GQ Article on Rumsfeld

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_9217

Ok... who wants to defend the former SecDef? Good luck.

[Slider]

I guess I can add an 'I told you so.' But some of the implications bother me. Sounds a little like he's being offered up. He's far from the only inept, corrupt and outright evil member of the last administration.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I guess I can add an 'I told you so.' But some of the implications bother me. Sounds a little like he's being offered up. He's far from the only inept, corrupt and outright evil member of the last administration.

Slider

"Evil Member" I can't ever remember hearing Slider use that phrase on say al'Quida, the taliban, the Iranian Mullahs. Surprised? Not me.

[Slider]

You don't need to read back very far to find what you are looking for. Try it. hint - it's in a recent post, unless saying that the Tailban could "go to hell" doesn't qualify. That means they're evil, right? And I've said the same regarding al Qaeda many times. You have a selective memory.

But war mongering, profiteering and torture put anyone else right in the same league, something else I've said here many times.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I guess I can add an 'I told you so.' But some of the implications bother me. Sounds a little like he's being offered up. He's far from the only inept, corrupt and outright evil member of the last administration.

Slider

The fact (alleged) that Bush was so easily swayed by mere religious imagery and tone certainly puts the former president in an even lesser light in my eyes. Lest anyone think that Bush wasn't a puppet for the stronger minds around him, this is just more fodder.

[Slider]

That's why you pick your staff, for their advice. But both Bush campaigns were built on demagoguery. It just came back and bit him in the ass, if you want to be generous about his guilt. I can't see that as any kind of absolution.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

This is interesting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/

Can't claim bias on this one, either. It's CNN. It's sobering in that people still seem to be in paranoia mode. I mean, what is there even remotely favorable about this man.

Well... he's not Rumsfeld. ??

[Slider]

Everything is relative. 55% unfavorable, when climbing out of the cellar is, technically, 'on the rise.' The right needs a rallying point and they are getting it from Cheney. But I'd strongly doubt there is any breadth to that 'growing' base. It's the same people that voted Republican in the last election. No crossovers here.

Infighting among the Dems hasn't helped, either. Obama, it seems, isn't nearly as liberal as he'd been protrayed, which should mean that his base would broaden even more. The GOP seems to be heading back in the other direction. Just ask Colin Powell.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Colin "Americans want more government in their lives" Powell? Yea.. he has the pulse.

[Slider]

Still, he represents the anti-Cheney wing. If the GOP wants to gain any ground, it needs to move toward the center, not the direction that already cost them both houses and the presidency.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Their direction isn't what cost them Congress or the White House. It was an inept handling of Iraq coupled with the economic downturn. If anything, the GOP needs to return to their core values of 20 to 30 years ago. Otherwise, what will really be the difference between the two parties? Powell might as well join Spector and become a Democrat already.

[Slider]

I dunno about that. Seems even the GOP sees that they've lost the youth vote. That's why they are parading Meghan McCain around, talking about sex. They are desperate for the black vote, so picked a non-white party chair, who seems to take little BS from the old guard. They can say goodbye to anyone other than the standard rich white guys if they let Limbaugh and Cheney drag them back into the stone age.

The economy and the war are seen as the product of that old line thought, even among the GOP membership.

Slider

[kernel crash]

They are desperate for the black vote, so picked a non-white party chair, who seems to take little BS from the old guard. They can say goodbye to anyone other than the standard rich white guys if they let Limbaugh and Cheney drag them back into the stone age.

The economy and the war are seen as the product of that old line thought, even among the GOP membership.

Slider

Ya the black vote. Thats the 90% plus that voted for Obama because he was... well the black guy. I guess that was part of the dirty little secret that the MSM stayed away from. I mean if 90% of the white voters voted for the McCain you can imagine how that would have played out.

And speaking of the economy and the war are you paying attention? Obama's policies on the war look more and more like Bush's every day. Lets see how patient the left is on how this play's out. As far as the economy, his policies have disastrous consequences that will begin to play out during his administration. People will soon snap out of the catatonic state they find themselves in and start to put the blame squarely on Obamas shoulders.

