Financial Reform Bill Ensures Wall St. Scams Keep Running

THOSE WHO BETRAYED GOT RICH
siftbotsays...

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 8:09am PDT - doublepromote requested by blankfist.

quantumushroomsays...

Liberal insanity (doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results).

Every time Sh;tgress takes a break from their year-round vacations to draft new legislation, we're screwed. Are you beginning to understand?

We could seal every last one of the bastards in a vault for 10 years and leave the laws as they are and be no worse for wear.

But let's assume for a minute that this new garbage legislation does exactly what the left wants it to do. Even in this pristine fictional form, the very real consequences will be higher taxes or more debt (someone has to pay for those new bureaucraps/police) more crippling regulations for businesses and, oh, I almost forgot, the average joe (whom taxocrats claim to be standing up for) not only is taxed more, businesses will simply pass along costs.

With thugverment---a necessary evil and nothing more---the cure is almost always worse than the disease.

NetRunnersays...

@blankfist, I'm kinda surprised at you. Perhaps you fell for the title, but here are some of the things Bill Black says:

  1. Yes, [the bill's provision for running derivatives through a government-run exchange] is a good idea. You shouldn't be doing non-exchange traded derivatives, and this bill encourages exchange-traded derivatives. But it has loopholes that allow people to evade it, so it's probably not going to be terribly effective.

    Which is to say, the new regulations on derivatives are good, but they are too easy to circumvent.

  2. What else do we know created perverse incentives? Professional compensation.

  3. We know that the Goldmans of the world deliberately put the rating agencies in competition with each other in what in economics we call a "competition in laxity". In other words, whoever is willing to give the most absurdly inflated rating is who will get my business.

    Note: rating agencies are privately owned, for-profit companies.

  4. So when we say the rating agencies screwed up, we don't mean that they took something that, you know, should've been a single-A and they call it a triple-A. No, we're talking about something that should have been 25 levels lower, and they called it AAA. If they're willing to do that, then they're going to be willing to bless the next insane thing, as long as the competition and laxity is allowed to exist.

  5. Americans don't know that over 10 percent of all appraisers in America have signed a petition calling for the government to step in and regulate and enforce because of this Gresham's dynamic. A Gresham's dynamic is where cheaters and the least moral people prosper, and they drive the honest, moral people out of the marketplace. And that's what the appraisal industry was telling us. And the regulators refused to any do anything. And now, after a crisis measured in trillions of dollars of losses—and a trillion dollars is a thousand billion—we have, supposedly, the greatest reform bill since the Great Depression, and it completely ignores this causality.

  6. The consumer bill was the other thing you asked me about. That is a good thing. But you can tell somebody has a really malicious sense of humor, because they put the new consumer agency into the Federal Reserve—the leading opponent of protecting consumers. This is the agency that under the HOEPA law [Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act], which goes way back to the '90s, had unique authority to protect us from otherwise unregulated mortgage bankers and anyone else who made mortgage loans. And even board members at the Federal Reserve went to Alan Greenspan and asked him to take action against these enormous abuses in the liar's loans and subprime, and Greenspan refused to act.

    This probably got your juices flowing, since it places some blame on the Fed. Unfortunately, it places blame on the Fed for refusing to regulate. Oh, and it was Republicans who insisted that the consumer protection agency be housed at the Fed.

  7. So [in the subprime lending market] we had the exact opposite of what economics predicts: both parties to the transaction were made worse off. Well, why? Because the agents were made better off. Who were the winners? The rating agencies, the senior officers who walked away rich, the least moral appraisers, the least moral of the outside auditors at the big accounting firms. They were all the winners. They got rich by betraying their responsibilities. And so if you had had an Elizabeth Warren and if she had banned this nonprime product to protect consumers, now, that would enormously reduce this financial crisis.


In all, he's making all the usual liberal criticisms of the bill, which is that the bill's new regulations aren't nearly tough enough; which itself is based on the premise that unchecked greed and dishonesty was the root cause of the crisis.

Oh, and @marinara it doesn't "ensure Wall Street Scams keep running", a fair representation of his comments would be "doesn't crack down on Wall Street Scams."

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More