Inside Job?

[raty4R]

Google is your friend > “inside job documentary”
looks like it gets good reviews. Now I want to see it.

[patb]

[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).

Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.

It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.

In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]

All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.

Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.

it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…

One party screwed the pooch fiscally.

[patb]

[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).

Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.

It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.

In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]

All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.

Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.

it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…

One party screwed the pooch fiscally.

[patb]

[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).

Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.

It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.

In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]

All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.

Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.

it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…

One party screwed the pooch fiscally.

[patb]

[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).

Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.

It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.

In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]

All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.

Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.

it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…

One party screwed the pooch fiscally.

[patb]

[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).

Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.

It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.

In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]

All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.

Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.

it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…

One party screwed the pooch fiscally.

[davelj]

[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]

You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.

Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.

Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.

[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]

[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]

Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.

[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]

Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.

[davelj]

[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]

You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.

Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.

Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.

[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]

[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]

Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.

[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]

Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.

[davelj]

[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]

You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.

Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.

Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.

[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]

[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]

Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.

[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]

Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.

[davelj]

[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]

You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.

Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.

Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.

[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]

[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]

Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.

[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]

Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.

[davelj]

[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.

between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.

within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]

You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.

Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.

Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.

[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]

[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]

Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.

[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]

Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.

[Author]

Posts