Let it not be said that authorities never accept conspiracy theories. At the Post Gary Weiss endorsed two: Here’s a field guide to prevalent Wall Street conspiracy theories, with each one graded … on a sliding scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “fugetaboutit” and 5 being “damn right.”
They did give money to some Republicans, and so we can say to some extent they like them. They gave even more money to Democrats (perhaps they figured it was a Dem year, so best to donate to them, perhaps they're just concentrated in "blue states"). I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would make a Republican immune from attacks from Democrats and I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would immunize a Democrat against Republican attacks. There is no reason to conclude that based on Republican attacks on Geithner he cannot be in the pocket of Wall Street. It would seem more sensible to conclude that Democrats and Republicans will attack each other no matter what, decrying policies/actions they supported when the shoe was on the other foot.
By transitivity, if Paulson is not different then Geithner, and Paulson is a Republican, then what you said about the financial sector liking democrats means they like Republicans.
I don't get your point about the Republican party. The financial sector (Goldman Sachs in particular) donated more to Obama & the Dems than McCain & the GOP last election. Michael Milken and Martha Stewart are both Democrats (and no, they're not former Republicans mugged by the justice system). I don't take that to mean that Wall Street is tight with Dems, just that one's relationship with it has little to do with how the GOP acts toward you.
Goldman Sachs was just about the only investment bank which had the good sense of betting against the financial/real estate bubble once the evidence for its bubblicious character had become overwhelming. So the first 'conspiracy theory' is quite right, but it's also not really surprising that GS would have a lot of market power and political influence right now.
If Geithner were in the pocket of Wall Street, the Republican party would not be after him. Counterfactually, I like it when people say that he is in the pocket of Wall Street, because that will make him more sensitive. And, frankly, to show he wasn't in their pocket he did not do what they wanted in February--buy bad assets willy, nilly ala Resolution Trust Corp--but rather strung it out with the Pipp. We would have really transferred a lot of money to banks if we had done otherwise in February.
They did give money to some Republicans, and so we can say to some extent they like them. They gave even more money to Democrats (perhaps they figured it was a Dem year, so best to donate to them, perhaps they're just concentrated in "blue states"). I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would make a Republican immune from attacks from Democrats and I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would immunize a Democrat against Republican attacks. There is no reason to conclude that based on Republican attacks on Geithner he cannot be in the pocket of Wall Street. It would seem more sensible to conclude that Democrats and Republicans will attack each other no matter what, decrying policies/actions they supported when the shoe was on the other foot.
By transitivity, if Paulson is not different then Geithner, and Paulson is a Republican, then what you said about the financial sector liking democrats means they like Republicans.
I don't get your point about the Republican party. The financial sector (Goldman Sachs in particular) donated more to Obama & the Dems than McCain & the GOP last election. Michael Milken and Martha Stewart are both Democrats (and no, they're not former Republicans mugged by the justice system). I don't take that to mean that Wall Street is tight with Dems, just that one's relationship with it has little to do with how the GOP acts toward you.
Goldman Sachs was just about the only investment bank which had the good sense of betting against the financial/real estate bubble once the evidence for its bubblicious character had become overwhelming. So the first 'conspiracy theory' is quite right, but it's also not really surprising that GS would have a lot of market power and political influence right now.
If Geithner were in the pocket of Wall Street, the Republican party would not be after him. Counterfactually, I like it when people say that he is in the pocket of Wall Street, because that will make him more sensitive. And, frankly, to show he wasn't in their pocket he did not do what they wanted in February--buy bad assets willy, nilly ala Resolution Trust Corp--but rather strung it out with the Pipp. We would have really transferred a lot of money to banks if we had done otherwise in February.
They did give money to some Republicans, and so we can say to some extent they like them. They gave even more money to Democrats (perhaps they figured it was a Dem year, so best to donate to them, perhaps they're just concentrated in "blue states"). I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would make a Republican immune from attacks from Democrats and I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would immunize a Democrat against Republican attacks. There is no reason to conclude that based on Republican attacks on Geithner he cannot be in the pocket of Wall Street. It would seem more sensible to conclude that Democrats and Republicans will attack each other no matter what, decrying policies/actions they supported when the shoe was on the other foot.
By transitivity, if Paulson is not different then Geithner, and Paulson is a Republican, then what you said about the financial sector liking democrats means they like Republicans.
I have not read Too Big to Fail but I am aware of Paulson. He does not seem that different to me from Geithner.
I had some earlier thoughts on conspiracies here:http://manwhoisthursday.blo...
Ever heard of Paulson? Ever read Too Big to Fail?
I don't get your point about the Republican party. The financial sector (Goldman Sachs in particular) donated more to Obama & the Dems than McCain & the GOP last election. Michael Milken and Martha Stewart are both Democrats (and no, they're not former Republicans mugged by the justice system). I don't take that to mean that Wall Street is tight with Dems, just that one's relationship with it has little to do with how the GOP acts toward you.
Goldman Sachs was just about the only investment bank which had the good sense of betting against the financial/real estate bubble once the evidence for its bubblicious character had become overwhelming. So the first 'conspiracy theory' is quite right, but it's also not really surprising that GS would have a lot of market power and political influence right now.
If Geithner were in the pocket of Wall Street, the Republican party would not be after him. Counterfactually, I like it when people say that he is in the pocket of Wall Street, because that will make him more sensitive. And, frankly, to show he wasn't in their pocket he did not do what they wanted in February--buy bad assets willy, nilly ala Resolution Trust Corp--but rather strung it out with the Pipp. We would have really transferred a lot of money to banks if we had done otherwise in February.
They did give money to some Republicans, and so we can say to some extent they like them. They gave even more money to Democrats (perhaps they figured it was a Dem year, so best to donate to them, perhaps they're just concentrated in "blue states"). I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would make a Republican immune from attacks from Democrats and I don't think being in the pocket of Wall Street would immunize a Democrat against Republican attacks. There is no reason to conclude that based on Republican attacks on Geithner he cannot be in the pocket of Wall Street. It would seem more sensible to conclude that Democrats and Republicans will attack each other no matter what, decrying policies/actions they supported when the shoe was on the other foot.
By transitivity, if Paulson is not different then Geithner, and Paulson is a Republican, then what you said about the financial sector liking democrats means they like Republicans.
I have not read Too Big to Fail but I am aware of Paulson. He does not seem that different to me from Geithner.
I had some earlier thoughts on conspiracies here:http://manwhoisthursday.blo...
Ever heard of Paulson? Ever read Too Big to Fail?
I don't get your point about the Republican party. The financial sector (Goldman Sachs in particular) donated more to Obama & the Dems than McCain & the GOP last election. Michael Milken and Martha Stewart are both Democrats (and no, they're not former Republicans mugged by the justice system). I don't take that to mean that Wall Street is tight with Dems, just that one's relationship with it has little to do with how the GOP acts toward you.
Goldman Sachs was just about the only investment bank which had the good sense of betting against the financial/real estate bubble once the evidence for its bubblicious character had become overwhelming. So the first 'conspiracy theory' is quite right, but it's also not really surprising that GS would have a lot of market power and political influence right now.
If Geithner were in the pocket of Wall Street, the Republican party would not be after him. Counterfactually, I like it when people say that he is in the pocket of Wall Street, because that will make him more sensitive. And, frankly, to show he wasn't in their pocket he did not do what they wanted in February--buy bad assets willy, nilly ala Resolution Trust Corp--but rather strung it out with the Pipp. We would have really transferred a lot of money to banks if we had done otherwise in February.