This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is Barney About To Spoil The Banker Party With Proposal To Only Give Retail Banks Discount Window Access?
Even with lots of worthless chatter coming out of the White House in the past 24 hours, one solitary fighter for "the common man" emerges in the form of Barney Frank. Whether this is due to the Congressman not getting a thick enough envelope endorsed and signed by the Big 5 banks, or not, we don't know yet. However, courtesy of our sources on the Hill, the latest development our of Washington is that Frank is trying to generate support for a Congressional bill that would allow only retail banks with a lending function to have Fed discount window access. While this is a brilliantly simple solution to see hedge funds, and for some reason Bank and Financial Holding Companies, like Goldman Sachs finally open up some retail depository branches, the response from Wall Street would be furious. Many banks still exist only courtesy of the last recourse short-term funding option that the discount window affords them. If the Big 18 are forced to lend, which is the prima facie reason for this bill, only to be able to fund their speculative gambling courtesy of zero percent cost of capital, then all bets will surely be off. Goldman without discount window access is the most ludicrous thing imaginable.
For once, and assuming this rumor is in fact true, we agree with Barney Frank.
»
- 6414 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Meh. It doesn't matter what bills they propose; they'll get watered down, shaken out, and then turned upside-down in committee until the final bill is the polar opposite of whatever was initially proposed.
Barney is the big banks' Toady-In-Chief anyway. No way he's going to let anyone lay a finger on Goldman.
He's just using his influence to get a bigger bribe. It's an old game that we've seen before.
Expect more of this table pounding from the CongressCritters as the midterm elections near.
The electeds and the banks are like a long term married couple. They point fiingers at each other and criticize, but they are deeply in love to the end.
+1
The real question is how many times will the American public continue to swallow (hook, line and sinker) the "change is coming' meme proffered by the political class. I suspect forever, or until the American public comes to the realization that real change comes from within. For as long as "American Idol" and "24" hold more influence over the American mind that their current uncomfortable situation, we can expect more of the same.
I suggest everyone do some independent reading on the decade leading to the siezer of power by Hitler in 1939. The German public was either apathetic about Hitler and his minions or they wanted Hitler. Hitler did not take power so much as he was handed power, mostly by default. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler. I'm saying the same dynamics exist today as in the early 1930's in Germany.
History doesn't repeat, but it does often rhyme.
CD,
I was pestering people in the ZH irc chat room for suggestions on reading material ('Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempt to Explain the entire U.S. Government' was one recommendation). Anyways, I'm interested in anything relevant to economics/history/politics/finance. I know you digest several books weekly -- can you kindly recommend a short list of any of your top picks sans Dan Brown? Thanks!
Daedal --
There is an overwhelming amount of material out there!
Here are a few selected titles:
Michael Geyer & Charles Bright, “World History in a Global Age,” American Historical Review, 100/4 (1995), 1034-1060.
Patrick O’Brien, “Historiographical Traditions and Modern Imperatives for the Restoration of Global History,” Journal of Global History, 1/1 (2006), 3-39.
A.G. Hopkins, Globalization in World History (New York: Norton, 2002).
Marc Trachtenberg, The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
Thomas Bender, ed., Rethinking American History in the Global Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).
Geoffrey Barraclough, An Introduction to Contemporary History (London: Penguin, 1967)
C. A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World: 1780-1914(London: Blackwell, 2003).
Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes (New York: Vintage, 1994).
Eckart Kehr, Economic Interest, militarism and foreign policy, edited by Gordon Craig (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1977). (Together with various articles and books on the German debate surrounding Kehr’s work.)
Arno Mayer, “Internal Crisis and War since 1870,” in Charles Bertrand, ed., Revolutionary Situations in Europe, 1917-1922 (Montreal: Interuniversity Centre for European Studies, 1977) 201-232.
Mayer, Wilson vs. Lenin: Political Origins of the New Diplomacy (New Haven, CT: Yale Historical Publications, 1959); and Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking ((New York: Vintage, 1967).
Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, LVII, 3 (Summer, 1988), 427-460.
Peter Gourevitch, Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986).
Jeremi Suri, Power and protest: global revolution and the rise of detente (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003).
Matthew Connelly, A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria’s Fight for Independence and the Origins of the Post-Cold War World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Douglas North and Robert Thomas, “An Economic Theory of the Growth of the Western World,” Economic History Review, 22/1 (1970), 1-17.
Immanuel Wallerstein, “The rise and future demise of the world capitalists system: concepts for comparative analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16 (September, 1974), 387-415.
Wallerstein, The Modern World System, Vols I-III (New York: Academic Press, 1974, 1980, 1989).
Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, Vol. III: The Perspective of the World (New York, Harper & Row, 1984).
Ronald Finley & Kevin O’Rourke, Power and Plenty: Trade, War and the world Economy in the Second Millenium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007)
Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
Eric Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire (New York: Norton, 1999).
Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pt. I.
Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).
Jeffrey Frieden, Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century (New York: Norton, 2006).
Akira Iriye, Global Community: The role of international organizations in the making of the contemporary world (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).
Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Place: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
Eric Weitz, “From the Vienna to the Paris System: International Politics and the Entangled Histories of Human Rights, forced Deportations, and Civilizing Missions,” American History Review, 113, 5 (December, 2008).
Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).
Susan Pedersen, “The Meaning of the Mandates System,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 32, 4 (2006), 560-582.
Pedersen, “Back to the League of Nations,” American Historical Review 112, 4 (October, 2007).
Linda Colley, Captives (New York: Pantheon, 2002)
Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
Sidney Tarrow, The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Kevin Kenny, “Diaspora and Comparison: The Global Irish as a Case Study,” Journal of American History, 90 (June 2003): 134-62.
Robert Keohane & Judith Goldstein, Ideas and Foreign Policy: beliefs, institutions and political change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993).
Gerrit Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).
Mark Mazower, “The Strange Triumph of Human Rights, 1933-1950,” Historical Journal, XLVII, 2 (2004), 379398.
Kenneth Cmiel, “The Recent History of Human Rights,” American Historical Review, CIX, 1 (February, 2004), 117-135 .
Cmiel, “The Emergence of Human Rights Politics in the United States,” Journal of American History, LXXXVI, 3 (Dec., 1999), 1231-1250.
Samuel Moyn, “On the Genealogy of Morals,” The Nation (April 16, 2007)
Moyn, “Spectacular Wrongs: Gary Bass’s Freedom’s Battle,” The Nation (September 24, 2008).
Micheline Ishay, The History of Human Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).
A.W. Brian Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: Random House, 2001).
Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins, drafting, intent (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
John Humphrey, Human Rights Law and the United Nations (Dobbs Ferry: Transnational Publishers, 1984).
Andrew Moravcsik, “The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe,” International Organization, LIV, 2 (Spring, 2000), 217-252.
Michael Ignatieff, ed., American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).
Gary Bass, Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Knopf, 2008).
Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold: Britain, American and the Making of the Modern World (New York: Knopf, 2007).
James E. Cronin, “Markets, Rights and Power: The Rise (and Fall?) of the Anglo-American Vision of World Order, 1975-2005,” Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #164 (2008)
G. John Ikenberry, After Victory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
Charles Maier, “The Two Postwar Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth-Century Western Europe,” American Historical Review, LXXXVI (April, 1981), 327-352.
Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Elizabeth Borgwardt, A New Deal for the World: America’s Vision for Human Rights (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).
James Cronin, The World the Cold War Made (London: Routledge, 1996).
Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Michael Cox, et al., eds., American Democracy Promotion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
I particularly enjoyed the Westad and Hobsbawm books -- happy reading! (maybe the T-bags on this blog should take notice and read a bit, too - instead of just playing the 'gotcha' straw man game with grammar and spelling)
Yup, yup and yup. Great reading list, of which I can personally recommend about half. If funds are short, find a library with a lending agreement with other libraries. I bought a number of these books for my library. But I was thinking ahead for when I would need to burn the books (and dollars) for heat in my wood stove. :>)
One warning. Many of these authors are keepers of the myth, meaning that even if they don't recongnize it, they're still perpetuating common misunderstandings about history or they have an agenda. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them, just that you should spend some time looking at their references. I learn more reading the reference material cited by the authors than I do reading the authors.