And I believe you said that Obama is not as liberal as people thought he was? Wrong. He's clearly the single most liberal President that has ever held the highest office. Name me somebody more liberal? His little stutter steps to the center is all politically motivated. He knows the far left has nowhere else to go. They won't abandon him. He's already looking at the next election.

[Slider]

Um, you seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Obama looks like Bush, but he's the most liberal ever? Sort this out some and get back to me...

Some of Obama's policies look more like Bush's AFTER Bush told Cheney to take a hike. He moved centrist, because it was obvious that the far right was leading him to complete disaster. Obama seems more centrist surely than YOU in particular painted him, so he's occupying the same middle that Bush ended up clawing back to.

And, in case you missed it, it's working. Lotsa support, improving economy, and, gee, internal terrrorists caught the old fashioned way, no torture or fascism needed.

So no terrorist attacks, and no torture. Your past logic would say that Obama is keeping us safe, wouldn't it?

Your race thing is simply incomprehensible. Constituencies are courted voters. You appeal to them with your message. If you don't like the message, don't vote for the candidate. Your anger is anti-democratic.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Um, you seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Obama looks like Bush, but he's the most liberal ever? Sort this out some and get back to me...

Slider

Now why do you continue to do this. You know exactly what I'm talking about yet you try to twist what I'm saying to suit your liberal interpretations.

Obama got more than 90% of the black vote. That is historic and and loaded with racial overtones. That is undeniable. Yet you dance around the subject with talk of courted voters. If McCain got 90 plus % of the white vote, there would be a racial spin from the likes of Jesse Jackson etc. not to mention the New York Times.

You also seem to dance around the subject of Obama being the more liberal president ever elected. That's a fact. Pure and simple. Name a president more liberal? The fact that he's throwing a few bones to the center doesn't change his liberal stripes. He's just playing politics. You know how this works so why do you play dumb on the subject.

Lotsa support? Your kidding right? Improving economy? Ahh unemployment continues to rise and the projections now have unemployment rising till 2010! Over 2 million jobs have been lost since Obama has been sworn in. Lets see what those numbers look like when he closes down thousands of auto dealerships. Keep in mind for every "green" job created, two non green jobs are lost as a result. That's a fact. Try crunching those numbers and see where were headed. Obama will never get re-elected. Nothing he's promised or done is working and he hasn't even got to health care, social security, medicare etc.

[BG]

As usual..

"Jokers to the left of me, clowns to the right, here I am, Stuck in the middle with..."

[Slider]

You say I know exactly what you're talking about, but I really find it be a lotta gibberish. I'll take it line by line.


Obama got more than 90% of the black vote. That is historic and and loaded with racial overtones. That is undeniable. Yet you dance around the subject with talk of courted voters. If McCain got 90 plus % of the white vote, there would be a racial spin from the likes of Jesse Jackson etc. not to mention the New York Times.

So what? It means nothing at all, other than to people preoccupied with race. Pretty soon, we'll have more Spanish speakers than native English speakers, and that means nothing either, except that you better learn to court the Hispanic vote if you want to win.

If you are trying to say that election of a Black president has somehow polarized us, you really have no clue. Your post implies that blacks are somehow less important, or don't deserve the effect of their vote. Gibberish.



You also seem to dance around the subject of Obama being the more liberal president ever elected. That's a fact. Pure and simple. Name a president more liberal? The fact that he's throwing a few bones to the center doesn't change his liberal stripes. He's just playing politics. You know how this works so why do you play dumb on the subject.

More gibberish. He may be the 'most' liberal, maybe not. For one thing, liberal and conservative are relative to the current status quo. Do you have any idea how liberal for their time say Lincoln or Adams were? Lincoln was a Republican who upended the economic apple cart. Seems pretty liberal to me.

