4 ms·

So after listening to the entire show, I'd have to say she doesn't come across as being in the right at all. The big showdown on whether Goldman had a conflict

by JimA 12y ago

So after listening to the entire show, I'd have to say she doesn't come across as being in the right at all. The big showdown on whether Goldman had a conflicts of interest policy came down to a difference of opinion that she was clearly in the wrong on. Her boss's request to amend her statement to say that they had one but it was totally inadequate should have been an easy one to agree to. Especially if the Fed's legal department was the one objecting to saying there was no policy. Instead she comes across as extremely stubborn and unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own. I would have fired her too just because she was so difficult to work with. Silva does seem spineless in going out of the way to not verbally offend Goldman, but IMO that is more of a personality trait that him ignoring evidence. Now she's suing wanting to be vindicated that she was really right all along and everyone else was wrong, and releasing the tapes to support that. Not a Goldman fan, but for this report there is really no moral outrage to be had.

nvarsj 12y ago
You weren't listening well then. She agreed to change her statement but said she couldn't agree professionally.
- JimA 12y ago
  I heard that, but it supports my opinion that she was simply unable to appear to be wrong. There was no interpretation required - either they have a policy or they don't. Since there is a document with that title they obviously have one, however poorly written it is. Her belief that since it didn't meet the Fed's standards it can't even be called one is just extreme.
j2kun 12y ago
It's more that the Fed was actively working to bypass their own system. For example, in changing the minutes of meetings, in refusing to let her file a report that the boss would then have to overrule, and in general telling her that she was blanket wrong in a matter of interpretation. I don't see why consensus is such a necessary issue. We don't have consensus in any part of our government, but we are quite happy having dissenting supreme court justices write their own opinions. Why can't regulators also have dissenting opinions? The health of our economy is far more important than anyone's personal feelings in the matter.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
>"Instead she comes across as extremely stubborn and unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own. I would have fired her too just because she was so difficult to work with." And frankly, that would be a reason for you not to be a manager of Fed regulators. The Beim report specifically, specifically, says the kind of dissent she represented is exactly what the Fed needs. And she did offer options, that she could simply be overruled if her superiors disagreed. This is how it should work. If they disagree, they need to personally be taking responsibility for that disagreement, not forcing the employee to change their views. Not to mention it's pretty clear Goldman had no operative conflict of interest policy. They've simply been in blatant conflict too often for it to be believable there's anything limiting it.
- JimA 12y ago
  The dissent is totally acceptable if there were degrees or shades of opinion (i.e. is the policy acceptable or not, does it meet established requirements, is it being enforced). The issue is when she knowingly states as fact something that is not accurate (i.e. there is NO policy). That crosses the line into slander since it can cause reputational and financial harm to the institution being investigated. Even more importantly, by one regulator giving the appearance of "gunning" for Goldman it jeopardizes the work of countless others who also have findings and research that may actually be true.
dreamweapon 12y ago
Instead she comes across as extremely stubborn and unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own. I would have fired her too just because she was so difficult to work with. Not "unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own." More like unwilling to put down in writing that 2+2==5, just because her boss said so. Or to sit silently and be a party to gross malfeasance (at taxpayer's expense), generally. But with your own cocky dismissal of her actions, it sounds like you'd do very well at a company like Goldman.

by JimA 12y ago

nvarsj 12y ago

You weren't listening well then. She agreed to change her statement but said she couldn't agree professionally.

JimA 12y ago
I heard that, but it supports my opinion that she was simply unable to appear to be wrong. There was no interpretation required - either they have a policy or they don't. Since there is a document with that title they obviously have one, however poorly written it is. Her belief that since it didn't meet the Fed's standards it can't even be called one is just extreme.

j2kun 12y ago

It's more that the Fed was actively working to bypass their own system. For example, in changing the minutes of meetings, in refusing to let her file a report that the boss would then have to overrule, and in general telling her that she was blanket wrong in a matter of interpretation. I don't see why consensus is such a necessary issue. We don't have consensus in any part of our government, but we are quite happy having dissenting supreme court justices write their own opinions. Why can't regulators also have dissenting opinions? The health of our economy is far more important than anyone's personal feelings in the matter.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

>"Instead she comes across as extremely stubborn and unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own. I would have fired her too just because she was so difficult to work with." And frankly, that would be a reason for you not to be a manager of Fed regulators. The Beim report specifically, specifically, says the kind of dissent she represented is exactly what the Fed needs. And she did offer options, that she could simply be overruled if her superiors disagreed. This is how it should work. If they disagree, they need to personally be taking responsibility for that disagreement, not forcing the employee to change their views. Not to mention it's pretty clear Goldman had no operative conflict of interest policy. They've simply been in blatant conflict too often for it to be believable there's anything limiting it.

JimA 12y ago
The dissent is totally acceptable if there were degrees or shades of opinion (i.e. is the policy acceptable or not, does it meet established requirements, is it being enforced). The issue is when she knowingly states as fact something that is not accurate (i.e. there is NO policy). That crosses the line into slander since it can cause reputational and financial harm to the institution being investigated. Even more importantly, by one regulator giving the appearance of "gunning" for Goldman it jeopardizes the work of countless others who also have findings and research that may actually be true.

dreamweapon 12y ago

Instead she comes across as extremely stubborn and unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own. I would have fired her too just because she was so difficult to work with. Not "unable to compromise or see other viewpoints besides her own." More like unwilling to put down in writing that 2+2==5, just because her boss said so. Or to sit silently and be a party to gross malfeasance (at taxpayer's expense), generally. But with your own cocky dismissal of her actions, it sounds like you'd do very well at a company like Goldman.