Originally posted by ScriabinThanks for the information Scriabin. I was particularly fascinated with this section of your post:
The US taxpayer is the victim of a vast, centrist conspiracy, at the center of which is the investment bank Goldman Sachs.
Here's the latest:
N.Y. Fed Chairman Friedman resigns
Wall Street Journal story raised questions about his ties to Goldman Sachs
Reuters
updated 8:34 p.m. ET, Thurs., May 7, 2009 [...]
Stephen Friedman, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank’s board of directors, resigned on Thursday amid questions about his purchases of stock in his former firm, Goldman Sachs.
Friedman, a retired chairman of Goldman Sachs who has led the New York Fed’s board since January 2008, said he quit to prevent criticism about his stock buying from becoming a distraction as the Fed battles a severe U.S. recession.
“Although I have been in compliance with the rules, my public service motivated continuation on the Reserve Bank Board is being mischaracterized as improper,” he said in a letter of resignation to New York Fed President William Dudley.
“The Federal Reserve System has important work to do and does not need this distraction,” Friedman said.
The U.S. central bank is comprised of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, and 12 regional Fed banks.
Some of the regional directors are appointed by the Washington-based board. Those directors are not allowed to own shares of bank holding companies, a status that Goldman Sachs won in September to secure access to Fed lending facilities.
Friedman bought Goldman shares in December 2008 and in January of this year, which became public with a Wall Street Journal report on Monday.
Friedman obtained a waiver of the bank stock ownership rules, which the Journal said was granted just before he bought stock in January, that allowed him to hold them until the end of this year. Last week, he said he would resign by then.
Defenders and detractors
The top lawyer at the New York Fed said Friedman had done nothing wrong.
“It is my view that these purchases did not violate any Federal Reserve statute, rule or policy,” the bank’s general counsel, Thomas Baxter, said in a statement.
Denis Hughes, the deputy chair of the New York Fed’s board and president of the New York State AFL-CIO, will now be the acting chair, the New York Fed said.
While the Fed was deciding whether or not to grant Friedman a waiver, he bought 37,300 Goldman shares on December 17, for an average price of $80.78, according to regulatory filings.
On January 22, he bought 15,300 more shares for average prices of $66.19 and $67.12, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The January purchase brought his total holdings to 98,600 shares.
Goldman shares closed on Thursday at $133.73, meaning Friedman has profited handsomely, earning more than $3 million in total on the two purchases.
“Clearly he should not have done that (bought more Goldman shares), and probably even before he did that, he should have gotten off the board,” said Alfred Broaddus, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
John Dunbar, a senior fellow at the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, said the stock purchases were a “complete conflict of interest.”
“It is almost comical. If you tried to do that in a more traditional Washington bureaucracy, there is no way on earth you would get away with that,” he said.
Fed insiders were also troubled over the situation, which they felt cast a question mark over ethical standards at the central bank.
“All the other banks are furious. No one else would have let this happen,” said one official at another regional Fed bank. “We’ve always made people leave (to avoid a conflict),” said the official, who requested anonymity given the delicacy of the situation.
Originally posted by whodeyok, the whole nasty thing is an act. thought it might provoke some sharp and bright, informed responses just out of revenge.
:'(
Come on now guys, surely someone wants to play with Scrabi.....anyone? I'm sure he will play nice....maybe. Anyone?
clearly, nothing will motivate people to learn something about that which they choose to speak -- perhaps only Obama does that.
of course, you can research all you like and still get it wrong, simply because one always promotes an agenda, and sometimes that agenda is a crock (e.g., Pelosi decrying waterboarding ...)
still, more fun to duel with facts than with mere knee jerk partisan cant
so, we'll have to make do with another, more tedious method.
You asked for it, don't blame me -- I'm going Socratic
Originally posted by generalissimoand a truly sagacious one who remains above the fray -- he can't be troubled to join in on most substantive issues, so he snipes -- so what.
Looks like you're accusing people of things you actually do, again.
FMF is a forum character.
As I've said elsewhere, let FMF be FMF -- it's all good.
only those who HAVE to be right (and thus do not really know how to debate) are troubled by his technique, or mine, for that matter.
Anyway, I'm changing the "character"
maybe another approach will yield more fun
Originally posted by FMFsee? his technique is to call what others do "odd" and say he's "above the fray."
Didn't accuse him of anything. I just cut & paste his own words.
It's odd how you seem to stumble and fumble in almost every single post you make.
I think that's artful and precious -- give the man his due, cucumber sandwiches and tea with the pinkie sticking out, a bowler or a humburg and a bumbershoot ..
FMF and Bertie Wooster don't spoil a pair in some ways ...
Originally posted by ScriabinMmmm. This sounds like the old, boring Scriabin, actually.
see? his technique is to call what others do "odd" and say he's "above the fray."
I think that's artful and precious -- give the man his due, cucumber sandwiches and tea with the pinkie sticking out, a bowler or a humburg and a bumbershoot ..
FMF and Bertie Wooster don't spoil a pair in some ways ...
Originally posted by FMFwell, glad to give you the news -- now, why did you reprint all that?
Thanks for the information Scriabin. I was particularly fascinated with this section of your post:
Stephen Friedman, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank’s board of directors, resigned on Thursday amid questions about his purchases of stock in his former firm, Goldman Sachs.
Friedman, a retired chairman of Goldman Sachs who has led the New York Fe ...[text shortened]... id a conflict),” said the official, who requested anonymity given the delicacy of the situation.
why not react to the news?
I don't care if you agree with me, or whether I'm "right" or not -- I think I am, but I put all that there so you would have enough to delve a little deeper and come up with a view of your own.
Why can't you spend the time you use cutting and pasting what other people say i forming an informed opinion.
You seem intelligent enough to do it; why not give it a go?
For instance, would you venture an opinion a to why Hank Paulson, Bush last Treasury Sec and before that CEO of Goldman Sachs, saved Bear Stearns but let Lehman go under, setting off the world-wide stock crash?
Originally posted by FMFIs it understandable you'd feel my responses were made with hostile intent?
I want to change my avatar and forum settings to something befitting "intelligent enough" first. Being double-teamed by Scriabin and generalissimo has made me feel insecure.
Or is it unreasonable to expect that with my new forum "persona" I'm merely trying to draw you out?
Could it be that I am truly interested in your take, since you are, after all, a well educated, quite literate inhabitant of an advanced society, albeit not your own, living on the other side of the world?
Could it be that I'm willing to take into account your Western upbringing, as well as your Indonesian perspective?
Couldn't be that there is something of value there?
Or do I really have to rely on either Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly?