Short of purchasing the book, Reckless Endangement,
I have been reading reviews of it, and surfing for items
about Barney Frank and the F&F's.
There's a lot of talk about the financial crisis, but when it comes to accusations,
there is little or nothing being said to justify labeling Frank as being "on the take"
or causing F&F to fail, or even having a causal role in the financial collapse.
It's clear he drives the GOP and WSJ crazy, but maybe that's not all bad.
The link you cite above is typical in content to what I have read.
Of course, there is the option is to reject the content based upon the source.
To wit:
Quote:
As Dodd-Frank crept through Congress, it was steadily weakened.
The Senate voted down a ban on a pernicious derivative, naked credit default swaps.
An attack on “too big to fail” — explicit size limitations for financial institutions
— was also kept out of Dodd-Frank,
even though the humongous size of financial institutions made necessary
the bailouts that Congress supposedly despised.
There was no serious limit on executive compensation, even though lust for bonuses
was also a direct cause of the recklessness that nearly sabotaged the economy.
<snip>
Obviously, Frank can’t be faulted for the majority of the shortcomings of Dodd-Frank.
No congressman, no matter how skilled a negotiator, could have made Dodd-Frank
into the market reform mechanism that it was never destined to be.
|