The record will clearly indicate that I am a staunch Marxist with respect to group membership. Much like Groucho, I'm not interested in belonging to any group that would have me as a member. Fortunately, I can decrement the list, as I've been officially banned from the Atlantic's website for criticizing Conor Clarke. On April 4th, in response to the WSJ's article regarding Larry Summers' financial disclosure, Clarke wrote an article titled "Who Cares About Larry Summers' Income?" Clarke's article was a well worded, yet logically bankrupt essay that argued that the Summers' financial disclosure was irrelevant to the assessment of corruption inherent in the bailout subsidies. As a paying Atlantic subscriber, it turned out that I cared, so I responded accordingly in the comment section:
Bold=Excerpt from Clarke's article
Non-Bold=My reply
But I don't know why the "conflict of interest" is worse for Summers than it is for any publication that earns advertising revenue.
Have you bumped your head? Publications aren't formulating the economic policy that may well bankrupt the nation.
Trying to suss out whether Summers' position gestated under ethically troubling circumstances is a clever way of undermining the position without actually engaging it on the merits. Journalists should spend more time engaging things on the merits.
Amongst the non-lobotomized, it goes without saying that the economic policy of systemically subsidizing fraud is without merit. By ignoring the circumstances that cause the implementation of such corrupt policies, we would only be encouraging more of the same.
Stories about a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety always assume that closeness is a liability, not an asset. But it can be both, and Larry Summers can contain multitudes. Sure, extreme closeness can warp perspective. But closeness can also mean you have insight into a particular industry that others don't.
William Black had closeness to the financial industry. Larry Summers is an employee of the financial industry. The former has insight into an industry that others don't, the latter is an employee of the industry who masquerades as a public servant. See the difference? If not, let me suggest the following: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
I have to admit questioning the utility of protecting Summers from capture by Wall Street. After that raft of filthiness, I think that we may need to protect Wall Street from being captured by Larry Summers.
The last paragraph was an ill-advised, 2am, attempt at humor, which implied that as sleazy as Wall Street is, Summers may have them outsleazed.
Bold=Clarke's reply
Non-Bold=My reply
Have you bumped your head? Publications aren't formulating the economic policy that may well bankrupt the nation.
To the first point: Not recently. To the second point: sure, I agree that the stakes are higher in one case. But I'm referring to the ethical structure of the arrangement and not the stakes. It's a red herring to respond to the point by saying "but the stakes are really high here!"
Amongst the non-lobotomized, it goes without saying that the economic policy of systemically subsidizing fraud is without merit. By ignoring the circumstances that cause the implementation of such corrupt policies, we would only be encouraging more of the same.
Are you saying the merits of every larry summers position on financial regulation is so obviously wrong that you don't need to produce an argument against them? I might ask you to humor me and provide an actual argument. Things haven't been the same since my lobotomy...
William Black had closeness to the financial industry. Larry Summers is an employee of the financial industry. The former has insight into an industry that others don't, the latter is an employee of the industry who masquerades as a public servant. See the difference? [...] I have to admit questioning the utility of protecting Summers from capture by Wall Street. After that raft of filthiness, I think that we may need to protect Wall Street from being captured by Larry Summers.
Not totally sure what's going on here. Are you worried about Larry Summers being captured by Wall Street or vice versa?
Non-Bold=My reply
Have you bumped your head? Publications aren't formulating the economic policy that may well bankrupt the nation.
To the first point: Not recently. To the second point: sure, I agree that the stakes are higher in one case. But I'm referring to the ethical structure of the arrangement and not the stakes. It's a red herring to respond to the point by saying "but the stakes are really high here!"
Amongst the non-lobotomized, it goes without saying that the economic policy of systemically subsidizing fraud is without merit. By ignoring the circumstances that cause the implementation of such corrupt policies, we would only be encouraging more of the same.
Are you saying the merits of every larry summers position on financial regulation is so obviously wrong that you don't need to produce an argument against them? I might ask you to humor me and provide an actual argument. Things haven't been the same since my lobotomy...
William Black had closeness to the financial industry. Larry Summers is an employee of the financial industry. The former has insight into an industry that others don't, the latter is an employee of the industry who masquerades as a public servant. See the difference? [...] I have to admit questioning the utility of protecting Summers from capture by Wall Street. After that raft of filthiness, I think that we may need to protect Wall Street from being captured by Larry Summers.
Not totally sure what's going on here. Are you worried about Larry Summers being captured by Wall Street or vice versa?
I particularly enjoyed his last comment, "Not totally sure what's going on here." Clarke combined two of my paragraphs and eliminated a sentence (at the ellipsis) to render, as he deftly points out, an incomprehensible paragraph. I'm somewhat of an expert on being incomprehensible, so I the assistance wasn't appreciated. Regardless, here is my reply
This one of the sillier conversations I’ve had in awhile, but I’ll play anyway. The true red herring is “referring to the ethical structure of the arrangement and not the stakes.” It is a moot point if JP Morgan gives PeeWee Herman an exorbitant amount of money for doing little because PeeWee isn’t the architect of JP Morgan’s bailout. As I said before, ignoring the consequences will only beget more consequences.