'Liberal' and 'Conservative' have no absolute meaning. Give me a policy you don't like and tell me why. Tell me what makes it 'liberal' and why what you consider 'conservative' would be better. You get wrapped up in these labels that really are for Monday morning quarterbacking only. TALK POLICY IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT.


Lotsa support? Your kidding right?
We must be reading different polls. Obama's approval ratings have been consistently in the 60% range, with a lot of stability, roughly the same as the DISapproval rating for "W" when he left office. You need to go back to Kennedy to find a higher one.


Improving economy? Ahh unemployment continues to rise and the projections now have unemployment rising till 2010!

I don't know what stats you are reading, but the rate of unemployment has remained stable or decreased in most states in the last month.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/22/news/economy/State_unemployment/index.htm?section=money_news_economy

But that is only one gauge. Stock prices and consumer confidence both saw gains in April. The contraction in manufacturing was at its slowest pace in eight months.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/05/21/2009-05-21_conference_board_us_leading_economic_indicators _up_largest_gain_since_nov_2005.html

Quick aside here: I said buy bank stocks here several months ago, and took my own advice. My $2K is now $5K, all in Bank of America.


Over 2 million jobs have been lost since Obama has been sworn in. Lets see what those numbers look like when he closes down thousands of auto dealerships. Keep in mind for every "green" job created, two non green jobs are lost as a result. That's a fact. Try crunching those numbers and see where were headed. Obama will never get re-elected. Nothing he's promised or done is working and he hasn't even got to health care, social security, medicare etc.

And you're blaming him for this? Geez, talk about clueless. The stimulus package has barely begun to have its effect. Only a small percentage of the available money has been distributed. The pieces needed to drag us out of the Bush crash are in place, but it will take longer than you can say 'deregulation' for them to have a full effect.

Your post is more about sour grapes and wishful thinking than reality. Open your eyes. Nice day out there.

Slider

[agabriel]

I dunno about that. Seems even the GOP sees that they've lost the youth vote. That's why they are parading Meghan McCain around, talking about sex. They are desperate for the black vote, so picked a non-white party chair, who seems to take little BS from the old guard. They can say goodbye to anyone other than the standard rich white guys if they let Limbaugh and Cheney drag them back into the stone age.

The economy and the war are seen as the product of that old line thought, even among the GOP membership.

Slider

Slider,
The right is in disarray because they got away from there core values. Once they get back to there core values (smaller federal gov't), they will be fine. My hope is in the process they will also gain a few modern ideas and drop religon down a few rungs; all and all I (personally) think the only thing really done well by the government is prosecuting wars. Virtually everything else outside of that scope should be left to private industry as the government screws it up.

Anthony

[Slider]

Bush epitomized the right's approach to social policy, Constitutional law and economics. You can't get much more core than that. The free market approach blew up in his face and took the rest of us with it.

Slider

[agabriel]

Bush epitomized the right's approach to social policy, Constitutional law and economics. You can't get much more core than that. The free market approach blew up in his face and took the rest of us with it.

Slider

Bush was not a real republican; he taxed less and spent more - which was an idiotic policy. We on the right believe we should be taxed less and the government should do less. There are alot of social programs I would love to see go away; lets look at it with local polititics, politicians really shouldn't have the time to deal with them or us for that matter. They should stick to the stuff that is absolutely essential and nothing else.

Anthony

[Slider]

He committed a $trillion per year on Iraq, one of the things you think he got right. That money would easily pay our way out of this recession. So pay for pointless wars but not social policy? That approach won't get you anywhere in this political landscape.

Slider

[agabriel]

In fact I don't think Bush got it right on Iraq, I think the situation (relative to the US) was far better before we moved in to the Middle East. With that said I do think we need to do what we can to stabilize the region and I also think it would be terrible if Iran moved in when we move out.

I do think Afghanistan was justified, although poorly executed. We have "won" this type of war in the past, if you recall Pablo. The techniques needed are vicous, but perhaps the results outweigh that.

[kernel crash]

Your post implies that blacks are somehow less important, or don't deserve the effect of their vote. Gibberish.

