.
When we've caught these terrorists, we've imprisoned them and sought their prosecution in our own military tribunals, ignoring the growing jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
And, when that wasn't convenient, our government has summarily "rendered" them to allies we know will torture them.
These initial steps weren't wrong in every instance. History has periodically demanded innovative U.S. leadership in international security affairs.
But the Bush administration went out of its way - time and time again - to tell the world that America would do what it must to protect itself in its self-declared "global war" and that, if our actions weren't welcome by other governments, well - that was just too damn bad.
Being as powerful and angry as we were after 9/11, the rest of the world basically got out of our way for the next three years. In turn, we dug our own graves with this persistent unilateralism, forcing our troops to fight two distant wars under the worst strategic situation: beset on all sides by spoilers and increasingly denuded of allies.
And when our cost in blood and treasure became prohibitively high, and it became clear even to the White House that America was being contained and counter-balanced and thwarted by other great powers in further attempts at unilateral actions - such as Bush-Cheney's open toying with the notion of military strikes on Iran, then and only then did this tiger change its stripes.
After the Republicans lost both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm election, our Mr. Hyde was decisively subsumed within Dr. Jeckyl and the Iraq War was basically outsourced to those military leaders who had long championed a change in strategy there.
We now witness a similarly sensible resetting of strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush-Cheney's stunning course correction unfolded under conditions of extreme duress; the world having figuratively thrown its shoes at America's head of state, our leadership was lame enough to duck.
But worse, by our example we have encouraged copycat behavior by other great powers, such as Russia vis-a-vis Georgia or - God forbid - possibly soon India against Pakistan.
If Obama's national security picks - a true team of pragmatists - signals anything, it's that our incoming administration clearly recognizes just how out of synch with the rest of the world's great powers America has become..."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/21/obama-is-not-bushs-third-term/
From Tom Barnett:
"The Wall Street Journal has been running an editorial campaign designed to convince the American public that the Barack Obama administration will constitute a third Bush term in foreign policy. Arguing that the president-elect's cabinet choices in national security portend more continuation than change, we are treated to a highly deceptive repackaging of the Bush legacy.
The truth is that the Bush administration bankrupted America's international standing through a half-decade of vigorous unilateralism that began before 9/11 and was turbocharged thereafter, the most stunning example being our government's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in December 2001 - the first time we've ever broken a strategic arms limitation agreement...
But the fact remains that on basically every big call, Bush-Cheney went out of their way to assert America's perceived primacy in great-power politics.
We toppled Saddam on our timetable and ran the postwar occupation with no regard to the interests of other states.
Based on our own declarations of authority, we have routinely intervened militarily inside numerous sovereign states in search of terrorists of our own designation, killing them at will.
When we've caught these terrorists, we've imprisoned them and sought their prosecution in our own military tribunals, ignoring the growing jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
And, when that wasn't convenient, our government has summarily "rendered" them to allies we know will torture them.
These initial steps weren't wrong in every instance. History has periodically demanded innovative U.S. leadership in international security affairs.
But the Bush administration went out of its way - time and time again - to tell the world that America would do what it must to protect itself in its self-declared "global war" and that, if our actions weren't welcome by other governments, well - that was just too damn bad.
Being as powerful and angry as we were after 9/11, the rest of the world basically got out of our way for the next three years. In turn, we dug our own graves with this persistent unilateralism, forcing our troops to fight two distant wars under the worst strategic situation: beset on all sides by spoilers and increasingly denuded of allies.
And when our cost in blood and treasure became prohibitively high, and it became clear even to the White House that America was being contained and counter-balanced and thwarted by other great powers in further attempts at unilateral actions - such as Bush-Cheney's open toying with the notion of military strikes on Iran, then and only then did this tiger change its stripes.
After the Republicans lost both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm election, our Mr. Hyde was decisively subsumed within Dr. Jeckyl and the Iraq War was basically outsourced to those military leaders who had long championed a change in strategy there.
We now witness a similarly sensible resetting of strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush-Cheney's stunning course correction unfolded under conditions of extreme duress; the world having figuratively thrown its shoes at America's head of state, our leadership was lame enough to duck.
But worse, by our example we have encouraged copycat behavior by other great powers, such as Russia vis-a-vis Georgia or - God forbid - possibly soon India against Pakistan.
If Obama's national security picks - a true team of pragmatists - signals anything, it's that our incoming administration clearly recognizes just how out of synch with the rest of the world's great powers America has become..."
