bloomberg | Is it time to put the Great Recession behind us?
Not in terms of the economy -- which remains bogged down
with high unemployment, low growth and other aftershocks -- but
rather when it comes to demanding a rigorous effort to hold Wall
Street bankers, traders and executives accountable for their
role in causing the financial crisis.
Should we just chalk it up to such simplified explanations
as “animal spirits ran amok” and “these things happen
occasionally”? Or should we continue to expend scarce political
and law-enforcement resources trying to get to the bottom of
what happened, and why, with a goal of holding the right people
legally and financially accountable?
It’s a conundrum, especially since many Americans have lost
enthusiasm for the fight. But the path we ultimately take will
reveal to us and the world much about who we are as a people and
what ethics, values and morality we stand for. It will also have
serious lasting implications if we hope to avoid a rerun of what
happened over the last five years.
At the moment, the message we are broadcasting far and wide
is: There will be no justice; there will be no accountability;
let’s return to the status quo as quickly as possible.
Moving On
There are, not surprisingly, powerful and articulate voices
in favor of moving on. In his book “Unintended Consequences,”
Edward Conard, a former Bain Capital partner of Mitt Romney (who
is willing to say the things Romney wouldn’t dare and has given
$1 million to a political action committee that supports the
Romney campaign), argues forcefully that occasional market
collapses such as 1929 and 2008 are a small price to pay for a
system of capital allocation that has produced vast sums of
wealth, extraordinary technical and financial innovation, and an
incentive system that rewards people handsomely for taking risks.
For better or for worse, Conard writes, this is the country
that produced Apple Inc. (AAPL), Google Inc. (GOOG) and Facebook Inc. (FB), among
the most admired corporations in the world. Conard believes the
sooner we get back to untethering Wall Street’s animal instincts
the better. That means modest regulation, at best, and an end to
any efforts at meting out justice for those personally
responsible for the financial crisis because, hey, stuff happens.
Likewise, in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign
Relations in Washington, Jamie Dimon, the chairman and chief
executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), returned to many of
his favorite themes. One was how little he cares for much of
what is in the Dodd-Frank law and the proposed Volcker Rule
which limits banks’ ability to trade for their own account. He
reiterated his belief that the right kind of financial
regulation is necessary, in the vein of laws preventing drunk
driving. But, like Conard, Dimon said the new regulatory
environment is holding back economic growth.
He said he had discussed the topic with business owners and
executives around the country: “They all say it’s terrible. So
it’s not just banks. We’ve done it to ourselves, folks. We’re
shooting ourselves in the foot and we’re doing it every day. Get
rid of that wet blanket and this thing will take off.”
Even Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive
officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), has started to make noise
again after a few years of laying low. As part of what the press
has nicknamed his No Apologies Tour, which has taken Blankfein
to forums and media outlets across the country, he has also
called for jettisoning the wet blanket. “Getting rid of some
regulations and rules that are impairing people from investing
vast pools of liquidity that are on the sideline, that are not
owned by the government, that are theirs to invest but are just
sitting on the sideline” will help get the economy humming
again, he told CNBC.
2 comments:
Wall Streets oligarchs are banking with their pocket books on a Romney victory in November. At this point in 2008, per the Center for Responsive Politics, the securities and investment industry had contributed $14.5 million to Obama. So far in the 2012 cycle they've given Obama $5.5 million versus $18.3 million for Romney. Despite raising nearly $1 billion Obama's campaign was forced to borrow an additional $15 million from Bank of America which is number two on Romney's list of contributors at $921,839.
You don't think it's a prank MB? I've been hearing all of this talk about Obama not fully supporting Israel and the issues they have with Obama. However it's obviously a ploy to have people believe that Obama is no puppet and he's calling the shots.
Post a Comment