lets bore each other to death
10-15-2011, 10:47 PM
#21
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
Here's an opposing point of view: Obama didn't cause the current crisis. Neither did Bush.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
A Republican Congress and a Democratic President fucked us so immeasurably, we literally aren't done reeling from the repercussions.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
A Republican Congress and a Democratic President fucked us so immeasurably, we literally aren't done reeling from the repercussions.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2011, 10:57 PM
#22
Sure, I'd generally agree with that analysis (though the haphazard and one-sided deregulation that unfairly benefited banksters began well before the repeal of Glass-Steagall).
I posted this link earlier today on Facebook.
Krugman not telling the truth about deregulation? Gee, hoodathunkitt?
I posted this link earlier today on Facebook.
Krugman not telling the truth about deregulation? Gee, hoodathunkitt?
One of the enduring themes in Paul Krugman's columns is that the entire economic mess today is due to the fact that "free markets" have been permitted to run wild, and had the entire economy been under state control, we would be prosperous and happy. His recent screed on the subject, while more of the same, also includes something that, frankly, is untrue: financial deregulation was borne out of free-market ideology:
As I pointed out in my last post, major deregulation efforts came through a Democratic Congress and President Jimmy Carter, who at last check still was a Democrat. However, another major deregulation moment came in 1998, when Congress repealed much of the Glass-Steagall Act and President Bill Clinton (who I think was and still is a Democrat) signed the bill. (I also need to point out that Regulation Q, which was part of the original G-S Act, was repealed in 1980 in the deregulatory act known as DIDMCA -- a move supported by the New York Times, which in modern times is not exactly known as a staunch supporter of free markets.)
Well, it turns out that another blow to Krugman's "The-Free-Marketers-Did-It" theme comes from the NYT, which is highlighted in this recent blog post from journalist Paul Mulshine:
Less to do with ideology? What? CONTRADICT PAUL KRUGMAN? THE NEW YORK TIMES? Surely not!
But, it gets even better, as Mulshine highlights an interview with Ron Paul in which the congressman notes that he voted against repeal of G-S. That can't be, according to Krugman's theme, but there it is. Dr. Paul says:
In other words, Dr. Paul recognized the moral hazard in having the Fed acting as a backstop against bank losses (Surely, the Fed NEVER would do anything like that, would it?), and knew that the bill would foster excessive risk taking.
Paul Krugman forever is claiming that people who think free markets might be a good thing never take into account any of what has happened in the last decade, yet he cannot even correctly note who were the players in deregulation -- and who were not. While accusing others of running "down a rabbit hole," Krugman seems to have taken permanent residence in that same hole while claiming that his fractured version of history is the Only Truth.
In the real world, recent events were a devastating refutation of the free-market orthodoxy that has ruled American politics these past three decades. Above all, the long crusade against financial regulation, the successful effort to unravel the prudential rules established after the Great Depression on the grounds that they were unnecessary, ended up demonstrating — at immense cost to the nation — that those rules were necessary, after all.
Well, it turns out that another blow to Krugman's "The-Free-Marketers-Did-It" theme comes from the NYT, which is highlighted in this recent blog post from journalist Paul Mulshine:
But back when he was Speaker of the House, Gingrich was quite comfortable with the Fed. In fact he led the fight to repeal Glass-Steagall, a move that many argue was a key factor in the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008. Consider that when he talks about jailing "the politicians who put this country in trouble."
Check this excerpt from an April 1998 New York Times article on the effort to repeal Glass-Steagall and Gingrich's cozy relationship with Alan Greenspan:
It pitted Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who opposed the bill, against Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who favored it.
All but a handful of big banks opposed the bill, as did nearly all small and medium-sized banks and savings and loan companies. Wall Street backed the bill, as did insurance companies. Consumer groups fought the bill.
While the debate has less to do with ideology than with members of Congress forced to choose among powerful friends, the end game came down to partisan maneuvering. Republicans from Speaker Newt Gingrich on down scurried through the afternoon to line up the necessary votes.
