Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 142 Editor's Choice: 23
-
@ Rosenkavalier
[Read the article: The crazy uncles in Obama's attic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you can go further with the "Obama Supporter" reaction:
OMG Obama's positions appeal to me--isn't everybody a college educated, young, and/or black person? The reason Democrats haven't won in the past is that the 25 to 30% of the electorate that meet this criteria have not had their needs catered to!
-
@ John Mead
[Read the article: The crazy uncles in Obama's attic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your screed illustrates how the Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.
I know that you must look down your nose at the voters that don't believe in your obvious truths--but like it or not, they elect the President. So perhaps they don't want to be characterized as racist accessories to crime and murder. It's just a thought.
-
So if it's in Broadsheet the woman has to be a victim?
[Read the article: T.G.I. Freaky! ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean really, Dina's an allegedly grown woman. Her ex-husband may have defrauded her technically, but I suspect he wanted it to work more than anyone.
She took her aggrieved woman show on the road after the Spitzer situation blew up--and she's now being burned. Kind of like how Ted Haggard pushed things a bit too far and his escort broke his tacit code of silence.
Ok, perhaps this is all made up by the McGreevy side--in which case I feel sorry for her. I doubt it, though with the Regan Books insider recounting the three way reference being taken out of the book, etc.
-
Note, that the previous was in support of the piece
[Read the article: T.G.I. Freaky! ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not a criticism of the piece (i.e. it was a response to letters criticizing the subject).
-
The bail out wasn't all that generous
[Read the article: The crash in Republican economics ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There may be some moral hazard engendered by shareholders getting $2 for their stock rather than $0, but not all that much. Bear was/is 30% owned by employees--I'm sure that none of them are particularly happy to have lost 99.5% or more of their shareholder value over the past 3 or so weeks.
One of the major issues that, I think, gets overlooked in the moral hazard equation is the fact that in the past 25 years the investment banks have been driven by capital needs to exit the partnership model that they were built on. Bear Employees were punished, but not as much as if most of their wealth was tied up in a partner capital account. One has a lot stronger incentive to keep an eye on his or her peers across the bank if they are risking your capital too.
So, one of the major market failures, in my opinion is that the moral hazard of employees and owners not being the same people (or 30% the same people) contributes too. Perhaps the fault isn't that markets can't self-regulate period, but that the primary actors in markets nowadays are playing with other people's money.
So perhaps at least some of the regulatory backlash should be directed at ensuring that traders and others that are making these markets have enough skin in the game that they aren't massively rewarded when times are good and stung mildly when times are bad.
Sort of reminds me of Linus (I think it was) with two identical ice cream cones. One falls on the ground and he says to Charlie Brown "That one was yours."
-
It's a slippery slope
[Read the article: Sexism in the pool]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you let one man do it, then the sport will be taken over by hordes of men who want to be in the Olympics for synchronized swimming.
Hmm, maybe not. Oh, it is probably because it seems "too gay" and unseemly for a man to do.
Or else it may truly be a case where people are afraid of unfair competiton--does he have an advantage in upper body strength due to his higher testosterone levels that do indeed give his team an unfair advantage?
We do separate men's and women's skating, golf, tennis, marathon running, etc. I think that adds to the diversity of sport and makes things more interesting (after all, women's tennis is a much more interesting and strategic game than men's power serve-focused game).
So while this guy perhaps ought to be able to compete, I don't see why he necessarily has a right to.
-
No threeways in the governor's mansion
[Read the article: Another day, another sex scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read the article--they ended before he became governor.
The actual truth is way more bourgeoise/swinger banal: a few drinks at the local T.G.I.Fridays (for God's sake) and a romp back at the condo.
Ew.
-
Missing the forest for the trees
[Read the article: Another day, another sex scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ms. Matos McGreevey is SUING her ex for defrauding her by pretending to be straight. Her team subpoenaed the guy who is making the three way claims. So that's why it is coming out (plus her rush to the spotlight with advice for Silda Wall Spitzer and politicians in general via the NY Times Op-Ed page and other media venues).
-
@ SalilM
[Read the article: The crash in Republican economics ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look at the spreads that have emerged between conforming and non-conforming mortgages (i.e. jumbos). So the selling on of mortgages makes more capital available to provide mortgages--the difference between the two types of mortgages being that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac can buy the conforming ones. Securitization has brought a lot more liquidity to the market.
This has also increased moral hazard, of course, since the lender and the one holding the mortgage aren't the same company/individual. Of course, the old system of banks and S&Ls taking short term deposits and lending them out for 30 years had significant issues too (not least being the duration mismatch). Remember the S&L bailout?
Then the markets admittedly went too far--slicing tranches, engineering new instruments, rating tranches based on thin tail risk models, etc. I don't think it is time to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. There are other things to do--e.g. mandate that the original lender retain some of the risk of the mortgage, etc...
-
The chairman of the Fed moves markets with pronouncements
[Read the article: Who predicted the credit crunch abyss?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is hardly to be expected that he'd talk up a financial crisis. There's a lot of things that have to be taken on faith in the economy (e.g. counterparty risk) that can cause problems. Saying a year ago: "hey everybody, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" might have been accurate, but not helpful.
So, a wise man might take the pronouncements of the chairman with a grain of salt and focus on the governors, as we see works well in this case.