Please remember to spend some time reading Jung, JD Lang and Freud. It's important to understand psychology when reading history. You need to know why as well as what. I have a tendency to shun opinions offered by writers of history, particularly if the historian cites letters written by historic figures for their opinion. Many people past and present write/wrote letters and books to spin their version of the events they were involved in. Our founding fathers did this (as did most historical figures throughout history) with an eye to influencing historians. Historians like to believe they can see through this spin but they do a poor job of it.
Also, please pay attention to the date of the publication and then think back along the prior 5 years, which was when the author was most likely doing his or her research. Most of the books cited above have been written within the past 20 years. Keep everything you read in context with the time period in which it was written as well as the time period being written about. Once you have developed an opinion on a time period or event, find authors that will challenge your thinking. If you're unwilling to challenge your ideas, they aren't worth much. Some of my best "oh my God" moments came from forcing myself to reject cherished beliefs. It hurts like hell but it's ultimately very rewarding.
Finally, I like to read authors or publications of which the author I'm currently reading disparages or trashes in his or her book or article. If an author takes the time to single out something or someone else for public humiliation, I want to understand why that author or book/article was so threatening to the author I'm reading. The worse thing I can do is to assume the book I'm reading is factual and the author honest in his/her writing. Remember that all writers are propagandists.
CD, been looking forward to the second installment in your series on investor self-examination and psychology. Have I missed it or will it--hopefully--be coming soon?
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
William L. Shirer
Peloponnesian War
Thucydidies
The Persion Boy
Mary Renault
The Journeyer
Gary Jennings
My very first substantial dive into history was Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". I just purchased a new copy a month ago to replace my worn out friend, which will be given an honorable send off in my wood stove this winter. It had become so dog eared and worn I struggled to read sections. Besides, my eyes are not that of a 20 year old anymore and I deserved bigger and darker type in my old age. :>)
do you not remember things you read?
The "Rise and Fall" is over 1200 pages of dense facts and figures. Not a romance novel. In addition, I use it as a reference, going back to compare what was said in this book to what I read in other, particularly specific items regarding historical figures and/or events.
Plus there are subjects I can re-read again and again. We are talking a span of over 35 years from when I read it for the first time. Please tell me you have had occasion to return to a book you first read many years ago for further enjoyment? We're not talking about a romance or mystery novel where all the fun's gone after you find out who did it.
Anons #163507 & #163545,
Thanks for the lists.
CD, I guess they covered your basis. Thanks for the commentary, insightful as usual. Wood stove -- you know those things are carcinogenic, right? On the other hand, I suppose it is a nice thing to have when in possession of fiat currency.
Richard Evans has finished his trilogy on the Third Reich, about 2,000 fact-filled pages. Read Vol. II. I agree with the poster. Hitler never received more than 34% of the popular vote, yet controlled everything.
Ron Paul would be the one playing the role in our situation - but a much gentler version
I agree! We have not seen a repeal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 by the Obama administration. Anyone can be accused of being an 'Unlawful enemy combatant' by the President and sent to a secret prison without the right to a lawyer or trail and held indefinitely. Also, the Bush administration interpreted federal and international laws very ambiguously to allow for torture. And, don't forget the new merc's -- Blackwater. Obama is just following a script that has been written, since the cold war. The collapse of the Soviet Union has facilitated a big push for world domination using the 'war on terror' as the 'Casus belli'.
I highly recommend reading Naomi Wolf's "The End of America" and the "Oil Crusades: America Through Arab Eyes".
Right...
Bottom line is TALK IS CHEAP.
Right after I finish this post I'm going to start working on the cure for cancer, eliminating world hunger and mastering cold fusion. Anyone think I'll actually succeed with any of it?
