Trump nominates Wall Street lawyer to police Wall Street...

[martybegan]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

So the best way to regulate an industry is to appoint someone who doesn't know how the industry works, and who hates it and wants to see it destroyed, right?

The best way to regulate an industry is to choose a man who has spent his career defending that industry from regulation?

We will find out. At least he already knows all the tricks of the trade.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Trump has hired/nominated wolves, not shepherds.

Neither wolves nor shepherds, but competent, successful people.

Wrong. A successful person can be a wolf - like Trump - or a shepherd - like Obama.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

So the best way to regulate an industry is to appoint someone who doesn't know how the industry works, and who hates it and wants to see it destroyed, right?

The best way to regulate an industry is to choose a man who has spent his career defending that industry from regulation?

So in your opinion all regualation is a good thing?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

So the best way to regulate an industry is to appoint someone who doesn't know how the industry works, and who hates it and wants to see it destroyed, right?

The best way to regulate an industry is to choose a man who has spent his career defending that industry from regulation?

It takes a thief? It depends on the thief, IMO.

 

[martybegan]

The Democrats seem to think that MORE regulation equates with BETTER regulation.

The Republicans seem to think that markets can police themselves, completely ignoring the Meltdown.

Madness.
.

There is a difference between total anarchy in the market and a moderated market. Moderation, i.e. regulation should be designed to make the market fair and transparent, not to make it impossible to provide a given transaction, or bury it in a sea of paper that requires a staff of 50 just to figure out if you are in compliance or not.

 

[aaronleland]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

So the best way to regulate an industry is to appoint someone who doesn't know how the industry works, and who hates it and wants to see it destroyed, right?

The best way to regulate an industry is to choose a man who has spent his career defending that industry from regulation?

So in your opinion all regualation is a good thing?

Where has anybody ever said that?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump has hired/nominated wolves, not shepherds.

Neither wolves nor shepherds, but competent, successful people.

Wrong. A successful person can be a wolf - like Trump - or a shepherd - like Obama.

lol Obama has never been successful in any job he has ever had. He is expert in scamming people like you but nothing more. He has, in fact, proved his empty resume should have persuaded you not to vote for him.

 

[martybegan]

Trump has hired/nominated wolves, not shepherds.

Neither wolves nor shepherds, but competent, successful people.

Wrong. A successful person can be a wolf - like Trump - or a shepherd - like Obama.

Obama is a shepherd that only cares about the sheep who agree with him. Screw the other sheep.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

So the best way to regulate an industry is to appoint someone who doesn't know how the industry works, and who hates it and wants to see it destroyed, right?

The best way to regulate an industry is to choose a man who has spent his career defending that industry from regulation?

So in your opinion all regualation is a good thing?

Where has anybody ever said that?

You did by condemning a man for fighting against government regulation without specifying what the regulation was and whether it was worthwhile. It is fair to assume you didn't care what the facts of the case were.

 

[aaronleland]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

Good news. The SEC will be headed by some one who understands both sides of the issues.

What are Democrats always so hostile to competent people?

He understands both sides alright. The Barclays and the Goldman Sachs.

So what you are saying is you don't know what the two sides are.

The only side he has ever been on is that of Wall Street. Where exactly is this other side?

 

[Mac1958]

The Democrats seem to think that MORE regulation equates with BETTER regulation.

The Republicans seem to think that markets can police themselves, completely ignoring the Meltdown.

Madness.
.

There is a difference between total anarchy in the market and a moderated market. Moderation, i.e. regulation should be designed to make the market fair and transparent, not to make it impossible to provide a given transaction, or bury it in a sea of paper that requires a staff of 50 just to figure out if you are in compliance or not.

Sure, agreed, and I deal with that crap daily.

But on the other side, the "securities" at the heart of the Meltdown were largely opaque and unregulated. Greenspan had the power to regulate them and chose not to, even though he himself admitted that he had studied MBS's and CDO's and didn't understand them.
.

 

[BULLDOG]

In a later report, he nominated a fox to be in charge of protecting all the hen houses, and is assembling a committee of wolves to come up with a different way to protect sheep. .

 

[martybegan]

The Democrats seem to think that MORE regulation equates with BETTER regulation.

The Republicans seem to think that markets can police themselves, completely ignoring the Meltdown.

Madness.
.

There is a difference between total anarchy in the market and a moderated market. Moderation, i.e. regulation should be designed to make the market fair and transparent, not to make it impossible to provide a given transaction, or bury it in a sea of paper that requires a staff of 50 just to figure out if you are in compliance or not.

Sure, agreed, and I deal with that crap daily.

But on the other side, the "securities" at the heart of the Meltdown were largely opaque and unregulated. Greenspan had the power to regulate them and chose not to, even though he himself admitted that he had studied MBS's and CDO's and didn't understand them.
.

The MBS and CDO situation was unique in that while everything was going good, no one got hurt, and everyone made money or got some advantage. The investors made money, the investment banks made money, the default swap insurers made money, the people buying houses with crappy credit got houses they couldn't ordinarily get, the ease of credit got people higher prices for the houses they were selling, and finally government made all sorts of tax money, be it from higher incomes, higher property taxes, and higher sales taxes.

Could better regulation have prevented it? I'm not sure it could have unless it banned the entire concept, and at that point, no one hand any idea they could be that destructive if they failed.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

Good news. The SEC will be headed by some one who understands both sides of the issues.

What are Democrats always so hostile to competent people?

He understands both sides alright. The Barclays and the Goldman Sachs.

