If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Tim Pawlenty, who stepped down as co-chairman of the Romney campaign to take a job as a bank lobbyist, says that banks should regulate themselves   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 195
    More: Obvious, Tim Pawlenty, Fox Sports Radio, Minnesota Governor, retirements, Round Table, lobbyists, Colorado, Dodd-Frank  
•       •       •

1777 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2012 at 5:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



195 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-24 11:05:29 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: skullkrusher: He was saying that banks need to regulate themselves in addition to government regulation.

Without more context to Pawlenty's quote, I think this is probably a pretty fair interpretation of what he is advocating. One can advocate for methods of "self regulation" without being a full-on market anarchist, but the foundation for self regulation requires undesirable actions to have negative consequences. Bailing our finance industry out from aftereffects of one of the greatest heists in human history sends a pretty clear message that these entities are immune to the negative consequences of their actions.


he was asked how the banking industry can regain the public trust. He replied "By not doing stupid things". He followed that up with "These are large organizations with tens of thousands of employees in many cases. There is always going to be some individual doing something that's off track. That's human nature. But the obligation and the opportunity of the organizations is to put controls in place and a culture in place that minimizes the likelihood of that, but does it voluntarily."

To me that is a continuation of how banks can regain our trust.
 
2012-09-24 11:12:52 PM  

skullkrusher: he was asked how the banking industry can regain the public trust. He replied "By not doing stupid things". He followed that up with "These are large organizations with tens of thousands of employees in many cases. There is always going to be some individual doing something that's off track. That's human nature. But the obligation and the opportunity of the organizations is to put controls in place and a culture in place that minimizes the likelihood of that, but does it voluntarily."


THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.
\o/
|
/ \
 
2012-09-24 11:14:35 PM  

Mikey1969: Seriously, does he expect anyone with a brain and without a conflict of interest to buy his Magic Beans?


He's trying to appeal to poorly educated morons. That is the GOP base. They eat this stuff up like farking ice cream.
 
2012-09-24 11:15:59 PM  
I wish Tim would be a lobbyist for the food industry - I was just telling my doctor the other day how much I wish my food wasn't checked for arsenic.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:27 PM  
He's now a lobbyist for the banks. Did you expect anything different? When Dodd went to the MPAA he wasn't advocating lighter copyright laws.

You may as well ask a union lobbyist to barter for lower wages.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:54 PM  

skullkrusher: CrackpipeCardozo: skullkrusher: He was saying that banks need to regulate themselves in addition to government regulation.

Without more context to Pawlenty's quote, I think this is probably a pretty fair interpretation of what he is advocating. One can advocate for methods of "self regulation" without being a full-on market anarchist, but the foundation for self regulation requires undesirable actions to have negative consequences. Bailing our finance industry out from aftereffects of one of the greatest heists in human history sends a pretty clear message that these entities are immune to the negative consequences of their actions.

he was asked how the banking industry can regain the public trust. He replied "By not doing stupid things". He followed that up with "These are large organizations with tens of thousands of employees in many cases. There is always going to be some individual doing something that's off track. That's human nature. But the obligation and the opportunity of the organizations is to put controls in place and a culture in place that minimizes the likelihood of that, but does it voluntarily."

To me that is a continuation of how banks can regain our trust.


I wish defensive ends would just stop making dirty hits without fear of penalty or fine. You know, just do the right thing. That would regain our trust in clean football.

//Think of the dogs! If Vick is disabled, he'll go back to pooch fighting.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:58 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.


Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.
 
2012-09-24 11:19:10 PM  

vpb: Yes, and criminals should arrest and prosecute themselves.


First head of the SEC was Joseph Kennedy. Why Joseph Kennedy? Because he was the biggest market manipulator of his era (back when it wasn't yet illegal). They appointed him because he knew every dirty trick and every loophole.
 