Check this excerpt from an April 1998 New York Times article on the effort to repeal Glass-Steagall and Gingrich's cozy relationship with Alan Greenspan:
It pitted Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who opposed the bill, against Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who favored it.
All but a handful of big banks opposed the bill, as did nearly all small and medium-sized banks and savings and loan companies. Wall Street backed the bill, as did insurance companies. Consumer groups fought the bill.
While the debate has less to do with ideology than with members of Congress forced to choose among powerful friends, the end game came down to partisan maneuvering. Republicans from Speaker Newt Gingrich on down scurried through the afternoon to line up the necessary votes.
But, it gets even better, as Mulshine highlights an interview with Ron Paul in which the congressman notes that he voted against repeal of G-S. That can't be, according to Krugman's theme, but there it is. Dr. Paul says:
I voted on the Glass-Steagal change and I voted against it. The free market though would not have a Glass-Steagal. Banks could do what they want and they have to suffer the consequence. The reason I voted against it, that bill did have some bad parts to it, but one of the reasons I argued against it, repealing it, it was that it was going to put a greater burden on the banks and the taxpayer was at risk, at greater risk through the FDIC and other insurance programs of the government.
Paul Krugman forever is claiming that people who think free markets might be a good thing never take into account any of what has happened in the last decade, yet he cannot even correctly note who were the players in deregulation -- and who were not. While accusing others of running "down a rabbit hole," Krugman seems to have taken permanent residence in that same hole while claiming that his fractured version of history is the Only Truth.
Reply
0
0
10-15-2011, 11:42 PM
#23
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but I still can't understand the deregulation guys. How do you look at the deregulation of financial markets, lack of regulation in the derivatives market, and deregulation of futures contracts over the last century and go "yeah, all looks good to me"?
The last one (deregulation of futures contracts) literally causes world hunger. Even in today's stupid, pathetic, asinine, childish political arena, I think a "let's reduce world hunger" bill could probably get traction.
The last one (deregulation of futures contracts) literally causes world hunger. Even in today's stupid, pathetic, asinine, childish political arena, I think a "let's reduce world hunger" bill could probably get traction.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 12:14 AM
#24
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but I still can't understand the deregulation guys. How do you look at the deregulation of financial markets, lack of regulation in the derivatives market, and deregulation of futures contracts over the last century and go "yeah, all looks good to me"?
The last one (deregulation of futures contracts) literally causes world hunger. Even in today's stupid, pathetic, asinine, childish political arena, I think a "let's reduce world hunger" bill could probably get traction.
The last one (deregulation of futures contracts) literally causes world hunger. Even in today's stupid, pathetic, asinine, childish political arena, I think a "let's reduce world hunger" bill could probably get traction.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 10:33 AM
#25
the deregulation crowd is not exactly a deregulation crowd
they mostly dont believe in federal regulation
they may believe in state regulation
and they mostly believe in private regulation
they dont want to bring federal deregulation to a complete halt
thet would be bad and create a huge gap needing filled
it would need to be phased out
and any one who has done any research on the FDA for example understands that in their eyes profit comes before anything
hell a few years ago they wrote cherrio's a letter of warning saying they have to stop promoting their natural whole grain product as cholesterol lowering because it is not a drug. and according to the law only a drug can treat, prevent, cure a disease. obviously the fda did not follow through with their letter due to media attention
monsanto (a large food/seed company) has employees that quite literally work for monsanto for a few years and then they work for the FDA for a few years. and they go back and forth over and over
not to mention antineoplastons, a new cancer drug (back in the 80's 90's) that DR Burzynski was researching that was NON-TOXIC unlike chemo and radiation. and had a much higher success rate that never made it through the system.
i could write for hours about the fda so i am just going to stop now
Exapmles of private regulation companies
i haven't done much research on this so i can only come up with two of them off of the top of my head
free trade organization. when you purchase a product with their seal on it you know that this company has been looked into in depth and you are assured that no one was treated like absolute **** to bring the product to you at the price it is at
THX. If you purchase a home theater product with their certification you know that it meets their standards for quality componets, technology, and signal decoding.
