Excerpts on Wall Street
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist: The Obama ad against the Bain activity and this steel company are mostly unfair.
This was a company that was on the way down. They had no other buyer. Bain comes in, buys the money -- buys the company, puts in $100 million. They hang to it for eight years, so it is not like they are just dumping it, and then the thing ends up folding anyway.
And so I think it was a legitimate business transition, an attempt to make a success. The 20 percent that's accurate is that they did load it with a bunch of debt. And Bain -- even though the company went down, Bain did okay. And so that part, they are right about. But it gets into a larger argument about creative destruction, that we have had this. . .
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): And what capitalism is, right?
DAVID BROOKS: Really a ruthless pruning on the part -- especially pats of the economy that are globally competitive, manufacturing, high-tech.
And it's involved tremendous productivity gains, but also tremendous layoffs. And so it's perfectly legitimate for to us have a debate about that, in part, I think because Mitt Romney and a lot of Republicans see that churning as the model for the whole economy. And so that's a legitimate thing to talk about.
JEFFREY BROWN: That a big debate about what capitalism is, right, but how does it work politically?
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: But it is one that Mitt Romney has chosen not to make. Mitt Romney has sold us about Staples, a success. He helped this company. And Sports Authority and the jobs, 100,000 jobs.
If you are going to say I have created 100,000 jobs, I mean, the people who got hurt were the workers. I mean, the officers didn't. The officers of the company didn't. And Bain didn't. So, I mean, this reflects a value. I mean, is it going to be decisive? No.
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, speaking of the nature of capitalism, another thing we learned this week is JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank, loses at least $2 billion and now it's probably more like $5 billion, right? Brings up all the focus on did the banks not learn a thing from the financial crisis and did regulation do anything and is more needed?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I don't think regulation is more needed. I think parts of regulation are more needed, but not to regulate failure.
Companies are allowed to fail. People are allowed to be stupid. And they lost $2 billion or $5 billion. That's being stupid. They pay the price, the head of the investment strategy out. And that's the way capitalism is supposed to work. That's how you chase in companies.
Where we have a public interest -- the idea of getting regulators involved and telling them, no, you can't make that hedge, you can't make that bet, you can't make that investment, that seems to me a recipe for disaster. Where we do have a public interest is making sure when people are stupid, they don't bring down the whole system.
And so making sure the capital requirements are high enough, that seems to me perfectly legitimate. But regulating within companies, and what bets they can do and hedges and upping the regulation in that sense seems to me completely wrong.
JEFFREY BROWN: What do you see, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS: I disagree.
I mean once you've got these banks that are insured by the public, as they are, and the Volcker rule, which is very straightforward, endorsed by five secretaries of the treasury, which says with these deposits, you can't get into speculative enterprises, and expect that you are going to be bailed out.
And I think there's an overwhelming public interest here. You know, I think Barney Frank had some legitimacy today by saying they're complaining about the cost of applying and complying with the Dodd-Frank law, the banks are, saying it's $400 million or $600 million, and they're talking about losing 10 times as much.
And so I think there is a public interest. I stand in awe of the fact that none of these guys has walked into the bar of justice and what happened to this country, what they did to this country?
COMMENT: The bottom line as far as I am concerned it Wall Street wants to continue taking big risks with OUR money while 'they' remain protected and reaping profits. Then they come crying to 'mama' when they need a bailout.
Of course, this does not apply in the current JPMorgan Chase problem since they ARE capitalized enough to absorb the hit.
No comments:
Post a Comment