Until some of these clowns actually start doing anything that actually changes anything, assume that whatever drivel comes out of their mouth is just more BS.
I'm sure when this doesn't actually happen, it'll be blamed on the process, or partisan politics, or the alignment of the stars. It then means Barney can claim he's really making an effort to 'fix' (unfix?) things, while pointing the finger at other people for not letting them be fixed, while also reassuring his major donors that there's no need to worry as nothing will actually change. What a system!
Hey I believe
in you Nedward!
You can do it!
:)
AndyC
Frank pretends he is a man of the people until it comes time for a vote. He talked like he was for the Paul audit the Fed bill, but then voted no when it came time. Frank is just looking for a Christmas bonus of his own.
True.
So the possibilities are...
1) Shakedown (Nah... they got pictures...)
2) First National Bank of Barney and Friends (Hmmmm...)
3) As above... If he leads the way on this issue (which will not go away)... he gets to be the guy who writes (or stalls or kills or guts...) the bill.
4) Understands the problems of the day and wishes to fix them. Ha ha ha ho ha ho hooo!!!
I think you mean Chanukah bonus...
uh-oh, you mentioned something about jews!! cue the anti-semetic remarks in 3.....2.....
America needs to roll over and play dead - then watch who the bloodsuckers are then they go after other fresh meat
Exactly, Obama is currently using the same misderection with his "greedy bankers" speech.
+1000
As I wrote last night, why do we patronize companies that do business with GS? Isn't that the American way for dealing with issues such as this? When a TV personality offends, people threaten to stop buying the products of the advertisers, thus putting pressure on the corporation to mute the offender in some way. Wouldn't avoiding the products of companies that hire GS have a similar result? Everyone complains but no one takes action.
If only it were that easy.. How far is their reach?
There is a tentacle in " Every stocking hung by the chimney with care..."
That's how far.
So Goldman goes out and purchases a regional depository institution - case closed
With funds borrowed from the public (reserve window) trough.
Easy to solve that. Just make "X" percentage of all revenues must come from making loans to retail clients. That would prevent the big investment banks from skirting this. I'd put that percentage somewhere north of 51%.
It will be called the Goldman Family Bank.
Only Goldman Employees will be able to get loans using their stock and rights to the first born male as collateral
They will take late fees to a new level. It will be a huge laugh at the bonus party each year especially when the bonuses get so large , each empoloyee can have their very own Goldman Branch
It's over already. C is the last big bank to return bailout funds. They already took our money, made their Billions, now will pay bonuses, and leave small regional banks and tax payers holding the commercial real estate bag. The game is over!
*cough* WFC *cough*
But in this rational, efficient market - C is down another 7% and pushing new daily lows on their secondary, while WFC is 'in talks' to do the same but bigger... and its stock is up 1.5% and pushing new daily highs...
I am willing to stand corrected, but I thought the current C payback of TARP is 20 billion and the total is 45 billion. The payback of the 20 gets them out of that "exceptional case" jazz so they can line the pockets of a group of upper mgmt.
There is plenty of unpaid TARP.
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/
Sweet, now we get to see the administration come out against it (like they did against the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall).
Look i don't get why you hate this guy [Barney Frank] so much. More generally, at ZH its time for you guys (tyler and co) to start being coherent in your opinions. Criticizing the person / bank / topic du jour is kind of like being CNBC with a negative sign in front.
As a relative outsider, my impression is that BF is far more knowledgable about banking and finance than the majority of congressmen or politicians. Ok , he doesn't want to abolish the Fed (a crazy, crazy, idea in my view - history has shown that some kind of central bank is necessary but lets talk another day). Ok, he doesn't want the dismantling of the financial system to occur simultaneously with implosion of the US economy (another crazy idea that can be favoured only by gunslinging extrememly radicalized supporters of autarchy with solid access to homegrown food). Hence he is for reform at a more modest pace than you would like. But he is the one to be able to get the broad based support and intellectual understanding for a broad reform of the financial system. Reform is better than no reform.