so as you can see the deregulation crowd is not exactly a deregulation crowd
i dont know myself if private or state regulation can work
it would need to be gradually phased in
but one thing i do know
federal regulation does not work
they mostly dont believe in federal regulation
they may believe in state regulation
and they mostly believe in private regulation
they dont want to bring federal deregulation to a complete halt
thet would be bad and create a huge gap needing filled
it would need to be phased out
and any one who has done any research on the FDA for example understands that in their eyes profit comes before anything
hell a few years ago they wrote cherrio's a letter of warning saying they have to stop promoting their natural whole grain product as cholesterol lowering because it is not a drug. and according to the law only a drug can treat, prevent, cure a disease. obviously the fda did not follow through with their letter due to media attention
monsanto (a large food/seed company) has employees that quite literally work for monsanto for a few years and then they work for the FDA for a few years. and they go back and forth over and over
not to mention antineoplastons, a new cancer drug (back in the 80's 90's) that DR Burzynski was researching that was NON-TOXIC unlike chemo and radiation. and had a much higher success rate that never made it through the system.
i could write for hours about the fda so i am just going to stop now
Exapmles of private regulation companies
i haven't done much research on this so i can only come up with two of them off of the top of my head
free trade organization. when you purchase a product with their seal on it you know that this company has been looked into in depth and you are assured that no one was treated like absolute **** to bring the product to you at the price it is at
THX. If you purchase a home theater product with their certification you know that it meets their standards for quality componets, technology, and signal decoding.
so as you can see the deregulation crowd is not exactly a deregulation crowd
i dont know myself if private or state regulation can work
it would need to be gradually phased in
but one thing i do know
federal regulation does not work
Last edited by jared8783; 10-16-2011 at 10:46 AM.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 10:44 AM
#26
it is difficult to develop an unbiased view if you only discuss things with like minded people
when they bash you dont bash back
thats part of what can make a true debate on the internet
i have never really gotten involved in a political forum before until a week ago on this site
i really want a legit discussion about obama cause i know alot of people like this guy and i simply dont under stand why.
i want details. i want to be informed of the good accomplishments he has made
i want to know the campaign promises he has fulfilled
ect. ect.
and none of what i have said was in a sarcastic manor
Last edited by jared8783; 10-16-2011 at 12:17 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 11:28 AM
#27
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
The definition of the free market, is the sum total of voluntary transactions. In a free market, the customers and consumers outnumber the producers. In every transaction, the customer votes with his wallet. The customer is king.
Note the keyword VOLUNTARY above. It's "deal or no deal". There is no coercion or force involved. There is no gun on one side of the transaction or the other, to force the deal to go one way or the other. This is a very important concept.
The proper purpose of gov't is to enforce contracts. This is to ensure the edict, "do all you have agreed to do". If there is fraud, it is the function of gov't to investigate, try, prosecute and to "make right". Another purpose of gov't is to protect individual and property rights. If any person or corporation steals something, it is the function of gov't to prosecute.
When gov't and big biz are together, this is NOT free market capitalism, it is COPORATISM. It is a violation of free market principles. When gov't is granted the power to write economic interventionist laws, it is the power to grant economic favors. When gov't writes "regulations", it will skew them towards whomever has the most political connections. These regulations will be at the expense of consumers and small and startup competitors. Consumers have no lobby group. The gov't now has a gun that skews formerly voluntary transactions.
"Regulations" either cartelize big companies, or are disproportionately expensive for smaller businesses. The latter case is a major incentive for corporations to merge and get ever bigger.
Regulations are a means for big business to *reduce* competition. In the absence of said regulation, big business would have to make their products better in order to attract customers. Or, they could lobby their congressworm for "safety/environmental/etc" regulations to kill smaller competitors.
