Likewise, having the formidable, and seemingly strong priored Warren at the head of CPFA is dangerous. She seems to have strong beliefs and the analytical ability to plow through anyone in her way.
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/29/the-confirmation-bias-of-e-warren/
Its very strange to me that many seem to think its critical that the head of the consumer finance protection bureau not be too interesting in protecting consumers. and more so that they think its a convincing argument to anyone who's not out to support the financial industry over the rest of the country. And as many others have said, the politics of it before the midterms make the appointment a no brainer. sure the financial industry is gonna be pissed and they might weaken support for democrats in the future. but they're already pissed and many are already publicly blaming obama for economic weakness in spite of the unprecedented stimulus measures he's pushed through. so i'm operfectly happy to piss them off and try to keep our congressional majorities with a great, publically popular pick for CFPA.
By the way, there's more to Karl Smith's criticism of Warren, which is why I linked it, but it basically boiled down to she's too tough and she will have "confirmation bias", ie she thinks to banks need agressive regulation already and therefore will agresively regulate the banks even if the data doesn't warrant it. Well, lets just say i'm not too worried about the banks or their overregulation right now. After a couple decades of deregulation and growth in the financial industry's wealth and influence, i think they, their lobbyists and their pawns in congress are perfectly capable of looking after their interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment