I’ll try this again, I had another post ‘awaiting moderation’, but it was ‘memory holed’–WP must be still working itself in..

Though, with this: “You’re saying they aren’t sticking up for these women because it would threaten their foundations?”, Close, and, more broadly, yes.

More specifically, many of those groups would risk losing their funding, much of which is provided by Foundations, if they started backing the wrong ‘pony’.

This woman: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=camille+paglia is a good contra example of the, above mentioned, Foundation Feminists..

Hmmm……..

Meanwhile, when I see that credit default swaps grew by a factor of 100 since 2001, I can only come to the conclusion that it is the CRA’s fault .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html

~~~

BR: Discussed in loving detail here:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/deconstructing-greenspan/

that’s a very good point..it’s something I’ve been asking my ‘Feminista’ “Friends”, towit: where are you in supporting Brooksley Born? Why are you silent about Naomi Wolf? Where’s the love for Plame?, et al., etc..

There’s never an answer. They cannot say: “We’d lose our Foundation Funding if we spoke the Truth, it’s all about ‘Divide ‘n Conquer’”..yet, there you have it.

and, don’t even try to ask about Sibel Edmonds..

the rest is history.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/370925/the_woman_greenspan_rubin_summers_silenced

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/legends_in_the_law/born.cfm

–bcd

you state: “But the Lehman disaster never happened. The AIG disaster never happened…”

how do you know that those transactions, the CDSs, were allowed to unwind organically?

though, with this: “a diverse ecology of many small institutions, none of which are too big to fail.”, I agree, but wouldn’t that be contra to the existence of the FedRes, as well?

past that, it is, too easy to overlook this: “Congress is likely to shake up bank and securities regulation, giving the Federal Reserve more power.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Fed ends up officially becoming our systemic-risk regulator,” said Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “–from the link

and, “Banks have lobbied on the issue since at least the early 1980s, said Timothy Lucas, who was at the FASB for more than two decades starting in 1979.

“I think we were sold a bill of goods” by banks on some off-the-books structures, Lucas said. “, ibid.

and, “FASB was “under intense pressure from industry,” Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman and now a Princeton University professor, said in an interview.

“It’s fair to say that the industry and the regulatory community alike failed to look through the off-balance-sheet entities with a skeptical eye and see the extent of what they might be on the hook for in a bad-case scenario,” Blinder said.

That view is shared by Susan Bies, a Federal Reserve Board governor from 2001 to 2007.

“The No. 1 reason we’re in this crisis is the deterioration of underwriting of mortgage loans,” Bies said. “What has made it worse is the lack of transparency in disclosures of the exact nature of assets both on and off the books. We need a clearer description of what potential exposures are out there.” “, ibid.

on the way to: “While Greenspan Slept”, though, I guess we have to remember that: “He did it ALL by himself”, if we are to retain our ‘Reindeer Games’-access Card..

The concept of regulation is not to limit transactions but to create parameters and safegaurds for those who transact – creating an environment of transparancy that should increase transactions.

The only ones who strenuously argue against having laws are the outlaws.

The problem was the leverage in “too big too fail” institutions. You can change leverage rules. The fight of the century would be trying to get rid of institutions that are too big to fail. But that is really the solution: a diverse ecology of many small institutions, none of which are too big to fail.