2012-09-24 11:20:21 PM  
I think we have to count on the banking industry to self regulate. They're in the best position to know what their problems are. But it has to be done in concert with government regulations.
Which is why we should repeal Dodd-Frank.
 
2012-09-24 11:22:18 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.


if you're not trying to intentionally misread this, it's pretty clear what he's saying. In order to regain the public trust banks must, in part, change their culture and practices voluntarily.
 
2012-09-24 11:24:53 PM  

propasaurus: I think we have to count on the banking industry to self regulate. They're in the best position to know what their problems are. But it has to be done in concert with government regulations.
Which is why we should repeal Dodd-Frank.


Weeeeeeelllll....OK

But only if we reinstate Glass-Stegal instead.
 
2012-09-24 11:25:48 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint.


When? We're talking about banks and other organizations that have been around for decades, if not centuries. They've had every opportunity to take on self-imposed restraint. If it hasn't happened by now, I doubt it's going to happen.
 
2012-09-24 11:27:20 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.


Precisely. It's hard to believe that Pawlenty is that stupid-or naive-to think otherwise. It's akin to expecting an extremely willful child to put away his toys at bedtime merely by peeking in and looking at him.
 
2012-09-24 11:30:50 PM  

skullkrusher: CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.

if you're not trying to intentionally misread this, it's pretty clear what he's saying. In order to regain the public trust banks must, in part, change their culture and practices voluntarily.


Hence the reason I said "Not under the status quo." What incentive is there for banks to voluntarily change their culture and practices? Public trust sure as fark isn't one.
 
2012-09-24 11:31:28 PM  

The Why Not Guy: CrackpipeCardozo: I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint.

When? We're talking about banks and other organizations that have been around for decades, if not centuries. They've had every opportunity to take on self-imposed restraint. If it hasn't happened by now, I doubt it's going to happen.


Exactly. As long as it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to be more ethical and restrained than others in their industry, companies won't spend a dime or a minute of employee time on policing themselves. Regulations, if done right, should also help keep the playing field level in that there is now a downside to being unethical; also, those who want to do the right thing anyway don't end up being pushed out of the market by unethical competitors who will do anything to make a buck.
 
2012-09-24 11:34:01 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: skullkrusher: CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.

if you're not trying to intentionally misread this, it's pretty clear what he's saying. In order to regain the public trust banks must, in part, change their culture and practices voluntarily.

Hence the reason I said "Not under the status quo." What incentive is there for banks to voluntarily change their culture and practices? Public trust sure as fark isn't one.


he was asked how to change the public perception of banks. His answer was not "let them regulate themselves" but rather "banks should should show a voluntary willingness to improve their culture and practices by self regulation in addition to government regulation". I was really actually agreeing with you. The "if you aren't trying to intentionally misread this..." was the general "you". Not you, you. :)
 
2012-09-24 11:50:25 PM  

Skarekrough: The thing about authors like Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson was that despite the fact that much of their work had some grounding in the current state of the world and society, it was largely a vehicle for fiction in it. I was entertained. I didn't take it as a "calling" or some sort of life-affirming media that was to define our lives or generation....

So why is it that these pricks can't come to grips with the notion that Ayn Rand is in the same category as Stephen King? It's friggin' fiction people! It was meant to entertain you! Maybe it made you think about things but it wasn't a call to arms to try and get you to model the world to imitate it!!!!


She also wrote a great deal of nonfiction detailing her philosophy, if you can call it hers when it was a bastardized version of Nietzsche as interpreted by a mouthbreathing idiot. Fiction was a way for her to get her ideas in front of a mass audience, since if she had merely written philosophical treatises they would have been rightfully ignored, if not mocked. She's not in the same category as Stephen King; Marx would be a better comparison, especially since they were both dead wrong, although to be fair Marx's heart was in the right place whereas Ayn Rand didn't have a heart.
 