"Reform is better than no reform."
Right, but what matters is 'how much'. If settling for any reform, regardless of how little it actually does simply because it's better than 'no reform', is all it takes to please you then you must be a HUGE fan of the current administration.
Are you insane, man? Barney Frank knows banking? Like when he insisted Fannie and Freddie were A-OK? No politician is more responsible for this implosion we are going to experience than Barney Frank.
I think that Barney Frank is the brain trust for financial matters in Congress. This has two implications for how I feel about the guy. 1) I feel better when financial matters on the Hill come across his desk first as opposed to Chris Dodd for example. 2) I think its utterly pathetic that in the richest(sic) country in the world Frank is the brain trust for financial matters on the Hill.
To your final point that reform is better than no reform. It's just this guy's opinion that given how corrupt our society has become, reform will do nothing but entrench the status quo (a financial reform bill that codifies TBTF into law). If no reform exposes the rot and leads us to repudiation of our political, professional and personal culture, then I am for no reform.
your impression needa less talk and more learning
163397 says "Look i don't get why you hate this guy [Barney Frank] ...As a relative outsider, my impression is that BF"
anon you wouldn't happen to be a surfer would you?
Troll.
Barney is Mr. CRA, Fannie, and Freddy. Maybe he rolled over because of the photos? Dunno, but he's no hero of 'regular' Americans.
I share the cynicism of the above posters. My guess is that Frank gets credit for proposing something akin to a "real" regulation of TBTF but won't get blamed if it doesn't pass. Must be getting a little heat back home.
Frequently legislators will vote against something that they know will not pass to please constituents back home and then vote in favor of it when there is enough support for it to pass.
I will say that this is a new proposal (at least I had not heard of it before now) but it may be designed to satisfy some of the audit-the-Fed-Ron-Paul crowd. It won't pass if it would put that much of a ding in GS.
how about limit the amount of discount window access to some function of the deposit base?
That would make sense. I do sense that they would leave a loophole like 13.3 to enable Fed to give Goldman free money when it needs it. Goldman will continue to own us, less a revolution.
No politician will "Spoil" Wall Street's party. When the banks had tarp funds, the govt had their chance to break them up. Now that all the tarp has been repaid, what power does Mr. Obama (Mr. Irrelevant) have?
The only way to stop this is to pick a day and boycott. Stop working, stop paying taxes, stop banking with these sleaze bags, until something is done. the only people who can stop Wall Street corruption are the pathetic and blind citizens who now pay attention to Tiger Woods, rather than focus on the status of this country's economy.
Every unemployed American should be camping out the White House lawn right now! Every American should be going to their banks to withdraw all their money into smaller regionals. Every American who has a mortgage, should stop paying it, until the banks are brought in line and the Fed is dismantled.
sounds good to me. a bank without windows is a like a pimp without girls. It'll never fly until we lay it all down.
How is this going to increase an individual bank's willingness to loan the money at all? Does increased access necessarily entail increased lending? With the amount of uncertainty in the world economy with respect to new rules and regs, I'm not seeing how this encourages retail banks to increase their lending.
Well lets say it doesn't... It would at least limit GS (and others) ability to borrow money at 0.25%. To me that's not a bad thing.
Providing discount window access to currently 'eligible institutions' is just a mind numbingly stupid and asinie idea - why the hell do we give GS access to funds at 0-0.25%? They get free money to cover their liquidity needs... We should all be so lucky.
Barney sux banks do s.th. detrimental to the banks?
As if. Just like last week's rumor of cram downs to bankruptcy
judges it's all b.s....those stupids in mass. need to shut
him down.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
So THAT is what the Brad Miller amendment to the House financial bill was all about. He wanted the Fed to be able to bequath discount window access to any entity they choose. Lucky for us best I can tell the asshole's amendment wasn't even considered. In this context the Miller amendment could only be seen as an attempted pre-emptive strike against this proposal by Frank. Someone is well connected reading the Chairman's mind like that.
