Comments on: Why the Wall Street-Washington door revolves http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/ Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Anon_Nymouse http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-861 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:28:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-861 xyz2055, Did Clinton write the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act? Did he promoted it? No and no. But it came to his desk with a veto proof Senate majority and he signed it so it is of course completely his fault. Never mind that it was written and sponsored by republicans. Never mind that not a single republican voted against it. It is still entirely his fault. I continually hear the meme that Bill Clinton wanted to increase home ownership and this is why we had a bubble. But what did Clinton actually do that lead to the bubble? Can you be a bit more specific? Was it Fanny and Freddy who were massively loosing market share to unregulated private banks and mortgage companies for the first have of the last decade? Dose it matter to you that almost none of those private banks and mortgage companies were in any way influenced by the CRA? If you imagine they were can you give even one specific concrete example to demonstrate what effect there was and its actual magnitude? Of course you can’t. There is nothing to show. It’s just a red herring. If you believe what you say your beliefs are built on nothing but propaganda.

]]>
By: gruven137 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-860 Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:05:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-860 The only “Change” that’s happened…is the new puppet in the White House.

]]>
By: xyz2055 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-858 Sun, 16 Jan 2011 07:39:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-858 wbratko..what you need to understand it that all the issues you cite that you say ultimately affect you are in reality a joint effort of the common people, business and the federal government. For example, the Housing crash that is the catalyst for most our current economic woes was caused by a seed planted by Bill Clinton (make more housing loans available), regulators insuring that lenders complied, relaxed staandards so more people could get a home loan, average people taking out loans they couldn’t afford to begin with, bankers packaging and selling those loans, etc etc. Same for profitability of companies and taking jobs overseas. Like millions of Americans I have a 401k investment that I hope will allow me to comfortably retire someday. That 401k is made up of businesses that in order for me to retire comfortably need to be successful. If one of those businesses, for example, expands in another country (opens job there) and is sucessful, then I am sucessful as my 401k grows in value.

The issue of wages, benefits and employment are not the culprit of some fantasy group of business men or in the government trying to oppress the middle class. It’s much bigger than that, it’s the cause and effect of the interaction between all the parties. If you, like you say don’t want to lose…then quit whining, get up off your duff and do something to improve your position rather than standing around waiting on the government or big business to do it for you.

]]>
By: plubber http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-857 Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:02:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-857 There should be a policy where if the company is HQ’d in this country and pays corp. tax in this country, then there should be a cap on the number of jobs that can be rellocated offshore. That is, at most a 5% or 10% offshore workforce. This would be a fair deal considering the benefits of listing here and having access to deep, liquid markets for capital raisings etc.
Although, having said that, companies themselves will more than likely rellocate their domicility for obvious reasons such as Americans are no longer projecting long term growth in consumption demand. Wall Street firms understand this and are eager to get a foothold in EM’s.

]]>
By: delta-dude http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-856 Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:45:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-856 Let me get this straight. The taxpayers bail out the bums on Wall Street and they turn around and kick in the teeth of the retirees, the elderly and sick on fixed income. I know who my enemy is and his first name is Ben.

I’m with the following authors –

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-st reet-wins-main-street-pays-again-2010-12 -21
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-i s-a-hostage-but-not-to-the-gop-2010-12-1 4?pagenumber=1

]]>
By: tk2 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-855 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:40:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-855 Mindless propaganda! Nobody objects to business to be represented in government. The problem is that it is just Wall Street represented there… When was the last time we saw anyone from manufacturing there? As a result, we have “QE forever” and all jobs shifted overseas.

]]>
By: Saturn http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-854 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:53:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-854 The problem with today’s business is that there is no limit to their greed. I used to believe that if you could help a company with new technology and to get huge pie of funding, they would be glad to share a small slice for the assistance. However, after working to help a number of large and small businesses, it has become clear that the company wants the WHOLE pie and not to share any. Further, many of these high priced “managers” get there not because they are smart, but rather are clever and cunning. A hungry coyote isn’t brilliant, but knows how to attack, kill and feed. The consequences to others are unimportant. But when hasn’t business been this way?

Enough said.

]]>
By: Aaronk http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-853 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:40:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-853 2008 may be the year we remember for pulling back the curtain on the protected class in America. The idea that nobody wins until they win is difficult to take considering America’s penchant for self-made Horatio Alger types. The whole bailout scenario (while perhaps protecting the economy from further failures) is proof of this. We need to get rid of the idea that what’s good for Wall Street is good for the rest of the US because its just untrue at this point. The banks got full access to billions of dollars of taxpayer money & what did we get? I would say that what we got is a concrete example of why we should not lay the entire economy at the feet of the moneyed elite and say, “Do with it as you may.” Which may be worth the present turmoil when the next one comes.

]]>
By: axiom321 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-852 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:16:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-852 If Obama is so concern about jobs and manufacturing why he didn’t hire manufacturing leaders. These wall street guys are just paper deal makers, nothing real comes out for society. Cero benefits for the American economy. What we need is productive activities, the ones that put people to work on real things.

]]>
By: rebashimansky http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/01/14/why-the-wall-street-washington-door-revolves/#comment-850 Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:13:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=739#comment-850 On the Bill Maher you reminded James Carville that deregulation started under Bill Clinton.
While some of the deregulation occurred under Bill Clinton, the harmful effects of deregulation occurred almost a decade after Bill Clinton left office.
However if the economy turned sour while Bill Clinton was president he would taken steps to correct the problem-because he had an activist approach to the economy. He would not have sat around and done nothing while the economy was tanking and going to hell the way Bush did. Remember the GOP does not believe in government regulation of the economy.
This is the Bill Clinton economic legacy:
Cutting the unemployment rate in half. When Clinton left office the unemployment rate was 4%.
Tripling of the stock market.
Eliminating the deficit and creating surpluses as far as the eye can see.
Eliminating the national debt by 2015.
An economy so strong that all Americans benefited not just the wealthy

]]>