Comments on: When Wall Street captures Washington

By: Mr.Sakli

Mr.Sakli — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:16:55 +0000

As the weather has twisters , we have entered into the financial twister that is the greatest depression in history , the rate of devaluation is so great that the markets are confusing it with capitalization.

By: EconMaverick

EconMaverick — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:11:16 +0000

I think Felix is being fair here. Wall Street has captured both parties, but one (especially a Romney lead version) is clearly of worse stench than the other, but that’s far more of an reflection on former than a compliment to the latter. Though the only non-captured official we’ve really had over the last decade has been Sheila Bair, (though she’s a nominal R!)

By: Sechel

Sechel — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:25:19 +0000

My definition of property rights, means that banks have to show up in a court room with the ducks lined up. There’s no comparison between (forging and robo signing documents) and a dead beat home owner. Why should a bank that can’t prove title and lien be allowed to foreclose?

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:57:57 +0000

Sechel, so your definition of “property rights” is to let people who borrowed to buy a house and collateralised that loan with a house and then didn’t pay the loan keep the house. Pretty sure that is not the OED definition… Must be an americanism.

By: Sechel

Sechel — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:54:07 +0000

Ironically if we’re talking Wall Street capturing Washington we should be supporting Ron Paul, as the Fed is the most captured of all political institutions and libertarians believe in property rights, something the Obama administration has not supported as witnessed by the Mortgage foreclosure settlement. George Bush jr wasn’t any better with the Bankruptcy reform act, and Clinton gave us the repeat of Glass Stegal and the deregulation of credit default swaps.

By: mkr1953

mkr1953 — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:42:24 +0000

Larry Summers and the whole “Free Market” Friedman economists are for sale,Ivy League technocrats that were bought by Wall Street and stayed bought when they went to Washington. When that gang of thieves wasn’t accepting money from some financial interests for their rubber stamp, they were hiding or resigning en masse during the financial meltdown of 08. These economists are no more than highly educated, well paid shills for corporate America, especially Wall Street.

By: johnhhaskell

johnhhaskell — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:43:30 +0000

@TomLindmark- uh, has Romney spent even one day working on Wall Street? Romney’s “experience in and around Wall Street” is zero.

By: TomLindmark

TomLindmark — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 01:02:52 +0000

OK, I’ll overlook the blame George Bush for anything that moves argument but don’t you refute your own thesis that Romney would be pro-Wall Street. You say, “And interestingly, the more experience that a policymaker has had in and around Wall Street, the tougher that policymaker is likely to be.” If true then why do you suggest that Obama will be tougher than Romney with respect to regulating the financial community? It seems like the logical conclusion of your assertion is that Romney would be the preferred choice if increased oversight is one’s preferred outcome.

By: Sechel

Sechel — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 01:01:00 +0000

I think things will get worse before they get better. We need Washington to give the Banks some more new powers and wait for yet another negative result and even more public anger to counter 25 years of legislative action that shifted the power to wall street at the expense of main street.

By: OmnibusOmnia

OmnibusOmnia — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:57:13 +0000

Look I am a biased in my own way but let us at least entertain the idea that an ex-PE guy like Romney might at least cut a better deal than the Obama compromises and triangulations for no reason when he had majorities. There is no hope that Obama is going to get people who are real progressives given he was neck deep in DLC operatives from the outset. Romney knows how to cut a mean deal and if his campaign needs to push back on his riches and business acumen this will be the best way to do it. He can spend months showing how poorly Obama led and how bad the deals were from many metrics. The early back and forth over the Auto bailout might be framing for Romney to make it a solid plank of his campaign. Of course Bush II was the MBA President and nothing much came of that, but at this point a technocrat is about what this country deserves given how poorly Obama has acted as a leader. A technocrat who actually might dig into the numbers and make a hard but wise choice being a bad thing just because he may bias his views of the street as an important and beneficial element from his PE days? I would not stake my views around that given how well that “hope and change” thing worked out last go around. Making a story about a candidate is fun for an ad man but poorly indicative of what their leadership and policy choices will be in office, we can say some definitive things about Obama though and few of them good.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:52:04 +0000

This is a remarkably information-free post from you, Felix. It has a Friday afternoon I’m-on-my-way-outta-here feel. The weather isn’t that great yet; you can still work a full Friday like the rest of us.

Still, I’ll venture the opinion that the Republicans aren’t so pro-Wall Street as they are anti_Obama. And what that means is that there remains a race to become Wall Street’s best friend, even today.