2012-09-24 11:52:02 PM  
I've got a close relative who started out his career as an economist in the early 1980s trying to help straighten out the savings and loan catastrophes, and worked with FDIC,among other government agencies. In retrospect, you could have called him an "idealist' at that time, though in actuality he was a Reganite*. He subsequently got more and more corrupt, moving into the world of high finance by consulting with paragons of virtue in such countries as Ukraine, Singapore, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan. Now he's worth $50 million, but he feels poor because he's hanging out in a crowd where everyone else is worth at least $100 million, and they goad him that he's a putz and a peon.

Naturally, he's adament that there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever of the finance industry, despite the fact that he started his career as as a regulator in circumstances that demanded regulation.

*Of course, we all know that Reagan 1980 would be thrown out of today's GOP as an impure RINO.
 
2012-09-25 12:04:01 AM  

Eddie Barzoom: And presidential campaigns should chair themselves.

wait a second - now I know whose idea this was.

[www.poynter.org image 450x580]


I wonder if that old hoss went home that night and went, "Holy shiatballs. I just did an acting exercise to an empty chair, saying nothing of substance, and those people just ate it up...then it turns out the one thing they really, really wanted of me was to pretend it was 1971 and I was the cowboy cop threatening to blow somebody's head off with a hand cannon."
 
2012-09-25 12:08:26 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.


Exactly. A corporation's sole duty is to maximize profit for the shareholders. If they can get it by selling cars or paying employees absolute minimum wage or throwing small animals into a wood chipper, they will do it. A company does not give a rat's ass about consequences unless it is financially damaging.

/Almost like we figured this lesson out in the 1890s
 
2012-09-25 12:11:20 AM  
If you need any more proof that all these politicians and talking heads will do and say whatever they are paid to do and say you need a hammer to the head.
 
2012-09-25 12:19:47 AM  
banks had a very clear way to self regulate in credit markets.

they set up ISDA and Markit to standardize trade terms and reference data, for example.

but the banks didn't go far enough.

for example: before the credit markets started deteriorating in 2007, there was a huge problem with CDS trade fails - trades that failed to settle. the amount of trade fails was in the thousands across Wall Street, and these fails were outstanding for months on end. think about the ramifications of this.

a bank sells some positions to realize paper profits. however, the trades fail, so the cash doesn't change hands until weeks or months afterwards. traders are paid cash bonuses off of these profits, for which the bank hasn't yet received cash.

some banks only started to clear the failed trades out upon the request of the Treasury department.

Link
 
2012-09-25 12:48:09 AM  

malaktaus: Skarekrough: The thing about authors like Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson was that despite the fact that much of their work had some grounding in the current state of the world and society, it was largely a vehicle for fiction in it. I was entertained. I didn't take it as a "calling" or some sort of life-affirming media that was to define our lives or generation....

So why is it that these pricks can't come to grips with the notion that Ayn Rand is in the same category as Stephen King? It's friggin' fiction people! It was meant to entertain you! Maybe it made you think about things but it wasn't a call to arms to try and get you to model the world to imitate it!!!!

She also wrote a great deal of nonfiction detailing her philosophy, if you can call it hers when it was a bastardized version of Nietzsche as interpreted by a mouthbreathing idiot. Fiction was a way for her to get her ideas in front of a mass audience, since if she had merely written philosophical treatises they would have been rightfully ignored, if not mocked. She's not in the same category as Stephen King; Marx would be a better comparison, especially since they were both dead wrong, although to be fair Marx's heart was in the right place whereas Ayn Rand didn't have a heart.


Marx? Not so much, at least in my opinion. Rand is more like Hubbard--a minimally talented fiction writer who found her true niche selling prepackaged religion to mindless drones who wanted to BELIEVE!!!
 
2012-09-25 12:56:40 AM  
Tim who? I've met bowls of oatmeal with more personality.
 
