Say you could go back in time and try to convince all the people who failed the entire world so badly not to do it.
What would you tell them?
Why shouldn’t they do it?
Or even the ones in charge right exactly now.
Why shouldn’t they continue to loot and pillage and laugh at all us poor suckers who trusted them with our hard earned money, only to have them blow it all on risky investments, then sing us for even MORE money?
Who were/are the “financial liberals”? And how did they “tear up the rule of law”? (Deregulating, even if ill-advised, does not end the rule of law.)
People like Thain took risks with other people’s money, and gained large financial rewards, but while they proved to have taken risks that resulted in enormous losses for others, they weren’t (as far as I can see) breaking any laws.
Thain didn’t do this. He was brought in to clean up Stan’s mess and get the most out of the smoldering ruins for the shareholders. He found an idiot to pay way more than the company was worth and thereby did a great service to the shareholders of Merrill.
I had the opportunity to plead my case for fiscal, enforcement and legislative sanity in 2003 to the Secretary of Banking (not Delaware).
He laughed in my face.
I never felt so right and worthless and small in my whole life.
The financial liberals are the very popular loonies who seem to think that less regulation is always, always better, that government is just a big mean bully whenever it tries to enforce the rules, and really, there should be total anarchy in the world of finances, and then everyone will be farting effing rainbows, everything will be so perfect.
You’re right, thought. I misused the phrase “rule of law”. They did not tear up the rule of law. They tore up the laws themselves, or when it was easier, simply got Bush and his cronies to remove enforcement of the laws.