I found this timeline of the financial crisis. I thought it was interesting, but I don't know how objective it is.
River ,'War Stories'
Natter 61*
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Not that some won't try
These are Clinton's policies coming home to roost. Jimmy Carter helped. Reagan and Bush I had no impact in their combined 12 years of control. Really.
My bank is an affiliate of the corporation controlling the Mormon Church. I think they're capitalized sufficiently.
Edit: I shouldn't say "controlling the Mormon Church." I should say, "Managing the copyrights, income, real estate, etc. connected to the Mormon Church."
The NYTimes magazine had a really interesting column this weekend laying out some of the problems with blaming the current financial crisis on the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Yet the criticism is often vague, which means that anyone trying to understand the causal chain — how the end of Glass-Steagall led to the end of Lehman Brothers — will have a hard time doing so. To many banking experts, the reason is simple enough: namely, that the law didn’t really do much to create the current crisis. It is a handy scapegoat, since it’s easily the biggest piece of financial deregulation in recent decades. But one act of deregulation, even a big one, and the absence of other, good regulations aren’t the same thing. The nursemaid of the current crisis isn’t so much what Washington did, in other words, as what it didn’t do.
The point of Gramm-Leach-Bliley was to tear down the wall, built by Glass-Steagall, separating banks that did risky investing from those that did basic lending. (The mingling of those two helped create a cascade of bank failures during the Depression.) Thus were born Citigroup, Bank of America and J. P. Morgan Chase, behemoths that owned bank branches, bought and sold stocks and shepherded corporate mergers.
But what else do those firms have in common today? They weren’t the ones that imploded, at least not first. While hardly unscathed, some of them are emerging as survivors amidst the wreckage. The first fatalities were firms that didn’t change all that much in the wake of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Until their dying day, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were both classic investment banks.
My bank is an affiliate of the corporation controlling the Mormon Church. I think they're capitalized sufficiently.
At least they've probably got two years of food stored somewhere.
At least they've probably got two years of food stored somewhere
Whole wheat and dried beans. Yummy.
Breaking news -- Mukasey has finally announced that he's appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the U.S. Attorney firings. Another Cheney/Bush bird coming home to roost....
Bridget Jones generation 'to blame for breakdown of the family'
The collapse of the family is being driven by a 'Bridget Jones generation' of well-educated young women who cannot find a suitable match, a senior Conservative claimed yesterday.
Shadow universities secretary David Willetts said that, for the first time, more women than men were gaining degrees - meaning many struggled to find a partner with an academic background and career prospects like their own.
With fewer men able to 'bring home the bacon', Britain was seeing 'the collapse in the economic circumstances that hold families together'.
So it's women's fault that more women than men get degrees?
eta: Argh! A 'then/than' error!
If you need economic circumstances to hold families together, they weren't very strong to begin with, were they?
I suppose I could paste this link to an 'Engrish' translation of the Lost plotline, but here seems just as good: [link]
So it's women's fault that more women than men get degrees?
Sure! Why not!?
Oh, my god, it is 8:30, and my phone has rung SIX TIMES. Stop calling me, people! I haven't even had breakfast yet.