Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Sex and Money: Are Women Regulators Different?

By Dean Baker, TruthOut.org. Posted December 27, 2008.


It is hard not to notice that two of the regulators who stand out for doing the right thing in this incredible financial mess are women.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It is hard not to notice that two of the regulators who stand out for doing the right thing in this incredible financial mess are women. Brooksley Born, as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Clinton, wanted to regulate credit default swaps and other derivative instruments back in the late 90s. Her effort was torpedoed by Clinton's economic heavyweights: Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.

More recently, Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation (FDIC), has been a pesky voice, arguing that the purpose of the financial bailouts is not to ensure that the Robert Rubins of the world get to keep their day jobs at the Wall Street banks. She has been arguing that the banks that received public money should be required to rewrite mortgage terms so that more homeowners are able to stay in their homes.

The role of these two women is surprising because finance, and its regulation, continues to be an area that is heavily dominated by men. Therefore, it is striking that just about the only regulators who stand out for trying to do the right thing in this tsunami of garbage finance are women.

While some of the luminaries of the economics profession might seek to explain the unusual role of women regulators by biological differences between the sexes, there is a more obvious explanation. Basically, the women who enter the financial world have not been fully integrated into the club. They are still outsiders. Therefore, they are more likely to blow the whistle on the sweet deals that can make hundreds of millions for the boys, while leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

This point was made explicitly in a surreptitious campaign to undermine Bair's standing in the Obama administration. According to one of the anonymous complainants, Bair is not a team player.

This statement was intended as an indictment of her conduct as FDIC chair, but it actually looks like the highest possible form of praise. After all, this team of financial regulators makes the 1962 Mets look like world champions. If Bair doesn't fit in, then this is all for the good.

If we needed any further evidence that the financial industry suffered from too much deference to insiders, Bernard Madoff filled the gap. He apparently ran a simple-minded Ponzi scheme for 30 years, stealing tens of billions of dollars from wealthy individuals, private charities and even large banks.

When some investors and reporters raised suspicions about Mr. Madoff, no one bothered to seriously investigate because he was such a good guy. After all, he belonged to all the right clubs, generously supported charities and was even a founder of the Nasdaq.

The regulators don't investigate respectable people like Madoff, and this is precisely the problem.

The regulators are not supposed to be friends of the financial industry. They are the cops, who keep the industry from running off with our money. Remember, the big actors in the industry all benefit from a government insurance policy called "too big to fail."

As any good believer in the free market knows, the finance boys will do everything they can to maximize the value of this government insurance policy. This means taking the biggest possible risks since, at the end of the day, the taxpayers, not the firm's creditors or executives, will pick up the tab. The financial regulators are the ones who are supposed to keep the banks from taking advantage of their government provided insurance, in addition to keeping them from ripping off pension funds, small city school districts, private charities, and any other suckers they find.

It remains to be seen whether the Obama administration will be prepared to seriously regulate the financial industry. President Obama did pick a woman, Mary Schapiro, to be head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but her past associations with the financial industry make her look like one of the boys.

In the holiday spirit, perhaps we should give Schapiro and Obama the benefit of the doubt. But the reality is that the US financial industry is a cesspool. Cleaning it up must be a top priority for the Obama administration. The public must insist on a much smaller, cleaner industry and long jail sentences for the folks who brought us this economic disaster.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, regulation, economic crisis

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yeah they're different, they're even worse.
Posted by: Livemike on Dec 27, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Brooksley Born, as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Clinton, wanted to regulate credit default swaps and other derivative instruments back in the late 90s." Which would have made them as responsible and well managed as the rest of the mortgage industry. No thanks.

"Sheila Bair... has been arguing that the banks that received public money should be required to rewrite mortgage terms so that more homeowners are able to stay in their homes."

So it's not enough that these morons helped destroy the economy, we have to pay for them to stay in their house too? Wow that's a bad deal even by government standards.

Face it regulation only serves to help justify bad decisions to investors on the basis that it must be safe or the regulators wouldn't allow it. This doesn't work. Let the free market rule and the chips fall where they may.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does this mean...
Posted by: tjg1984 on Dec 27, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that men may have "better views" on certain other topics?

Please don't reflexively give this comment a 1. I'm not implying that men are better than women or anything like that. I really don't like generalizations across groups as large as an entire sex. I'm just wondering, if it's possible to make positive generalizations of this sort about women, is it at least possible to make similar positive generalizations about men?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No. The ones “less fortunate” than me have raped me twice.
Posted by: Honkie the Nihilist on Dec 27, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I made 70 K last year but I do not own a house. Do you know why? Because those dirt bags artificially raised the prices of houses with their adjustable rate, no interest down mortgages. Now that they can not pay the mortgage, I am supposed to feel compassion and let them rape me again? No. I would rather seem them and their god forsaken children living in a van down by the river and given hand jobs for nickels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kinda sexist dont you think?
Posted by: bizeeb on Dec 27, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell is the point of this article; it's explicit male-bashing. Not too enlightened if you ask me. Like a lot of others, I used to think that "if women were in charge, the world would be a better place, more humane and caring, no war, etc." But then I think of Margaret Thatcher, Condi Rice, Golda Meir, Madeline Albright, and yes, the hawkish Hillary Clinton. I've had female bosses that were just as ruthless and petty as any of the males I've worked for.