For example. TSE developed new brake kits. Let's say Stoptech is feeling the competition from all these small outfits developing their own brake kits. They could lobby for "safety regulations" that require $20k of gov't mandated testing because "badly designed brakes are lethal". On the surface, the average Occupier would say "ya baby, safety is important and let's stick it to the evil capitalists. They have to spend that $20k" The big boys have the sales volume to afford said testing. However, they will also pass this cost on to the consumers in the form of higher prices. Most importantly, this would kill small businesses' ability to market their own kits, and give Stoptech and other big players an oligopoly.
At times it becomes necessary for the government to intervene, as I believe it was when the Gov bailed out the banks,
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 10-17-2011 at 12:11 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 11:51 AM
#28
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
No, I'm not talking about "self regulation". There's no such thing either.
There *is* such a thing as market based regulation. And it is more efficient and equitable than gov't (monopoly) regulation.
For example. A non-scuba-certified person can't go to a dive shop and rent or buy dive gear. The scuba shop is afraid the person will go dive, kill himself, and get sued. There is no specific law against non-certified persons renting gear.
There are more than 3 scuba education and certification companies. They compete in the free market for selling the best education possible at the lower cost. They provide certification. They have deals with dive shops where, in order to place their logo on the storefront, they have to do due diligence to check the certification of the person renting equipment.
Here we have a well functioning market-driven regulatory system that provides education and improves safety in an activity that is potentially lethal. There are several competing agencies. If any one agency tries to say, get corrupted by some big-name scuba manufacturer in order to increase said manufacturer's business, they will lose business to their competitors. Two of these said agencies are PADI and NAUI.
Gov't regulatory agencies, OTOH, are susceptible to corruption, due to their monopoly nature. See the concept of "regulatory capture":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Here is another example of market-driven regulation.
I design cellphone chargers for a living. When was the last time you heard of one electrocuting its end user? As a designer, I'm required to follow design regulations that ensure Safety. These regulations are very effective and only cost about 4 cents per charger. None of these regulations were put in place by gov't. These regulations are demanded by UL (United Laboratories), which is a safety testing agency. Non gov't. Many years ago UL, which insured products that had their logo, demanded that the manufacturers get together and come up with a set of design rules to ensure product safety. UL's self-interest in safety was because they had their own money on the line, because they would have to pay out when a product harms the user.
So in the above example you have different industries having competing interests (manufs want to make products cheaply) and insurers wanting safe products. There is a push and pull in the marketplace that results in market regulation. All of the companies involved have to provide a service or product in the face of competition, where customers get to vote with their wallets.
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 10-16-2011 at 12:24 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 12:17 PM
#29
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Originally Posted by Savington
How do you look at the deregulation of financial markets
lack of regulation in the derivatives market, and deregulation of futures contracts over the last century and go "yeah, all looks good to me"?
The Federal Reserve Act was written in 1910 in secret by 7 guys from the biggest Wall St. banks. They then bribed the right politicians to get it passed. What do you think the would create? A cartel, of course:
http://thedailybell.com/681/Nelson-H...st-Cartel.html
And, the *truly* unregulated banks, are the offshore banks that allow rich people to deposit their banks. Have you heard of any of them failing in 2008? Of course not, because they have to be prudent because they don't have the Federal Reserve to save them if they fail.
The last one (deregulation of futures contracts) literally causes world hunger.
Here is my thesis. Note that I grew up in a 3rd World country, and my best friend used to work for the World Bank's "poverty alleviation" program. World hunger is the result of the following factors:
- A world oligarchy, which gets their power from the institution of gov't, that is populated by psychopaths - genetically remorseless individuals who have a knack for rising to power:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1V2SNE...R1V2SNE18FU6XG
- Lack of wealth generation due to economic inefficiency, due to:
-- lack of, or uneven protection of property rights (this is very important for a free market to function)
-- absence of sophisticated financial tools in order to mobilize capital (e.g. getting a 2nd mortgage in order to finance a home business - see this book: )
-- Corruption in local governments (again this stifles the free market)
Even in today's stupid, pathetic, asinine, childish political arena,
Try on this new idea:
Politicians should get out of the way
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 12:27 PM
#30
A government more limited than it is in its current state. (My words not Jason's, after reading his posts that's what I gather) Is not even close to anarchy.
