Change we can believe in?

[BoberFett]

"Citigroup Saw No Red Flags Even as It Made Bolder Bets "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html

Here are some interesting snippets:

The bank?s downfall was years in the making and involved many in its hierarchy, particularly Mr. Prince and Robert E. Rubin, an influential director and senior adviser.

Citigroup insiders and analysts say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin played pivotal roles in the bank?s current woes, by drafting and blessing a strategy that involved taking greater trading risks to expand its business and reap higher profits. Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin both declined to comment for this article.

When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

And since joining Citigroup in 1999 as a trusted adviser to the bank?s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has been roiled by one financial miscue after another.

Robert Rubin has moved seamlessly between Wall Street and Washington. After making his millions as a trader and an executive at Goldman Sachs, he joined the Clinton administration.

?By the time I finished at Treasury, I decided I never wanted operating responsibility again,? he said in an interview in April. Asked then whether he had made any mistakes during his tenure at Citigroup, he offered a tentative response.

?I?ve thought a lot about that,? he said. ?I honestly don?t know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we?d do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I?m inclined to think probably not.?

That seems reasonable. Let's bring someone in as a financial adviser who was partly responsible for the destruction of a major corporation which lead to a multi-billion dollar government bailout. For all the complaints about deregulation, it would appear Obama agrees with it otherwise why listen to Rubin?

Democrats, Republicans. They're all the same. The Democrat fluffers in this forum can whine all they want but there is no real difference.

 

[boomerang]

Different faces, old ideas regurgitated because they seem new, same greed and corruption.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, great civilizations have fallen before.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: boomerang
I've said it before and I'll say it again, great civilizations have fallen before.

hey, there's an SUV blocking the entrance to your fallout shelter

 

[Farang]

You can find something in anyone's history if they've been involved in government for the past 20 years. Personally I'd rather see experienced people in there to handle this rather than those who have never worked in government before.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Democrats, Republicans. They're all the same. The Democrat fluffers in this forum can whine all they want but there is no real difference.

All I really care about is Dems don't do it in the name of their non-existent God and along the way if it can piss off the NRA, KKK and Neo-Nazi's then I'm all for it. Other then that you are right, they are politicians in it for themselves.

 

[Descartes]

I'm not going to try and project my thoughts onto Obama, and neither should you. But, any leader should utilize the best available resources for developing a strategy to address a problem.

Why is Rubin a good resource? I don't know much about the man, but often times it's the failures that serve as the best advisers. They've witnessed failure first hand, and even if they were responsible a capable leader will be able to execute a post-mortem and establish why it failed. This is valuable information.

As it's sometimes said: Your failures tell you more than your successes do.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Democrats, Republicans. They're all the same. The Democrat fluffers in this forum can whine all they want but there is no real difference.

"i may be stupid, but so are you." fantastic OP, would read again.

 

[DealMonkey]

I thought Greenspan and the Republican Congress were responsible for Citi Group's massive expansion, by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act?

 

[Genx87]

This isnt surprising. Didnt Obama also have the former head of Fannie Mae consulting the campaign?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Democrats, Republicans. They're all the same. The Democrat fluffers in this forum can whine all they want but there is no real difference.

"i may be stupid, but so are you." fantastic OP, would read again.

No, I'm not stupid but apparently you are. I don't vote for either of those parties.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Greenspan and the Republican Congress were responsible for Citi Group's massive expansion, by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act?

Hold on now. The bill that repealed some of the Glass-Steagall Act passed the Senate and House by a huge margin before Clinton signed it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Greenspan and the Republican Congress were responsible for Citi Group's massive expansion, by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act?

Hold on now. The bill that repealed some of the Glass-Steagall Act passed the Senate and House by a huge margin before Clinton signed it.

Hold on, indeed.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall act, was proposed by three R's, and passed the senate on party lines (53 R's and 1 D in favor; 44 D's opposed).

Greenspan himself was very much in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, claiming that, "(the) act provides a long-overdue modernization of our banking laws and makes them more consistent with marketplace realities and the needs of consumers. Now the financial services industry must decide to what extent and in what fashion it will take advantage of the final crumbling of the walls between banking, insurance, and securities to build value for both shareholders and customers."

WTF Clinton signed it, I have no idea.

 

[DealMonkey]

I found this interesting:

President Clinton has threatened to veto the Senate legislation, and his aides have expressed a decided preference for most of the provisions in a competing version that has been moving quickly through the House.

[...]

Administration officials say the President would veto the Senate version because it would dilute requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers and others who have had little access to credit. The legislation also contains provisions that have been criticized by Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin because they reduce his department's oversight of banks.

But privately, some Democrats and Administration officials say that Mr. Clinton might agree to legislation if the objectionable provisions in the Senate measure were watered down or eliminated when the House and Senate negotiate a final bill in conference. The only Democrat voting for the bill tonight was Senator Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F934A35756C0A96F958260

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: boomerang
I've said it before and I'll say it again, great civilizations have fallen before.

hey, there's an SUV blocking the entrance to your fallout shelter

This is the only post in this thread with any win in it.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Greenspan and the Republican Congress were responsible for Citi Group's massive expansion, by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act?

Hold on now. The bill that repealed some of the Glass-Steagall Act passed the Senate and House by a huge margin before Clinton signed it.

Hold on, indeed.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall act, was proposed by three R's, and passed the senate on party lines (53 R's and 1 D in favor; 44 D's opposed).