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/21/obama-is-not-bushs-third-term/
Things I Like - Odds & Ends
Let's try something interactive today. You do some math and answer 3 simple questions and I'll read your mind. Or at least the minds of 98% of you.This will take about 2 minutes. btw, proof of my ability to read minds can be found in the first comment to this post.
Here we go:
- Think of a number between 1 and 100
- Multiply that number by 9
- If your number now has 2 or more digits, add the digits together until you have only 1 digit
- Subtract 5 from your result
- Now find the letter of the alphabet that corresponds to your number (A=1, B=2, etc)
- Next, think of a country that starts with that letter
- Now think of an animal that starts with the last letter of your country
- Finally, think of a fruit that starts with the last letter of your animal
That's it - go to the comments to find out if I have read your mind.
Stupidity More Than Malfeasance (Although Plenty Of That Too)
TW: This Friedman column does a nice job of framing a common sentiment, this financial crisis is as unnecessary as it was avoidable but at the end of the day common greed took over. Not just on Wall Street but everywhere. Where were the adults?
From Friedman at NYT:
"...some of America's best-paid bankers were overrated dopes who had no idea what they were selling, or greedy cynics who did know and turned a blind eye. But it wasn't only the bankers. This financial meltdown involved a broad national breakdown in personal responsibility, government regulation and financial ethics.
So many people were in on it: People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years; people who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made a fortunes doing so; and people who had no business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so...
"This [analyst] wasn't saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt," he added. "She was saying they were stupid. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of borrowed money, and imagine what they'd fetch in a fire sale...
"What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism ... 'We always asked the same question,' says Eisman. 'Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I'd always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.' He called Standard & Poor's and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn't say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/26/opinion/edfriedman.php
From Friedman at NYT:
"...some of America's best-paid bankers were overrated dopes who had no idea what they were selling, or greedy cynics who did know and turned a blind eye. But it wasn't only the bankers. This financial meltdown involved a broad national breakdown in personal responsibility, government regulation and financial ethics.
So many people were in on it: People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years; people who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made a fortunes doing so; and people who had no business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so...
"This [analyst] wasn't saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt," he added. "She was saying they were stupid. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of borrowed money, and imagine what they'd fetch in a fire sale...
"What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism ... 'We always asked the same question,' says Eisman. 'Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I'd always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.' He called Standard & Poor's and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn't say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/26/opinion/edfriedman.php
Saturday, December 20, 2008
T Minus One Month....
If He Only Had a Brain: Sean Hannity
TW: It is stating the obvious that Sean Hannity is an ignorant ass. The Economist reports on Media Matters (lefty blog) awarding Hannity its "Media Misinformer of the Year" award. Given Media Matters' slant their picking on Hannity is not surprising, what is useful is the depth and breadth of their documentation of the journalistic malfeasance perpetrated by Hannity and his employer Fox upon the American public.
From Economist:
"[Media Matters] end-of-the-year award to Sean Hannity—Misinformer of the Year—is a head-spinning read, whatever your politics. If you favored Mr Obama, it's a user's guide to every attack levied against the Democrat all year. If you favored Mr McCain, it's a reminder of why the assault on the Democrats fell flat. Mr Hannity was sloppy and often misguided, booking anti-Obama guests like Andy Martin and Jerome Corsi, despite their well-known outbursts of bigotry. (Mr Martin once called a federal judge a "slimy Jew.")
Watching Fox News during the elections was sometimes like slipping through the looking glass. The bizarre version of Barack Obama "exposed" on Mr Hannity's show was scary to his viewers, but it never convinced the wider electorate. Many conservatives got a false sense of security that convinced them that the polls were wrong, and that voters would figure out the truth about the Democrat eventually."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/information_you_wont_get_it.cfm
http://mediamatters.org/items/200812170007?f=h_top
From Economist:
"[Media Matters] end-of-the-year award to Sean Hannity—Misinformer of the Year—is a head-spinning read, whatever your politics. If you favored Mr Obama, it's a user's guide to every attack levied against the Democrat all year. If you favored Mr McCain, it's a reminder of why the assault on the Democrats fell flat. Mr Hannity was sloppy and often misguided, booking anti-Obama guests like Andy Martin and Jerome Corsi, despite their well-known outbursts of bigotry. (Mr Martin once called a federal judge a "slimy Jew.")
Watching Fox News during the elections was sometimes like slipping through the looking glass. The bizarre version of Barack Obama "exposed" on Mr Hannity's show was scary to his viewers, but it never convinced the wider electorate. Many conservatives got a false sense of security that convinced them that the polls were wrong, and that voters would figure out the truth about the Democrat eventually."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/information_you_wont_get_it.cfm
http://mediamatters.org/items/200812170007?f=h_top
Things I Like - Chicago
I've always liked looking at old photos of places I know now. Old photos of Chicago are fascinating - a chance to see how our city has changed over time. The photos below are shots of State Street at or near Madison Avenue over the last 135 years.
State & Madison after the Great Chicago Fire - 1871
State & Madison after the Great Chicago Fire - 1871
State & Madison - 1900
State & Madison - 1934
State & Lake - 1949
State & Madison - 1966
State & Lake - 2007
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Presidential Campaign In Five Minutes
TW: TPM does a nice re-cap of the general election campaign in five minutes.
Times They Are a Changin'
From Barry Ritholz' Blog:
"Consider that one year ago Royal Bank of Scotland paid US$100 billion for ABN Amro. That seemingly impossible amount would now buy:
Citibank $22,5 billion (74% down)
Morgan Stanley $10,5 billion (-72%)
Goldman Sachs $21 billion (-67%)
Merril Lynch $12,3 billion (-77%)
Deutsche Bank $13 billion (-71%)
Barclays $12,7 billion (-71%)
And still leave $8 billion change - with which you would be able to pick up General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and the Honda F1 team.
Not too shabby! "
"Consider that one year ago Royal Bank of Scotland paid US$100 billion for ABN Amro. That seemingly impossible amount would now buy:
Citibank $22,5 billion (74% down)
Morgan Stanley $10,5 billion (-72%)
Goldman Sachs $21 billion (-67%)
Merril Lynch $12,3 billion (-77%)
Deutsche Bank $13 billion (-71%)
Barclays $12,7 billion (-71%)
And still leave $8 billion change - with which you would be able to pick up General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and the Honda F1 team.
Not too shabby! "
Kicking the Can Down the Road...
From Robert Reich:
"George Bush's Final Christmas Present
The President's lifeline to the auto industry includes the provision Senate Republicans were insisting on last week, which scuttled the deal -- cuts in UAW wages and benefits to make them comparable with wages and benefits in non-union automakers' plants (all owned by foreign automakers, all mostly in the South). Last week, Bush lobbied against this provision. Now he's adopted it, without any legislation at all.
What's really going on? Bush doesn't want messy bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, potentially threatening more than a million jobs, to tarnish his last weeks in office. So he's giving the automakers what they need to tide them over, and kicking the can to the Obama administration. But nor does he want to leave office slapping down Senate Republicans, so he's giving them what they demanded, too.How to square the circle?
Read the fine print: The automakers don't really have to bring wages and benefits down in order to get the money. That requirement can be "modified" in negotiations with the UAW. So everyone gets a Christmas present, and W. leaves town before the bill arrives."
"George Bush's Final Christmas Present
The President's lifeline to the auto industry includes the provision Senate Republicans were insisting on last week, which scuttled the deal -- cuts in UAW wages and benefits to make them comparable with wages and benefits in non-union automakers' plants (all owned by foreign automakers, all mostly in the South). Last week, Bush lobbied against this provision. Now he's adopted it, without any legislation at all.
What's really going on? Bush doesn't want messy bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, potentially threatening more than a million jobs, to tarnish his last weeks in office. So he's giving the automakers what they need to tide them over, and kicking the can to the Obama administration. But nor does he want to leave office slapping down Senate Republicans, so he's giving them what they demanded, too.How to square the circle?
Read the fine print: The automakers don't really have to bring wages and benefits down in order to get the money. That requirement can be "modified" in negotiations with the UAW. So everyone gets a Christmas present, and W. leaves town before the bill arrives."
Restoring Competence
TW: The SEC under Bush has been a mess. Culturally Bush pushed an agenda of de-regulation and minimal oversight. His SEC leader, Chris Cox, is a long-standing conservative idealogue. John McCain was reviled for suggesting in September that Cox be fired. While the timing of McCain's suggestion was wrong, the sentiment was correct. This week's Madoff debacle is merely the latest transgression.
Obama appears to have appointed a more competent successor. Lets hope so.
From Floyd Norris at NYT:
"Mary Schapiro, a veteran and diligent regulator if ever there was one, is...Obama’s choice to head the SEC. It is a choice that should please those who hope the S.E.C. can recover from what must be the worst year in its history...
She helped clean up Nasdaq and now runs Finra, the industry self-regulator. She has been appointed to jobs by Republicans and Democrats...