2012-09-25 01:15:00 AM  

Bucky Katt: Tim who? I've met bowls of oatmeal with more personality.


imageshack.us
 
2012-09-25 01:16:50 AM  

malaktaus: Skarekrough: The thing about authors like Burroughs and Hunter S. Thompson was that despite the fact that much of their work had some grounding in the current state of the world and society, it was largely a vehicle for fiction in it. I was entertained. I didn't take it as a "calling" or some sort of life-affirming media that was to define our lives or generation....

So why is it that these pricks can't come to grips with the notion that Ayn Rand is in the same category as Stephen King? It's friggin' fiction people! It was meant to entertain you! Maybe it made you think about things but it wasn't a call to arms to try and get you to model the world to imitate it!!!!

She also wrote a great deal of nonfiction detailing her philosophy, if you can call it hers when it was a bastardized version of Nietzsche as interpreted by a mouthbreathing idiot. Fiction was a way for her to get her ideas in front of a mass audience, since if she had merely written philosophical treatises they would have been rightfully ignored, if not mocked. She's not in the same category as Stephen King; Marx would be a better comparison, especially since they were both dead wrong, although to be fair Marx's heart was in the right place whereas Ayn Rand didn't have a heart.


A better comparison would be the Marquis de Sade, who also wrote novels that detailed his philosophy, and also wrote nonfiction essays to emphasize that no, he was not kidding about the rape and shiat-eating, and who has attracted followers who put his ideas into practice.
 
2012-09-25 01:22:01 AM  
Again?

Didn't he do this last week when it was discussed here?

Or are we time travelling again?
 
2012-09-25 01:24:14 AM  
Looks like someone's working the graveyard shift.
 
2012-09-25 01:25:56 AM  

propasaurus: Looks like someone's working the graveyard shift.


Yes, it looks like you are.

Still dinner time here.
 
2012-09-25 01:40:24 AM  
I was going to suggest we bring back the age old tradition of tarring and feathering for Pawlenty, but whatever. The teabaggers don't want banks to be regulated, either.

Interesting times.
 
2012-09-25 01:52:09 AM  
Sooooo . . . . what is up with the mods these days? This story was green-lit 8 hours ago and there hasn't been one since. T-Paw is interesting in all but some new fodder would be great
 
2012-09-25 02:14:54 AM  

skullkrusher: Sure, as long as they leave the Federal Reserve, practice 100% reserve banking, do not deal in government issued MBSs and make it clear to customers that any deposits are NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. No takers? Ok, then. No.


I think you mean 50% reserve banking.
 
2012-09-25 02:27:34 AM  

whidbey: I was going to suggest we bring back the age old tradition of tarring and feathering for Pawlenty, but whatever.


Tarring and Feathering was a form of vigilante justice to punish Republican African Americans in the post-bellum South.

Pathetic that people don't respect the rule of law and instead want to resort to vigilante justice.

Oh, and don't forget the racist angle that you are bringing up.
 
2012-09-25 03:39:05 AM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Lee Jackson Beauregard: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT VOLUNTARILY.

Not under the status quo, but I don't think it's completely outside the realm of possibility for financial institutions to take on some degree of self-imposed restraint. The current state of irresponsibility is due to a cause/effect relationship of some sort, but causal changes can result in different effects.


And the one billion dollar question is...
Will those changes make them more money? Regardless of any other exterior changes in the economy of the nation, the planet, the universe, whatever. Drought, famine, pestilence, war, the second coming of the messiah, a mile-wide meteor striking the earth, the polar ice caps melting and inundating the planet with an extra 60 meters of water, none of that matters.

All the matters is "Will - those - changes - make - the - bank - more - money?
The answer to this query will determine their actions, and nothing else.

This is why they farked the whole world when they did what they did. This is why they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

Ever.

This one question.
 
2012-09-25 04:22:05 AM  
Pawlenty: Banks should self regulate.

The rest of us: Yeah, but they don't so STFU, lobby-boi!

And we're done.
 
