Site Meter

Thumbs Up for Perino’s “Hellhound of Wall Street”

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Ken Rhodes says:

    A few comments about your comments:

    (1) “those legal changes haven’t exactly changed the business, economic or social reality in any meaningful way.”

    The verb tense is important. Those legal changes did, in fact, change reality in a very important way for a half century. Then we fell victim to Santayana’s truism.

    (2) “maybe there is a case from history that the considerable deregulation of the 1990s and early 2000s that weakened many of those reforms was a colossal mistake.”

    Maybe? Gee, you think?

    (3) “there may be one nagging difference between the period-tale Perino tells and our own groping with eerily similar disaster. Our predecessors were fortunate to have someone like Ferdinand Pecora to uncover top-secret financial shenanigans.”

    Nowadays it’s uncovered by Michael Lewis and a dozen like him writing it in easy-to-understand prose that everyone has access to. OTOH, a BIG difference is that back in the day we had FDR.

  2. Frank Pasquale says:

    Great review! I also recommend this interview with Perino:

  3. Rusty says:

    Re 1: What is Rhodes talking about? Michael Lewis is a for-profit book writer who has gotten rich writing books. Pecora was a government lawyer acting in the public interest and paid nearly nothing. What’s “gee you think” when half the population want more deregualtion?

  4. Ken Rhodes says:

    Rusty, here’s what I’m talking about:

    (a) The sentence reads “Our predecessors were fortunate to have someone like Ferdinand Pecora to uncover top-secret financial shenanigans.” Yes, that’s absolutely correct. And my point is that our predecessors (i.e., the American public) had (essentially) one lone person digging into, and publicizing, the financial shenanigans. Today we have many. That they now make a lot of money for writing books and making movies does not diminish the value we can realize from reading those books and seeing those movies.

    (b) What’s “gee, you think?” Well, Rusty, I suppose if half the population wants deregulation (which, BTW, is a statement whose verb tense is highly suspect), then there are two possibilities: Maybe those half are correct, or maybe those half are the proof of Santayana’s truism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image