PE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Sometimes saying you’re sorry is worse than saying nothing at all.

AuthorTopic: Sometimes saying you’re sorry is worse than saying nothing at all.  (Read 1047 times)

Offline Jaded Prole

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
    • Partisan Press
How the New York Times Tries to Cover Its Ass on Glass-Steagall
By Matthew Rothschild, July 27, 2012, from The Progressive

So Sandy Weill, former head of Citigroup, woke up one morning this week to the epiphany that the banks are too big to fail and should be chopped up. Well, that’s not exactly cause for bestowing an honor on the guy.

After all, he was the chief architect of too big to fail.

He was the prime mover behind destroying Glass-Steagall, the New Deal law that built a wall between commercial banking and investment banking.

Now he wants that wall rebuilt?

Well, thanks a lot, Sandy, but you already destroyed the economy with your greedy power play when you ran Wall Street and bullied the Clinton crowd into foolish deregulation.

And you were paid handsomely by Citigroup for your dirty work.

Now you say you’re sorry.

You’re like the pyro who sets wildfires and then apologizes later.

It just doesn’t cut it.

Nor does the oh-so-tardy apology from The New York Times. Finally, this morning, it acknowledged that it was wrong to editorialize for the tearing down of Glass-Steagall in the late 1980s and 1990s.

“Having seen the results of this sweeping deregulation, we now think we were wrong to have supported it,” the Times said in an editorial entitled, “The Big Banker’s Change of Heart.”

Now?

And note how it tried to excuse itself by saying that its view at the time was conventional wisdom. As if that’s an excuse!

“Some expressed alarm about having banks, driven by huge profits and huge bonuses, bet the money of their depositors on new, opaque and increasingly risky investment instruments,” the Times wrote. “But the idea that the industry did better without regulation was entrenched in the political debate, not only on the right, but across the political aisle and into the higher reaches of the Clinton Administration.”

Come on now.

Many consumer advocates, like Ralph Nader, and wise economists, like Dean Baker and John Kenneth Galbraith and his son James Galbraith, were pointing out the insanity of tearing down Glass-Steagall. Just because some corporate Democrats, including those in the Clinton White House, supported the idea didn’t make it any more worthy. And the claim that the idea “was entrenched in the political debate” (Passive Alert!) raises the question: Who entrenched it there? And didn’t the mighty New York Times have the ability to get it out of the trench? In actual fact, it was the New York Times that helped put it in the trench.

Sometimes saying you’re sorry is worse than saying nothing at all.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16994
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Sometimes saying you’re sorry is worse than saying nothing at all.
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 05:31:24 AM »
When the revolution come, these so called "corporate Democrats" need to be at the top of the Orkin Man list. Starting with that class-traitor Clinton.
"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Sometimes saying you’re sorry is worse than saying nothing at all.
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2012, 08:05:09 AM »
When the revolution come, these so called "corporate Democrats" need to be at the top of the Orkin Man list. Starting with that class-traitor Clinton.

Don't forget the Whiz Kid with his granny glasses Robert McNamara.

He wrote that wonderful book on how his murder of uncountable humans and destruction of the American Dream with his Vietnam genocide was all just a mistake. He made a BOO BOO.
Boo Boo Bob
Boo Boo Bob

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Sometimes saying you’re sorry is worse than saying nothing at all.
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2012, 12:28:16 PM »
Surly1 & GO,
It's quite a long rogues gallery, isn't it? Did you know a lot of these "fine folks" got there start in, or were heavily influenced by, the Rand Corporation? That's the birthplace of game theory and the 1960s belief that an nuclear war was survivable. Those ideas were parodied by Peter Sellers in doctor Strangelove. Rumsfeld was one of their golden boys, as well. A lot of pure evil emanates from the Rand Corporation. The HELL of it is that it's just a parasite getting virtually all it's income from the U.S. government. It's just a glorified pentagon think tank pumping out Klingons left and right. The only exception to the Rand rule that I know of is Daniel Ellsberg.

Jaded Prole,
A poster called Wang at Zero Hedge calls Sandy Weill a Snake in reply to the George Washington Zero Hedge article defending Weill's "newfound prudent banking religion" of daily mark to market and 15 to 1 maximum leverage.

This was my reply,
Of course. The system cannot be fixed by incrementalist measures. A new paradigm is required that deep sixes the banking CON euphemistically called "Leverage". This type of loan WITHOUT collateral should never be allowed, PERIOD. The banker is ACTUALLY holding the SHORT END of the "lever" and the government is backing the scam by being the force that moves the long end of the lever up a great deal for every small move the banker makes. It is ASS BACKWARDS from an ACTUAL lever and fulcrum. Think about it. The concept of "LEVERAGE" is a totally false metaphor for physical leverage.
This is an excerpt from the article "View From the Catbird Seat".
Full article here:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=631.0

Weill and his ilk are well aware that, like in the previous Great Depression, banking street cred in general and respect for the integrity of bankers in particular has been totally destroyed. The banksters are trying to get back to "respectability", an essential requirement for for any successful con artist. The CON can't CON you if you have no confidence in him or her. That's why they call them confidence men. The only business that people like Weill, Blankfein and Dimon should be in is selling pictures of their faces to doctors to show to patients that need an emetic.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
423 Views
Last post July 23, 2015, 02:28:28 AM
by Guest Blogger
0 Replies
333 Views
Last post August 01, 2015, 08:00:09 AM
by Guest
3 Replies
1358 Views
Last post August 25, 2015, 10:08:59 AM
by Surly1