2012-09-25 05:19:55 AM  
How about we outlaw lending at interest? Its not lending, but compounding interest that will inevitably crash the global economy.
 
2012-09-25 06:51:50 AM  

Diogenes: Calmamity: vpb: Yes, and criminals should arrest and prosecute themselves.

Citizens should be trusted to pay the taxes they owe. The IRS is completely unnecessary and onerous oversight.

I like this game. With Romney's "self-deportation" plan we can also get rid of ICE.

Think of the savings!


Hell: reasonable people don't resort to murder, either, so......

/This is the fallacy of libertarianism: people are not reasonable beings.
 
2012-09-25 08:27:38 AM  
Lobbyist -- American for bribe
 
2012-09-25 09:07:23 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Oh, and don't forget the racist angle that you are bringing up.


Your concern is noted.
 
2012-09-25 09:14:33 AM  

impaler: former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he would seek a "refinement" of the Dodd-Frank Act, but also added that banks need to do more to regulate themselves.

We tried that in 2004.

The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC allowed five firms - the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.

Link

Agency's '04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt


AKA: Drawing and Redrawing. I believe the term Adam Smith used was "Ruinous Financial Practice".
 
2012-09-25 09:53:22 AM  

Notabunny: Linux_Yes: teto85: Yeah, that worked out so well in 1928 and '29.


and '90, '91 and 2008, 2009. etc etc.

Interesting you should bring up '08 and '09. One theory as to why he won't release his tax returns is that Mitt Romney may have made millions by shorting the housing bubble. (scroll down to 5) Did Romney Make a "Bet Against America"?)



wow, that would be a show stopper if it could be confirmed. Obama wouldn't even have to campaign anymore. he could just sit back and wait for the election and give his speech after his landslide win.
 
2012-09-25 10:07:49 AM  

justaguy516: skullkrusher: Sure, as long as they leave the Federal Reserve, practice 100% reserve banking, do not deal in government issued MBSs and make it clear to customers that any deposits are NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. No takers? Ok, then. No.

I think you mean 50% reserve banking.


No, 100%. Claims that a customer can make tomorrow must be available tomorrow.
 
2012-09-25 06:18:11 PM  

Linux_Yes: Notabunny: Linux_Yes: teto85: Yeah, that worked out so well in 1928 and '29.


and '90, '91 and 2008, 2009. etc etc.

Interesting you should bring up '08 and '09. One theory as to why he won't release his tax returns is that Mitt Romney may have made millions by shorting the housing bubble. (scroll down to 5) Did Romney Make a "Bet Against America"?)


wow, that would be a show stopper if it could be confirmed. Obama wouldn't even have to campaign anymore. he could just sit back and wait for the election and give his speech after his landslide win.


Rmoney would probably need to leave the country on the November 6th, when he no longer had secret service protection... chased by crowds of underwater and foreclosed former houseowners numbering in the thousands...
 
2012-09-25 07:17:20 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: whidbey: I was going to suggest we bring back the age old tradition of tarring and feathering for Pawlenty, but whatever.

Tarring and Feathering was a form of vigilante justice to punish Republican African Americans in the post-bellum South.

Pathetic that people don't respect the rule of law and instead want to resort to vigilante justice.

Oh, and don't forget the racist angle that you are bringing up.



Ah yes, the old "Democrats are the real racists" line

That's old and tired man. Debunked in every way.

Ironically minorities were still Democrat in the south, so your propaganda doesn't even hold up to reality.
 
2012-09-25 08:37:38 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: RedVentrue: Kibbler: "But of course they shouldn't bail themselves out. The 47% slackers need to chip in on that. Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses. This will lead to Saint Reagan farting unicorns from a rainbow."


Didn't I see that at the Denver airport?

You mean those "I double dare you to make up a conspiracy" murals?

[zazenlife.com image 550x424]


Yeah, like that.
 
Displayed 45 of 195 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report