If Frank can actually put this in a bill, it will be fascinating to see if Miller votes for it. If Miller does not vote for it then we can assume his proposed amendment was the work of his twisted mind, if he votes for it then we'll know Brad was totally punkd by a lobbyist.
Steak, once again we are reminded that there are more than one type of cookies populating our nations capital.
More CNBS: Kudlow asks chief extraordinaire White house correspondent Obama drooler what's his name (hack)
Larry: "what about all these banks borrowing at zero and making profit?
Hack: " I don't know of any bank borrowing at zero, it's more like 1.5%" huh?
I'm making 1.55% in one savings acct. so am I screwing the banks?
fat chance, it's just another CNBS idiot.
Evil banker response: Opening a small branch in Timbuktu will be a very easy, cost effective way to circumvent this law.
Congress: Oh, ok, well in that case - NEW LAW! We'll regulate HOW MANY branches banks must have to qualify.
Evil banker response: We're instituting a minimum requirement for deposits and punitive fees for banking services...
Congress: Oh, well, OK, NEW LAW! Regulate minimum deposit requirements and banking fees.
Evil banker response: We'll have difficult lending standards, and mean, unhelpful clerks.
Congress: OK - NEW LAW! Unless clerks smile and say hello, the Federal Government will cut off your bank's access to the discount window...
Evil banker response... Ok, employ mannekins with smiling faces, and have the regular workers take 8 hour lunches, and don't train them well.
Congress: Damn it... NEW LAW! Any bank that does not have a competent employee at their bank window from the hours of 9am EST to 5pm EST no longer gets access to the discount window.
Evil banker response... ok but we define competent as being a mentally handicapped person with an IQ of 45... (queue the Mentally handicapped lobby and their heavy ammunition)
Goldman owns a bank, hence the designation as a BANK holding company. The proposal is meaningless dribble from a Congressman who is either a) too ignorant to know better or b) hoping the public is too ignorant to know better.
this will amount to nothing
nothing
nothing
'Goldman without discount window access is the most ludicrous thing imaginable'.
-Awesome
Party:priests 1:luv
No, the most "ludicrous thing imaginable" is contemplating a scenario in which Goldman is caused financial pain through legislation. Congress would never do anything to hurt its dear, cash cow.
Barney Frank has been pulling this bait and switch crap his entire career
"Representative Barney Frank (D., Mass.), a co-sponsor
of the Gonzalez bill, points out that "if you take the principles
that people are talking about nowadays," such as "reforming
government and opening up government—the Fed violates
it more than any other branch of government." On what
basis, then, should the vaunted "principle" of an independent
Fed be maintained?"
This is circa 1993, yet now that a real bill that has some momentum behind it is now in play he's AGAINST auditing the Fed.
As for "the common man"
"I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”Representative Barney Frank, September 25, 2003It was six years ago that Mr. Frank announced his famous dice roll on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the name of affordable housing. Mr. Frank got his wish, and the losses keep rolling in, with no end...
Who in their right mind would think that lowering lending standards, lowering interest rates, and flooding the market with buyers would somehow create affordable housing or that subsidizing housing with dirt cheap rates would have any effect or outcome other then ruining the "common man" by putting them is vastly overpriced homes that they will lose as soon as rates rise?
He's a bankster suck up and cheap hack
AndyC
Goldman without discount window access is the most ludicrous thing imaginable.
Exactly. The whole TARP debate is just a massive red-herring. The real money is made via the $trillion dollar subsidies engineered through the Fed discount window that are granted to a few influential banks. I mean, how easy is it to loan at 0-1%, lend @ 3-5%, utilize 20, 30, 50:1 leverage, and have the federal government guarantee your job?
How would such a situation even exist in an open, competitive free market? Answer: it wouldn't! So the inescapable conclusions are: (a) there are incredible levels of widespread corruption & fraud; AND (b) the government that is participating (perhaps even directing) in this fraud no longer represents the interests of the people.
