That all sounds very weird, but it's certainly incomplete. What this analysis fails to do is recognize why credit is important in the first place and it conflates the roles of bankers with 'Wall Street'. It does no disambiguation between bond markets, monetary policy, traders, financial advisors and no proper perspective on which government agencies are responsible for what. It just pitches the whole tarball on 'administration policies' that were good, bad or ugly. This is useless doubletalk and it only serves to confuse matters.
There are still Americans who believe that Ron Paul understood all of this and that he was the man to lead America. But neither Ron Paul or his ideas are anywhere near where the solution lies, and nobody is looking to him for advice. Instead the roles of very important public and private organizations are coming to the fore for the first time in the mainstream media which is doing a retarded job of informing the public.
So it comes as no surprise that the man on the street feels like the problem is a problem of corrupt and incompetent fatcats. But look how big the lumping is. No distinction between FDIC and SEC. No distinction between FASB and BASEL II. No distinction between Fannie and Freddie. No distinction between AIG and criminals, or between banks and auto makers.
Irami Osei-Frimpong
· 9 months ago
"So it comes as no surprise that the man on the street feels like the problem is a problem of corrupt and incompetent fatcats. But look how big the lumping is. No distinction between FDIC and SEC. No distinction between FASB and BASEL II. No distinction between Fannie and Freddie. No distinction between AIG and criminals, or between banks and auto makers."
Isn't Spence saying that the public's lack of understanding concerning the financial sector creates the appearance that the bankers and insurance people in charge are the only people who can police and evaluate their actions. With the car companies, we get it. We purged the devil with know at GM-- same way Clinton made a target of Welfare moms-- but the real virtues and vices of building an economy of financial products and instruments escapes our understanding. We can't even erect a scape-goat or a sacrificial lamb.
You two are making the same point.
tootsie
· 9 months ago
Doc ,the founder of Ford Mo. Co.,Henry Ford did not believe in credit as a source of capitalizations instead product sales should be the driving force.Ford model was reduce price increase market.In the early 20th century Ford was sued because of there pricing and during the depression Roosevelt wage and price policy did not effect Ford because the company wages were above the industry standard;sadly when the founder past his heirs did not continue his policy, and started borrowing money.What happen to pay as you go?
brotherbrown
· 9 months ago
I want to point out that a lot of the financial institutions did kick their CEOs to the curb. It happened at AIG, and of course, all the top brass at Merrill, Goldman Sachs, Lehman, Wachovia, WaMu, IndyMac and a few others got whacked.
But face it, the car companies were the manhood of the US economy, and when they had a chance to be visionary, they instead opted for more profit margin. They started suffering ED and went to Washington for viagra, cialis, extenze, and the doctor said, "son, we're taking your balls and sending you home."
albatross
· 8 months ago
It's important to note a big caveat to your description of wall street. They not only fooled *outsiders* into imagining they were smarter (and safer) than they really were by the use of complicated mathematical models and computer simulations, they fooled *themselves*. A bunch of those guys lost a *lot* of money, many more ended up looking like fools. Many lost their jobs, too, as Brother Brown pointed out. But the fact that they lost their money is strong evidence that they were drinking their own kool-aid, not just selling it to the rubes.
A fascinating aspect of the Simon Johnson article was his explanation of how the finance industry had captured the hearts and minds of most of the policymakers and journalists. I think there's something there that is deeper than just too many people believing Republican talking points on free markets. When a bunch of people have enormous confidence, demonstrated success in some demanding area, great wealth and all its trappings, it's hard not to think that they know what they're talking about, even in areas not all that close to their demonstrated success. Add complicated math (and honestly, most politicians and lawyers and nearly all journalists can be intimidated into silence with a couple equations and a haughty handwave) and computer models and old, respected companies and big, impressive marble buildings, and few people could question them.
That makes me wonder where else that's happening in our society. Where else do we defer to a high priesthood because they use confusing words and lots of mathematical formalisms and computers and have intimidating buildings and offices and titles? Probably a whole bunch of places. (And yet, you have to guess that often, those apparently-impressive people really are impressive, when not called upon to go outside their areas of expertise.)
Facebook User
· 8 months ago
You are absolutely correct and I added much more agency and will to this process than is likely there. This really was a priesthood that on some level we all bought into.
All Comments
There are still Americans who believe that Ron Paul understood all of this and that he was the man to lead America. But neither Ron Paul or his ideas are anywhere near where the solution lies, and nobody is looking to him for advice. Instead the roles of very important public and private organizations are coming to the fore for the first time in the mainstream media which is doing a retarded job of informing the public.
So it comes as no surprise that the man on the street feels like the problem is a problem of corrupt and incompetent fatcats. But look how big the lumping is. No distinction between FDIC and SEC. No distinction between FASB and BASEL II. No distinction between Fannie and Freddie. No distinction between AIG and criminals, or between banks and auto makers.
Isn't Spence saying that the public's lack of understanding concerning the financial sector creates the appearance that the bankers and insurance people in charge are the only people who can police and evaluate their actions. With the car companies, we get it. We purged the devil with know at GM-- same way Clinton made a target of Welfare moms-- but the real virtues and vices of building an economy of financial products and instruments escapes our understanding. We can't even erect a scape-goat or a sacrificial lamb.
You two are making the same point.
But face it, the car companies were the manhood of the US economy, and when they had a chance to be visionary, they instead opted for more profit margin. They started suffering ED and went to Washington for viagra, cialis, extenze, and the doctor said, "son, we're taking your balls and sending you home."
A fascinating aspect of the Simon Johnson article was his explanation of how the finance industry had captured the hearts and minds of most of the policymakers and journalists. I think there's something there that is deeper than just too many people believing Republican talking points on free markets. When a bunch of people have enormous confidence, demonstrated success in some demanding area, great wealth and all its trappings, it's hard not to think that they know what they're talking about, even in areas not all that close to their demonstrated success. Add complicated math (and honestly, most politicians and lawyers and nearly all journalists can be intimidated into silence with a couple equations and a haughty handwave) and computer models and old, respected companies and big, impressive marble buildings, and few people could question them.
That makes me wonder where else that's happening in our society. Where else do we defer to a high priesthood because they use confusing words and lots of mathematical formalisms and computers and have intimidating buildings and offices and titles? Probably a whole bunch of places. (And yet, you have to guess that often, those apparently-impressive people really are impressive, when not called upon to go outside their areas of expertise.)