Comments on: Wasted Talent and Corruption

By: rapier

rapier — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:10:48 +0000

The Wall Street investment banks were always partnerships, until the 80′s. Once they were operating with other peoples money and reputation became simply a matter of how rich you were the table was set for what came later. It is actually surprising it took The Street so long to adopt the corporate form. After all they had spend a century establishing it as the most powerful model of organization ever conceived. It was pretty stupid of them not to realize the stupendous advantages of having no personal liability for anything. Oh sure, the old white shoes era was scummy but it was gentile. They did have the historic memory that they once wrecked the country after all. They were never pigs. They knew limits.

By: masaccio

masaccio — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:03:12 +0000

Amazing isn’t it? The only people making decent pay are the bumblers on Wall Street and the egomaniacs in the boardroom. Oh, and the rich.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:56 +0000

If a bunch of physicists are working for Goldman Sachs, it means they aren’t doing physics.

Part of the problem is that science and engineering don’t pay well, as necessary as they are to our society. (My father retired in 1979, after forty years as an engineer, and still was making less than $30,000 a year. Even allowing for inflation, it’s still five-figure pay today.)

By: BearCountry

BearCountry — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:20:32 +0000

Thanks for the clarification.

By: masaccio

masaccio — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:09:45 +0000

My experience with the SEC goes back to 1980 and the early years of Reagan and his designated hatchetman John Shad. Most of the competent people quit because they were being pulled off fraud and corruption cases and put on truly useless work. That was reduced under Clinton, but the SEC never recovered. Under the worthless Christopher Cox, the SEC was reduced to a shadow of its former self. There may be a few competent people left, but I doubt it.

The Madoff failure is atrocious. I described it very briefly, but the plain fact is that any competent person would have uncovered the fraud after that interview. This reeks of corruption. Madoff had a lot of friends in high places all over the street.

By: selise

selise — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:07:51 +0000

jmo, worth a read: H. L. Mencken, Cultural Elitism, and the Democratic Party

By: yamma

yamma — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:49:27 +0000

Thanks for the interesting post.
Just one thing to add: The Madoff scandal could be the best thing that happens to the SEC–if it’s used in the right way. And if _we_ learn the right lesson from it.
The SEC needs money, support and decent regulatory laws to do their work properly.
You quoted the Times article, I think:
“In one e-mail message, a senior lawyer in the agency’s New York office said he thought “we should get out of the business of burning resources to chase Ponzi schemes.”
I think however, that you are losing some of the context. This e-mail of all things is NOT what upsets me. It sounds like an overwhelmed employee at the SEC trying to put his finger in the dam. Some things are easier to investigate–and lead to results more quickly. Ponzi schemes may very well not fall into this category.
It is well known (well maybe not well enough known!) that during the Bush years, lots of important work got shunted, ignored, underfunded.
I think the SEC should be held accountable for their actions or lack thereof.
I just don’t think we have enough information on them. What happened to funding? What other ways were there powers and abilities undercut in the Bush years?
It’s a mistake to put the overworked lawyers and investigators at the SEC in the same category as the Goldman-Government folks who spend their careers in the revolving door.

By: GDC707

GDC707 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:24:06 +0000

“Too many people think they have too much to lose, so they cling to what they have and resist change. It would be a real revolution if we could get a real tax increase on the rich.”

Multitudes have already lost what they have and multitudes more probably will.
Only in a nation as right-leaning and supplicating as America would a simple tax increase on the hyper wealthy be considered a “real revolution.”

No, that’s not the revolution that Schiller (and me) is talking about. All I’m getting at is that increasingly, on blogs, in conversations, and now even in rare moments on traditional media, the Rev word is being whispered. Part of it is just momentary frustration. But greater numbers have been awakened, rudely to the fact that nothing is going to change. The saw is cutting close to the bone. Mass larceny is the norm. Family members fall ill and die and the family is bankrupt. Massive efforts are mounted to reform the ruinous healthcare morass and all their efforts result in . . . nothing. In fact, worse than nothing. The U.S. gov’t has proven itself a wholly owned subsidiary of giant financial puppeteers.

Many sense a compounding of errors that is beyond the ability of “the system” to remedy.

By: ShotoJamf

ShotoJamf — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:10:11 +0000

Also, if you want to burn a little time, go here:

By: ShotoJamf

ShotoJamf — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:08:11 +0000

I’m probably missing something here. (I usually do.) However, I find it baffling that people aren’t storming Capitol Hill to demand full-blown hearings on the obvious criminality that has taken place. I’m talking hearings with an open timeline, open budget, full subpoena power, special counsels – The Works. And speaking of criminals, here’s a good read from McClatchy…