…as they say in every investment ad and prospectus.
But hopefully this time it offers tuition for those that would rebuild Wall Street. Again.
Wall Street, or what remains of it, has dealt a catastrophic blow to its reputation in the past eight months of bonuses, bailouts and bankruptcies. What its current leaders, and the young who are lucky enough to be entering business, have to do now is begin rescuing and restoring that reputation.
This will, in fact, be the great work of a generation of American business leaders.
More is at stake than their standing. At stake is the standing of a free-market system that has flourished since America’s founding and made it the wealthiest nation in the history of man.
Peggy Noonan likens these days to those not so long ago when Wall Street was literally rebuilding itself after an unprecedented disaster.
Those days offer hope to those that would count Capitalism dead. They serve as a blueprint for redemption for those vilified justifiably, or more predominantly in this left-dominated environment, those vilified for the sake of political opportunism – lest this crisis be “wasted.”
And so the next morning, Monday, Sept. 17, 2001, the New York Stock Exchange opened with a podium full of firemen, cops, emergency medical workers and elected officials. A Marine Corps major sang “God Bless America.” There was silence. Then a Port Authority police officer, one of the last guys to come out of the pile, began to ring the bell. The others on the podium joined in. And as the bell rang out in triumph, the traders on the floor began to cry and cheer and shout themselves hoarse. Catherine Kinney was below the podium. “Was there a cheer—oh my God, you wouldn’t believe. I cried, I did. And prices start to go across the tape . . .”
America was open for business again.
It was a great moment in Wall Street history.
I dare say, despite speaking from the bottom of a metaphysical crater this time, that Wall Street has had a great many more good days than bad, for all Americans.
Wall Street has had a great many more good days than bad
Provided they are given the chance. Capitalism doesn’t do well under a dictator.
More good days than bad for some Americans more than others.
In addition to the excellent Moyers interview with Bill K. Black was the recent Frontline piece on Black Money. Not a racial reference, it is about bribery, government, and commerce. Very well done, and another piece of the larger context to consider when considering regulation vs. deregulation of business in general and financial institutions in particular.
Don’t kid yourself, the government regulates everything.
I’m sorry, I can quite untangle this statement:
More good days than bad for some Americans more than others.
Could you uncomplicate it?
Sorry if I was obscure Kermit.
The market has provided very different rates of profit for some few “insider” individuals, to the detriment of the majority of small investors.
The references to the Black interview on Wall Street regulation (or the lack thereof) and the Frontline documentary on corporate and governmentally sanctioned bribery on an international scale elaborate on that topic.
There are numerous rather alarmingly incestuous business relationships.
Sorry Kermit for being unclear.
It means that a few wealthy insiders sometimes benefit from unethical and even illegal and criminal activity, while a much larger number lose through misplaced trust in the system expecting fair regulation to keep them as safe as they should be. Most people have only a very superficial understanding of regulation and some of the more complicated and obscure – but very profitable – aspects of financial institutions.
I am discouraged at how few ordinary, reasonably well educated individuals are able to distinguish the differences in their local lending institutions. They do not seem to understand – or care about – the significant differences between banks, S&Ls, and credit unions. They don’t know how the different entitities are chartered, who regulates and insures them, who is allowed to own them, what sizes they are permitted to be, or how their lines of business differ. And that is the easy, comparatively simple stuff, nothing like the complexities of Wall Street.
If you don’t understand the businesses and activity, you can’t adequately address potential risk, leading to greater potential losses. Not to mention that if you don’t know about it in reasonable detail or understand the complexities, you can’t effectively address the regulation of it.
Something fun, offered especially for hizzoner our blog mayor and Mrs. Roosh – http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2525497.htm ; a fun little bit of science about the differences in responding to stock market traders, risk and the effects of male and female levels of testosterone.
I am discouraged at how few ordinary, reasonably well educated individuals are able to distinguish the differences in their local lending institutions. They do not seem to understand – or care about – the significant differences between banks, S&Ls, and credit unions.
Uh, DG, if a person does not seem to understand – or care about – such differences, they aren’t really “reasonably well educated,” no?
Mr. D writes::
“Uh, DG, if a person does not seem to understand – or care about – such differences, they aren’t really “reasonably well educated,” no? ”
Actually, they are often very well educated in a variety of other academic areas. It is my impression that this is an area that we do not address well in our basic K-12 education or even college level education requirements.
IRA offerings are generally rated on a scale of risk. Slight to major. A person is encouraged to make selection based on age, the older, the more risk adverse the investor should be.
Actually, they are often very well educated in a variety of other academic areas.
I know the type, DG. Babbling about Foucault doesn’t help a person balance a checkbook.
Mr. D says:
“I know the type, DG. Babbling about Foucault doesn’t help a person balance a checkbook. ”
To be fair D, there are a lot of people who are very intelligent and concientious, just not as well rounded as they should be. I don’t know how you came by your knowledge, but I didn’t learn about most of this stuff in school either, so I am reluctant to point a faulting finger.
I learned about it at home, around the family dinner table. My father was invited to address my class on the topic of finance and investments when I was in elementary school. No one else was familiar with the terminology of puts and calls and IPOs, the differences in the various exchanges, over the counter and under the counter transactions (No, perfectly legal business), and topics relating to bond markets, commodity trading, currency transactions, etc.
For a comparison, our own Mitch is a smart guy, and a conscientious parent. Presumably Bun and Zam are equally bright, the apples not falling far from the tree; benefitting from conscientious parenting, are well educated; and are in a fair age range for the question, between the ages of 10 and 21.
I would encourage Mitch to ask his kids if they can tell him the differences between S&Ls, banks, and Credit Unions, just as a sort of unscientific / anectdotal test. And I would encourage the other blog readers / commenters who have – how did Kermit put it? – ‘remaining dependents’ to ask them the same question.
Then share here – without of course revealing any identifying information that might embarrass the kid(s).
I think even tho unscientific, it would provide an interesting dimension to any larger discussion of regulation / deregulation.
Even when one is not as savy as ‘the big boys on THE street’ so to speak, there is a good rule of thumb to follow about transactions where one party is enormously savy, and the other is inexperienced. It is simple.
Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money. It invariably leads you to the responsible parties, who in the end are pretty much NEVER the less experienced, trusting individuals who had to rely on someone else’s expertise.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Love and Greed