MSNBC Maddow's TV show last night explained how a "nuclear option" can change the filibuster rules with 51 votes, if the Vice President uses his powers on the vote too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1/4% Tax on all stock trades pushed in NY Times today
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Is the Volcker Rule a good or bad idea at this time?
This is a Comment for the Barron's article today "The New Dismal - The Volcker Rule comes too late. Stocks thrashed by a headwind of negative news. More dollar strength ahead" at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB126420759916433683.html#articleTabs=article . Hopefully, my editor will clean it up by Monday.
The public's perception of Mr. Volcker is very high, his age, his reputation, his strength. You write, "Paul Volcker, whose staunch independence while at the helm of the central bank from 1979 to 1987 managed to earn him the enmity of both the Carter and Reagan administrations, had been on the outs with the Obama inner circle, notwithstanding his high-falutin' title."
But what about the first big market crash during of our lifetimes? Black Monday October 19, 1987? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987) . Wasn't that devastating crash just after Volcker's reign as Chairman of the Federal Reserve â he left in August 1987?
In today's standards for judging Fed Reserve Chairman, the public holds Fed Chairman responsible for easy money before market crashes. So why do we put Volcker on such a high pedestal? Isnât Volcker (in his last US major post) in the same easy-money, lack of regulation and pre-crash group as Bernanke, Greenspan, Geithner and Summers? Yes, he broke the back of inflation, but his reign led to the biggest crash of our lifetimes too. Shell-shocked ex-Chairman always become overly conservative. Volcker is the oldest and most out of touch of the group too.
Volcker has been on the outside a long-time and doesn't he spend most of his time in Europe with European-group-think? During the 2000s, Mr. Volcker has been very involved with UN and multi-lateral activities, not US-centric activities. Is Mr. Volcker leading the charge in the Obama administration for a Euro-US-G20 financial reform cooperation pact? Between equally-politically-desperate UK Prime Minister Brown, and French President Sarkozy, German Chancellor Merkel and the new European President too. More troubling is that the UK Tory party â expected to take control in early 2010 - said it would follow President Obamaâs lead on the bank fee and maybe more too.
Secretary Geithner put the damps on the financial-transaction tax (FTT) in the G20 in November and now after the Volcker Rule bombshell, PM Brown says there is an opening to bring it back to life. A FTT would destroy financial markets. Do we want US financial reform and taxation to be swept up in a global âtax and reform rushâ (rather than gold rush) to set the standard for political gain and control? Please slow this train wreck down!
Mr. Volcker's ideas may have merit for some (not me), but deploying them as a decoy in this heightened political environment for political gain, during a fragile economic and financial market recovery is very dangerous.
Trading gains and alternative investments on Wall Street saved America! Had banks not made billions trading this past year, the Main Street recession would be worse and Wall Street and the markets would have seriously tanked. TARP gave Wall Street the springboard it needed to snap back based on trading and not only was TARP paid-back but the stock markets are the engine leading Main Street back. Just be a little patient for the jobs to return soon, instead of derailing the train. Government-force-fed lending to failing businesses and home-owners is the failed recipe of the early 2000s.
Did Volckerâs springboard to the top of President Obamaâs advisorsâ roles, weaken Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke? That would be very unfortunate too. Secretary Geithner is the last, best hope for traders in defeating a financial-transaction tax - our biggest concern at GreenTraderTax.com Traders Association â and for sensible reform on Wall Street. It was reported that Secretary Geithner originally rejected the Volcker Rule. Rather than sacrifice Geithner to the populist mob, the President should axe Emmanuel. He was the one that strong-armed Chicago-style sausage making politics in the health-care bills.
I hope that the President is not trying to win further populist stripes against Wall Street by sacrificing Geithner, and Summers, as being too close to Wall Street. And not supporting Bernanke enough either. Republicans are certainly not going to ride in to save Wall Street. Good thing Schumer is not up for election this November, he would be another Dodd casualty.
