With their Senate health care victory still fresh in the mind, is Team Obama finally getting serious about reforming Banking and Wall Street?

News reports that the White House is “growing frustrated that the banking industry is fighting President Barack Obama’s plan to overhaul financial regulations” seems to have been caused, in some part, by the mounting political backlash over big profits and bigger bonuses at Goldman Sachs and others.

As we have noted repeatedly — and unlike health care — the White House cannot rely on Congress for this one, as the place is fully bought and paid for by the finance lobby. Left to their own devices, the Parliament of Whores would produce extremely bank friendly regulatory reform. As we saw last week, the Financial Services Committee created the world’s biggest loophole, exempting more than 98% of all banks from consumer protection oversight (it exempts 8,000 of the nation’s 8,200 banks).

Regardless of your views on this particular bill, it is apparent that Congress is congenitally incapable of producing coherent regulatory reform when it comes to their patron saints, the large investment houses and banks.

Well, good news kids: It appears that the White House has had enough; They are finally beginning to push back against the banking lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett was quoted as saying “We are disappointed by the lobbying of anyone in the financial industry against regulatory reform.”

That is a very broad statement — in my read, it suggests a major change in policy is about to occur.

Even Larry Summers, the former hedge fund employee who has been way too friendly with Wall Street’s banks, may be finding religion. At the Economist’s Buttonwood gathering last week, he stated:

“Financial institutions that have benefited from government support can, should and must use this moment to think about what they can do for their country — by accepting the necessary regulation to protect the American people. There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system.”

We will find out soon enough if this is lip service or something more significant.

As I have noted previously, it was a mistake to not pursue regulatory reform while the crisis was in full throat. And, the half measures that have been proposed won’t prevent the next crisis.

>

Previously:
Obama Reform Plan Fails to Fix Whats Broken (June 18th, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/obama-reform-plan-fails-to-fix-whats-broken/

Obama’s Weak Regulatory Reform For Derivatives (June 23rd, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/team-obama-does-not-understand-derivatives/

Tactical Error: Health Care vs Finance Regulatory Reform (September 9th, 2009)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/finance-reform-vs-health-care-reform/

Sources:
Summers: ‘Time has come’ for deep change for banks
Ronald D. Orol
MarketWatch Oct. 16, 2009

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/summers-time-has-come-for-deep-change-for-banks-2009-10-16

Top aides to Obama upbraid Wall St.
Michael A. Fletcher and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post, October 19, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802542.html

Obama Administration Pushes Back at Bank Lobbying on Regulation Share
Julianna Goldman
Bloomberg Oct. 16

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axePKeIA7Xx8

Bill Shields Most Banks From Review
STEPHEN LABATON
NYT, October 15, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16regulate.html

Category: Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

42 Responses to “Is the WH Finally Taking Regulatory Reform Seriously?”

  1. As noted previously, the Obama proposals so far fail to:

    1) No major changes for the ratings agencies! The ratings agencies are not the only bad actors, but they are a BUT FOR – but for the rating agencies putting a triple A on junk paper, many many funds could not have purchased them, the number of mortgages securitized would have been much less, the insatiable demand on Wall Street for mortgage paper would have also been much lower.

    2) Turn Derivatives into Ordinary Financial Products: Force derivatives to be traded like option/stocks, etc. (including custom one off derivatives) Trade them only on Exchanges, full disclosure of counter-parties, transparency and disclosure of open interest, trades, etc. REQUIRE RESERVES LIKE ANY OTHER INSURANCE PRODUCT.

    3) If they are too big to fail, make them smaller.” Have real competition in the banking sector. Limit the size for the behemoths to 5% or even 2% of total US deposits. Break up the biggest banks (JPM, Citi, Bank of America)

    4) The Federal Reserve, Despite its Role in Causing the Crisis, Gets MORE Authority: Better Solution: Have the Fed set monetary policy. They should provide advice to someone else — like the FDIC — who hasn’t shown gross incompetence.

    5) Require leverage to be dialed back to its pre-2004 levels. Better Solution: 12-to-1 should be enough leverage for anyone.

    6) Restore Glass Steagall: Time to (once again) separate the more speculative investment banks from the insured depository banks.

  2. torrie-amos says:

    don’t doubt it, obama see’s the big picture, he is very measured and patient in most items, he will give folks the chance to do the right thing, and then adjust, most forget his to do list is a hundred times bigger than most with short, intermediate and long term goals…………it really depends on how tough they get…..we shall see

  3. leftback says:

    LB’s reading of this is that reform had to go on the back burner until the banks had been recapitalized first by government injection followed by distribution of common shares to Johnny Retail and clients of H Wanger. Now that the balance sheets are somewhat improved and the panic is over, the administration considers this a safe time to bring out the scalpels. In general, they have shown a clear pattern of issuing hand signals before doing things, as with Obama saying that stocks were cheap just before the onset of QE. So I think we should take this seriously, and watch the situation closely.

    Although LB remains skeptical, maybe there is hope yet for someone to limit the power of the banks. If there is reform, then there is a possibility that some of the proposed reform might limit profitability. For example, Stiglitz has called for a ban on trading by banks, which would eliminate almost all gains made this year and send the banks back to the 1950s, not a bad idea in my book. Bringing back Glass-Steagall and re-privatizing the Vampire Squid would be a good idea as well. IBs should be partnerships risking their own money, not publically traded companies.

  4. jc says:

    The incumbents will have a problem with mid term elections if they don’t do some serious bank regulation, it’s a populist drumbeat – wait til Bloomberg finally wins their Fed disclosure lawsuit.

    Bank regulation and payback of Treasury gifts could be hitting the banks just as new waves of foreclosuresures and bad commercial and credit card loans hit them too, this is just a pauses between crises.

  5. jc says:

    Piggyback the pros!
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/technology/start-ups/19kaching.html

    Could Geithner’s public-private scheme be any quieter?

  6. leftback says:

    OT: Classic Gartman this morning on CNBC “I don’t like being long of gold. I don’t like the people who are long of gold. They are kind of strange”. They also had Rosey and Bernstein. Better than the usual fare. Rosenberg is waiting for stocks to “catch down” with earnings. Clever.

  7. mknowles says:

    I have wondered if the reason Obama chose Summers and Geithner was to buy time and provide cover until the administration can get its bearings before pushing for bank regulations.

    I’m reading “Renegade” by Richard Wolffe, about Obama’s presidential campaign. I found this interesting:

    from page 74, 2nd paragraph
    “On Sunday, April 1 [2007], the day after the end of the first quarter, Pritzker was at Loeb House in Harvard yard for a governing board meeting of the overseers. Her personal phone rang in the middle of the meeting; it was former treasury secretary Bob Rubin calling to set Obama straight on economic policy.”

    Richard doesn’t tell us any more than that. I would love to know more about Obama’s conversations with Rubin.

  8. globaleyes says:

    Recent events have convinced nearly everyone that we cannot borrow our way to prosperity. Can we regulate our way to salvation?

    Let’s find out.

    Don’t be surprised if regulatory reform ignites a recovery and not just an investor-led rally in stock prices.

  9. ItalicBold says:

    @jc agreed, haven’t heard anything about that in ages.

  10. call me ahab says:

    “Although LB remains skeptical, maybe there is hope yet for someone to limit the power of the banks.”

    my take exactly- skeptical- but hopeful that something will be accomplished- to limit the power of the banks and demonstrates a “clear win” for the regular schmoes-

    it can’t be some murky, sloppy regulatory compromise- it must be a clear sign that things have indeed changed

  11. leftback says:

    Forgot to add the following, that sometime in the spring, Stiglitz and Krugman, who had both been very critical of the banks and King Larry, were invited to the WH for dinner with the Big O. After that they were silent.

    Here’s what they were told: please keep your mouth shut for now and cheerlead for the pumping and printing right now because the banks (and GMAC and GE etc..) are rotten to the core beyond even your worst nightmares and if we don’t regenerate some activity and get sheeple buying stocks, it is Great Depression II meets Apocalypse Now. Once we have some kind of recovery and maybe unemployment levels off at 10%, and after a load of jackasses buy common stock in the banks, then we will go in there with the Hazmat suits on and some disinfectant and start giving the bankers an enema.

  12. bsneath says:

    BR – Your prescription is across-the-board exactly what needs to be done. I can honestly say that your 6 proposals are the first real set of solutions anyone has proposed. They are common sense proposals. They are necessary to refocus back onto the real economy and away from the artificial financially-driven economy. They are all necessary to prevent what happened last year from happening again.

    You should be Obama’a Czar on financial reform. Push for these reforms with everything you have. It ought to become your legacy. Good Work!

  13. constantnormal says:

    “With their Senate health care victory still fresh in the mind”

    Victory? You call this victory?

