I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Right here is one. It drips with so-called progressive righteousness. Why do you think I'm a centrist, having known me a few years?

I actually think TM and Adder are being much more progressive than you in this discussion, because they aren't shushing anyone. Feel free to contribute the $10 to any Democrat you like. Maybe put it toward unseating Darryl Issa with the candidate of your choice.

I'm not shushing anyone! (I've said several times I wish Obama would give the speech and have Cantor give the money to a good cause, which accomplishes everything you've said you wanted.) And I didn't call you a centrist -- my point was that since people (Adder, I think) were suggesting I was making common cause with socialists by attacking Democrats from the left, I could salve that wound by donating to a centrist. Jeebus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Happy Moehanga Day, everyone!

Today is Moehanga Day in the United Kingdom.
On this day in 1806 Great Britain was discovered by Moehanga.
Of course, various indigenous, white-skinned tribes had already inhabited the British Isles for thousands of years, but Moehanga was the first Māori to discover Britain.
The British natives were in awe of Moehanga’s tattoos and they insisted he meet their chieftain King George III.

When Moehanga arrived on the island he saw families living in primitive, damp and unsanitary conditions and a brutal society that punished almost any act of disobedience, from theft to living with Gypsies, with death.
The Britons were a warlike people, renowned and feared for their prowess at fighting other European tribes and even raiding and conquering lands and taking slaves on distant continents.

Today Britain is a thriving multi-cultural nation, producing a range of quality exports whilst preserving its rich heritage and traditions.
Happy Moehanga Day!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not shushing anyone! (I've said several times I wish Obama would give the speech and have Cantor give the money to a good cause, which accomplishes everything you've said you wanted.) And I didn't call you a centrist -- my point was that since people (Adder, I think) were suggesting I was making common cause with socialists by attacking Democrats from the left, I could salve that wound by donating to a centrist. Jeebus.

He should do what he wants with the money.

Last I knew you worked for one of the SV Behemoths. Why do you take the money?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Please remember to apply this thinking to Hillary.

Prediction: there will be fewer speaking opportunities like this for Trump and he will command a lesser fee. Because what he has to say just isn't as interesting, even if he is ready to suck up to the finance world a lot more when it comes to policy.

I think there's a significant distinction to be made between Obama and Hillary -- one which makes it easy to understand why someone would call him a great man, and her a typical politician.

Obama was forced to triangulate and play ball with Wall Street. Wall Street had already won, via the bailout, before he took office. He had no choice but to follow policies that allowed it to rehab itself because, otherwise, how was the bailout + interest going to be repaid? It seems quite clear from his policy platform and many comments he made through the Great Recession that he'd have liked to have been able to take a different approach. Most notably, recall, he admonished the CEOs of the big banks at a White House meeting in 2009 so badly they whined like little bitches to the Journal for weeks afterward. Obama was not Wall Street's water carrier.

Hillary, OTOH, and Bill, willingly triangulated for political purposes. Bill famously said his job was to serve the bond market, and allowed Greenspan to dictate a hands-off policy to him, even after Greenspan had made the infamous "Irrational Exuberance" speech. Consider that... Greenspan says on one day, "we're in a bubble," then a few months later pulls a 180 and says, "no we're not... the new new math justifies Pets.com's valuation," and Bill goes along with it. Then Newt says, "Hey, Bill... let's punish people on welfare." Bill says okay. And let's not forget, Hillary and Bill were proponents of the always popular "tough on crime" position that presaged Rudy Giuliani's "broken windows" approach to racial profil-- er, I mean, "preventative policing."

HRC is not a villain. She'd have been a fine President. Bill is not a villain. He was a fine President. But for all the good they do, it cannot be avoided -- these people are operators, malleable in the same way (through not to the same extent) as Trump. Obama had more of a spine. And it's a hard thing to finger or describe, but Obama had a decency and grace about him. I can't say it makes him a "great man," partly because I think he'd laugh at that characterization, partly because decency and grace aren't exactly epic character assets. But Obama most certainly had a compass which he tried to follow. I'd say he was a good man, which among politicians is about as high a compliment as one can offer. Hillary was more a politician, who did far more good than bad, all of that good just happening to also benefit her and Bill.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

He should do what he wants with the money.

Last I knew you worked for one of the SV Behemoths. Why do you take the money?

If I had a $65 million book deal, I would make some very different life choices.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think there's a significant distinction to be made between Obama and Hillary -- one which makes it easy to understand why someone would call him a great man, and her a typical politician.

Obama was forced to triangulate and play ball with Wall Street. Wall Street had already won, via the bailout, before he took office. He had no choice but to follow policies that allowed it to rehab itself because, otherwise, how was the bailout + interest going to be repaid? It seems quite clear from his policy platform and many comments he made through the Great Recession that he'd have liked to have been able to take a different approach. Most notably, recall, he admonished the CEOs of the big banks at a White House meeting in 2009 so badly they whined like little bitches to the Journal for weeks afterward. Obama was not Wall Street's water carrier.

Obama does not get enough credit now for how he handled the situation he inherited. That said, Obama and Democrats set themselves up for political pain by failing to hold individual bankers responsible. He "admonished them so badly" that they whined to the Wall Street Journal? Where are my fainting salts? Michael Vick served time in prison for fighting with dogs, to take just one example, but the bankers who wrecked our economy didn't. If many people were willing to believe Trump when he said that Hillary was corrupt, that has to be one of the reasons why.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

since people (Adder, I think) were suggesting I was making common cause with socialists by attacking Democrats from the left

You're making common cause with socialists (not inherently a bad thing, but it is here) by criticizing Obama for not doing anything wrong and lending credibility to their argument.