Greenspan himself was very much in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, claiming that, "(the) act provides a long-overdue modernization of our banking laws and makes them more consistent with marketplace realities and the needs of consumers. Now the financial services industry must decide to what extent and in what fashion it will take advantage of the final crumbling of the walls between banking, insurance, and securities to build value for both shareholders and customers."

WTF Clinton signed it, I have no idea.

That original bill you are thinking of didn't go all the way. The final revised copy of the bill signed by Clinton came some months later. It passed with only a small handfull opposed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Regulators began granting exceptions to Glass-Steagall in the 80's, so by the time it was officially rescinded and replaced it was all but dead anyway. Repubs pushed for the changes quite vigorously, Dems went along. Left to their own devices, Dems likely wouldn't have done so.

Spiffy little summary, here-

http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...cle=the_bubble_economy

Rubin? He just ascribed to the commonly accepted theories at the time. He knows how it was supposed to work and how it really worked, meaning that perhaps he'll be able to help plug some of the holes that led to the current situation...

The real change is in the public perception of the financial sector in a more realistic and less worshipful way. Liars, cheats, thieves and conmen are naturally drawn to the big money- it's what they live for. Our best hope for change is that measures will be taken to create a set of rules where honest investment is rewarded and the prospects of making profit out of nothing, looting, are diminished. The new admin's ability to blunt the current downturn is really rather limited, like it or not. It's like trying to stop an avalanche in many respects. The consequences of allowing the financial sector to "self-regulate" are now unfolding, and what's obvious is that they're incapable of that, human nature and greed at the top being what they are...

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This isnt surprising. Didnt Obama also have the former head of Fannie Mae consulting the campaign?

Yep

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Genx87
This isnt surprising. Didnt Obama also have the former head of Fannie Mae consulting the campaign?

Yep

Yep, change we can believe in. Unfortunately, nobody specified change in what direction. Apparently, the wrong one.

 

[BeauJangles]

Condemning him and his entire administration before a single day in office is evidently the new MO around here.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Democrats, Republicans. They're all the same. The Democrat fluffers in this forum can whine all they want but there is no real difference.

All I really care about is Dems don't do it in the name of their non-existent God and along the way if it can piss off the NRA, KKK and Neo-Nazi's then I'm all for it. Other then that you are right, they are politicians in it for themselves.

Really . You should watch Obamas speech today and hillarys . They all say they believe . LOL Lieing basterds.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Condemning him and his entire administration before a single day in office is evidently the new MO around here.

I hope I'm wrong. I believe I'm not.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Condemning him and his entire administration before a single day in office is evidently the new MO around here.

I hope I'm wrong. I believe I'm not.

Either way, wouldn't it be smarter to WAIT to make the kind of broad, sweeping pronouncements about Obama (and for that matter, every single Democrat) that you made in this thread? If there is any hesitation to your statement, I'm not seeing it. All I'm seeing is you definitively condemning Obama as just as bad as everyone else before he's even served one day in office. Based on what, the fact that you don't think one of his choices for adviser is suitable for a job he hasn't even had a chance to start yet?

You are either the most pessimistic guy on the planet, or you're muckraking.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Condemning him and his entire administration before a single day in office is evidently the new MO around here.

I hope I'm wrong. I believe I'm not.

Either way, wouldn't it be smarter to WAIT to make the kind of broad, sweeping pronouncements about Obama (and for that matter, every single Democrat) that you made in this thread? If there is any hesitation to your statement, I'm not seeing it. All I'm seeing is you definitively condemning Obama as just as bad as everyone else before he's even served one day in office. Based on what, the fact that you don't think one of his choices for adviser is suitable for a job he hasn't even had a chance to start yet?

You are either the most pessimistic guy on the planet, or you're muckraking.

He's both.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Condemning him and his entire administration before a single day in office is evidently the new MO around here.

I hope I'm wrong. I believe I'm not.

Either way, wouldn't it be smarter to WAIT to make the kind of broad, sweeping pronouncements about Obama (and for that matter, every single Democrat) that you made in this thread? If there is any hesitation to your statement, I'm not seeing it. All I'm seeing is you definitively condemning Obama as just as bad as everyone else before he's even served one day in office. Based on what, the fact that you don't think one of his choices for adviser is suitable for a job he hasn't even had a chance to start yet?

You are either the most pessimistic guy on the planet, or you're muckraking.

He's both.

Good call.

But he isn't even in office yet and he's already making poor decisions.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Greenspan and the Republican Congress were responsible for Citi Group's massive expansion, by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act?

Hold on now. The bill that repealed some of the Glass-Steagall Act passed the Senate and House by a huge margin before Clinton signed it.

Hold on, indeed.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall act, was proposed by three R's, and passed the senate on party lines (53 R's and 1 D in favor; 44 D's opposed).

Greenspan himself was very much in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, claiming that, "(the) act provides a long-overdue modernization of our banking laws and makes them more consistent with marketplace realities and the needs of consumers. Now the financial services industry must decide to what extent and in what fashion it will take advantage of the final crumbling of the walls between banking, insurance, and securities to build value for both shareholders and customers."

WTF Clinton signed it, I have no idea.

I have to hold Clinton and some of his team partially responsible for the 1999 deregulation that got us into this mess. while a republican darling, and voted on upon party lines, this bill was also approved of by clinton economic cabinet members like Rubin and clinton signed it. they are also responsible for this mess.


as a huge Obama supporter, i have to question giving Rubin any access at this point. poor play.