  14. km4 says:

    Good diary on this very subject by bobswern
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/19/794797/-Main-St.,-Regulatory-Reform-And-The-Banks-Are-NOT-Alright

  15. Stuart says:

    Perhaps times are a changing after-all. Even Geithner now admits that the US must live within it’s means, er, well, at least someday.

  16. Lugnut says:

    Obama is a ‘big idea’ guy, not a leader. Big Idea guys delegate, they don’t take the bit in their teeth themselves, at least not without a lot of prodding. Obama had been too happy pushing off his work to Congress whenever possible to Reid, Pelosi, and Frank, and subsequently has been hamstrung by Congress’ ability to produce only legislative mush, all of which is bought and paid for by lobbyists.

    He is finally realizing that merely asking the financial pedophiles not be playground guards won’t suffice, he’ll actually have to do something about it himself if he wants actual results this time. There’s an Executive branch for a very specific reason, now lets see if Barack can figure out why he’s no longer in Congress.

  17. constantnormal says:

    But but but … does not ANY legislative action have to come from the Congress? All that the White House can do is use the bully pulpit to encourage the Congress to act, and to threaten vetoes of legislation that is unacceptable.

    And given the “strong leadership” demonstrated to date by the White House, it seems highly unlikely that we are to achieve much more in the way of financial reform than the “victory” that has emerged thus far.

    There were opportunities early on to use executive orders and copy some of the Dubya tactics for performing an end-run around Congress, effecting change, but there has not been the slightest hint of a whiff that the administration was so inclined. Now the Congress is unified and organized per the banking lobby’s wishes, and any such attempt would be quickly defeated. Back in the crisis, there was the opportunity to strike while there was confusion and fear in the Congress.

    Never waste a crisis — well, they did. Team Obama, Rom eMannuel notwithstanding, has shown a distinct inability/disinclination to enforce party discipline or to even make use of the Democrats majority party standing. It is as if they don’t want to lead.

    My guess is that Team Obama is perceiving some disillusion amongst the sheeple, and with the 2010 primaries arriving in only 6-7 months, thinks they need to put some more lipstick on the pig before proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”.

    We remain left with “Change You Can’t Believe In”.

    ps. I voted for him, I’m allowed to complain.

  18. batmando says:

    @ leftback at 8:22 am
    “and start giving the bankers an enema”
    and that only in preparation for an enormous @$$-effing so richly deserved

  19. Mannwich says:

    Time to bring out the hammer, O-man. Hedge fund titans and their “expert (insider) networks” may want to start getting concerned. Me-thinks they may have gotten too complacent on Wall Street about “business as usual”.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hedgefundgate-begins-numerous-insider-trading-charges-forthcoming

  20. Transor Z says:

    Put the top tax bracket back to 70%. The banks strip-mined the middle class. The dangers of the housing bubble was downplayed by Greenspan and others in a position of public trust — when they weren’t outright denying its existence — and people leveraged their homes, i.e., their life savings. The middle class has been getting savaged for 30 years.

    It’s not about redistribution of wealth/socialism at this point. It’s about keeping enough cops, teachers and firemen on the job. The tax money just isn’t there unless you tap the highest bracket.

  21. Transor Z says:

    Put the top tax bracket back to 70%. The banks strip-mined the middle class. The dangers of the housing bubble was downplayed by Greenspan and others in a position of public trust — when they weren’t outright denying its existence — and people leveraged their homes, i.e., their life savings. The middle class has been getting savaged for 30 years.

    It’s not about redistribution of wealth/social1sm at this point. It’s about keeping enough cops, teachers and firemen on the job. The tax money just isn’t there unless you tap the highest bracket.

  22. DeDude says:

    I hope they have the balls to take this fight. Given the resentment of suffering unemployed regular people, they should be able to get a populist wave going. Even a loss in the fight to get better regulation, may end up being a political win (much better than just standing passive and letting Wall Street continue to rape Main Street). What the health care fight showed is that when you sit down and try to work out compromise with any of these corporate bastards they will just stab you in the back at the end anyway. So maybe they have lost some of their naive beliefs and realized that sometimes you need real hard core populist politicking to get real change.

  23. Mannwich says:

    @Transor: Totally agree, or at least tax Wall Street bonuses above a certain amount at 70% or more. I can’t see any rationale to not do this.

  24. bsneath says:

    @constantnormal (I’m also allowed to complain)

    Both you and Lugnut understand the situation correctly. Timing is everything. Perhaps Obama and his advisors are beginning to understand this. Or to put it another way maybe they are realizing that if they do not do something soon, losing the mid-term elections just might be the least of their worries.

