Confidence In Bank Execs?

by: David Sirota

Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:20


In Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei's nauseating tribute to D.C. conventional wisdom that claims it's fine to shove automakers into union-busting bankruptcy court while coddling banking industry executives, we get this truly unfathomable quote from "a Democratic official close to the White House":

"[White House officials] have more confidence in the leadership on the banking side - that there are people in place who understand what went wrong and the steps necessary to deal with this disaster."

If this is to be believed - and the double-standard treatment of Detriot and Wall Street makes it believable - then there really are no words to describe how unfathomable that kind of thinking is. How could anyone - even people in the Washington bubble - honestly "have confidence" that the leadership of the banking industry "understand what went wrong and the steps necessary to deal with this disaster?"

David Sirota :: Confidence In Bank Execs?

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Confidence In Bank Execs? | 27 comments
No auto execs on the inside (4.00 / 3)
If the leaders of the auto industry had the same representation at the apex of Obama's economic team that Wall Street does in the persons of Geithner and Summers, the Obama admin. would be singing a different tune on cars.
it's not just those two wall street centric jackasees .... (0.00 / 0)
... it's all the other scum they brought in like orszag, robber rubin's son, furman, gensler, patterson, rattner, and their most talkative "senior administration official" of all: emanuel.

Z

[ Parent ]
Because it was a con all along (4.00 / 2)
This only makes logical sense if they are admitting that the banks knew that their behavior would lead to this outcome.  If they were intentionally running a con, then they certainly are the best placed to unravel that con - particularly since it has been made clear that they will suffer no negative repercussions for it.  
Bush had his oil friends (4.00 / 2)
Obama has his banker friends.

I continue to have confidence that Obama will try to do something with healthcare and education with his political capital.

I have less confidence that Obama will have any political capital left in six months, given that he is spending every last cent of it on the bankers. When the bailout finally equals U.S. GDP (13.8 trillion dollars) we will be unofficially bankrupt.

Almost there.

It's too bad we had chosen for us (via the neolibs and other "free traders") a path of economic development that tied almost all of our society's "value" to the virtual economy of corporate equity shares and the shadow banking system that exploits them (and us).

short memories, short tempers (4.00 / 1)
NEWSMAKER-AIG CEO Willumstad loses reins he barely held

And here's another:

"The federal government has named chairmen to oversee the mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seize his month."

Not all top bank execs stayed in place. All this outrage could be tempered a teensie bit by a little thing called facts.  

well said (0.00 / 0)
Not all top bank execs stayed in place. All this outrage could be tempered a teensie bit by a little thing called facts.  

Well said.

If leverage means anything at all, it means a small number of actors can move large portions of the market. That's what leverage is for... Duh.

It also means that a small cliche like 'all bankers are complicit' can move large emotions, like rage, to new heights (depths?)

Fannie/Freddie, AIG, Goldman-Sachs and Citigroup all have undergone leadership and structural changes that make them markedly different than from the start of the crisis. Some of the other major players no longer exist, like Merrill Lynch, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, etc...  

Apparently, for some, and in the strangest of ironies, a pound of flesh isn't enough....


[ Parent ]
Links, actual information (0.00 / 0)
AIG, Goldman-Sachs and Citigroup all have undergone leadership and structural changes that make them markedly different than from the start of the crisis.

Provide some actual information to back this claim up.  Moreover, and this is a point that David perhaps should have made, give reasonable indication that any of the personnel changes you might be able to cite have led to any sort of ideological change within these banks that would lead them not to repeat this behavior.

Lastly, don't be so flippant about the "pound of flesh" (did you really mean to evoke Shylock there? Really?) taken from a few multi-millionaire bankers who may have lost jobs whilst the actual workers of this country are in significant pain.

[ Parent ]
blah blah blah (0.00 / 1)
Provide some actual information to back this claim up

How's about you pay attention? I'm not going to do you work for you...  It has, you know, been in all the news.

Moreover, and this is a point that David perhaps should have made, give reasonable indication that any of the personnel changes you might be able to cite have led to any sort of ideological change within these banks that would lead them not to repeat this behavior.

Way to miss the point... 99.9% of AIG employees wouldn't touch a CDS with your hands...  Most of CitiGroup had nothing to do with mortgages.  The enormity of the problem had to do with LEVERAGE: a small group of people moving enormous sums over the cliff.

That group, it seems, is not longer able to get their hands on that leverage.  Why do you want to punish the people who never bothered with it in the first place, hmn?

It seems to me that, if you had your way all of AIG would be strung up and hauled away.  Citigroup would be levelled and made a parking lot.  

What more would you do? If David is so all-fired hung up on banks versus automakers then he ought to explain why he isn't livid over the fact that they replaced the head of GM with somebody with a lot of experience IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY!!!  By your logic (and his) no Auto exec ought to be allowed to touch anything in Detroit in perpetuity...

Lastly, don't be so flippant about the "pound of flesh" (did you really mean to evoke Shylock there? Really?)

I meant to evoke Shakespeare, you dolt... and the irony of  the lender (Shylock) being asked for the pound of flesh.  If you're hung up on identity politics... that's your problem, not mine.  