Mr. Volcker seems a little out of touch to me about the innovations on Wall Street. He fully understands banker abuse and over reach, but that is not enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
This is a Comment for the Barron's article today "The New Dismal - The Volcker Rule comes too late. Stocks thrashed by a headwind of negative news. More dollar strength ahead" at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB126420759916433683.html#articleTabs=article . Hopefully, my editor will clean it up by Monday.
The public's perception of Mr. Volcker is very high, his age, his reputation, his strength. You write, "Paul Volcker, whose staunch independence while at the helm of the central bank from 1979 to 1987 managed to earn him the enmity of both the Carter and Reagan administrations, had been on the outs with the Obama inner circle, notwithstanding his high-falutin' title."
But what about the first big market crash during of our lifetimes? Black Monday October 19, 1987? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987) . Wasn't that devastating crash just after Volcker's reign as Chairman of the Federal Reserve â he left in August 1987?
In today's standards for judging Fed Reserve Chairman, the public holds Fed Chairman responsible for easy money before market crashes. So why do we put Volcker on such a high pedestal? Isnât Volcker (in his last US major post) in the same easy-money, lack of regulation and pre-crash group as Bernanke, Greenspan, Geithner and Summers? Yes, he broke the back of inflation, but his reign led to the biggest crash of our lifetimes too. Shell-shocked ex-Chairman always become overly conservative. Volcker is the oldest and most out of touch of the group too.
Volcker has been on the outside a long-time and doesn't he spend most of his time in Europe with European-group-think? During the 2000s, Mr. Volcker has been very involved with UN and multi-lateral activities, not US-centric activities. Is Mr. Volcker leading the charge in the Obama administration for a Euro-US-G20 financial reform cooperation pact? Between equally-politically-desperate UK Prime Minister Brown, and French President Sarkozy, German Chancellor Merkel and the new European President too. More troubling is that the UK Tory party â expected to take control in early 2010 - said it would follow President Obamaâs lead on the bank fee and maybe more too.
Secretary Geithner put the damps on the financial-transaction tax (FTT) in the G20 in November and now after the Volcker Rule bombshell, PM Brown says there is an opening to bring it back to life. A FTT would destroy financial markets. Do we want US financial reform and taxation to be swept up in a global âtax and reform rushâ (rather than gold rush) to set the standard for political gain and control? Please slow this train wreck down!
Mr. Volcker's ideas may have merit for some (not me), but deploying them as a decoy in this heightened political environment for political gain, during a fragile economic and financial market recovery is very dangerous.
Trading gains and alternative investments on Wall Street saved America! Had banks not made billions trading this past year, the Main Street recession would be worse and Wall Street and the markets would have seriously tanked. TARP gave Wall Street the springboard it needed to snap back based on trading and not only was TARP paid-back but the stock markets are the engine leading Main Street back. Just be a little patient for the jobs to return soon, instead of derailing the train. Government-force-fed lending to failing businesses and home-owners is the failed recipe of the early 2000s.
Did Volckerâs springboard to the top of President Obamaâs advisorsâ roles, weaken Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke? That would be very unfortunate too. Secretary Geithner is the last, best hope for traders in defeating a financial-transaction tax - our biggest concern at GreenTraderTax.com Traders Association â and for sensible reform on Wall Street. It was reported that Secretary Geithner originally rejected the Volcker Rule. Rather than sacrifice Geithner to the populist mob, the President should axe Emmanuel. He was the one that strong-armed Chicago-style sausage making politics in the health-care bills.
I hope that the President is not trying to win further populist stripes against Wall Street by sacrificing Geithner, and Summers, as being too close to Wall Street. And not supporting Bernanke enough either. Republicans are certainly not going to ride in to save Wall Street. Good thing Schumer is not up for election this November, he would be another Dodd casualty.