The insinuation that Summers was “earning” $120k a pop, from corporations with significant capitalization impairments (AXP, JPM, GS), solely for producing noise from the hole in the front of his head is absurd. Those corporations were buying influence from a key advisor in the Obama campaign, plain and simple. There is no chronology problem since Summers was campaigning for Obama as early as 9/16/08 and the disclosure clearly indicates that Summers was taking compensation from Wall Street well after that. In fact, you could consider Summers’ 9/29/08 Washington Post commentary, “A Bailout Is Just a Start,” a solicitation for personal and campaign contributions. The fact that no cash was found in the freezer with Jamie Dimon’s prints on it is meaningless. [Clarke claimed in the comments that Summers was beyond reproach because he wasn't caught with cash stuffed in his freezer.] Given the choice, I’ll take a legalized bribe over an illegal one every day of the week. As the “ethical structure” has been clearly demonstrated to be anything but, let’s move on.
With respect to particular Summers’ masterstrokes, do we really need to spend much time debating whether the PPIP policy of subsidizing a 13:1 pot odds multiplier for private investors to induce overbetting on toxic assets with taxpayer funds solely for the benefit of the banks who spawned the toxicity is a good idea? Personally, I’d rather debate a topic with a less foregone conclusion; such as whether dangling my manhood in a Cuisinart is a viable, long term, weight loss strategy.
The bottom line is that this crisis was bought and paid for with corporate bribes that were euphemistically labeled contributions. The regulatory structure was parceled, and parceled cheaply, until the whole the thing imploded. To read your half-assed defense of this filth or the infinitely more criminal attempts to reinflate the Hindenburg on the taxpayer’s dime is disturbing. I sincerely hope you retained the receipt from your lobotomist because he clearly did you dirty. While his elimination of the critical thinking abilities was a resounding success, the communication skills still require his undivided attention.
The insinuation that Summers was “earning” $120k a pop, from corporations with significant capitalization impairments (AXP, JPM, GS), solely for producing noise from the hole in the front of his head is absurd. Those corporations were buying influence from a key advisor in the Obama campaign, plain and simple. There is no chronology problem since Summers was campaigning for Obama as early as 9/16/08 and the disclosure clearly indicates that Summers was taking compensation from Wall Street well after that. In fact, you could consider Summers’ 9/29/08 Washington Post commentary, “A Bailout Is Just a Start,” a solicitation for personal and campaign contributions. The fact that no cash was found in the freezer with Jamie Dimon’s prints on it is meaningless. [Clarke claimed in the comments that Summers was beyond reproach because he wasn't caught with cash stuffed in his freezer.] Given the choice, I’ll take a legalized bribe over an illegal one every day of the week. As the “ethical structure” has been clearly demonstrated to be anything but, let’s move on.
With respect to particular Summers’ masterstrokes, do we really need to spend much time debating whether the PPIP policy of subsidizing a 13:1 pot odds multiplier for private investors to induce overbetting on toxic assets with taxpayer funds solely for the benefit of the banks who spawned the toxicity is a good idea? Personally, I’d rather debate a topic with a less foregone conclusion; such as whether dangling my manhood in a Cuisinart is a viable, long term, weight loss strategy.
The bottom line is that this crisis was bought and paid for with corporate bribes that were euphemistically labeled contributions. The regulatory structure was parceled, and parceled cheaply, until the whole the thing imploded. To read your half-assed defense of this filth or the infinitely more criminal attempts to reinflate the Hindenburg on the taxpayer’s dime is disturbing. I sincerely hope you retained the receipt from your lobotomist because he clearly did you dirty. While his elimination of the critical thinking abilities was a resounding success, the communication skills still require his undivided attention.
So much for my aspirations to the coveted Groupie of the Month award.
Posts
In 1786-1788, while the Constitution was being debated and ratified, a fundamental issue concerned the extent to which government was structured in a manner that would protect individuals from bureaucrats who, like everyone else, act in their own best interest. Some believe that the Constitution as written did not go far enough along those lines.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your Groucho comment, I'm reminded of this remark from Thomas Jefferson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addition is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I couldn't go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." (1789)
I love that quote.
That is, indeed, a great quote, which I'll have to remember.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, the crux of the Constitution's brilliance lies in how thoroughly it structurally aligns politicians' self-interests with that of the the common good. The ability to foresee how all involved parties were going to butter their bread, for the next two centuries, is a testament to the founders' genius. If they exhibited any naivete, it was overestimating the public's capacity to resist being duped into ignoring its best interests. Even so, if you tabulate all of the things that had to happen, over the last two decades, before we could digress to our current farce, it's impossible to blame the founders. Regardless, I truly believe that 2-3 additional amendments would be all that was required to restore the government to what it was intended to be.