Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms. These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting... [more]
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.
These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”
"While it isn’t unusual for Treasury officials to come from the financial industry, President Barack Obama has been critical of Wall Street, blaming its high-risk, high-pay culture for helping cause the financial-market meltdown.
Speaking to financial executives last month, Obama said: “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.”
At the same time, the president has promised to change Washington by keeping lobbyists for special interests at a distance and by making decisions in the open.
[less]
Response by drdrd
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 1905
Member since: Apr 2007
Sadly, I don't think we've moved away from the reckless behavior & unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, so no, we won't go back to those days - 'cause we never left 'em.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 80sMan
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 633
Member since: Jun 2008
drdrd, there is nothing "to go back to". It's finance or bust. Just like the Roman empire had to keep winning wars to keep itself alive and the British empire needed colonial expansion to remain on top of the heap, America needs a booming finance industry to keep it's position as a global superpower.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by pitchfork
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 37
Member since: Sep 2009
"America needs a booming finance industry to keep it's position as a global superpower."
Which America? because most people enjoy a lower standard of living and the future seems even worse. Whatever benefits america gets from the booming finance industry seems to remain in that industry while the gap keeps growing. a global superpower whose most people enjoy third world standards.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
"Speaking to financial executives last month, Obama said: 'We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.'”
No. What is really at the heart of his crisis is over-regulation of the banking system via the Federal Reserve, which encourages what's known in economic circles a "moral hazard": banks know that thanks to the FDIC and the Fed's own system for never letting major banks fail, they can pretty much be as reckless as the want to be. Worse, because other banks are making killings being reckless, even the more conservative banks get in on the act because the competition has artificially raised the bar.
Kind of like doped-up Olympic athletes.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
William black argues that when Banks grow to represent an overly large percentage of the economy, then they are going beyond performing their basic function and wind up being a tax on the remainder of the economy. Very good read posted elsewhere.
LOL ... as if any article on economics coming out of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute has any validity to begin with!
"The current crisis, absent massive, global governmental bailouts, would have caused the catastrophic failure of the global economy."
Wrong. Massive, global government bailouts EXACERBATED the current crisis, which was caused in the first place by moral hazard set into motion by central banking (government tinkering with the economy via the Federal Reserve).
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Milton Friedman would agree with that..
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 80sMan
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 633
Member since: Jun 2008
Pitchfork, when I say "America" I mean the government. Governments rise and fall but the people generally stay where they are and live under whatever system/yoke is pressed upon them.
Sadly, I don't think we've moved away from the reckless behavior & unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, so no, we won't go back to those days - 'cause we never left 'em.
drdrd, there is nothing "to go back to". It's finance or bust. Just like the Roman empire had to keep winning wars to keep itself alive and the British empire needed colonial expansion to remain on top of the heap, America needs a booming finance industry to keep it's position as a global superpower.
"America needs a booming finance industry to keep it's position as a global superpower."
Which America? because most people enjoy a lower standard of living and the future seems even worse. Whatever benefits america gets from the booming finance industry seems to remain in that industry while the gap keeps growing. a global superpower whose most people enjoy third world standards.
"Speaking to financial executives last month, Obama said: 'We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses.'”
No. What is really at the heart of his crisis is over-regulation of the banking system via the Federal Reserve, which encourages what's known in economic circles a "moral hazard": banks know that thanks to the FDIC and the Fed's own system for never letting major banks fail, they can pretty much be as reckless as the want to be. Worse, because other banks are making killings being reckless, even the more conservative banks get in on the act because the competition has artificially raised the bar.
Kind of like doped-up Olympic athletes.
William black argues that when Banks grow to represent an overly large percentage of the economy, then they are going beyond performing their basic function and wind up being a tax on the remainder of the economy. Very good read posted elsewhere.
http://www.newdeal20.org/?p=5330
LOL ... as if any article on economics coming out of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute has any validity to begin with!
"The current crisis, absent massive, global governmental bailouts, would have caused the catastrophic failure of the global economy."
Wrong. Massive, global government bailouts EXACERBATED the current crisis, which was caused in the first place by moral hazard set into motion by central banking (government tinkering with the economy via the Federal Reserve).
Milton Friedman would agree with that..
Pitchfork, when I say "America" I mean the government. Governments rise and fall but the people generally stay where they are and live under whatever system/yoke is pressed upon them.