MC.no.spin

Because this was CAUSED. The fraud that pumped up the bubble didn't get REGULATED. Who is in charge of regulation?

Not denying that whatsoever. Some were more involved than others. Some were DIRECTLY involved in FAILING TO DO THEIR JOB. Those above them, all the way up through Congress and the President, FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB AND ENSURE THOSE BELOW THEM DID THEIR JOB.

But WHO was directly in charge of regulation and failed to regulate?

An analogy: As CEO of a company you are responsible for all functions within the company. Let's say this company is one that provides video surveillance services to a grocery store. You delegate authority to the various divisions within the company, and the guy you put on shoplifting enforcement happens to be a deadbeat who doesn't really give a damn. He fails to do good inspections, doesn't monitor the video screens, and thus lets crime slip by. People get the word and start stealing stuff left and right.

There is responsibility to be taken for this situation by many, but who was the one MOST neglectful of duty? Who DEFINITELY gets replaced?

Of course.

It's particularly a failure in responsibility for that leader if he doesn't investigate and correct any trouble spots. On that note, I've got a problem with the Secretary of Treasury, the FED chairman, the Senate Banking Committee, the President, and others for failing to see that the SEC was NOT doing its job until it was much too late.

The exact trouble spot in this case is REGULATION OF WALL STREET.

The person directly responsible for this financial crisis is the SEC Chairman. He happens to be a Libertarian Republican and a de-regulator. He could be an uber-liberal for all I care, the bottom line is he failed to do his job.

A lot of you are concentrating on the bogus home loans. Those loans got done because there was a market for them once the loan was made. They could package them up and sell them to Fannie or another institution. These players and institutions capitalized on a weakness in the system. That weakness was in regulation of credit rating agencies. S & P, Moody's and Fitch got away with murder here.

If we just blame the private market, we never achieve a correction. If we just change Presidents, we never achieve a correction. If we just say "everybody is responsible" we never achieve a correction. BUT if we remove the idiot directly in charge of regulation and put somebody in who actually cares about getting his job done, and add more teeth to regulation policies, you achieve a correction.

Yes he is. He made a bad judgement, then failed to see the smoke building up. True of many.

Yes he is. So are a lot of others - Congress, the Fed, etc.

Fine, but what are you going to recommend to fix it? You want to replace Bush? I actually can understand that. But if you leave Cox on board, you're asking for the same attitude to let another catastrophe take place again.

Scapegoat? Charade? Unethical? Give me a break. Not even worth a comment.

I have no connection with those other posts, only the ones I write.

What you need to understand is that fires, no matter how big, are STARTED. Somebody directly started that fire. And in this case, somebody failed to PUT THE FIRE OUT who was directly in charge of that duty.

His name is Chris Cox.

If Chris Cox does his EXACT JOB, this bubble never gets so big.

They can start with transparency - something Chris Cox let get lobbied out of existence for CDOs and CDS, being the de-regulator that he is.

And the person who failed to regulate that freedom was Chris Cox.

__________________

The heart of human intelligence is pattern recognition ~ Ray Kurzweill

Mach

Chris Cox is a politician, put in power but the Bush administration, who followed the administrations goals, and did what they required of him.

Scape-goating is old and tired, you play right into their hands when you do that.

Bad analogy for so many reasons. First, you and I do not know what Bush or his administration discussed with Cox, as to what his objectives were. If we look at that administrations worldview on corporrate oversight, guess what, Cox was doing fine. Now, let's say they appointed Cox and actually wanted him to restrict the activities of the wealthy corporation people that serve as their primary power/voter base (hah). You are telling me that this CEO Bush, his ONLY way to detect Cox doing a bad job with the power BUSH gave him, is for the economy to be near collapse?

Then guess what, you have to agree that the problem is Bush, because he was the one in power, and he made the hiring choice, but most damning of all (because mistakes in hiring DO occur), his only method for finding out if Cox was doing good was waiting to let the entire ****ing economy fail. That is exactly the kind of CEO that needs to be quickly replaced. Bush's superior executive management is to hire someone and let them collapse the economy then replace them? That's 100% failure. You see, I actually disagree because I think Cox suceeded 100% in what Bush and those in power actually wanted, and Cox's firing is entirely irrelevant. Those powerful, wealthy individuals plan 20 moves ahead, and spend enormous time and resource on executing their objectives. They are not so absurd.

If you run a business, you should be aware that it's always the CEO/owner, those in power, who are responsible. If you establish with your power a process that has no checks on it, you just designed a process that once it gets off track (it will necessarily), it will run out of control. That is the definition of a bad process, and bad management. You have to understand that, it's a fact of reality.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan