agree mr. crowley -- and what you probably know but don't add is that many fine minds from within fortune 500 and their accountants were frantically preparing for basel 11 for literally years, anticipating implementation.
our current deficit economic state will be historically notable because of this lack of regulation (and the missteps and missed opportunities resulting from this vacuum).
The No. 1 reason why The banks and investment banks melted down: Greenspan and Bernancke both shied away form signing on to Basel II and refused to impose any margin requirements for highly illiquid assets that were being valued with a high degree of creativity. They also turned their backs on firms that tried to market highly transparent pricing models of these securitized debt products. FACT !
The New York Times #1 Bestseller for the better of the last several months, Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark R. Levin, chapter 6, page 61-94 illuminates this subject much brighter and clearer than this drive-by interview.
Oversight of the Fed is distinct from control. We need more oversight, at the very least. It's OUR MONEY. We were robbed and now we've been made to reward the robbers.
For 30 years, since the late 70s and 80s (especially since Greenspan), the Fed has taken its principle role to be protecting the rich from inflation.
There is simply no pretending that inflation disproportionately affects the rich -- The Rich are making the loans. When inflation rises, the face value of the loan remains constant but the actual value, because of inflation, declines. Hence, the hysteria of rich people over inflation.
Perfectly simple economics -- Econ 101. UNLESS you are studying right-wing idiots like Mankiw or Greenspan.
1) If the decisions of a handful of companies can bring the world to the brink of economic collapse, what does that say about where the power really is?
2) Why is everyone assuming that the housing bubble was an accident? That's like saying that no one had bought low and sold high. If it helps, refer back to my first question as to who was best positioned to profit from any/all so called bubbles.
To those who find such questions too profound (i.e., I'm off the mark) please filter out the words from the actions of those in power from the last 15+ years. Then we can talk :)
Under Bush the Treasury and Hank Paulsen seemed to trump the Fed in terms of picking winners and losers in managing the bailout and so called economic crisis of 08.
Has the Fed pulled ahead of the Treasury now as lead strategist and if so why?
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Sponsored
About The Brian Lehrer Show
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.
Comments [10]
agree mr. crowley -- and what you probably know but don't add is that many fine minds from within fortune 500 and their accountants were frantically preparing for basel 11 for literally years, anticipating implementation.
our current deficit economic state will be historically notable because of this lack of regulation (and the missteps and missed opportunities resulting from this vacuum).
The No. 1 reason why The banks and investment banks melted down: Greenspan and Bernancke both shied away form signing on to Basel II and refused to impose any margin requirements for highly illiquid assets that were being valued with a high degree of creativity. They also turned their backs on firms that tried to market highly transparent pricing models of these securitized debt products. FACT !
The New York Times #1 Bestseller for the better of the last several months, Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark R. Levin, chapter 6, page 61-94 illuminates this subject much brighter and clearer than this drive-by interview.
What flavor is the Slurpee Mr. Wessel is slurping on
AND
on a scale of 9 to 10, how much does Mr. Wessel wish that his book was a must-read on the conspiracy of Goldman Sachs.
Oversight of the Fed is distinct from control. We need more oversight, at the very least. It's OUR MONEY. We were robbed and now we've been made to reward the robbers.
For 30 years, since the late 70s and 80s (especially since Greenspan), the Fed has taken its principle role to be protecting the rich from inflation.
There is simply no pretending that inflation disproportionately affects the rich -- The Rich are making the loans. When inflation rises, the face value of the loan remains constant but the actual value, because of inflation, declines. Hence, the hysteria of rich people over inflation.
Perfectly simple economics -- Econ 101. UNLESS you are studying right-wing idiots like Mankiw or Greenspan.
Two questions...
1) If the decisions of a handful of companies can bring the world to the brink of economic collapse, what does that say about where the power really is?
2) Why is everyone assuming that the housing bubble was an accident? That's like saying that no one had bought low and sold high. If it helps, refer back to my first question as to who was best positioned to profit from any/all so called bubbles.
To those who find such questions too profound (i.e., I'm off the mark) please filter out the words from the actions of those in power from the last 15+ years. Then we can talk :)
An independent central bank is preferable.
But, if we have to choose between a puppet of banks or puppet of Congress, I'd rather choose Congress.
They may be stupid and corrupt, but not as stupid nor as corrupt as banks.
Please tell your guest to stop typing while you are asking questions. We can hear it and it is rude.
How does Mr. Wessel feel about the potential for Congress to be able to audit the Fed, as Ron Paul has proposed?
Does it impede the Fed's authority and ability to carry out its mission?
Under Bush the Treasury and Hank Paulsen seemed to trump the Fed in terms of picking winners and losers in managing the bailout and so called economic crisis of 08.
Has the Fed pulled ahead of the Treasury now as lead strategist and if so why?
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.