Date registered: Apr 2004
Location: The BlueGrass State
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I find it interesting that a Congressperson of the Majority party felt necessary to produce a letter from Stiglitz in an effort to get the information she requests. While interesting, his request has no more merit that yours or mine. Hers on the other hand does.
The issues at hand are not that folks are trying to be secretive and hold back information for nefarious purpose, neither Obama nor Bushie did that. The issue is how you release very sensitive information that has very direct impact on the value of a company without damage to that company. And those companies in question, the counterparties to AIG are many.
As a metaphor earlier today I suggested to the group that I was talking with that if it was announced that the health department had, as preventative measures provided EVERY ONE OF THEM with drugs to combat sexually transmitted diseases, even though only a couple MIGHT have an STD the rest would find their social life drop to ZERO. Nobody would be getting laid.
Banks can't afford that same broad based "transparency", even though it seems good in the short run. In the big picture it has a potential of tainting all of them even though they are not toxic. That is not responsible or ethical.
Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.