The Cody Word
  • March 31, 2008 07:54 AM EDT by Cody Willard

    NYTimes Wall Street Reg Coverage: Preemptive Preemptiveness Preemptively

    Speaking of being preemptive, how about the relentless attack by the NYTimes on the pending new "regulations" proposal for Wall Street and the banking industry from Paulson and the administration.

    Don't get me wrong now, I'm all for bashing these proposal and all of the convoluted ways it will redistribute wealth from taxpayers to the government and its cronies on Wall Street (to be sure of course, any of these new regulation proposals from either fraternity party in Washington will will redistribute wealth from taxpayers to the government and its cronies on Wall Street just as the government always does "in the name of protecting you"), but the relentless front page attack on the NYTimes this weekend struck me for its very preemptiveness (ooh, nice word).

    News Analysis

    In Treasury Plan, a Reluctant Eye Over Wall Street

    By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ and FLOYD NORRIS

     

    The Bush administration is proposing the broadest overhaul of Wall Street regulation since the Great Depression. But the plan, to be unveiled on Monday, has its genesis in a yearlong effort to limit Washington’s role in the market.

    Editorial

    Toward New Rules for Wall Streete

    ...But early word from the Bush administration, which still has nine months to influence the debate and even start the nation down one path or another, is not altogether encouraging. On Monday, the administration is releasing a blueprint for regulatory reform, much of which was developed before the Bear mess, though it may still be important for further discussion...

    Treasury’s Plan Would Give Fed Wide New Power

    Published: March 29, 2008

    WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department will propose on Monday that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system.

    Doug Mills/The New York Times

    The proposal is part of a sweeping blueprint to overhaul the nation’s hodgepodge of financial regulatory agencies, which many experts say failed to recognize rampant excesses in mortgage lending until after they set off what is now the worst financial calamity in decades.

    Democratic lawmakers are all but certain to say the proposal does not go far enough in restricting the kinds of practices that caused the financial crisis.

    We'll hit on this subject and more when we discuss the proposals from Paulson and Washington on tonight's Happy Hour with Barron's Bob O'Brien.

    PS. Ever notice how funny a word preemptive is if you sound it out phonetically? Pree-mptive, as in rhymes with tree-empty?

S

Sometime in the 1990s CNBC coverage consciously was modeled after ESPN. (Howard Kurtz' book The Fortune Tellers details it.) Now it appears CNBC is consciously being modeled after Nickelodeon-- http://dealbreaker.com/2008/03/this_sounds_about_right.php

March 31, 2008 at 2:55 pm

SD

Some would say the reason why the New York Times can so preemptively write these stories is because regardless of the policy they'll just criticize it as long as a Republican occupies the White House. A study a few years ago argued that slants in economic reporting reflect which political party held office: "In a new paper, Kevin A. Hassett and John R. Lott Jr., economists at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization in Washington, say they have discovered that economic reporters commit the same archetypal sin: slanting the news unequivocally in favor of the Democrats ... The two economists combed through 389 newspapers and A.P. reports contained in the LexisNexis database from January 1991 through May 2004, during the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. They picked out headlines about gross domestic product growth, unemployment, retail sales and orders of durable goods and classified the headlines' depiction of the economy as either positive, negative, neutral or mixed. Then they crunched some numbers. They found that Mr. Clinton received better headlines than the two Republican presidents. Even after adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance under the three presidents, the Republicans received 20 to 30 percent fewer positive headlines, on average, for the same type of news, they concluded ... And Mr. Hassett and Mr. Lott said that their research is a serious attempt to quantify political bias, an area that has rarely been studied statistically ... " http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/business/yourmoney/12view.html

March 31, 2008 at 11:22 am

NV

Making the Fed responsible for 'stabilization' without any regulating/restricting the industry is akin to codifying the moral hazard. We can put more beachguards, with new watchtowers, but that wont stop anything. The NY Times is right to lead the charge. Government, we know, is often inefficient but the public good is rarely best served by the weak alternative of self regulation, If onlty we left big Pharma alone .....

March 31, 2008 at 10:30 am

about this blog

  • Cody Willard is an anchor on the FOX Business Network. Willard is also the principal of an investment management company. He was a long-time featured columnist for the Financial Times and TheStreet.com as well as a regular featured economist and stock picker on CNBC's ''Kudlow & Company."

most popular posts