If, like Steinem and other feminists have argued for years, men and women are the same, then how could the above article be referring to anything more than a coincidence? The answer to misogyny is not it's opposite, misandry, so let's not even go there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. Posted by: maxpayne
» Sexist Posted by: kepstein7777
» O.K. Now what? Posted by: bizeeb
Minerals Management Service
Posted by: ceti on Dec 27, 2008 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought this story was actually about the Minerals Management Service, where women regulators engaged in corrupt practices, including having sex and doing drugs with oil and mining lobbyists.

And then you have Nancy Pelosi who represents the absolute corruption of power as house speaker.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Actual Evidence
Posted by: Porky on Dec 27, 2008 6:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most pressing question here is whether or not these women are representative of women in finance, and the writer does not answer this question. Are they just as much an exception as the men who do what the writer considers the "right thing"? More so? Less so? Until we know, it's all speculation. And yes, it is a rather anti-male article, precisely because it offers no evidence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a complete about face
Posted by: robertkamper on Dec 28, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to be against capital punishment,
but now I think capitalist criminals
deserve capital punishment.
maybe that would reduce the incentives
to commit these acts that unenforced
regulations don't inhibit.

on the other hand,
if it works as well as it has
with violent crimes...

don't expect anything to change rapidly except the climate

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SEXIST DOG!
Posted by: ds1st on Dec 28, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SEXIST DOG!

This caught my eye because of the sexist concept.

Women are NO better at finance than men.

Take a look at Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. These ladies can’t add let alone comprehend finance. Through their special interest groups and crazy programs they have helped to put California 50 billion in the hole (political piggies).

Pelosi’s and Boxer’s only solution to get California out of the hole is to increase taxes. They are tax and spend liberals. Don’t cancel wasteful project, just double the gas tax.

When are taxes enough, 50%, 60%, 70%? We are their already.

Here is an IDEA. How about Pelosi SELLING her personal tax funded “JET”, she complains about Detroit’s CEOs.

Step up to the plate PELOSI (A.K.A. political piggy)!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for the questions
Posted by: SalB on Dec 29, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this, I could imagine the tons of comments from so-called liberal folk [dare I say men?] declaring that this article is sexist. It seems that any talk of gender to these people is sexist, making it impossible to talk about the vast gulfs that exist between men and women in most parts of society. It is a great tactic to throw people off balance and shut them up so that everyone can leave thinking that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo.

When you step back, you can see the emotion taking over rational brains, creating panic as soon as any kind of blame for anything is put on the sex that still occupies most of the positions of power in the world.

This article made me think back to an article posted a few months ago about a Harvard study of the role of testosterone in risk-taking on Wall Street. As I recall, the comment section of that article was also filled with whiny patriarchy apologists furious about an imagined accusation of sexism. I hope that the Alternet staff is able to see through these and continue to post thoughtful and rational interpretations of observations like this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flaming Males = Bullies trying Gag Rules
Posted by: odcherenow on Dec 29, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us turn off the knee-jerk squeal of "sexism".
The facts talk.
82% of the whistle-blowers of the past decade have been women, from Enron corruption to the 9/11 blind spot, from the alleged WMD's to this latest fiscal fiasco.
And the Flash Back! Whew, the bullying and ranting that accompanies the women who speak truth to power is immediate, irrational and entirely predictable. Basta!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet is sexist
Posted by: anarchris on Jan 2, 2009 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It is hard not to notice that two of the regulators who stand out for doing the right thing in this incredible financial mess are women."

It's not 'hard not to notice' at all for a would be physician who would heal the world of supremacist sexism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Us vs them
Posted by: anarchris on Jan 2, 2009 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the predictable denials by feminazis on alternet reminds me of the recent refusal by 'womyn' at carleton university who voted to cut funding for a fund raiser for cystic fibrosis because they ignorantly believed that the disease affects mostly white males. it's been considered normal for pseudo liberals now for the last two decades that females are morally superior to males in the name of an end to sexism. having seen articles like this one on alternet, i've come to the conclusion that alternet is one of the sources of the belief that this constitutes progress. this is why although i consider myself progressive, i don't consider myself a liberal anymore. and it is also why i'm no longer going to receive newsletters from alternet as they are promoting hatred and do not represent a force for love and justice. good riddance
anarchris

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement