Wednesday, July 20, 2011

New York Times: Letting Bankers Walk

Shouldn't we hold bankers accountable for their actions, just like everybody else?

Eye opening Paul Krugman Op-ed piece in the New York Times, speculating about the reasons that federal officials have been giving "kid-gloves treatment" to banks that have engaged in abusive mortgage practices. Here's the lede:
Ever since the current economic crisis began, it has seemed that five words sum up the central principle of United States financial policy: go easy on the bankers.

This principle was on display during the final months of the Bush administration, when a huge lifeline for the banks was made available with few strings attached. It was equally on display in the early months of the Obama administration, when President Obama reneged on his campaign pledge to “change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes.” And the principle is still operating right now, as federal officials press state attorneys general to accept a very modest settlement from banks that engaged in abusive mortgage practices.

Why the kid-gloves treatment?
For Krugman's savvy analysis, read on:
We don't often agree with the Keynesian Krugman; but we do believe he's spot-on in this practical, nuts/bolts instance.

So what about it O Gentle Ones? Isn't Krugman correct? Shouldn't we hold bankers accountable for their actions, just like everybody else? If not, why not?


Tplib Tp said...

Wow! Krugman's definitely right about this.  Krugman isn't exactly treading on new political turf with this NYT essay, however.  With this, he's now amazingly siding with folks like Mike Lee and Ron Paul, which is ALL GOOD.

Jennifer Neil said...


Curmudgeon said...

Krugman's not on new ground. He's been writing similarly for the last three years.   Glad to see Paul and Lee have come round to his thinking on this. 

Curmudgeon said...

In the first weeks of the Obama Administration, I told a colleague this:  "The appointment he will come to regret most is Tim Gaither."

I see no reason to change my opinion on that now, two and a half years later. 

Danny said...

The comments are valid.  And Ron Paul pointed out that for what the gummint has given banks, they could have given every family in the United Soviet Socialist States of AmeriKa something like $75,000.

But you see, dear reader, the Federal Reserve was not created by you, for you, or of you, but was created by, for, and of, banks, for precisely this reason: to make sure they never fail - at least not those that are members of the Federal Reserve system.

Since the beginnings of this country, the gummint has bailed out big banks - so this is nothing new.

But it was always suspenseful for the bankers.  The existence of the Federal Reserve removes the suspense.

And so 1% of the population now owns 99% of the wealth in this country.  The purpose of the system is to insure that they own all of it.

Welcome to debt slave Amerika.  Welcome to the coast-to-coast company town, as you toil to pay your income to the banksters, as you pay your taxes, to the banksters.

Why do you think Godfrey wanted to borrow, borrow, borrow?  It was the banksters whispering in his ear.

We need to vote people out of office until this changes.  Vote them out.  Vote them out.  Vote them out, until it changes.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved