Re: In Bush, Loyalists See A Good & Steadfast Man Who Has Gotten A Bad Rap

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:36:58 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>In alt.history.british William Black <william.black@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"James Beck" <jdbeck11209@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>news:md40i4hfu8n1jd4j9dubrh4umqh03kgmrp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:43:36 -0000, "William Black"
>>> <william.black@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"James Beck" <jdbeck11209@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:5r00i4tfd4ua4mtpg4naqesan7rs6158vt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:45:19 -0000, "William Black"
>>>>> <william.black@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"James Beck" <jdbeck11209@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3b1vh4dc8pm6pi6k6a7u43sfuj442q3sq1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. They were contractually obligated to spend the money, one way
or
>>>>>>> the other, and those top producers are sufficiently unusual
talents in
>>>>>>> their own right that *any* of them could leave AIG at 9am and have
a
>>>>>>> new job by 10. Competition for them is fierce. If those people
leave,
>>>>>>> they are very difficult to replace. Without them, a financial
services
>>>>>>> company is hard pressed to survive long-term without taking huge
>>>>>>> amounts of risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Get real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These are the dim-bulbs who got us all into this mess in the first 
>>>>>>place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't be fooled by the $3,000 suits and $500 haircuts,  they're no
>>>>>>brighter
>>>>>>than the average school teacher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They're just a sight more glib...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing personal, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>>> Compete with them. Get back to me when you're a bit more humble.
>>>>
>>>>I don't need to compete with them.
>>>>
>>>>They're vile.
>>>>
>>>>I just avoid them and everything they and people like them are
involved 
>>>>in.
>>>>
>>>>I don't do 'humble' either.
>>>>
>>>>I know I'm good at what I choose to do.
>>>>
>>>>My lifestyle is such that I know I'm a success within my own terms.
>>>>
>>>>I certainly don't envy anyone involved in something as sordid and 
>>>>uncertain
>>>>as banking has become.  And it has become sordid and uncertain through
the
>>>>efforts of the bankers and no-one else.
>>>
>>>
>>> The sweetly pungent smell of roast loser is close enough to humility
>>> for me, but then I prefer my food cooked. I think they would eat you
>>> alive, though it's certainly possible, however remotely, that you'd do
>>> okay.
>
>>You're self im****tant little **** aren't you...
>
>>> Sordid? Hardly, but it is sleazy sometimes and they have their share
>>> of incompetents. Even so, banking is a very heavily regulated
>>> industry.
>
>>Oh God,  another one who doesn't read anything beyond the headlines...
>
>><or,  more likely,  can't read all those difficult little letters>
>
>>Look,  the reason for this mess is the relaxation of US banking
regulations 
>>over many years and the effect this has had on the world banking system.
>
>He's right about "banking" taken literally.  The problem is that
>in the US mortgages can be issued by entities that are not banks
>and are not subject to the same kind of regulation.
>
>While we often use the term "bank" to cover both, technically
>it isn't correct.

That's partly true. Mortgage banks don't come under the National Bank
Act, so they are (mostly) regulated by the states, which in turn
mostly dropped the ball. State and local governments like the growth
and their campaigns are heavily funded by contractors.

Although they were asleep at the wheel when it mattered, the state and
local politicians are now saving their hides by regulating like crazy
and blaming the mortgage bankers. Meanwhile a lot of the mortgage
bankers are reorganizing into commercial banks because the federal
rules are often easier. In Watters v Wachovia (2007), the Supreme
Court confirmed that  mortgage bank subsidiaries are exempt from state
regulation.

Regardless, some rules were loose, others were loosened. Still others
were ignored, along with the prudent urban development guidelines that
were developed after the collapse of the S&Ls following the passage of
TRA86, which cut taxes but eliminated certain mortgage
interest-related tax breaks.

We have had a couple of discussions here of the risk associated with
tinkering with the housing markets, whether by taxes or regulations.
Knowing that it's risky hasn't stopped Federal, state and local
governments from playing games in those markets or politicking
afterward. In the next round, the Feds will come under pressure to
tighten their rules. That will leave the states' rules too loose
again, relatively speaking. And that will set up the next round of
jawboning. Meanwhile, this secular trough, which isn't all that bad
historically, will end. Over the next thirty years, the regulators
will face pressure to loosen the rules again and that will set us up
for a mess in the next trough. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

While it would be nice to think that they might get smarter with
repetition, that seems inconsistent with the empirical reality of it.
Dumb and dumber appears to be the rule of the day, but as you say,
this is politics.