Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (371767)	2/24/2008 10:08:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573431

The subprime situation is not new news, and I'm not asking for a summary of it. I'm asking for a sentence or two statement about the specific problem you see that Spitzer is trying to address, and then maybe why you think that it has to be addressed that way. The answer is not "the subprime crisis" which is not something that would plausibly be resolved by Spitzer's actions and plans. The answer is also not your long description of the more specific problem about insurers of municipal bonds also insuring sub prime mortgages that turned out to be bad loans. I'm already aware of that situation. Yes insurers insured bad loans and now they face problems, some of them might not be solvent anymore. That's the situation. But what problem is Spitzer trying to solve? Pushing bad loans in to a seperate company makes it even less likely that the insurance company will be solvent. because in your heart of hearts, you can't possibly believe that private enterprise could be this greedy, this callous and this stupid. No private industry is almost always greedy in a broad (an non negative) sense, and stupidity isn't rare. But it makes mistakes people take their lumps (maybe going bankrupt) and people learn not to make those same mistakes, or if they try they get less support and funding later. Spitzer on the other hand wants to short circuit that for his own greedy and callous benefit. Well not directly for him personally (although perhaps he expects political benefits, but benefits for the New York State government. Hill use its regulatory power to help its own bond situation at the expense of others. That's a serious conflict of interest.