Cue Tommy J regarding point (b).
The bottom line here is that Democrats are getting tired of hearing us bitch about what they have done for the banks. So they're all jumping on board the "Bash the Banks" press release for Christmas. Then they can go back home for the holidays and look good to their constituents.
All they need to do is get Superfly to read a teleprompter.
BF has screwed up a lot in the past (did I say "a lot"? I meant "gazillions"). THAT SAID this is a reasonable idea to move banks away from massively levering consumer deposits. No, it won't fix the banking system. Yes, BF still must live down his big mistakes (did mention that I agree with his critics 90% of the time?) But this is a thoughtful reform by I guy I want to strangle most of the time. And he is good on drugs too. Is it too much to ask Ron Paul to help BF reform drug laws too since they are on the same page?
Sure. And chickens have lips
be very, VERY careful about what you wish for.
you just might get it AND realize that the pastures on the other side of the Rubicon ain't so green after all.
Greenland / Iceland ?? wake up and smell the tulips.
how will this bill HELP, YOU, retail ??? pray tell.
if you're in cash, long DX / $USD, long treasuries, long puts across the f'ing board (equities/ futures, currencies, commods) ... then you are very much for this bill.
chew on that for a bit and see how it tastes.
once this bill is swallowed by congress, if it is NOT explicitly killed by BO, lemme know how it tastes.
for the record, while opining personal opinion during off-peak ... anyone wanna bet a milkshake that BO:
(1) does NOT seek a 2nd term as POTUS; and
(2) in the interim, registers the absolute lowest gallup poll readings in (modern) history ?
gotta agree completely on number 2.
i keep rolling number 1 around in my head and have concluded that it is still too early in the game to make a call on that one. we still got 3 yrs to go and that is a long, long time.
In 3 years there could be armed factions fighting in the street. Way too early to tell about 1.
Amazing the number of post that don't see anything wrong with Frank and some that actually support him. They must be watching a different TV than I am. Slime ball all the way.
He does continue to get re-elected by the Mass. constituency. Fucking mind boggling.
When its reported that the forces championing the peoples' interests will be spearheaded by scum like Barney Frank, probably the most loathsome maggot "public service" has produced in the last 50 years, start reaching for your wallet. Having sensed the rather considerable antipathy toward both Obama and Congressional Democrats in general amongst progressives and noting Obama's plumetting poll numbers, today's finger waging session at the White House and this whole business about Frank are cut from the same cloth. Here's Marshall Auerbach on this phenomenon:
"Far easier to resort to cheap populism than actually do something about it. If the President were serious, he would be pointing out that the bankers have been undercutting every effort at reform, and have been paying off Congress to put loopholes into all legislation. If he were genuinely upset, he would be channeling the country’s anger constructively, by calling on the population to take to the streets in mass protests against Wall St., with a view to shutting down the biggest banks and breaking their power once and for all. Of course, the President would never do anything so "irresponsible". Far better to throw a few bones to the peasants and hope that the appearance of reform pacifies them."
When a jackel like Frank can't act appropriately out of a sense of justice but must wait until his and his Democratic colleagues' political survival is threatened in order to do the right thing, one needs question whether any legislation he'd introduce really speaks to the nature of the problem we have with the banks or whether it's just a sop designed for public consumption. This proposal isn't a reintroduction of Glass-Speagle, you know. It just Barney being his nauseatingly usual pig self, that's all.
+1
I couldn't agree more about the origin of Barney's slimy motivation for this gambit. Still, there is kernel of hope if an approach this straight forward triggers some sort of actual ground swell of public interest. History suggests a sop to the unwashed masses and future dilution to nothing in any final bill, but..
At least we can hope, and surely there has been little lately on this topic to be optimistic about.
It's amazing how many of the Charlie Browns on this thread are hopin that congress' Frankenfurter wannabe will follow through with his retoric.
I could use a reading list for economic/politics/history on europe from 1000ad to 1400ad. If anyone has any suggestions please post them. Main emphasis on economics here.
thank you