No.

But if it gets me Jessica Simpson, I'll take it!

I'll keep that in mind.

♥ ahhhhh...lovers in love in the Fall ♥

Ron ♥'s pot??

old news.

At this again, huh?

made me laugh

Ron, have you read his book yet? I know, the answer is "NO! I DON'T HAVE TO READ IT TO KNOW THAT I AM IN LOVE WITH HIM REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE IS REALLY ABOUT!" So stuff it and either read your own candidate's racist remarks in his first of two memoires, or accept the truth.

rainman, sorry for being short with you earlier. i still hold you in a high regard but this thread seemed very political in a mccain-spin kind of way and i was upset to see how partisan you seemed to be. further, i didn't know any of the political history nor did i see the posted article as i mentioned earlier. but, i did read the article now and here are some preliminary thoughts:


as i suspected, this is some interesting/misleading spin.

Privately, Rubin had expressed concern about derivatives' unruly growth. But he agreed with Greenspan and Levitt that these newer contracts, often called "swaps," weren't exactly futures...

Rubin, in an interview, said of Born's effort, "I do think it was a deterrent to moving forward. I thought it was counterproductive. If you want to move forward . . . you engage with parties in a constructive way. My recollection was, though I truly do not remember the specifics of the meeting, this was done in a more strident way."...

Rubin said, in the recent interview, that he had his own qualms about derivatives, going back to his days as a managing partner at Goldman Sachs. He later wrote in a 2003 book that "derivatives, with leverage limits that vary from little to none at all, should be subject to comprehensive and higher margin requirements," forcing dealers to put up more capital to back the swaps. "But that will almost surely not happen, absent a crisis."

Asked why he didn't suggest stricter capital requirements as an alternative in 1998, Rubin said, "There was no political reality of getting it done. We were so caught up with other issues that were so pressing. . . . the Asian financial crisis, the Brazilian financial crisis. We had a lot going on."

compare with (if you want to truly talk about the prescience of economic advisors):

Gramm was holding out for stronger language that would bar both the CFTC and the SEC from meddling in the swaps market...In 1999, the SEC had sought such authority over the holding companies and failed to get it. Late in the year, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, dismantling the walls separating commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies since the Great Depression. But the act did not provide for any SEC oversight of investment bank holding companies. The momentum was all toward deregulation.

....................

perhaps we can build off of this if you would like. i think that your main beef should be with greenspan wrt to the rubin/summers years but since you make a claim about the regulatory philosophy of the advisors vis-a-vis a given candidate, look no further than gramm.

Funny, when a new poster wrote something similar regarding your posts yesterday, you slammed that poster. What should rainman's reaction be?

what history does that poster have here? none. what relevance did that posters' comments have to the thread? none.

but i guess the two things are basically equal, right?

i thought that you were done posting in political threads (yet again)?

The thread is discussing Obama's advisor's poistions on regulation. I guess that you can make an argument that because of this, the thread is indirectly talking about McCain. It's not a very good argument but i guess that you can make it.

In case you missed it, the thread title is with every post in this thread. If you'd like, start a thread about McCain's regulatory views.

I really wish that you knew how to discuss issues. I know that you have a long history of this, so maybe discussing issues is an impossible learning experience for you.

Sound familiar?

So a poster must have a "history" in BOL to be able to form an opinion on something? Forgive us for trying to bring a new perspective to this forum, oh great and mighty one.

I'm sorry, Ron...what relevance do you have to being on a BANKER'S forum???? Raise your hand if you actually work in the banking industry....
<------raises hand
If you go with your logic, then you have no business posting here...

♪Oh, you're giving me promises
What did I ever do to you
Empty promises
When am I ever gonna get the truth, oh oh
What am I gonna do, yeah♪

1) history means that i know rainman.
2) you didn't address the topic of the thread. you just came in to attack me. now get back to work.

Ron, how many times have you said that experience doesn't mean anything?

well, i used to be a banker.

now, wrt to the topical nature of the threads found here...you know what, nevermind. this is clearly over your head. get back to work.

zero. it would seem that you recall what you have spun, mark.

(hint: my comments relating to "experience" have said that the relevant quality in that vein is capacity for office. remember, w had 4 years of actual presidential experience. how'd that pan out? also, presidents past have nearly unanimously declared that nothing can prepare you for that office--which is why capacity is relevant vis-a-vis "experience)

Ron, you clearly have issues....get back to finding a job.

1: At one time no one here knew you, you were still allowed to post, please allow the same courtesy to others that wish to engage in conversation.
2: You CONSTANTLY attack others who fail to share your point of view. Also, I AM at work, continuing to do my job (at a bank in fact...since this is "Bankers Online"). While I work I will continue to laugh at your posts; they are some of the best entertainment you can find.

i'm only trying ruffle your feathers. i don't care what you do and i do appreciate everyone's perspective even if i disagree. what i ask of you is to try to stay on issue in these threads because otherwise they break down more quickly than they normally do for people who actually do enjoy debating the issue.

in pari delicto

*pops popcorn and grabs a chair*