Bet she could whale the tar out of a man's bare ass.

The regulators are a bunch of dolts that will get on their knees when Barney comes whining that his boys are getting too much pressure. These are the same regulators that orchestrated this mess so why does any one really believe nothing but a cloud of fart gas will result from their bureaucratic efforts.

fail but put a few in jail (after investigating their cleverness) and they'd be sporting a different attitude. that's a big problem no accountability, no enforcement of (remaining) rules. and too much cronyism. meanwhile, we're being robbed of our present and future. gone! poof!

http://www.alternet.org/story/135414/

Revive Lincoln’s Monetary Policy: an Open Letter to President Obama

OK, so why take the f'in money if you didn't need it? You object to the terms given you? Well, bucky, so do we. We have NO choice if you want to raise your interest rates to us. We're just SOL. You, too, huh?

Fire all of these clowns. Give the kid in the mailroom a chance to run. The kid has had to live on a budget, based on what they make, unlike these priveledged clowns. He/she can't do worse than the MF'er's who go us into this mess.

OBTW - start the firing with the adminstrations Geitner and Sommers.

Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger's site

The bank has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website.

Florida-based Mr Morgan began a blog entitled "Facts about Goldman Sachs" – the web address for which is goldmansachs666.com – just a few weeks ago.

While there is complaints from the Right that the government would dare to interfere in the business of business; and of course complaints from the Left that we aren't beating the tar out of these loons enough (jail time anybody?). Both agree that the American people are getting a raw deal (trying to be polite) out of these bailouts.

The New York Times Business section report in their article entitled Crisis Altering Wall Street as Big Banks Lose Top Talent that the concentration of hoodlums appears to be diminishing, and that is good!

There is an air of exodus on Wall Street — and not just among those being fired. As Washington cracks down on compensation and tightens regulation of banks, a brain drain is occurring at some of the biggest ones. They are some of the same banks blamed for setting off the worst downturn since the Depression.

OMG! Admittedly, I would have preferred to see this exodus occur via legal proceedings and jail time, it warms my heart that the greedy bastards are at least not nesting together anymore. Continuing, the NY Times notes in the article:

This is certainly a concern for the banks losing top talent. But other financial experts believe it is the beginning of a broader and necessary reshaping of Wall Street, too long dominated by a handful of major players that helped to fuel the financial crisis. The country may be better off if the banking industry is less concentrated, they say.

“If the risk-taking spreads out to these smaller institutions, it is no longer a systemic threat,” said Matthew Richardson, professor of finance at the Stern School of Business at New York University. “And innovation is spreading out too. This is a good thing.”

In past downturns, the big firms suffered but bounced back when the economy returned to health. This time, their pain may be more lasting given the depth of the crisis and the government’s efforts to rein in Wall Street’s practices as it tries to turn around the economy, a process that may take years.

To deter the people it thinks caused the crisis, the government is clamping down.

While I will admit to some glee that the government has somehow managed to convey their discontent at Wall Street, it should not be concluded that everyone understands or appreciates their folly.

Sensing a shifting tide, talented bankers who fear a dimmer future at banks that have taken taxpayer money are migrating to brash boutique firms like Aladdin, which are intent on proving their critics wrong by chasing fast profits and growth in hopes of one day rising up as challengers to the old guard.

Sigh, where is SuperKrugman when you need him?! Leave it to Krugman to illuminate all with his wonderful article Making Banking Boring. In this masterpiece of simplicity he remarks about the need for Bankers to focus on the elements of banking again, the simplicity that was forced on them after the Great Depression.

Before 1930, banking was an exciting industry featuring a number of larger-than-life figures, who built giant financial empires (some of which later turned out to have been based on fraud). This highflying finance sector presided over a rapid increase in debt: Household debt as a percentage of G.D.P. almost doubled between World War I and 1929.

During this first era of high finance, bankers were, on average, paid much more than their counterparts in other industries. But finance lost its glamour when the banking system collapsed during the Great Depression.

The banking industry that emerged from that collapse was tightly regulated, far less colorful than it had been before the Depression, and far less lucrative for those who ran it. Banking became boring, partly because bankers were so conservative about lending: Household debt, which had fallen sharply as a percentage of G.D.P. during the Depression and World War II, stayed far below pre-1930s levels.

Strange to say, this era of boring banking was also an era of spectacular economic progress for most Americans.

What?! We actually did better with regulations and tight monitoring of the financial system?! Have the Republicans seen this?!

After 1980, however, as the political winds shifted, many of the regulations on banks were lifted — and banking became exciting again. Debt began rising rapidly, eventually reaching just about the same level relative to G.D.P. as in 1929. And the financial industry exploded in size. By the middle of this decade, it accounted for a third of corporate profits.

As these changes took place, finance again became a high-paying career — spectacularly high-paying for those who built new financial empires. Indeed, soaring incomes in finance played a large role in creating America’s second Gilded Age.

Needless to say, the new superstars believed that they had earned their wealth. “I think that the results our company had, which is where the great majority of my wealth came from, justified what I got,” said Sanford Weill in 2007, a year after he had retired from Citigroup. And many economists agreed.

Only a few people warned that this supercharged financial system might come to a bad end. Perhaps the most notable Cassandra was Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, who argued at a 2005 conference that the rapid growth of finance had increased the risk of a “catastrophic meltdown.” But other participants in the conference, including Lawrence Summers, now the head of the National Economic Council, ridiculed Mr. Rajan’s concerns.

And the meltdown came.

Aack?! Our Summers?! Say it isn't so! Are you telling me that Lawrence Summers, the man responsible for cleaning up this mess was one of the assholes responsible for this mess..... That can not be good.

But my sense is that policy makers are still thinking mainly about rearranging the boxes on the bank supervisory organization chart. They’re not at all ready to do what needs to be done — which is to make banking boring again.

Part of the problem is that boring banking would mean poorer bankers, and the financial industry still has a lot of friends in high places. But it’s also a matter of ideology: Despite everything that has happened, most people in positions of power still associate fancy finance with economic progress.

Can they be persuaded otherwise? Will we find the will to pursue serious financial reform? If not, the current crisis won’t be a one-time event; it will be the shape of things to come.

Ugh, Paul so much for that glimmer I was sold on....

No contest, bankers win.

I would be pleasantly surprised if that actually happened. The supposed showdown I mean. Let's be honest. If there's really going to be any showdown between regulators and bankers somebody's going to have to go to jail for the mess that we have. What's going to happen is a new kabuki theater and the high and mighty tries to continue as before. I wish I could be more hopeful, but as long as these criminals goes free....

[Edit: Information already posted by Rick Beagle.]

These bankers are the one's that mommy said "no" to once too often, and too often inappropriately. These are the bankers who muttered under their breath to themselves "One day, I'll be in charge and then no-one will be able to tell me what I can and can't do!"