3 ms·

> If this were a Democratic administration, or a rational Republican one, I'd say, it's time for the FDIC (too bad Sheila Bair's no longer its head) to come in,

> If this were a Democratic administration, or a rational Republican one, I'd say, it's time for the FDIC (too bad Sheila Bair's no longer its head) to come in, take over, and sell off Wells Fargo. #1) but you didn't when it was a democratic administration #2) why does the party of the president determine what you would say? The history of too big to fail is littered with discarded ethics and increasing moral hazard on both sides of the aisle (80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s).

pasbesoin 9y ago
I did say this. And I was increasingly disappointed in the Democrats' "weak tea" responses. It's a good point about "administration", too. I used it as a poor and incorrect stand-in for "majority". At this point in time, I see some sort of corrective action as more likely from the Democratic side or from those Republicans who do not equate "conservative" with an ideology of personal greed and self-interest. For one point, systemic criminal behavior that also abuses your customer base, does not tend to conserve the institution -- unless it is or is granted quasi-monopoly status where those affected have no means of redress -- nor perhaps meaningful, better alternatives (e.g. an oligarchy of corruption, such as existed in the mortgage and mortgage-backed-securities market leading up to the 2008 crash). Anyway, yeah, I fear even more our chances in the face of "the majority's" drive to neuter and dismantle existing law and regulation. But I don't believe either side has had too much interest in substantially, not to mention fully, addressing these problems. Not since..... Well, I guess since Carter. And the now seemingly anomalous prosecution of the Savings and Loan scandal in the latter '80's. Mine's a rather limited perspective. But the string of incidents -- story after story about institutions getting off with fines that pale in comparison to their profits (those at the expense of often massive externalized costs) -- seems pretty apparent. And actual jail time, as a result of the Savings and Loan malfeasance, did seem to at least produce a "tap on the brakes", for a short time.

pasbesoin 9y ago

I did say this. And I was increasingly disappointed in the Democrats' "weak tea" responses. It's a good point about "administration", too. I used it as a poor and incorrect stand-in for "majority". At this point in time, I see some sort of corrective action as more likely from the Democratic side or from those Republicans who do not equate "conservative" with an ideology of personal greed and self-interest. For one point, systemic criminal behavior that also abuses your customer base, does not tend to conserve the institution -- unless it is or is granted quasi-monopoly status where those affected have no means of redress -- nor perhaps meaningful, better alternatives (e.g. an oligarchy of corruption, such as existed in the mortgage and mortgage-backed-securities market leading up to the 2008 crash). Anyway, yeah, I fear even more our chances in the face of "the majority's" drive to neuter and dismantle existing law and regulation. But I don't believe either side has had too much interest in substantially, not to mention fully, addressing these problems. Not since..... Well, I guess since Carter. And the now seemingly anomalous prosecution of the Savings and Loan scandal in the latter '80's. Mine's a rather limited perspective. But the string of incidents -- story after story about institutions getting off with fines that pale in comparison to their profits (those at the expense of often massive externalized costs) -- seems pretty apparent. And actual jail time, as a result of the Savings and Loan malfeasance, did seem to at least produce a "tap on the brakes", for a short time.