3 ms·
A large part of the "show" is to increase public support for financial reform.
by SandB0x 17y ago
A large part of the "show" is to increase public support for financial reform.
- jfornear 17y agoFinancial 'reform' is the status quo: > So Congress is in a lather working on a new set of regulations that will prevent problems like this from ever happening again. Really? Ask yourself these questions. > Did the government sanctioned ratings agencies prevent the meltdown? > Did the voluminous disclosure laws already on the books prevent the meltdown? > Did vigilant SEC inspectors prevent the meltdown? > Did a well financed FDIC prevent the meltdown? > Did Sarbanes Oxley laws prevent the meltdown? http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/04/28/did_you_hear_the_joke_about_goldman_sachs_98436.html http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/04/28/did_you_... (GR BTW) No matter how hard we try, we simply can't regulate greed (esp. not when the regulators are paid by the banks!). Plus, no one in Congress even understands finance!
- r0s 17y agoThe bank bailouts could have come with regulatory measures attached. Was this an intentionally overlooked opportunity?
- ahoyhere 17y agoIt seems like there is persuasive evidence that if the Glass Steagall act were NOT repealed, this wouldn't have happened - or not as badly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act A lot of the gutting of regulatory agencies began at the end of Clinton's reign, and Bush hurried it along as much as possible. The past 12 years have been one long thread of cutting regulatory agencies off at the knees with low funding, figurehead leaders, the repealing of valuable and important regulatory laws.
- DrSprout 17y agoIt looks a lot more like a distraction from how flimsy the reform is.