During his tenure, [Cox] moved to make it harder for the staff to file charges against companies, and the commission delayed settlements while commissioners negotiated to impose smaller penalties than the companies had agreed to pay...
In picking Ms. Schapiro, Mr. Obama has chosen someone who knows all the issues and all the players and who is committed to effective and rational regulation."
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/can-she-save-the-sec/
Obama appears to have appointed a more competent successor. Lets hope so.
From Floyd Norris at NYT:
"Mary Schapiro, a veteran and diligent regulator if ever there was one, is...Obama’s choice to head the SEC. It is a choice that should please those who hope the S.E.C. can recover from what must be the worst year in its history...
She helped clean up Nasdaq and now runs Finra, the industry self-regulator. She has been appointed to jobs by Republicans and Democrats...
During his tenure, [Cox] moved to make it harder for the staff to file charges against companies, and the commission delayed settlements while commissioners negotiated to impose smaller penalties than the companies had agreed to pay...
In picking Ms. Schapiro, Mr. Obama has chosen someone who knows all the issues and all the players and who is committed to effective and rational regulation."
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/can-she-save-the-sec/
Are the Dems the Corrupt Party Now?
TW: No is the short answer or at least not yet anyway although they are working on it. Corruption follows power almost in perfect correlation. If so, the Dems given their growing power will become increasingly susceptible to corruption and its corrosive effects on maintaining power. Corruption is one of those regulators which help keep any single party from retaining power indefinitely.
Those Dems who claimed righteous immunity as a party relative to corruption, especially of the bribery and/or sex related type, were naive and wrong. However, those Republicans seeking to tar the Dems as the new Republicans, if you will, relative to corruption are jumping the gun. Give us time. Unless, of course, the new POTUS can set a fresh example despite the inevitable forces pulling him and more importantly his people towards the dark side.
From Economist:
"...The image problem that sunk the last Republican congress wasn't the outrageous actions of a few members. The ceiling didn't come down because of..Mark Foley... Voters were convinced that congressional Republicans had become the tools of lobbyists, at best unaccountable and at worst corrupt. Republican bragging about the K Street Project—which drew business lobbyists away from the Democrats—backfired. Illegal donations and deals brought down teams of congressmen and senators. The Jack Abramoff scandal, all by itself, brought down at least ten congressmen and senators who resigned or were defeated.
Republicans need to figure this out before they build a quilt out of the disconnected scandals—Rod Blagojevich (money), William Jefferson (money), Tim Mahoney (sex), Kwame Kilpatrick (sex and money)...
It was the shorter, more widespread House banking scandal that convinced Americans not to trust the Democrats. In 1992, voters learned that 355 former or current members of the House had overdrawn their accounts at the congressional bank. Dozens of congressmen resigned in disgrace, and more were defeated at the polls.
Unless voters are convinced that the party in power is collaborating to game the system, or that it's blowing a major national crisis (as with the 2006 Republicans and the Iraq War), they don't kick it out. Individual scandals don't a "culture of corruption" make."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/subculture_of_corruption.cfm
Those Dems who claimed righteous immunity as a party relative to corruption, especially of the bribery and/or sex related type, were naive and wrong. However, those Republicans seeking to tar the Dems as the new Republicans, if you will, relative to corruption are jumping the gun. Give us time. Unless, of course, the new POTUS can set a fresh example despite the inevitable forces pulling him and more importantly his people towards the dark side.
From Economist:
"...The image problem that sunk the last Republican congress wasn't the outrageous actions of a few members. The ceiling didn't come down because of..Mark Foley... Voters were convinced that congressional Republicans had become the tools of lobbyists, at best unaccountable and at worst corrupt. Republican bragging about the K Street Project—which drew business lobbyists away from the Democrats—backfired. Illegal donations and deals brought down teams of congressmen and senators. The Jack Abramoff scandal, all by itself, brought down at least ten congressmen and senators who resigned or were defeated.
Republicans need to figure this out before they build a quilt out of the disconnected scandals—Rod Blagojevich (money), William Jefferson (money), Tim Mahoney (sex), Kwame Kilpatrick (sex and money)...
It was the shorter, more widespread House banking scandal that convinced Americans not to trust the Democrats. In 1992, voters learned that 355 former or current members of the House had overdrawn their accounts at the congressional bank. Dozens of congressmen resigned in disgrace, and more were defeated at the polls.
Unless voters are convinced that the party in power is collaborating to game the system, or that it's blowing a major national crisis (as with the 2006 Republicans and the Iraq War), they don't kick it out. Individual scandals don't a "culture of corruption" make."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/subculture_of_corruption.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)