Re: Reckless Endangerment
Speaking of "yapping" get a load of the poster above. Government regulation kept our economy strong and healthy for sixty years. Clinton ended his term handing Bush a ten year budget surplus, which Bush promised to give away to the wealthy. Eight years of trickle down, war and deregulation gave the Great Recession [and] a whopping debt to communist China.
Re: Reckless Endangerment
onmyknees we discussed this already in the other thread
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...=56130&page=18
Re: Reckless Endangerment
I would agree that the issue goes beyond, one party. The New York Times review says this:
The real problem, which the authors only hint at, is that Washington and the financial sector have become so tightly intertwined that public accountability has all but vanished. The revolving door described in “Reckless Endangerment” is but one symptom. The extraordinary wealth of America’s financial class also elicits boundless cooperation from politicians who depend on it for campaign contributions and from a fawning business press, as well as a stream of honors from universities, prestigious charities and think tanks eager to reward their generosity. In this symbiotic world, conflicts of interest are easily hidden, appearances of conflicts taken for granted and abuses of public trust for personal gain readily dismissed.
So this part of the review is saying that 'big' wealth (or the financial class) has undue influence, on government, which is not always in the best interests of the people. And I agree with this. But what I see as the difference between Democrats and Republicans in general, is that Democrats give some support to working class issues, and programs that give greater chances to the poor, to rise out of poverty. Republicans, on the other hand, appear to directly support, the types of things that benefit the wealthiest. Things like calling the practices which led to the financial meltdown, "business innovation". And they still seem to be saying, that this 'innovation' will solve the problems, if we give them more freedom, like through less taxes, as one example.
Along with Republicans direct support of the wealthy, I see a negativity towards the poor and working class. I'm not blaming this on Republicans per se; in fact I do question where this comes from? Is it conservative philosophy or what? I'm talking about things like saying the poor are only poor, because they are lazy.
I'm not attacking the book, which I have not read. But I question whether or not, part of the issue with those who are named is the wider issue of executive compensation.
Re: Reckless Endangerment
So after reading Robert Reich's review of it I decided to pick it up. What an embarrassment for an award winning journalist to sign her name onto a hit piece of such shoddy reasoning.
If the point of the book was to show how GSE's were responsible for the housing bubble and economic collapse, the authors utterly failed. While they correctly note plenty of the problems with Fannie & Freddie, political strong-arming and profit seeking, they provide no evidence that they were the cause of the economic crisis, but merely assert it with amateurish emotionally charged language.
I can't help but feel that this is the fault of Morgenson's coauthor, who apparently has a personal beef with the GSE's and their management. I also wonder what book Robert Reich read to give such a positive review, and whether he phoned that one in, relying on Morgenson's credentials, rather than what was in the book.
For two exceptional reviews of the book that discuss its strengths and failures see below.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog...-blame-crisis/
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=fanniebackwards
Re: Reckless Endangerment
If you're looking for a book that uses honest analysis (rather than a polemic masquerading as research) to reveal the causes of the housing bubble and economic crisis I highly recommend "All the Devils are Here" by Bethany McLean & Joe Nocera. Painstaking in attention to detail and, importantly, causality and responsibility, the authors make this complex story, if not easy, at least manageable and coherent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/bo...Barrett-t.html
