elcopone

A Bull Market That Few Are Buying

I agree with the analysis for the most part but I think the main point is being missed....

The issue is not Republican versus Democrat. It's not one parties agenda versus another. Or one President's agenda versus what another President would have done. If you think the the Republicans are any less bought off or curropt than the Democrats, I have a bridge to sell you.

The issue is that our entire political system is completely broken. Politicians on both sides have been and will continue to act in a manner that benefits no one (except them personally and their party) untill the system is fixed. Republicans are bribed by one set of special interests and Demecrats are bribed by another. Some special interest who have enough money just bribe both.

None of the problems facing the US will ever be truly solved untill the political system is fixed. Here is the simple fix that will never happen....

1. Make lobbing of any form illegal.
2. Institute term limits.
3. Eliminate fund raising of any sort. All campaigns would then be run with equal money funded by the government.
4. Institute a 10-year waiting period between the time an elected official leaves office to the time they can be hired in the private sector.
5. Create a third and equal "Moderate" party that represents the roughly 60% of the population that is either an Independant, Moderate-Dem, and Moderate-Repub.

Simple economics... People's behaviors are motivated by incentives. Fix the incentives, fix the behaviors.

FDIC Regulation: Reason for Alarm

I think your title does not accurately portray the point you you are making and is misleading. While I agree with you are saying specifically about the FDIC, this is not financial "regulation". I believe true financial regulation is needed to ensure that:

a) no bank or instititution is ever allowed to be "too large to fail"
b) markets are not being manipulated
c) Madoff schemes are not allowed to happen
d) executives are not being given billions of dollars for poor performance

and many other reasons. But to imply that all financial regulation is wrong because of this FDIC example is just rediculious. Regulation, like everything else, needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully.

Exclusive: Big Banks' Recent Profitability Due to AIG Scam?

Tyler Durden strikes again!!! GREAT work, if it's true. Wow, what a story. Mr. Durden continues to the only person in my watchlist.

Why GM's Wagoner and Not BofA's Lewis?

You write, "If Mr. Wagoner is to be held responsible for the collapse of the economy and its effects on GM..."

Hold on a second, Wagoner was not fired because of the economy. That is an absurd notion and puts a major hole in your argument (which I'm actually still trying to figure out what you are arguing). He has been with GM for 30 years and was CEO for over 9 years. In the time he was CEO, GM lost market share year after year, lost the corwn of world's largest automaker, pushed Hummers as if they were the best thing ever, spent more time in washington and on private jets than he did at his own factories, and infamously said that hybrids "were not worth investing in" and focused resources on trucks and SUV's. In 2005, a year when the auto market was great, GM lost billions under his command. You seem to be forgetting that he was CEO for 7 years of economic prosperity before the economic collapse.

I'm not sure the point you are making here, but saying that these two CEO's are being evaluated based on the economy is not holding them accountable to the management decisions (blunders) they actually made.

Too Big to Fail, Or Too Dumb to Survive?

Agreed, the "too large to fail" argument is getting old. Th cost of inaction must be rivaling the cost of action at this point. And the sad thing is for all the bailout money already spent, no one even knows if it even worked. Had the government not bought Wall Streets egotistical "too large to fail" argument, they would be in Chapter 11 with a clearly defined plan to keep operating and emerge. As it is, you now have increased consumer distrust due to the lack transparency around the bailouts.

What does it say about our government when AIG execs are more scared of lawyers opinions and their own executive's potential lawsuits than they are about the governments wrath?

The biggest problem with the Wall Street bailout is that it's being run by Wall Street.

AIG Bonuses Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

The real question is what does it say about our government when AIG execs are more scared of lawyers opinions and their own executive's potential lawsuits than they are about the governments wrath?