Slider

WOW! And you came up with that how??? I never said no such thing and that does not represent how I feel. So where is your head at? I think your almost incapable at this point of hearing/undestanding other viewpoints.

[MTBME]

I honestly don't know why anybody would bother debating Slider on anything on this forum. I mean the guy is never wrong. Just ask him. I'm not trying to be insulting. I've met the guy, ridden with him and he's not a bad guy. But look back over the years on this forum. What are the odds that he can be 100% right on every point. His viewpoint are so deeply imbedded in the liberal philosophy that he seems unable to even consider that there may be another explanation. This is pure partisanship on display. So why bother?

I mean honestly if Bush were the president right now would Slider be talking about an improving economy? I really don't think so. Talk about looking through rose colored glasses. The economys improving? Lets close a couple thousand auto dealerships, lay off the auto workers, the salesmen, the mechanics, the lot workers, the carpenters, electricians, and landscapers that maintain these dealerships. The part suppliers that run parts back and forth. The loan originators that set up the bank loans for these cars. The long haul truckers that bring these cars to the dealership. The lost tax revenue up and down the economy. And we still haven't seen the coming crash in the commercial real estate market. And this is just the auto industry.

Slider if the tables were turned you would never cut Bush any slack for this kind of economy. Now you might try to rip into this, but this isn't about politics. It's about my opinion, and I reserve the right to be as opinionated as you are about my opinions. I don't plan on repeating myself here ad nauseum. So take the glasses off. It's not as sunny out there as you think.

Norman

[Slider]

WOW! And you came up with that how??? I never said no such thing and that does not represent how I feel. So where is your head at? I think your almost incapable at this point of hearing/undestanding other viewpoints.

Then say what you mean. I really don't understand your point.

Slider

[Slider]

Slider if the tables were turned you would never cut Bush any slack for this kind of economy. Now you might try to rip into this, but this isn't about politics. It's about my opinion, and I reserve the right to be as opinionated as you are about my opinions. I don't plan on repeating myself here ad nauseum. So take the glasses off. It's not as sunny out there as you think.

Norman

Obama didn't make the economic situation, but he is forced to deal with it. Because we don't suddenly have the dot.com days all over again (a good thing, actually), we get people making all kinds of dire predictions, when the underlying numbers don't bear them out.

We aren't out of the woods by any means, but we are nowhere near where we were six or eight months ago. Even if we only had a decrease in the rate of decline, that would be a good thing, but we have more than that.

Partisan? People like Hannity and Limbaugh were saying in NOVEMBER that the recession was Obama's fault and would worsen. THAT'S partisan. I have numbers to back what I am saying, and is isn't predictive, it's after the fact. If you disagree, let's see your numbers.

I can't help it if the Republicans destroyed the economy, or if the war in Iraq has been a disaster, or if people vote for Neanderthal social policy based on demagoguery, but pointing it out isn't partisan, just common sense. And there are plenty of stupid things going on among the Dems, too. None that get me nearly as pissed off as what we are talking about here, though. Deregulation - another name for 'small government' - doesn't work, and has screwed us big time, again.

Slider

[agabriel]

I can't help it if the Republicans destroyed the economy


Slider,
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to the economy, and I think its rather misleading to say that the right destroyed the economy. Politicans from both sides contributed and most importantly there was a severe lack of ethics from both the private sector and the government. As a left example Barney Frank and his companion are more than knee deep in the mortgage meltdown. We also can't say more regulation would have helped, because the regulation that was in place was ignored. This isn't one person/parties mistake and it is extremely short sighted to say that it is.

Anthony

[Slider]

The mortgage meltdown would not have been possible without Republican Senator Phil Gramm. Clinton signed off, but it was a straight Republican construction. And it wasn't the first time. The Savings and Loan deregulation that led to the previous real estate boom/bust was a Reagan thing.

Markets need oversight. That's what government is for. Every time we scale it back, we get a boom cycle where the rich get a LOT richer, then the middle and lower classes suffer through the ensuing bust.

