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: Alighieri who wrote (418882)	9/22/2008 11:15:10 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575268

Nope. Korn's article IN NO WAY shows how Gramm was responsible, even around the edges, for this mess. After getting off on Enron, a totally unrelated issue in which Gramm was in no way culpable -- and an indication that Korn's analysis lacks focus, he comes up with the following -- "Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed. " Let's cut to the chase: What kind of regulation do you (and Korn) believe was called for here, and why did not the Democrats in Congress pass such legislation if they believed it to be necessary? Korn is just being his liberal self, trying to pass the buck to the Republicans. Nothing new here. But the reality is that you cannot blame this problem on Gramm or any other individual. It is a market situation that evolved, and it is unclear that "MORE REGULATION" -- the liberal mantra -- would have made one nickels worth of difference.