Mr. Volcker seems a little out of touch to me about the innovations on Wall Street. He fully understands banker abuse and over reach, but that is not enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
In today's NYPost, they got an article on how our boy Timmy may be on the way out with Team O:
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/on_the_outs_with_LxzGg5P6cAEZAZ2aKNSyAO
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/on_the_outs_with_LxzGg5P6cAEZAZ2aKNSyAO
Quote from cstfx:
In today's NYPost, they got an article on how our boy Timmy may be on the way out with Team O:
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/on_the_outs_with_LxzGg5P6cAEZAZ2aKNSyAO
I sure hope Geithner isn't on the way out (that could be bad for us). I guess if it does happen we can only hope the his replacement would be anti FTT as well.
We really need the IMF to come out against the FTT soon (hopefully before their April report) and put this thing to rest. I really think this would put Brown in his place and most likely Germany and France would back off as well.
-Guru
Quote from cstfx:
In today's NYPost, they got an article on how our boy Timmy may be on the way out with Team O:
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/business/on_the_outs_with_LxzGg5P6cAEZAZ2aKNSyAO
Seems a little unfair to lump Tim G with Greenspan and Bernanke. Tim G is relatively young and intelligent, no one is perfect and he can learn from this experience at a relatively early stage in his career...it is a lot different making the mistakes that Greenspan and Bernanke have at the end of their careers when you've basically reached your peak.
Think of your own trading career and how early setbacks and mistakes made you the trader you are today. Bernanke and Greenspan were central to the Fed the last twenty years, Tim G got to a relatively high position at an early age, provided he shows humility he can be stronger for the experience.
I notice William Donaldson was mentioned along with Volcker as being influential with the President...does anyone know what his views on FTT are?
I've said all along that Secretary Geithner was our man to defend against a financial-transaction tax. To block the Euro-initiative and American-homegrown one too.Quote from listedguru:
I sure hope Geithner isn't on the way out (that could be bad for us). I guess if it does happen we can only hope the his replacement would be anti FTT as well.
We really need the IMF to come out against the FTT soon (hopefully before their April report) and put this thing to rest. I really think this would put Brown in his place and most likely Germany and France would back off as well.
-Guru
If the President dumps Geithner I think that shows tremendous weakness on his part, and that he does not have the backbone to lead through a populist crowd. Obama has stood by Geithner through personal-tax allegations, AIG memos, bailout deals and more. Plus, Secretary Geithner is doing a very good job. Geithner set up the President to lead the world on the bank fee plan, financial-reform, and ward off a financial-transaction tax.
The President chose Volcker over Geithner for the second part of his bank plan, to rein in moral hazard and too-big-to-fail. The first part of the plan was the bank fee and it only addressed the TARP pay-back, not moral hazard.
I wonder what Geithner's plan was for the second part of the plan? He originally disagreed with the Volcker Rule, to separate commercial lending from proprietary trading and alternative assets. Geithner is wise enough to understand that crisis-forced-fed bank mergers under TARP - JP Morgan Chase and Bear Stearns, and BOA and Merrill Lynch - and now forced divestitures just one year late is flip-flopping government interference with excessive disruption in the marketplace.
Did the President panic after the Scott Brown MA Senate seat victory - a tide-turning referendum on health care - and roll out Volcker immediately to reclaim the momentum?
Yes, maybe Summers and Geithner wrote a memo about (questionably in support of) the Volcker Rule over the holidays (as Summers said on CNBC), but that may have been their comments on that one choice, among other better choices in their view. When was the Volcker Rule decision made, before Brownâs victory or afterwards? If it was made afterwards, it certainly is even more suspect.
Please be very supportive of Secretary Geithner everywhere possible! Bernanke not being confirmed is different from the President firing his Treasury Secretary and both at the same time will cause havoc.
Quote from Quartz:
TPCS - that was a good article, esp considering it seems to be from a publication that one would expect to be for the new tax, but instead outlines how unrealistic it is.
That's what I thought. However, The article dates from May 2002 . The OECD view seems a bit different today unfortunately.