Comments on: A look back at Paulson’s conflicted interests

By: Geithner's head about to roll? - SoWal Beaches Forum

Geithner's head about to roll? - SoWal Beaches Forum — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:57:15 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Cindi

Cindi — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:53:30 +0000

Do you really believe the big banks that run this country would allow someone like Ron Paul to win a Presidential election? The banks write policy and laws that are passed by all the congress members they have bought. They dictate who will sit in office from the President on down. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:11:23 +0000

You completely misinterpreted Bernanke’s 2005 remarks, in it he discusses how on the global scale the U.S. has become a net borrower not lender, if you read into it he is saying that since the rest of the world was saving more than we were (negative savings rate over the long boom) they were in more favorable conditions to lend. This has absolutely nothing to do with his over-arching understanding of the crisis, and this was in 2005! He wasn’t even head of the Fed then.

His efforts are the most that could be done at the time, when the scale of the crisis dwarfed any liquidity injections he could create.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:00:26 +0000

As long as we leave the central banks alone to print the money and keep the boom bust economic cycle going, the more we become slaves to our government and their spending. Support HR 1207 to audit the Fed, and maybe enough people in the right places will see that this fiat system MUST end.

By: Monday May 4, 2009 Must Reads - Contrarian Stock Market Investing News - Featuring Bargain Stocks

Tue, 05 May 2009 13:40:12 +0000

[...] · Can people distinguish pate from dog food? American Association of Wine Economics · The more Obama spends, the better Canada looks to private investors National Post · Buffett still bullish on Wells Fargo Clusterstock · Was Goldman’s offering and the recent rally really coincidence? Seeking Alpha · Questions about Goldman Sach’s role in the market NY Post · The usual suspects: Goldman’s unusually close ties with Washington Portfolio · Geithner, member and overseer of finance club NYT · Robert Barro on lessons of the Great Depression The Browser · Is Goldman running the NYSE? GoldmanSachs666 · A look at Hank Paulson’s conflicts of interest Bearish News [...]

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:28:37 +0000

@Ethan This would be a good start: big haircuts for bank bondholders, wipe out equity holders when necessary, and require bailed out banks to change top management. Anything else is a moral hazard nightmare. It's a big job, but there's no good alternative. Make sure smart people are running the banks and don't compensate them based on how reckless they are, like the old CEOs were. Our current solution is a continuation of the same old system: Banks are ensured of zero consequences to their risk-taking and bonusing. There's always a bailout, waiting in the wings. Keep writing bad loans with big fees. We can always unload them on the taxpayers if necessary. Thanks for reading. @Ethan

By: Ethan

Ethan — Mon, 04 May 2009 01:57:44 +0000

I did vote for Ron Paul and would much prefer his real medicine to the current placebos, but I still have to point out a couple things about this rule. First… how else would you propose doing it? Seriously, what are the alternatives? I can’t think of a simple one that doesn’t close the door on most big-business executives, not all of which are evil or even close to it. Second, being forced to sell all of your stocks at the same time, or even within a few months, comes with a high enough price tag of its own. Underwater on something you were happy hanging onto for 10 years? Too bad… you get to take the loss. Whether that compensates for the tax-free trick would vary case-by-case, but I’m guessing that’s the reason for the rule. I can’t say I disagree with it, as long as it isn’t extended to too many positions.