Slider

[BG]

"Every time we scale it back, we get a boom cycle where the rich get a LOT richer, then the middle and lower classes suffer through the ensuing bust."

Just the Great American Pyramid Scheme at work...gotta love it

Gotta admitt though, the middle class went on a wild ride this time around too. Stupid middle class

[Slider]

Yeah, but the Wall Street types who got paid $10s of millions are suffering a lot less than those blue collar types who'll lose their jobs at the local Chrysler dealship. Bernie Madoff did manage to level the playing field some, but lotsa that money is still in pockets other than a grease monkey's.

Slider

[MTBME]

I can't help it if the Republicans destroyed the economy, or if the war in Iraq has been a disaster, or if people vote for Neanderthal social policy based on demagoguery, but pointing it out isn't partisan, just common sense. And there are plenty of stupid things going on among the Dems, too. None that get me nearly as pissed off as what we are talking about here, though. Deregulation - another name for 'small government' - doesn't work, and has screwed us big time, again.

Slider

So the Republicans destroyed the economy all by themselves? Seems to me we've had a Democratic majority in the house and Senate since 2006. The economy wasn't in such bad shape back in 2006 was it. Unemployment was what, 5 percent? Deregulation? Both parties had a hand in that. President Clinton signed the bill to set aside the glass steagall act which opened the door to financial institutions buying toxic assets. Last I checked he's a Democrat. My point is were getting it from both parties. You seem blind to that fact or you just find it convenient to overlook it.

[BG]

And the difference between now and any other point in history???
The difference between the rest of the world???
The difference is opinion and only opinion, belief and only belief

[Slider]

So the Republicans destroyed the economy all by themselves? Seems to me we've had a Democratic majority in the house and Senate since 2006. The economy wasn't in such bad shape back in 2006 was it. Unemployment was what, 5 percent? Deregulation? Both parties had a hand in that. President Clinton signed the bill to set aside the glass steagall act which opened the door to financial institutions buying toxic assets. Last I checked he's a Democrat. My point is were getting it from both parties. You seem blind to that fact or you just find it convenient to overlook it.

The bill that Clinton signed was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was a product of the smaller government movement that has pretty much defined the Republican party since Reagan. Yes, both parties were complicit, since no one really stood up and said this is insane, but the Republican "core value" of smaller government was the key factor.

The economy has been in terrible shape for a long time, but the effects were hidden by derivatives and the sub prime mortgages that fed them, both of which were enabled by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Again, it wasn't just Bush or Frank or Gramm, but the central problem is the idea that markets can run themselves. They can't.

Slider

[Slider]

And the difference between now and any other point in history???
The difference between the rest of the world???
The difference is opinion and only opinion, belief and only belief

Maybe we need a Nihilistic Rants forum.

Slider

[agabriel]

The bill that Clinton signed was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was a product of the smaller government movement that has pretty much defined the Republican party since Reagan. Yes, both parties were complicit, since no one really stood up and said this is insane, but the Republican "core value" of smaller government was the key factor.

The economy has been in terrible shape for a long time, but the effects were hidden by derivatives and the sub prime mortgages that fed them, both of which were enabled by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Again, it wasn't just Bush or Frank or Gramm, but the central problem is the idea that markets can run themselves. They can't.

Slider

More explanation needed - I disagree with your conclusion.

[BG]

I would prefer a " Noncognitivists Rant Forum" please, Geeeze

[Slider]

More explanation needed - I disagree with your conclusion.

'Less government' means reduction in oversight on the economy, at least that is the form it has taken when you look at the legislation that reflects it. When Reagan removed lending restrictions on the S and L's in the 80's, they immediately went out and loaned huge amounts of money on real estate, in an attempt to jump into the financial big leagues. It looked great right up until the real estate market inevitably collapsed and the Feds had to bail them out at huge taxpayer expense in an effort to ease the ensuing recession.