Especially since you didn't just say anarchist and you said true anarchist. I must say that I fail to understand where you are coming from.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 12:46 PM
#31
I'm not saying Jason is an anarchist at heart, I'm just saying (in my opinion) that he tends toward anarchist positions more than the rest of us who tend toward minarchist positions. Even anarchists can argue for a peaceful and gradual restriction and removal of government authority.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 01:09 PM
#32
I'm not saying Jason is an anarchist at heart, I'm just saying (in my opinion) that he tends toward anarchist positions more than the rest of us who tend toward minarchist positions. Even anarchists can argue for a peaceful and gradual restriction and removal of government authority.
While I strongly disagree I do now understand where you are coming from. I have seen no indication in any of his posts leading toward removal of government authority (since anarchy is no government whatsoever). I don't see argument for gradual removal. Only for restriction which is not anarchy.
It's like when people say the protesters attack police. While I can not prove them wrong (just as no one can prove god doesn't exist), I have failed to prove them right. I have however found videos of the police and protesters engaging in fights. The only videos I can find are when the police throw the first punch. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that it is right to fight back with an officer of the law. I am just saying that it has yet to be proven TO ME that they have actually attacked officers. The difference between fighting back and attacking is great.
I apologize if it seems like I am trying to bash you because I'm not. It's just that anarchy is a strong word and I don't like to see it thrown around lightly.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 09:26 PM
#35
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
Jason, gold has no utilitarian value. It has value because people think it has value, kinda like paper money. Hmm...
Can you explain how the gold standard works when the population doubles in relation to the amount of gold held by the fed? How does this not cause massive, massive deflation?
Allowing banks to become that large is an antitrust issue. Sure, we could throw out fiat currency and reign them in too, but cutting your foot off due to an ingrown toenail is not a good plan.
Reply
0
0
10-16-2011, 09:35 PM
#36
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
oh and if you only discuss politics with like minded people then you wont get different points of view. essentially if you are only discussing with like minded people then your mind is a bit closed
i agree with you except for the "i'll even just take hope"
im not saying we will get it
but i demand results
i expect no less and no politician deserves recognition without it
i agree with you except for the "i'll even just take hope"
im not saying we will get it
but i demand results
i expect no less and no politician deserves recognition without it
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 10:21 AM
#38
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
What it takes is for people to realize that gov't by its nature, is the wrong institution to solve the majority of society's problems.
It will only change when the Fed Gov collapses fiscally. I believe this is only 5 years out. The accounting CANNOT be escaped. Then we the people will realize that de-centralization of power and self-rule are some two of the correct guiding principles.
It will only change when the Fed Gov collapses fiscally. I believe this is only 5 years out. The accounting CANNOT be escaped. Then we the people will realize that de-centralization of power and self-rule are some two of the correct guiding principles.
And the reason they will not sell it to a non-certified diver is because they are afraid of being sued?
I just want to make sure I understand that foundation, then I have a follow up question.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 10:44 AM
#39
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,483
Total Cats: 4,076
Here's an opposing point of view: Obama didn't cause the current crisis. Neither did Bush.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
A Republican Congress and a Democratic President fucked us so immeasurably, we literally aren't done reeling from the repercussions.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
A Republican Congress and a Democratic President fucked us so immeasurably, we literally aren't done reeling from the repercussions.
Reply
0
0
10-17-2011, 12:17 PM
#40
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
I'm not saying Jason is an anarchist at heart, I'm just saying (in my opinion) that he tends toward anarchist positions more than the rest of us who tend toward minarchist positions. Even anarchists can argue for a peaceful and gradual restriction and removal of government authority.
Reply
0
0