    Many of us are losing faith, not just in politics, but in our present form of government. We wonder if we even have a true democracy anymore.

    Is our form of government just a sham to allow the wealthy and powerful to maintain control and prosper at the expense of the common people?

    Is nothing being done because greedy self-interests dominate all the way to the top?

    Has our culture succumbed to debased values of self importance, narcissism and personal gratification?

    Have we lost all ideals of honesty, fairness, equality and equal opportunity?

    Are we reverting to a lower form of society where it is every man for himself or is our society and civilization going to advance?

    Is it the beginning of the end or is it a new beginning?

    This is honestly Obama’s crossroads. This is Obama’s defining moment.

    He can attempt to keep his big money campaign contributors on Wall Street happy while appeasing the masses with his “charm”, or he can do the right thing, take the bull by the horns and restore confidence and trust in America’s institutions.

    Seriously, if the Obama Administration is about Lincoln, not Mao, what better time is there to invoke the philosophy of the Gettysburg Address: “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

    Are we a nation controlled by aristocrats or are we a nation of, by and for the people?

    Where are Obama’s roots? Who does he really identify with?

    Does he represent the people – all of people of this world – who want a better life as is his personal heritage?

    Or Does he represent his “new found friends” – the limousine liberal ideologues? The elitist class members who have never spent a minute in the real world. Who have no clue what it is like living from paycheck to paycheck. People who have insulated and isolated themselves from the working class but who profess to possess full and complete knowledge on how, where and even why they should live.

    People who are self appointed to impose grand ideals on others but only so long as they personally are unaffected and can continue to live selfish, lavish, gilded and hypocritical lifestyles.

    Obama, there is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Now is the time.

    btw, Barry, why don’t you add “campaign reform” & “lobbyist reform” to your excellent to-do list.

  25. TakBak04 says:

    Frank Rich has an editorial in NYT with an interesting take on Obama. I would like to think that Obama administration has a strategy and it’s playing out exactly as planned and we will get the kind of re-regulation and reforms BR is proposing although it’s hard for us Obama voters and watchers not to be cautiously pessimistic given what we’ve seen so far from his actions.

    ————-
    Frank Rich:
    “Obama has also passed through Harvard. (Disclosure: so did I.) He too has consistently said all the right things about the “money culture” of “quick kills and bloated bonuses,” of “reckless behavior and unchecked excess.” But the air of entitlement that continues to waft from his administration sends another message.

    In particular, the tone-deaf Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, never ceases to amaze. His daily calendars reveal that most of his contacts with the financial sector in the first seven months of 2009 were limited to the trinity of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. And last week Bloomberg News reported that his inner circle of “counselors” — key advisers who, conveniently enough, do not require Senate confirmation — are largely drawn from the same club. It’s hard to see how any public official can challenge a culture that he is marinating in, night and day.

    Those Obama fans who are disappointed keep looking for explanations. Is he too impressed by the elite he met in Cambridge, too eager to split the difference between left and right, too willing to compromise? As he pursues legislation, why does he keep deferring to others — whether to his party’s Congressional leaders or the Congressional Budget Office or to this month’s acting president, Olympia Snowe? Why doesn’t he ever draw a line in the sand? “We know Obama has good values,” Jeff Madrick said to me last week, “but we don’t know if he has convictions.”

    What we also know is that if Teddy Roosevelt palled around with John D. Rockefeller as today’s political class does with Wall Street’s titans and lobbyists, the tentacles of the original octopus would still be coiled tightly around America’s neck.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18rich.html?_r=2

  26. dblwyo says:

    Bravo, glad to see you covering the regulatory reform fights. As much as Healthcare this will determine the path for the next 20 years and might even have more influence on investment success than paying attention to trends. It’s even refreshing to see you get a little hot about it, as we all should. That said, let’s raise three things to consider:
    1. you should always consider the pragmatics of policy implementation….what kind of inspection staff would be required to create a duplicate regulatory supervisor for all the little banks? if it can be piggybacked on top of existing inspections and limit the burden on banks and the gov’t all to the good
    2. the biggest offenders (the ol 80/20, or actually 90/10) in credit cards, mortgages, consumer finance, etc. are the big guys by far..go where the problem is and scale your efforts to the seriousness…again the carve out is not such a bad idea
    3. as you point out competitive pressures should further induce more emphasis on service…in fact given the local advantage of the small banks you’d think they’d want to do this voluntarily
    4. which leads to the major point – why is this necessary at all? what you’re describing is deliberate, conscious abuse of customers in the most shady and unethical ways…which violates every principal of good business practice there is (Nightly Business Report had an interesting segment Th on how important surcharges are to bank profits). This is the gov’t having to step in and fix problems the banks created and ones which should never have come up.
    There are a lot of angry people out there, me included, so please keep covering this general area.

