Did The President FINALLY Wake Up?

ladyliberty3

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
136
Thursday, January 21. 2010
Posted by Karl Denninger in Regulatory at 11:51
(Page 1 of 351, totaling 1753 entries) » next page
Did The President FINALLY Wake Up?
I'm not sure I believe what I'm hearing on CNBC coming out of The President's mouth.

Is he really listening to Paul Volcker? Finally?

Here's what I heard that I liked - a lot.

1. Limit the Scope - The President and his economic team will work with Congress to ensure that no bank or financial institution that contains a bank will own, invest in or sponsor a hedge fund or a private equity fund, or proprietary trading operations unrelated to serving customers for its own profit.

Did I really read that? REALLY? I've been saying this for more than two years, and FINALLY we are hearing it out of the administration.

IF YOU WANT TO TRADE FOR YOUR OWN ACCOUNT THEN DO SO WITH YOUR OWN CAPITAL IN A FASHION THAT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO A TAXPAYER BACKSTOP!

This is EXACTLY what Paul Volcker, myself and a few others have been calling for. It is the essence of Glass-Steagall. It is the proper role of government to grant permission to use the sovereign credit only for the purpose of regulated lending and deposit-taking with strict supervision to prevent lies, scams, schemes, evasion of reserve requirements and fraud.

As I have said repeatedly with taxpayer guarantees come responsibility to act in a responsible fashion and this means no proprietary trading with taxpayer backstops.

2. Limit the Size - The President also announced a new proposal to limit the consolidation of our financial sector. The President’s proposal will place broader limits on the excessive growth of the market share of liabilities at the largest financial firms, to supplement existing caps on the market share of deposits.

YES! Look, AIG was not gambling with sovereign credit - but it was "too big to fail" precisely because it was permitted to write liabilities against which it held insufficient capital. If it had been a small company nobody would have cared.

But it wasn't a small company. It was a freaking huge monstrosity that threatened the stability of the system as a whole.

Now here's my message to Congress:

PASS THIS, PASS IT NOW, AND PASS IT FAST. NO DAMN EXCUSES - OR YOU'RE FIRED!

There remains one further critical step that must be taken:

We must INSIST as citizens that those in the financial industry - top to bottom, starting at the top (including The Federal Reserve) - who intentionally concealed the risks of these "products" and the "credit quality" (or lack thereof) in them are investigated and when appropriate indicted and prosecuted.

EACH AND EVERY FINANCIAL FIRM MUST BE SUBJECT TO A FULL FORENSIC AUDIT WITH ALL MISDEEDS DISCOVERED THEREIN TURNED OVER TO A GRAND JURY - PERIOD!

THIS INCLUDES "MARK TO FANTASY" ACCOUNTING BS, OFF BALANCE SHEET GAMES AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF DISTORTION AND LIES!

STOP THE LOOTING AND START PROSECUTING!

To the Citizens of this nation: You have just been given the MEANS to stop the crap that got us into this economic mess.

GET OFF YOUR ASS, PHONE, FAX AND PROTEST IN PERSON DEMANDING ALL OF THE ABOVE HAPPEN RIGHT NOW - OR SHUT THE HELL UP NOW AND FOREVER MORE ABOUT THE ECONOMY SUCKING!
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
 
Douchinger really likes to toot his own horn.. He is really bright in some regards and turns out some real good info, but the guy really bugs the shit out of me.. This is one of his better posts, if you can ignore his arrogance.

Just my opinion though, I know some people really like him.. Different strokes for different folks, and he just strokes me the wrong way for some reason.
 
Last edited:
No Libertarian or free market-oriented person would support a return to glass-steagall--it runs contrary to freedom. It also has little to nothing to do with why the financial meltdown occurred.
 
Engineering a market crash to drive up the dollar.

Several people on this board predicted this would happen soon. This may be the selected means.
 
No Libertarian or free market-oriented person would support a return to glass-steagall--it runs contrary to freedom. It also has little to nothing to do with why the financial meltdown occurred.

I dont think libertarians are for investment banks gambling with money backed by the tax payers either. If they want to gamble with their money, thats fine, but it shouldnt be backed by taxpayer bailouts.

Or am i misunderstanding this... (which i probably am)
 
I dont think libertarians are for investment banks gambling with money backed by the tax payers either. If they want to gamble with their money, thats fine, but it shouldnt be backed by taxpayer bailouts.

of course not, but that's a completely separate issue that has far more to do with the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Congress than it does banks by themselves.

It could be strongly argued banks would be extremely unlikely to "gamble" with their patrons money if it wasn't backed by the government's guaranatee.
 
I dont think libertarians are for investment banks gambling with money backed by the tax payers either. If they want to gamble with their money, thats fine, but it shouldnt be backed by taxpayer bailouts.

Or am i misunderstanding this... (which i probably am)

The real problem is that the Fed and the banks have the monopoly on money granted by the goverment. Now the goverment is trying to regulate this monopoly because they think they can make it work. Maybe it will make it slightly better and will delay the problems a bit, but its just silly interventionist games.

And the problem is that distracts from the real issue: The goverment is giving the banks the monopoly on money.

That is the real problem. While they have the monopoly you can try regulating it and can try all you want. Its not going to work.
 
Engineering a market crash to drive up the dollar.

Several people on this board predicted this would happen soon. This may be the selected means.

Yeah... It's also misdirection and Disinformation... Not ONE airwave MSM outlet has broad casted the BAD employment numbers today. Not ONE.

The Economy is Wrecked... We've gone from Flock of Seagulls to a Flock of Sheep.
 
Yeah... It's also misdirection and Disinformation... Not ONE airwave MSM outlet has broad casted the BAD employment numbers today. Not ONE.

The Economy is Wrecked... We've gone from Flock of Seagulls to a Flock of Sheep.

I heard it on NPR this morning. It's also on Drudge. I don't watch Cable News anymore, so I don't know if it has been on there or not. Drudge is pretty close to MSM.
 
It could be strongly argued banks would be extremely unlikely to "gamble" with their patrons money if it wasn't backed by the government's guaranatee.

Their most recent "gamble" and failure was not backed by the government. Securitization of bad debt, and reselling it to various customers allowed them to escape risk on their part (except for risk of prosecution for fiduciary fraud and related crimes).

The TARP and other bailouts were brand new government guarantees, created after the fact.
 
Their most recent "gamble" and failure was not backed by the government. Securitization of bad debt, and reselling it to various customers allowed them to escape risk on their part (except for risk of prosecution for fiduciary fraud and related crimes).

The TARP and other bailouts were brand new government guarantees, created after the fact.

Still the FDIC and the Fed ;) There's also precedents to go by; bailout of the S&L in the 80's and other major corporations, which signals "hey they'll probably do it for us too".

Even if there were no backstops and they did this and got into huge trouble, letting them fail would wipe them away from the market, leaving only honest lenders/investors/banks/etc, not to mention, once again, they'd find out really fast that "hey, if we do this again, we're gone, forever".
 
This guy is a fool if he believes the Obama administration will willingly limit the size or scope of anything he believes he is in total control of, which, given his ego, is almost everything. It's full speed ahead on the socialist agenda.
 
I dont think libertarians are for investment banks gambling with money backed by the tax payers either. If they want to gamble with their money, thats fine, but it shouldnt be backed by taxpayer bailouts.

Or am i misunderstanding this... (which i probably am)

There doesn't need to be a regulation against what the banks do with their money. If a bank is keeping secrets from their customers then smart people will switch banks.....
 
Back
Top