The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Hank "Bailout King" Paulson delivered a speech today to the Chamber of Commerce urging new regulation of Wall Street. First of all, Hank apparently never took a public speaking course that emphasized the know your audience credo. Why do you deliver a pro-regulation speech to the US Chamber of Commerce? Was he trying to see how few rounds of applause he could get? But then again why would you orchestrate the most massive government intervention in the financial markets in our history?The only hope we have at this point is that this speech is a way to preempt congress from instituting burdensome new regulation. I get the funny feeling that this is not the case. Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and I've been a supporter of his until the three months or so. This speech just reinforces my idea that its time for Paulson to step down and return to his roots. He's obviously been drinking too much water from the Potomac and has forgotten what it takes to remain the most competitive and innovative financial market in the world.
It is absolutely imperative that we maintain this competitive advantage. Our financial expertise is a major factor contributing to our economic might and makes up the vast majority of US GDP. Per the State Department's website:
Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with real estate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top.
Regulation is not the means by which to maintain the advantage.
1 comment:
I am certain Paulson has indeed drunk too much of the Potomac brew and that is contributing to this nonsense. But I also think Wall Street in general...or at least a lot of the top dogs are beginning to become pro-bailout. I mean these guys are not principled conservatives who care about the principles of free markets. They are businessmen who look at the bottom line. And right now, there bottom line looks terrible. So why wouldn't they be pro-bailout if it means the taxpayers write them checks for their shotty investments?
Seeing as that Paulson is one of them, more than he is one of us, doesn't this makes perfect sense? Isn't he looking after his buddies' short term interests rather than the long term interests of a market that is badly in need of a self-correction? Am I missing something?
Post a Comment