SEC bigwig blasts the agency at his retirement party

This was on NHPR this morning, although a quickly Google did not confirm it.  I missed the guy's name (NHPR is bad on names, they only  use them once and go with pronouns for the rest of the piece). 
Anyhow they had him in the studio and he used some fairly tough language to condemn the SEC for not prosecuting the biggies on Wall Street, and going after the small fry.  Which is true enough.  Nobody of consequence has been prosecuted over the 2007 crash that kicked off Great Depression 2.0.
   This guy totally didn't understand what te SEC is supposed to be doing.  He thinks the agency's mission is to prosecute Wall Streeters.  Not so.  The SEC was created after the 1929 crash with a mission to prevent another crash.  The 1929 crash caused 10 years of misery (the Great Depression) and was a major factor in kicking off WWII.  The Great Depression traveled to Germany and had a lot to do with bringing Hitler to power in 1933.  The 2007 crash was as bad as the 1929 one.  The SEC failed to prevent it.  That's total mission failure.  We ought to disband the SEC, fire all the employees, burn all their files.  And start up something new.
   Prevention, means regulations forbidding risky practices such as mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, derivatives, high speed trading,  excessive leverage, and banks playing the stock market with FDIC insured money.  Wall Street is supposed to be a place where companies go to raise money for expansion.  It is not supposed to be a casino. 
   Any how, all this retiring SEC big wig can find to complain about is a lack of high profile scalps.  This is a man who doesn't understand his job.

Obama says nice things about LBJ

He is on Fox News, making a speech about how great the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was. And how great LBJ was for pushing it thru the Congress, over the dead bodies of the Southern Democrats.  And I agree, it was a good thing.
   On the other hand I remember  LBJ was the man who took the country to war and worse, to defeat, in Viet Nam.  That was a bad thing. 

Greeks selling new bonds

This was on NHPR this morning.  For the first time in five years, the Greek government is offering bonds.  And people are buying them.  I'd like to interview some of those buyers, just to see if they are as stupid as they look.  Greece is still an economic disaster, 25% unemployment, a vast civil service drawing their pay to impede economic growth, with a neo Nazi party (Golden Dawn) gathering strength, and a mountain of debt equivalent to many years of GNP.  And these "investors" think they will get paid back?  And are willing to accept this kind of risk for a mere 5% interest?  When they can buy the soundest investment on the planet (US T bills) for 3%?  They are willing to take all the risks in Greek bonds for a measely 5%?
  Lots a Luck. 

Boston Marathon goes off this month

Which sparked a few rehashes of the Tsaernov (the bomber) case.  In actual fact, the Russians tipped us off the the Tsaernov's were mixed up with Chechen terrorists, in fact had visited Chechnia and attended a terrorist training camp.  US authorities botched the tip.  Tsaernov was never investigated.  The feds didn't bother to talk to the Cambridge police (Tsaernov lived in Cambridge).  Fox News has been complaining that the Boston police were never notified.  Forget that.  Boston is another town.  I doubt a Boston cop would even know where Webster Avenue is, let alone know anyone to talk too in the neighborhood.  Whereas the Cambridge cops, local boys all, probably have a couple of guys on the force who went to high school with the Tsaernov brothers, or who lived on their street. 
  Anyhow, we blew a solid tip from the Russians. 

Words of the Weasel Part 39

We have been hearing "investment" as a replacement for "spending" from Democrats.  This morning I heard a new one from Steney Hoyer, House Minority leader.  He talked about "disinvestment" where real people would have said "spending cut".   Does "disinvestment" sound better than "spending cut"?   Depends I suppose, on whether you believe in more spending  or less spending. 

What's the matter with Common Core?

Beats me.  I took the trouble to find Common Core in the Internet.  It's wordy.  Written by Ed majors ignorant of  Strunk and White.  Since it was so wordy and so tedious, I just read the mathematics section.  I didn't see anything terribly wrong there.  It covered most of what I had in high school.  It was a little watered down from what I remembered, but then I was lucky to attend a truly top flight high school and I was happy with math. It's probably not the end of the world to set the bar a tad lower for a national standard.
   I've seen a lot of talk about who created Common Core.  Some say it's a state effort, some say it's a federal government effort.  This "origins" argument seems petty to me.  Doesn't matter where it comes from, is it any good?  Does anyone know?   Has anyone contrasted Common Core with what New Hampshire does now? 
  I've heard a fair amount of opposition to Common Core coming from teachers.  I tend to discount this, as many teachers dislike anyone setting any sort of standards to which they might be held.
   I've also heard talk that Common Core is a conspiracy among the publishing industry to sell books and test materials.  The sales pitch would be, "You need to supply your students with this up-to-date Common Core text book."  "You need to buy these Common Core compliant tests."  I suppose.  I still remember beginning school years with teachers handing out well worn textbooks from previous years.  I always felt lucky to get a copy that still had both covers attached to it. 
   Common Core seems to heating up.  Someone on Fox News commented the Jeb Bush might be hurt politically by his support for Common Core. 

Why the Roman Empire Fell.

 This chart by Dr. A.J. Parker shows the number of Mediterranean shipwrecks by date of sinking.  The number of wrecks is proportional to the number of sailings.  And the number of ship sailings is a measure of economic activity, especially so in an age when everything moved by water. 
  Most interesting is the dating.  Notice the steady, almost exponential grow that starts 500-600 BC and keeps growing strongly until the first century BC.  About then, the Roman Republic came unglued and the Roman emperors, Julius, Augustus and company take over.  Notice also the decline in shipping that sets in at about the same time.  By the time we get to Constantine, commerce is down by two thirds from its peak.  In short, Constantine, who starts the retrenchment of the Empire, had only a third of the wealth to pay his armies and support his government that Augustus had at his disposal. 
   With this chart one can make a good argument that the freer and more democratic institutions of the Republic encouraged commerce and industry, whereas the policies of the emperors was hostile. It is generally agreed that the Empire fell when it was no longer able to pay the professional Roman Army that had kept the barbarians out for hundreds of years.