Pretty much the same thing happened after Gramm-Leach-Bliley, but this time the banks themselves were deregulated. Again, lots of real estate loans, but the new idea of derivitives based on them greatly spread the exposure past the banks themselves, and into all financial institutions, here and worldwide. Even though the derivatives themselves would soon have no value whatsoever, lots of commissions, fees, and lending was based on their perceived worth. Some of that money was spent on goods and services, helping extend the illusion of a prosperous economy. But it was not real and could not be sustained, much like a Ponzi scheme.

That's why we are now in a recession and why the Feds have had to and will need to continue to pump huge $$$ into the economy. No one else can, since there is no value in their holdings.

Every time we experiment with deregulation, the same thing happens. Short term prosperity and a massive hangover. Governments create stablity via regulation, and stability is the foundation for long term prosperity, since revenues are predictable. That makes planning and sensible use of resources a lot easier.

Slider

[BG]

Ah yes, brings to mind a famous quote...

"As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know."

Who knew short term success would be so short???

[Slider]

Certainly not Cheney. He still thinks he was successful.

Slider

[BG]

Ah... Success, Perception, Reality... all a matter of the ever changing definitions
What to do, what to do

[Slappy]

Have a ******* beer about it.

Can't hurt.

[BG]

Impeccable logic, a Country Ale perhaps. Mmmmmmmm, looking at a brighter future for us all already. Thanks Slapp

[agabriel]

'Less government' means reduction in oversight on the economy, at least that is the form it has taken when you look at the legislation that reflects it. When Reagan removed lending restrictions on the S and L's in the 80's, they immediately went out and loaned huge amounts of money on real estate, in an attempt to jump into the financial big leagues. It looked great right up until the real estate market inevitably collapsed and the Feds had to bail them out at huge taxpayer expense in an effort to ease the ensuing recession.

Pretty much the same thing happened after Gramm-Leach-Bliley, but this time the banks themselves were deregulated. Again, lots of real estate loans, but the new idea of derivitives based on them greatly spread the exposure past the banks themselves, and into all financial institutions, here and worldwide. Even though the derivatives themselves would soon have no value whatsoever, lots of commissions, fees, and lending was based on their perceived worth. Some of that money was spent on goods and services, helping extend the illusion of a prosperous economy. But it was not real and could not be sustained, much like a Ponzi scheme.

That's why we are now in a recession and why the Feds have had to and will need to continue to pump huge $$$ into the economy. No one else can, since there is no value in their holdings.

Every time we experiment with deregulation, the same thing happens. Short term prosperity and a massive hangover. Governments create stablity via regulation, and stability is the foundation for long term prosperity, since revenues are predictable. That makes planning and sensible use of resources a lot easier.

Slider

Slider,
Ok, I see where we differ. Did you watch the mortgage meltdown 60 minutes a few weeks ago? I'll give you a synopsis in case you missed it; both political sides have been cutting down on fringe regulation for the last 15 years or so, during the meltdown no regulation was being enforced. It's not about adding more regulation, its about determining what the correct regulation is (I think as little as possible) and ensuring it's enforced.

Anthony

[Slider]

Didn't see the 60 minutes thing.

In general, you can have too much of anything. But most laws regarding banking regulations were enacted for very good reasons. The problem is that we have, collectively, a very short memory, and pretty soon the reasons seem dim compared to the opportunity to generate a lot of wealth quickly. That's always good for the re-election process, and even more so for Mr. Senator's major contributors. But not for us as a country in the long term.

The idea that the free market will somehow find its own level has never been true and we pay the price every time we test it. Post Industrial Revolution, it was monopolies. We had to break them because they gave control over the so called free markets to anyone with enough money who wanted it.

Jump ahead a few decades and complex derivatives are the big problem. And complex isn't adequate - they were completely idiotic. You could literally gamble on whether Company A would file for bankruptcy within X months. But, in truth, the math was incredibly complex, with many factors tied into that one principle of Company A failing. It was nearly impossible to sort out the underlying risk. the product had no factual basis; it was simple gambling, but was so well disguised that most people couldn't tell.