  27. flipspiceland says:

    Without reading the answer to the headline question I will answer it with the following:

    NO!

    Anything he does will be microscopically marginal, anything he says will be equivalent to 100X leveraged position Goldman Sucks, meaning that his words will carry a meaningful tone but are no more than lame saber rattling and he and Lord Blankfein, the new SEC babe in the woods, and everyone else on his speed dial knows it. His bully pulpit is being used to grant him street cred while his nod-wink to Jamie will be understood completely.

  28. Moss says:

    It is time for Obama to post-up, through a few elbows and break a few noses.

    This blog and others must continue the fight. This is a marathon not a sprint. Do not relent.
    Breaking the financial oligarchy will not be swift nor easy. Corporate Communism has erected a wide moat around the ‘Parliament of Whores.

  29. TakBak04 says:

    @flipspiceland

    ———

    Another tidbit from the Rich OpEd that addresses what some posters here are expressing:

    ——————

    “The idea of investing in the real economy — the one that might create jobs for Americans — remains outré in this culture. Credit to small businesses remains tight. The holy capitalist grail is still the speculative buying and selling of companies and the concoction of ever more esoteric financial “instruments.” The tragic tale of Simmons Bedding recently told in The Times is a role model. This successful 133-year-old manufacturing enterprise was flipped seven times in two decades by private equity firms. Investors made more than $750 million in profits even as the pile-up of debt pushed Simmons into bankruptcy, costing a quarter of its loyal workers their jobs so far.

    Most leaders in America are against this kind of ethos in principle. Last month the president of Harvard, Drew Gilpin Faust, contributed a stirring essay to The Times regretting that educational institutions did not make stronger efforts to assert the fundamental values of pure intellectual inquiry while “the world indulged in a bubble of false prosperity and excessive materialism.” She rued the rise of business as the most popular undergraduate major, an implicit reference to the go-go atmosphere during the reign of her predecessor, Lawrence Summers, now President Obama’s chief economic adviser.
    What went unsaid, of course, is that some of Harvard’s most prominent alumni of the pre-Faust era — Summers, Blankfein, Robert Rubin et al. — were major players during the last two bubbles. As coincidence would have it, the same edition of The Times that published Faust’s essay also included an article about how Harvard was scrounging for bucks by licensing a line of overpriced preppy clothing under the brand Harvard Yard. This sop to excessive materialism will be a scant recompense for the $11 billion Harvard’s endowment managers lost in their own bad gamble on interest-rate swaps.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18rich.html?_r=2

  30. Transor Z says:

    Interesting consumer sentiment poll results from Fall ’08, Spring ’09, Fall ’09:

    http://www.boston.com/business/specials/2009ecopoll1/

    I thought it was interesting that job security is eroding, not strengthening. And Mass. is doing better than most states.

  31. DeDude says:

    I don’t know anything about this but maybe someone can tell me; who is allowed to get the free money (0% intrest) from the Fed ?

    If it is only banks and not investment banks then good luck getting our previous investment banks separated from real banks. In the real marked they would have to pay a lot more for the money they are now gamling with in the Wall Street Casino.

    If I may add to your list Barry, I would suggest that any bank receiving money from the Fed should be greatly restricted in what type of activity they engage in. That money should only be used to provide loans to businesses and consumers, not to drive prices of gas and other commodities through the roof with speculation.

  32. [...] Barry Ritholtz is openly optimistic: Well, good news kids: It appears that the White House has had enough; They are finally beginning [...]

  33. Robespierre says:

    “Well, good news kids: It appears that the White House has had enough; They are finally beginning to push back against the banking lobby.”

    And to demonstrate their new found spine they hire a 28 year old GS employee to be the new COO of the SEC. Please actions always speak louder than words…

  34. Mannwich says:

    @Robe: Correction: He’s 29. Big difference.

  35. scharfy says:

    @Robespierre

    Couldn’t agree more. Actions baby..Actions

    Now you want to regulate the industry that you just spoon fed a trillion dollars of taxpayer money?

    Just cut off their credit lines the next time they are back in Washigton for “liquidity injections”. And they most definitely will be back, probably very soon. There are so many actions that could have been done, and can still be done. All they have is talking points to keep the sheeple from revolting.

