Nobel Laureate Stiglitz Blocked From SEC Panel After Faulting High-Speed Traders
Source: Bloomberg News
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate economist who called for a tax on high-frequency trading, has been blocked from a government panel that will advise regulators on issues facing U.S. equity markets, according to people familiar with the matter.
Stiglitzs rejection shows the partisan infighting that has bogged down Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo Whites plan to set up a panel of experts to advise the agency on topics ranging from rapid-fire stock trading to dark pools.
Republican Commissioner Daniel Gallagher opposed Stiglitzs nomination in recent weeks as White sought to complete the list of participants, according to two people who asked to not be identified because the deliberations were private. Democratic Commissioner Luis Aguilar had pushed for Stiglitz, who has said high-frequency trading isnt good for financial markets and should be curbed, possibly through a tax.
I think they may not have felt comfortable with somebody who was not in one way or another owned by the industry, Stiglitz said in a phone interview.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-05/stiglitz-blocked-from-sec-panel-after-faulting-high-speed-trades.html#comment-1772649605
Note: Gallagher was appointed to the SEC by President Obama.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He had to replace Casey with a Republican.
You do understand that the Dems get 3 seats, maximum, right????
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)
But if you sniff at that, you are aware there were a lot of Republicans out there who Obama could have selected instead of Gallagher, whose first time around as a SEC counsel was part of the reason 2008 happened in the first place?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)want to 1) look up the statutes and regulations governing the matter you are talking about, and, 2) double check that the President is actually 'guilty' of what you accuse him of.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)-- one of the very same Republicans who helped bring about the 2008 bailout scam, no less -- when he had the choice to appoint a third Democrat.
http://www.sec.gov/about/commissioner.shtml#.VKtDD8lOK5I
The Securities and Exchange Commission has five Commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Their terms last five years and are staggered so that one Commissioner's term ends on June 5 of each year. To ensure that the Commission remains non-partisan, no more than three Commissioners may belong to the same political party. The President also designates one of the Commissioners as Chairman, the SEC's top executive.
Thanks for making it easy for me.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)First, you complain that the President didn't appoint anybody from a third party. You were wrong. Now, you seem to be complaining that he didn't appoint enough Democrats.
Mary Jo White, the Independent, NOMINATED Stiglitz. Why are you complaining about her?
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)
Or you did well in school -- and cheated your way all the way through it.
I didn't say a word about Mary Jo White in regards to Stiglitz (I didn't even mention Mary Jo White's name or allude to her in the first place). And, actually, contrary to your B.S., it was probably Luis Aguilar, not Mary Jo White, who likely nominated Stiglitz for the panel.
Also, I mentioned that Obama could have appointed a third party person instead of the Republican Gallagher after you attempted to mislead the board here to believe that Obama had, in fact, already appointed three Democrats to the SEC commission, whereby you further falsely stated that "He (Obama) had to replace Casey with a Republican."
So, if Obama appointed Mary Jo White to the SEC commission as an Independent, then he had the luxury to appoint three, not just two, Democrats to the five-person commission, -- or at least three members, including other "independents", who aren't Republicans. And needless to say, despite your horse$hit, he was under no legal requirement to appoint another Republican in place of whoever preceded Gallagher -- Gallagher now serving his as a SEC commissioner (thanks to Obama) after misusing his earlier stint (under Bush) as SEC chair Cox's chief counsel to impoverish much of the United States.
You know, there is a "self-delete" feature available to all DU members to remove any of their own posts should those posts be self-embarrassing and unintentionally laughable. I suggest you make good use of this feature.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)post again and see if you can figure out why your own post contradicts your claims.
I am also going to suggest to you that bother to read the statute that covers appointments. Do you need the citation?
You seem to be at sixes and sevens......perhaps take a deep breath? And after you've read the actual statute, I expect you to apologize to me, since I correctly delineated the law with regards to Casey's replacement.....
What's telling in your diatribe against me is your refusal to cite the actual statute.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)you have been blathering about that Obama, in the case of Gallagher, was "forced" to appoint a Republican when he didn't actually have to.
Funny how you so far haven't been able to cite it yourself. Funnier even that you claimed that it was Mary Jo White who nominated Stiglitz to the HFT panel when it was actually someone else.
But not as funny as the fact that you're on these boards.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cannot have missed it.
Then....read the statute. Do you need the cite?
I'm giving you the opportunity to figure out why a Republican replaced a Republican on the SEC board because I think it is a valuable lesson in civics.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)And that's no "constitutional requirement" I linked to.
You lost. Good luck with your attempts at Monumental Horse$hit elsewhere -- you will need it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)a trick question. In fact....full disclosure...I'm going to modify this exchange and use it as a test question.
Do you give up???
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)look at Post #7....
The President appoints, with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is your constitutional requirement, right there in your first sentence! .....the President cannot merely appoint, but must also get Senate approval. Further, according to the statute covering the Commissioners, the President is required to stagger or alternate appointments between the parties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d
What that means in practical terms is that since the time of FDR, you've essentially had a 3/2 split, depending on who was in power. But, the non-Presidential party has always held 2 seats. President Obama got a unanimous approval with Mary Jo White, as an Independent.
Now, you've suggested that what the President should have done was appoint three Democrats, plus Mary Jo White as an Independent. That would have left one Republican seat.
Okay---can you show us how that would be accomplished? Your answer should incorporate 1) the statutory obligation of alternation (you can find who was appointed when on Wikipedia or the sec website) 2) practical analysis of the advise and consent requirement, and 3) political reality...specifically, how in the Hell you would get the Senate to agree.
Perhaps Dennis Kucinich could have accomplished this. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will. Why don't you tell us how they can do it?
On edit--you are correct---Aguilar *probably* nominated Stiglitz to the panel White created (this is unconfirmed, but seems like good intel.) It looks like White tried to be inclusive in making this panel, but that only led to Repubs being able to block. I hope she can correct that. Stiglitz should absolutely be there.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)and Vince Bugliosi as Attorney General.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Then, at another meeting, Summers said it again: What would Goldman think?
http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/
Stiglitz is a reliable advocate of the public interest over banks. Goldman wouldn't think much of that.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts).... fixing Wall Street.
And when Wall Street comes expecting to make a deal, they's tell Wall Street the same thing Roosevelt told J. P. Morgan when he thought he could make a deal to save his Great Northern Railroad Trust: "not interested" (and proceeded to have his Attorney General file suit under the Sherman Act.)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)they ban him. It is their lose.
1step
(380 posts)High-Level Traitors!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)of the financial sector on any of the regulatory boards?
...I guess not. That would make too much sense.