Comments on: Baby Steps

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:09:09 +0000

PS Piss on the stock market, too, just in case you think I’m one of those.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:06:41 +0000

See, that part’s simple. We’re not past that point unless we choose to be. Laws can be repealed. TARP can be taken away.

What will happen, though, is a new czar, then a new committee, then a new board, then a new agency, then a new cabinet-level position, then a new Department of Banking. Or something like that.

GS and their ilk need to be told in crystal clear terms that the gravy train is over. It was a screwy one-time shot, inexplicably from George Bush, allegedly a Republican and a capitalist, it failed, and we won’t do it again. Adios, mofos.

I still haven’t read your links…I had an install today, and just got in from Austin. But I will, just to see if these reforms are all you’re cracking them up to be. I am quite skeptical.

By: Scotch Drinker

Scotch Drinker — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:51:18 +0000

While I can certainly appreciate your stubbornness and while I would much prefer that the government got out of the place entirely and let the entities fail, I figure we’re past that point. We cannot continue to let huge banks like Goldman Sachs be backstopped by the government when they take huge risks with taxpayer money, risks that when rewarded go to paying Goldman Sachs employees but when they fail are put on the taxpayers.

The fees that Obama first proposed were definitely punitive, aimed at trying to get some momentum in the public. I think that was wrong but this reform is a move in the right direction.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:08:57 +0000

I’m going to disagree, purely out of laissez-faire stubborness, and the knowledge that govt regs rarely achieve their goals. My first step would be to remove that explicit govt backing, and state unequivocally that they are not too big to fail. Plus, this seems very punitive.

I’ll read your other links and see where they go, though.