    Obama, the “pragmatist”, will NEVER make any politically risky moves. He, like Bush and Clinton, is beholden to big finance. I dare anyone to defy that logic.

    Expect more trivial, nuanced legislation without teeth.

    As for the big ticket items, (Bank reform or the war in the middle east) , GAME ON BABY!! Sorry taxpayers, this is complicated stuff and we’ll just have to trust those criminals in DC to do right by us.

  36. DL says:

    In addition to BR’s list of 6 changes (@ 7:00 A.M.), I would add that certain powers should be given to the Treasury (or the Fed) in the event of a bailout. Above all, they should have power to impose a debt-for-equity swap on the bondholders; the taxpayers should not be subsidizing the bondholders.

  37. DL says:

    The bankers control the Congress, and the White House controls the Fed.

    How long before the next bank bailout?

  38. flipspiceland says:

    @mknowles

    You have it backwards. Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, and the rest of the AIPAC tribe picked TheBamster.

  39. Myr says:

    “Is the WH finally taking regulatory reform seriously?”

    BR, are you serious? If you expect serious reform via the insiders(Geithner, Summers) AFTER the market has rallied 65% then you are kidding yourself. We won’t get serious reform without another more serious crisis(which I expect within a year) or after 10 – 20 years of zero growth in our economy a la Japan. This could take a long time. Either way, US stocks are a terrible investment.

  40. Onlooker from Troy says:

    If Obama is serious he needs to boot Summers, if not Geithner too. Bring in somebody like Simon Johnson as Treasury Secretary who will serve the people and not just the big banks’ interests. If that isn’t done then anything they do will be just eyewash to make the people think they’re doing something.

    Surrounding himself with these jackals will only lead to more of the same.

  41. bsneath says:

    @TakBak04

    “The idea of investing in the real economy — the one that might create jobs for Americans — remains outré in this culture.”

    No F*cking Shit! Go to the Recovery.Gov website and look at what we are “investing” in. Billions of dollars in rural brownfield sites in the State of Washington. How in the hell does that help out productivity, global competitiveness or permanent job creation? The limousine liberal class does not have a clue how a real economy functions.

    Get a job in government, at a university or non-profit and get a nice paycheck. Right, lets see how long you can take that approach to the bank….. oh I forgot, the banks are in on it……

  42. TakBak04 says:

    MISH is doing a Goldman Lollapalooza over at his site. Lots of Links and his views at the end. Get over there and check it out. It’s amazing!

    ——

    Where The Hell Is The Outrage?
    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-hell-is-outrage.html
    The number of articles and opinions on Goldman Sachs earnings, bonuses, and influence peddling over the past several days is quite stunning.

    Many have pointed out the problems; few have expressed outrage over what is happening in general, not just at Goldman Sachs. Let’s take a look.

    ————-

    Geithner’s Appointment Book

    ————-

    The New York Times is taking A Look Inside Geithner’s Appointment Book

    ————–

    Jesse’s Café Américain is reporting How Goldman Sachs Leveraged $70 Billion In Government Money.

    ————-

    Max Keiser On Fraud

    Robert Parsons: Is this froth and no substance or is there something to this?

    Max Keiser: The word is not froth the word is fraud. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, are all engaged in accounting fraud. They are not realizing losses on trillions of dollars worth of bad debts on their books, giving themselves big bonuses this year, deferring losses to next year

    ——————

    The Goldman Tithe

    Joe Peyronnin at The Huffington Post is writing Tithe Goldman Tithe

    ——————

    Another Goldman Executive Named To Key Government Post

    Glenn Greewald writing for Salon notes Another Goldman executive named to key government post as its profits skyrocket.

    ————————-

    dam Storch COO of the SEC

    The Business Insider has posted an image and qualifications of Adam Storch, 29-Year-Old Goldman Guy Who Is Now COO Of The SEC.

    ————————

    Derivatives Bill’s Loophole May Exempt Most Firms

    Gary Gensler, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission says Derivatives Bill’s Loophole May Exempt Most Firms.

    ———————–

    The Rich Have Stolen the Economy

    Paul Craig Roberts, writing for CounterPunch says From Offshoring Jobs to Bailing Out Bankers The Rich Have Stolen the Economy.

    ———————–

    Tenacious Goldman

    Here is one more article, from July, courtesy of New York Magazine: Tenacious G

    ———————-

    AND …MITCH’s WIND UP here at………

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-hell-is-outrage.html