::joins::

Why? It's clear that Rubin had just as much a hand in squelching the attempt to regulate derivatives as did Greenspan.



Why would I look at Gramm? This thread is about Obama and his advisers resisting change rather than being agents of change. And the language you quote about Rubin's views illustrates my point:

If he had qualms about derivatives before he became Treasury Secretary, why didn't he do something about them when he had the power????? If he thought Born (CFTC chief) was out of line because she didn't have authority to regulate derivatives, why didn't he say "You know I've had qualms about these things going back to my Wall Street days. You don't have legal authority to regulate them, but I do. Let's get going."

And you're right, Gramm took the same view. But Obama's the one saying he represents change.

so the "why" wasn't important? regardless, does the why comport with your fear-mongering that rubin is clueless?


fixed


i already told you as well as quoted rubin's answer.

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?

As Straw says (quoting you of all people), the title of the thread is in every post! Go start your own.



Yes, Rubin was afraid to make a change. But his candidate is all about change.

rainman, your initial post in this thread was an indictment of rubin!


"afraid"? why did you use this term? the article never implied fear. rubin's "reservation" as it were was with who would regulate, the politics of picking who and the general politics of making the change in light of greenspan's leadership/the perceived necessity of the change at that point in time.

"This thread is should be about Obama and his advisers Greenspan resisting change rather than being agents of change and Rubin reflecting on the politics/practicality of change via CFTC."

He and I were suggesting you stick to what the thread is about, rather than what you want it to be about, much like you rudely adivised Banana to do yesterday. Do I need to show you that ugly response again to remind you?

I love that you say you are trying to ruffle my feathers, Ron. Unfortunately all you do is amuse me. Nothing shall ruffle me today! I am too full of Mexican Food and birthday cake to let you harsh on my birthday buzz!
I do wish your statement that you "appreciate everyone's perspective even if I disagree" would translate to your actions in the cooler. Your contridictory behavior is dissapointing.

Yes, and once you finally bothered to read it, your response was "Look at Gramm, Gramm did it too!"



It does in fact imply fear on a couple of levels. First, he was afraid to buck the current political climate. For that I fault him. If Obama's about "change" then he better have a little more courage than that.

Second, he was afraid of the impact that potential regulation would have on existing derivatives already in the market. That's understandable and a legitimate fear. But rather than try to devise a strategy that would address the problem, he swept it under the rug, despite his concern going back to his days on Wall Street.

That's why I use the term "afraid". Perhaps "timid" would be a little more accurate. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on the candidate of "change".

the market is 'short-term' driven. sure, ms born (and rubin's intuition) was correct, but the market would've dove and there was no sense/feeling that this system would be abused...and then phil gramm had an orthodoxy to spread. greenspan was already on board.

so let's not dismiss the relative harm of either candidate's guidance on economic influence wrt regulation.


and 8 years of orthodoxy/enforcement passed by...

Guidance is not the issue. The issue is action vs. inaction, change vs. inertia.

Your guy talks change but has never delivered. His advisers didn't either.

I think its funny how you so quickly accuse anyone you disagree with of simply regurgitating McCain speeches, yet you cannot offer anything more substantive than Gramm's name in this case, or the Obama speech point regarding how his tax plan simply returns us to Clinton era tax rates.

Have you noticed how the banks that are in trouble (investment banks) were allowed to buy these asset-backed securities under Glass-Steagal. ANd have you noticed that the banks that were allowed to get into investment banking (Wells, BofA, Chase, etc.) were also allowed to buy asset-backed securities under Glass Steagal?

Have you noticed that the bank holding companies that were allowed to be created under GLBA (BofA, Chase, Wells, Travelers, Citi) are still in business while the investment banks are being bailed out or are out of business (Lehman)?

But these facts don't fit the little kinard that all the current problems lie with GLBA. I bet you don't even know what Glass-Steagal said and you have never read GLBA.

Oh good, another "it happened when W was prez so it's his fault" empty argument. You do realize that the prez signs bills into law (or vetoes them) and doesn't pass the bills, right? Yes he can encourage a bill, but encouragement is a far cry from "enforcement."

a priority, you say, 8 years before something happened.


what inertia are you talking about? it took 8 years to go off. surely phil gramm's "guidance" and it's accompanying philosophy (adopted by mccain's espoused ideology btw) that governed the mechanics of the market should be more to blame?

why are you playing chicken little so much, rainier?

[quote=Camaro Powerwhat inertia are you talking about? it took 8 years to go off. surely phil gramm's "guidance" and it's accompanying philosophy (adopted by mccain's espoused ideology btw) that governed the mechanics of the market should be more to blame?

[/quote]

Have you noticed how the banks that are in trouble (investment banks) were allowed to buy these asset-backed securities under Glass-Steagal. ANd have you noticed that the banks that were allowed to get into investment banking (Wells, BofA, Chase, etc.) were also allowed to buy asset-backed securities under Glass Steagal?

Have you noticed that the bank holding companies that were allowed to be created under GLBA (BofA, Chase, Wells, Travelers, Citi) are still in business while the investment banks are being bailed out or are out of business (Lehman)?

But these facts don't fit the little kinard that all the current problems lie with GLBA. I bet you don't even know what Glass-Steagal said and you have never read GLBA.

Feel free to keep ignoring these facts Ron. I know how little you like the headache cognitive dissonance gives you.

did rubin pass glass-steagal?

Do you even know what it is?

One more time

quote=Camaro Powerwhat inertia are you talking about? it took 8 years to go off. surely phil gramm's "guidance" and it's accompanying philosophy (adopted by mccain's espoused ideology btw) that governed the mechanics of the market should be more to blame?

[/quote]

Have you noticed how the banks that are in trouble (investment banks) were allowed to buy these asset-backed securities under Glass-Steagal. ANd have you noticed that the banks that were allowed to get into investment banking (Wells, BofA, Chase, etc.) were also allowed to buy asset-backed securities under Glass Steagal?

Have you noticed that the bank holding companies that were allowed to be created under GLBA (BofA, Chase, Wells, Travelers, Citi) are still in business while the investment banks are being bailed out or are out of business (Lehman)?

But these facts don't fit the little kinard that all the current problems lie with GLBA. I bet you don't even know what Glass-Steagal said and you have never read GLBA.

Feel free to keep ignoring these facts Ron. I know how little you like the headache cognitive dissonance gives you.

Well, thanks for confirming that you don't know what it is and that you have no knowledge beyond the sound-byte talking points you see on TV.

Good night Ron.

He doesn't experience cognitive dissonance because he doesn't recognize the contradictions you're referring to.