Comprehensive Analysis of Imperative for Financial RE-Regulation – NYTimes Magazine
Please note that we are not authorised to provide any investment advice. The content on this page is for information purposes only.
In general, I think David Leonhardt, the economics columnist for the Times, and successor to such luminaries as Floyd Norris and Leonard Silk, is pretty good.
He usually gets to the key issues in a straightforward manner that is both clear and compelling. [br]
In general, I think David Leonhardt, the economics columnist for the Times, and successor to such luminaries as Floyd Norris and Leonard Silk, is pretty good.
He usually gets to the key issues in a straightforward manner that is both clear and compelling. [br]
In general, I think David Leonhardt, the economics columnist for the Times, and successor to such luminaries as Floyd Norris and Leonard Silk, is pretty good.
He usually gets to the key issues in a straightforward manner that is both clear and compelling. [br]
In this fairly long, but readable and fast-moving piece in the Times Magazine, he lays out several dimensions of the current disaster in the US financial sector,
and makes a strong case for the absolute need for RE-regulation.
My problems with it are two-fold:
First, I think he is WAAAY too chummy with Treasury “head” Timmy Boy Geithner, who is consistently quoted in a favorable way re regulation,
as if his tenure as head of the New York Fed — which Leonhardt DOES talk about in general, but never as specifically as I and others would deem necessary —
was not a prime example of the absolute FAILURE of the so-called regulatory apparatus from the 80s forward —
and Leonhardt IS good at dating the significant problems to Ronald Reagan and his “reign of error” 😉 —
the result of which was the Black September 2008 meltdown, over which Geithner in large measure presided.
And this relates to the SECOND major problem, which is that he gives WAAAY too much credibility to the piss-ant [sp?] measures proposed by the Obama administration,
whose connection to those causing that disaster, whose negative aftermath we are STILL dealing with, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future,
seems to be “one of those things polite people don’t discuss at the dinner table” … 😉 …
In this way, the piece exemplifies the more problematic elements of the Times’ coverage of this whole mess:
while its analysis of the causes and the past is quite good,
its suggestions for the present and future always seem to come up a day late and a dollar — or several trillion 😉 — short …
That said, definitely a piece worth reading … 😉 …