[ Parent ]
Ah, so you are a troll then (0.00 / 1)
Fair enough.  Thanks for the clarification.
[ Parent ]
Rating (0.00 / 0)
Good to see that you're maintaining your commitment to valid discourse.  Have fun with that.
[ Parent ]
Hmm.. (0.00 / 0)
Good to see that you're maintaining your commitment to valid discourse.

You called me a troll. I rated you a troll.  Now your sarcasm makeup is dripping... And, somehow, I'm the one without "commitment to valid discourse"??

How's the weather on that planet of yours??  

[ Parent ]
Valid discourse (4.00 / 1)
within the context of this discussion involves providing support for claims of things like there being a marked change in the banking industry.  A list of C.E.O.s fired (which you were even unwilling to provide) doesn't support that claim.  What would support that claim is something indicating that the new people in charge of those banks have a commitment to ending predatory banking practices.  For example, if several of these banks which have undergone a "marked" change were to call for a return to regulation of their industry then that would constitute support of your claim.  

Furthermore, valid discourse also involves not making use of puerile names for your interlocutors.  Valid discourse also means not substituting bold all-caps italicized letters for thoughtful reasoned argument.  Valid discourse also means not ascribing positions to others which they have not claimed, particularly as a way of avoiding actually answering their questions.  To engage in any of those behaviors, and you did all of them, is trollish.  Hence, I thanked you for making it abundantly clear that you were disinterested in an actual discussion and were instead simply wishing to be a troll.  

Hope you have a nice day.

[ Parent ]
"Well said" my sweet Aunt Fanny (4.00 / 4)
The remaing banks are bigger than ever -- and have  sucked up and will continue to suck up trillions of taxpayer dollars. The "teensy fact:" that matters here is that the Bush and the Obama administration have orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth in American history, without so much as a Congressional hearing. There has been no tranparency in the way the money is spent, and no accountability for creating the disaster.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I respectfully disagree (4.00 / 1)
If leverage means anything at all, it means a small number of actors can move large portions of the market.

That is what monarchs and oligarchs do.

Democracies should work a little differently.

[ Parent ]
And if that's what it means... (4.00 / 1)
... maybe less leverage is in order.

Banking should be as exciting as running the local gas companies, and all the CEOs should be forced to find honest work. Why don't we turn the banks into regulated pubic utilities?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Banks as public utilities (0.00 / 0)
There are places where they do just that.
[ Parent ]
Are you a banker? (0.00 / 0)
I'm finding it difficult to get my head around why the level of excitement you think banking ought to entail is the metric of choice when choosing bankers...

That makes no sense.  

[ Parent ]
Shorthand (0.00 / 0)
A good deal of the problem is banking culture, which, although "exciting," is destructive. The culture needs to be changed. Of course, you knew that's what I was really saying, right?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Um.. (0.00 / 0)
That is what monarchs and oligarchs do.

Democracies should work a little differently.

Respectfully, I thought we were discussing markets and economies, not political systems.  I don't think that there is anything magical about a democracy that, automagically, leads it to the right conclusion in all instances.  I think leverage can happen in a democracy and leverage can happen in an oligarchy.  What about a democracy makes you think that deleterious effects of market leverage can be mitigated?

We are a federal republic, which (as you surely know) is a type of democracy, that repeatedly voted for and upheld some pretty bullshit and lame-ass economic dogma from the right for a long, long time.  This outcome derives from our democracy.   Many many people were calling bullshit on this dogma for as long as people were peddling the stuff.  But... in a democracy... people are free to believe whatever bullshit they want to believe.  


[ Parent ]
asdf (4.00 / 1)
Respectfully, I thought we were discussing markets and economies, not political systems

This is a false dichotomy on your part.  

Also, while you are quite correct that a democracy doesn't magically fix all problems, it certainly allows for an ease of corrective activity that, say, an oligarchy does not.  A functional democracy has the ability to examine the issue of market leverage and choose to legislate against it.  That would be how a democracy can mitigate deleterious effects of all kinds.  

[ Parent ]
The market not a political system? (4.00 / 1)
Where? On Mars?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I think the point was that Obama favors bankers over auto execs ... (0.00 / 0)
... and you point to moves that the bush administration made to the banking industry as proof that this is not true?

Z

[ Parent ]
"Cognitive regulatory capture" .... (4.00 / 4)
... is the phrase you're looking for, when you describe what's happened to the Obama administration. That's why they have "confidence" in the banksters -- and seek neither to hold them accountable for what they did, not seek transparency for what they are doing with our money -- and not the auto companies. Not to defend the auto companies, but at least we didn't have to throw them trillions of dollars just so they'd keep on being zombies.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
how do we know anyone said that? (0.00 / 0)
how do we know that the reporters didn't just make it up?
When in doubt, attack the veracity (0.00 / 0)
Such a sad tactic, really.
[ Parent ]
Given that it's Politico, we don't know (0.00 / 0)
I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt on the insider stuff -- at least that they're not outright fabricating it -- because that's what they live for -- to teabag the insiders.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I am very confident in the bank executive's ability (0.00 / 0)
and desire to work in their own interests, whether or not that hurts their fellow citizens and their nation, or not.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Confidence In Bank Execs? | 27 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox