re: #200 goddamnedfrank

It’s an interesting comparison, since the bankers created products designed to harm the buyer and marketed them deceptively. They solicited inaccurate ratings and accepted them, advertised their own small buy in as a loss leader while hiding their much stronger hedge position on failure.

1. It’s a step too far to say the products were designed to harm the buyer. IMO the bankers were indifferent to the products’ consequences for the buyers. Amorality, not malice.

2. If the hedge positions were all that strong, the banks wouldn’t be fragile today. Profitability may have returned, but the condition remains fragile.

I don’t think they were really doing “what the politicians (Left and Right) wanted done” though, even if they thought they were. For one thing, only one side was pushing deregulation, and continues to push it today.

The other side was pushing expanded home ownership and, arguably, continues to push it today.
*** *** *** *** ***
As Obama acknowledged early in his Presidency, “there’s plenty of blame to go around.”

I’m less interested in laying blame than I am in determining responsibility. Reasonable people can disagree about how best to fix the mess, but an inaccurate assessment of responsibility increases the chances that the crisis will return.