So what you are saying is you don't know what the two sides are.

The only side he has ever been on is that of Wall Street. Where exactly is this other side?

The other side is supposed to be the government protecting the economy against abuses by some bankers, but since the government has consistently put political concerns before policy issues, some one has to protect the economy against the politically motivated regulations the government, mostly the Democratic Congress tried to impose on the banking industry.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Democrats seem to think that MORE regulation equates with BETTER regulation.

The Republicans seem to think that markets can police themselves, completely ignoring the Meltdown.

Madness.
.

There is a difference between total anarchy in the market and a moderated market. Moderation, i.e. regulation should be designed to make the market fair and transparent, not to make it impossible to provide a given transaction, or bury it in a sea of paper that requires a staff of 50 just to figure out if you are in compliance or not.

Sure, agreed, and I deal with that crap daily.

But on the other side, the "securities" at the heart of the Meltdown were largely opaque and unregulated. Greenspan had the power to regulate them and chose not to, even though he himself admitted that he had studied MBS's and CDO's and didn't understand them.
.

Indeed, the FDIC and SEC already had the power to prevent the financial crisis but did nothing to police the the clear collusion between the ratings companies, the mortgage companies and the investment bankers that led to the crisis.

 

[Mac1958]

The Democrats seem to think that MORE regulation equates with BETTER regulation.

The Republicans seem to think that markets can police themselves, completely ignoring the Meltdown.

Madness.
.

There is a difference between total anarchy in the market and a moderated market. Moderation, i.e. regulation should be designed to make the market fair and transparent, not to make it impossible to provide a given transaction, or bury it in a sea of paper that requires a staff of 50 just to figure out if you are in compliance or not.

Sure, agreed, and I deal with that crap daily.

But on the other side, the "securities" at the heart of the Meltdown were largely opaque and unregulated. Greenspan had the power to regulate them and chose not to, even though he himself admitted that he had studied MBS's and CDO's and didn't understand them.
.

The MBS and CDO situation was unique in that while everything was going good, no one got hurt, and everyone made money or got some advantage. The investors made money, the investment banks made money, the default swap insurers made money, the people buying houses with crappy credit got houses they couldn't ordinarily get, the ease of credit got people higher prices for the houses they were selling, and finally government made all sorts of tax money, be it from higher incomes, higher property taxes, and higher sales taxes.

Could better regulation have prevented it? I'm not sure it could have unless it banned the entire concept, and at that point, no one hand any idea they could be that destructive if they failed.

Well, no one thought real estate could drop. Go figure.

But hell, the ratings agencies were whoring out AAA's, no one cared about the insane mortgages being offered, no one knew what was in the MBS/CDO's, AIG was writing zillions in swaps without any required reserves, on and on. That's the Old West, and we paid for it.
.

 

[martybegan]

The Democrats seem to think that MORE regulation equates with BETTER regulation.

The Republicans seem to think that markets can police themselves, completely ignoring the Meltdown.

Madness.
.

There is a difference between total anarchy in the market and a moderated market. Moderation, i.e. regulation should be designed to make the market fair and transparent, not to make it impossible to provide a given transaction, or bury it in a sea of paper that requires a staff of 50 just to figure out if you are in compliance or not.

Sure, agreed, and I deal with that crap daily.

But on the other side, the "securities" at the heart of the Meltdown were largely opaque and unregulated. Greenspan had the power to regulate them and chose not to, even though he himself admitted that he had studied MBS's and CDO's and didn't understand them.
.

The MBS and CDO situation was unique in that while everything was going good, no one got hurt, and everyone made money or got some advantage. The investors made money, the investment banks made money, the default swap insurers made money, the people buying houses with crappy credit got houses they couldn't ordinarily get, the ease of credit got people higher prices for the houses they were selling, and finally government made all sorts of tax money, be it from higher incomes, higher property taxes, and higher sales taxes.

Could better regulation have prevented it? I'm not sure it could have unless it banned the entire concept, and at that point, no one hand any idea they could be that destructive if they failed.

Well, no one thought real estate could drop. Go figure.

But hell, the ratings agencies were whoring out AAA's, no one cared about the insane mortgages being offered, no one knew what was in the MBS/CDO's, AIG was writing zillions in swaps without any required reserves, on and on. That's the Old West, and we paid for it.
.

The best they could have done was set limits to the default swap rates and limit the investment vehicles to only prime mortgages. The limits on swap coverage would have been fought tooth an nail by the free market people, and the limits on investment to prime mortgages only would be fought be the "housing for everyone" people, and that covers both sides of the political aisle.

Again, until the markets went down, no one was getting hurt. There was no impetus for regulation from any side of the political divide.

 

[gipper]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

You mean Obama right?

 

[kiwiman127]

Oh, the Trumpsters who were screaming so loudly against "the swamp" for a year or so are now cowering. No surprise there! These are the same clowns that for years claimed to be "real conservatives", then they turn around and support Trump. These people have zero convictions and absolutely no backbone.

 

[aaronleland]

Trump to tap Wall Street lawyer, Jay Clayton, to head SEC

Clayton is a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, a well-known law firm, and has represented some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, and helped them weather regulatory scrutiny. He has also helped large companies hold their raise money through an initial public offering, including Alibaba, the Chinese retail giant. But, according to the biography on the Sullivan & Cromwell website, Clayton has not held any government positions and has never served as a prosecutor.

The next 4-8 years are going to be hilarious.

You mean Obama right?

If you mean more of the same, then yes.