wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I do not think that anyone compared our President to Hitler in this forum. There was a concern that a deep crisis due to poor policy abroad and failed policies at home may create conditions for protectionism at the minimum; there is also a bigger fear that the national sentiment due to a prolonged crisis would allow for a scenario that we have seen in Germany after WW I. Hopefully it will not happen;

The comparison of Obama to Hitler by "Call em as I See im" in an earlier comment is beyond absurd. The firms of Krupp, Daimler Benz, I.G. Farben and other German corporations willingly joined (and of course benefited by) the Nazis in building their war machine during the 1930's in preparation for WWII. How is this in any way analogous to the policies of the Obama administration?

I couldn't let this most ignorant post remain without a response.

Fair interview Leonard, but for Mr. Sorkin not to address a reform that separated pure banking from trading/investment banking is something of a cop out, I believe (i.e., a full discussion of the reinactment of Glass Steagall Act). We all know what the problem is/was and it will re-occur without substantial financial market reform and we will all we re-examining motives and players and bloated egos, all over again, and again, and again. G

Sorkin is predictably shallow, functioning on the level of "Failure shouldn't be rewarded"
Dear Mr. Sorkin, American problem is that "successes" are rewarded. When there is no sense of morality and no mechanisms of defending the weak, the decent, brilliant (with integrity), the courageous, and the successes of the criminal, the ruthless, the barbaric are celebrated, the successes (and path to them) are the problem. Nobody works alone for "successful" billions (familiarizes yourself with the word "exploitation") and what do the billions mean if the lives of millions are destroyed and the world is in danger.
Jamie Dimond can be an example of "success." See, for example:
www.changeinterms.com

Your guest talking about the meltdown sounded mainly politically correct. We are locked in our own hypocrisy and are not addressing the complex causes of the meltdown although it affected us all. It does not seem that wise tech and execs of Wall Street are going to change much of their "way of doing business". We could deal with bad credit and foreclosures much easier if the unregulated derivates market did not create trillions in losses that destroyed financial markets beyond reasonable repair. The measures we have today are only a patch. There is really no recovery, dollar is going down the tube, we have a huge jobless rate and the country is dealing with a monster debt that will not be smaller any time soon; Your guest did not touch on any of these critical issues.
fair interview, no value added.

Great segment, but lots of personal details obscuring the big picture.

I bet that there weren't any Bush Buddy's at Lehman, otherwise it made no sense not to save them with others.

I too am mystified that the fundamentals of Capitalism as it is practiced has not really been examined. It is the dominant globasl system but is not working for most of the people on the planet... the gap between have and havenots has never been greater. Is it sustainable as presently configured

What would have happened if we didn't bail these guys out?

Any time we hear the "too big to fail" mantra- we HAVE to bear in mind that this meme was propagated by those with a tremendous self-interest in making the public believe this.

There is NEVER any convincing proof presented. All we ever get are analogies like - this guy owes money to that guy, who owes money to that guy- all in a big circle - and we risk having them stand around with arms folded, refusing to lend.

Sorry, not a sufficient explanation.

This 'tin-ear' characteristic of Wall St execs Mr Sorkin describes seems to be a variant of the "Smartest Guys in the Room" mentality we saw w Enron and Worldcom... it seems they are convinced they deserve and are entitled to SPECIAL treatment... and it is still alive and well.

Why do journalists like to focus on how well compensated the players in the financial industry are when they don't ever seem to focus on the compensation levels for people in, say, the entertainment industry? If someone generates 500 million in revenues for their firm, doesn't that put a $5 million salary in a different perspective?

Whenever I hear these stories I can't help but wonder if there isn't an inherent conflict between journalists--among the most low-paid of professions--reporting on the financial industry.

It sounds a little like (the terrific reporter) Mr. Sorkin is happy that government jumped in to "save" some banks and businesses. Some action may have been necessary, but I wouldn't ever relish unleashing the awesome power of the state on what has made us responsible for over 25% of the world's wealth.

Also, I didn't hear any complaints when the Clinton administration so loosened the governments reins to create the massive increase in wealth in the 90-'s.

Thanks much. Always enjoy.

This Obama admin's threat to break up banks is merely to whip them into line. The administration of Germany in the mid to late 1930's also whipped banks and manufacturers to partner with them and hold the party line. History does seem to repeat itself. It's called corporate statism. It leads to National Socialism.

Please ask Mr. Sorkin his thoughts on why the politicians who promoted bank consolidation after the S&L crisis all the way to the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act have not been called to account for the financial disaster.

When we say we want banks to lend again. It sounds like we want then to apply the same credit standards that were used during the bust. Isn't this simply a situation where banks are afraid of further write downs on their portfolios and will need the capital sure up their capital requirements?

Isn't the Democrat party pushing FANNIE AND FREDDIE to loan money to broke people under the CRA the underlying cause of the mortgage failure?

Why wasn't it reasonable to collateralize that debt? Didn't it reduce risk?

Who caused the price of oil to spike in 2008 and why? How could the price go from $40 to $150 a barrel without deliberate manipulation? This led to widespread price increases and job losses, causing many to default on home loans.

Who pulled big money out of Bear and Lehman pushing them over edge?