Again, the Brocialists think it's wrong to interact with bankers. They'd be on him even if he did it for free, because they think banks are bad. Nevermind that he's going to talk to them about health care.

But they're so incoherent that they think it's even worse to charge banks a lot of money (i.e., reduce their consumption). Which makes no sense.

Anyway, now that you, Yglesias and Barro are on board, we'll probably see less of it. Or at least less disclosure of what the fee is (not even sure why that's public information for him anyway).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

malleable in the same way

Oh hell no. The Clintons are pragmatists that can be persuaded, especially if it's politically advantageous. That's nothing like Trump's ability to believe whatever the last person he talked to tells him, no matter how crazy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If I had a $65 million book deal, I would make some very different life choices.

I'm no longer sure I would actually. I learned to truly love the biotech industry when I got sick, and find some pretty good moral and psychic rewards to much of what I do today.

The thing is, one thing I wouldn't do whether or not I have that book deal is tell someone else how to make their life choices or where or how to do whatever it is they want to do.

Except trump, who works for me and needs to stop being an ass.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obama does not get enough credit now for how he handled the situation he inherited. That said, Obama and Democrats set themselves up for political pain by failing to hold individual bankers responsible. He "admonished them so badly" that they whined to the Wall Street Journal? Where are my fainting salts? Michael Vick served time in prison for fighting with dogs, to take just one example, but the bankers who wrecked our economy didn't.

Having worked next to people who represented big banks, perhaps I'm conflicted, but a very big part of the reason why very few (not none, despite what you will hear from Bernie) went to jail is because there wasn't much crime there to prosecute.

Colossally stupid risk taking isn't a crime.

If many people were willing to believe Trump when he said that Hillary was corrupt, that has to be one of the reasons why.

Woulda helped had not the left been running around saying all bankers are crooks and poo pooing the settlements that the regulators actually made.

ETA: Which isn't to say they shouldn't have been tougher. They probably should have, but again, as Sebby's pointing out, we were in the middle of a precarious effort to keep the banking (and shadow banking) sector alive, which would have been harder to do with more bankers in handcuffs.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're making common cause with socialists (not inherently a bad thing, but it is here) by criticizing Obama for not doing anything wrong and lending credibility to their argument.

Please do not call the Berners socialists or I'm a gonna go full trotskyite on you.

They are 1960s style trade unionists, focused on protectionism and government welfare programs. My uncles ran trade unions in the 60s. They didn't like having any women or minorities in them.

Socialists are internationalists who think of borders and nationalism as tools of the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx would turn in his grave at the idea of Bernie as a socialist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Having worked next to people who represented big banks, perhaps I'm conflicted, but a very big part of the reason why very few (not none, despite what you will hear from Bernie) went to jail is because there wasn't much crime there to prosecute.

Colossally stupid risk taking isn't a crime.

DOJ extracted some massive civil settlements from those banks, so rest assured there were some terrible facts out there.

Woulda helped had not the left been running around saying all bankers are crooks and poo pooing the settlements that the regulators actually made.

Seriously? I don't have a particularly allegiance to either side of the split on the left, but this sort of hippie-bashing is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

ETA: Which isn't to say they shouldn't have been tougher. They probably should have, but again, as Sebby's pointing out, we were in the middle of a precarious effort to keep the banking (and shadow banking) sector alive, which would have been harder to do with more bankers in handcuffs.

They tried to strike a Clintonian balance, and they may even have gotten it right from a purely economic perspective -- maybe more criminal prosecutions would have been bad for the economy. But they lost the political support of the bankers, who correctly understood that the Republicans would let them do what they want, they lost the support of ordinary people, who saw bankers doing tremendous harm and not paying and price, and they didn't get political benefit from whatever good they did. Technocracy isn't always good politics.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Technocracy isn't always good politics.

Right. But that also doesn't necessarily make it the wrong choice.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I look forward to Barack Obama's next act, but I hope it works better politically than Bill Clinton's politics did, because for all the great things that he has accomplished since he left office, his brand of politics is a loser right now, both in the United States and around the world. Too many voters have decided, and not without some basis in reality, that Clinton-style politics works out great for the Clintons and not for average people, and when Obama can earn the value of a nice house in most parts of this country for giving a speech to some bankers, that's what a lot of people will think.

So your position is basically what GGG said it was. If you're a Democrat, after you leave office you should decline opportunities to make money.

I don't think people look at this do. I think people understand that a former President has tons of opportunities they will never have. I think this particular issue only became one this time around because Bernie needed to distinguish himself from Hillary and this played well to his rabid base. Trump saw it and jumped all over it. Like I said, people are fucking stupid--so much so that Trump, who is actually corrupt, succeeded in painting Hillary as the corrupt one.

Hell, Bernie and Trump have managed to convince you that we should cater to the dumber constituents among us who were tricked into thinking that the whole thing is rigged and all the politicians are corrupt.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't see any social change happening from talking to Goldman Sachs. Gary Cohn was running Goldman Sachs when she spoke that day -- what's he been up to lately?

This is intentionally myopic--frustratingly so, because you realize that Goldman is made up of many people. She wasn't paid for a personal audience with Cohn. Stop being obtuse.

TM