We sure can't let our banks gamble with their money because the institutions are so large and control so much money that they can do lots more damage to the economy than any single monopoly could possibly do. So more complex economies mean more complex regulation. There's no getting around it.

Slider

[agabriel]

See, I disagree with that Slider. I think we can and do want the banks to continue what they were doing in terms of making mortgage debt a commodity. The area I want to see stopped is the unverified income and balloon mortgages. These are obviously fowl since a re-fi is needed for sanity purposes, beyond that we do have regulation to ensure only qualified folks get mortgages; that was ignored for a long time but by enforcing that we can ensure the comodity hitting the market is a investment product. Thats why I really see this as an issue of ethics, if we let people do there job we would be in better shape right now.

[Slider]

We did let people do their jobs, and they created derivitives based on fantasy, and it wasn't just mortgages, but anything else they could sell to investors. Literally anything, including sports statistics. It was gambling, not investment. We really need to watch for that sort of thing, all the time.

Slider

[MTBME]

The bill that Clinton signed was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
The economy has been in terrible shape for a long time, but the effects were hidden by derivatives and the sub prime mortgages that fed them, both of which were enabled by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Slider


President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented the coupling of investment banking and lending. To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

[agabriel]

We did let people do their jobs, and they created derivitives based on fantasy, and it wasn't just mortgages, but anything else they could sell to investors. Literally anything, including sports statistics. It was gambling, not investment. We really need to watch for that sort of thing, all the time.

Slider


Slider,
Thats just it, we didn't let people do there jobs - they were penalized for doing there jobs. If they were allowed to do there jobs, namely ensure only qualified people were getting good loans, the derivitives would have worked. If you take something as elegant as well implemented derivitive away, you are actually hurting the economy in the long run. We need ethics and we need to let people do there jobs.

Anthony

[Mr_Cheeze]

You're all on Ben Bernanke's speed dial, right?

[agabriel]

The Dos Equis guy comes to us for advice about what is cool :)

[Slider]

Slider,
Thats just it, we didn't let people do there jobs - they were penalized for doing there jobs. If they were allowed to do there jobs, namely ensure only qualified people were getting good loans, the derivitives would have worked. If you take something as elegant as well implemented derivitive away, you are actually hurting the economy in the long run. We need ethics and we need to let people do there jobs.

Anthony

The best way for us to both get the assurances that we want - me for oversight and you for letting them be creative in crafting business solutions - is for open reporting on the nature of the derivitives that the investment houses create. As long as ALL investors understand the particulars, then the market can determine if the exposure and value warrant the price. So open trading would solve both our issues. Needless to say, the banking industry is fighting that.

In any case, there would still need to be capitalization requirements for publicly traded companies. AIG is a good example. They insured against the collapse of value in the mortgage backed securities that underlied the crash, but never had nearly the money needed once real estate values dived. We can't let any company that large expose itself to complete ruin like that again.

Slider

[hogboy]

As long as ALL investors understand the particulars, then the market can determine if the exposure and value warrant the price.
Slider


never happen. investors are stupid. educate them all you want, go for it.

only 1% will understand it.

[agabriel]

Slider,
I can get behind that.

Anthony

[Slider]

never happen. investors are stupid. educate them all you want, go for it.

only 1% will understand it.

That's the beauty of the open market. Everyone understands a drop in price, even if they have no idea what caused it.

Slider

[agabriel]

never happen. investors are stupid. educate them all you want, go for it.

only 1% will understand it.


That's the investors choice and the reason Warren Buffet only invests in what he understands... So I disagree with you premise that it will never happen, it might and it has with certain markets; I do agree few will understand it.

[Scott O]

Um, who the hell reads GQ???

[Mr_Cheeze]

Um, who the hell reads GQ???

You don't read it? Why, it sits right on my $50,000 coffee table right next to my Forbes and Cigar Aficionado. I actually read none of them, of course. They're for display, only.