there goes my retirement SS

[tvashtarkatena]

Deregulation really got kicked off under Reagan. This resulted in the Savings and Loan crisis (inwhich McCain played such a dubious role as part of the Keating 5, along with his wife, a major Keating investor). Clinton reestablished some controls; Bush rolled enough of those back to set the country up for the current debacle.

 

The GOP has been adept at selling simple, uncomplicated maxims to its constituents so that it can cater to its hyper wealthy business base. REGULATION IS BAD is one. Regulation, of course, is neither bad nor good, of course; it depends on the policy's intent and effectiveness, and unintended consequences. Regulation is certainly necessary to protect public health and safety, the environment, prevent monopolization, exploitation of labor, and a host of other ills that unfettered capitalism has wreaked upon the American public in our history. In short, regulation is necessary to check the natural human tendency towards greed and avarice, you know, what McCain's been talking about (without, of course, mentioning any increase in regulation. His plan is one of 'voluntary' greed reduction).

 

Such ideas are a vestigial holdover from the 19th century, a time devoid of any regulation. Price gouging railroad monopolies medicines full of cocaine, opiates, and alcohol, tainted meat, 12 hour x 7 day work weeks, dead coal miners, the permanent destruction of America's natural resources, and child labor were the result of such an unfettered price mechanism. That conservative wing of the GOP never went away; it's alive and well, and still needs to be contained, same as a century ago.

Edited September 22, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

i don't see how dumping 700 billions would cure the situation in a long run.

 

With Paulson proposing that there is to be no possibility of Congressional or judicial or administrative oversight of any kind, you gotta wonder if "curing the system" is really what is intended.

[glassgowkiss]

I also don't see how limiting executives pay in companies, who are getting bailed out is "punitive"? Aren't they responsible for making the crux decisions?

[prole]

In short, regulation is necessary to check the natural human tendency towards greed and avarice...

 

Natural human tendency? This statement borders on a kind of religious faith (especially in this country), something I wouldn't really expect from you.

[glassgowkiss]

i don't see how dumping 700 billions would cure the situation in a long run.

 

With Paulson proposing that there is to be no possibility of Congressional or judicial or administrative oversight of any kind, you gotta wonder if "curing the system" is really what is intended.

 

and this is why our political system sucks! in parliamentary system there would a vote of no confidence, and early elections. the campaign would last 45 days and would not cost 1 billion!

[tvashtarkatena]

In short, regulation is necessary to check the natural human tendency towards greed and avarice...

 

Natural human tendency? This statement borders on a kind of religious faith (especially in this country), something I wouldn't really expect from you.

 

Given the extinction of large fauna on every continent soon after the arrival of humans or their precursors, coupled with a long history of human exploitation of resources and other humans, a relatively objective observation, I'd say that greed and avarice are a natural human tendency that requires little faith, wouldn't you? Just calling it like I see it.

Edited September 22, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

If they've been duped by television, then how did the folks back at the turn of the century get duped?

 

They weren't dupe but women and blacks couldn't vote and repression was much more blatant. In my opinion, TV is the most significant invention of the 20th century. Most people's reality is strongly conditionned by what goes on the tube.

[Peter_Puget]

Alfred might say: "OH BS! Carter deregulated like a fiend and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use."

[tvashtarkatena]

Tv's a factor, but I don't subscribe to the common assumption that it is the root of all evil.

 

There is more availability of a full range of media and viewpoints than ever before. People choose their media, not the other way around. Before the Iraq war, fully half the country thought it was bullshit; the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMD was well documented and the information publically available. People either chose to pay attention or believe the President, who, surprise of surprises, turned out to be a fucking liar.

 

The question is, why do people chose one way or the other?

 

I think it's due to a normal genetic variation in large populations. About half of any given population will tend towards conservative thought and a desire to either return to the past or maintain the status quo; they're wired with a basic discomfort with unanswered questions and an environment of change. The other half, the liberal side, is more comfortable with, or even excited by, such an environment. Every society's population exhibits this spectrum, although shifted one way or the other by an overall cultural bias.

 

Everyone seeks information that will reinforce their world view and make them feel like they're more on track. Conservatives seek FOX news; it's like a lullaby that sings them to sleep, all safe and warm. America, the world's largest cradle. Fuck Yeah!Progressives tear through Common Dreams like predatory birds looking for capitalistic maggots. Nader has the answer! Ron Paul has the answer! Libertarians watch the meth channel.

 

A certain percentage of a given population is conservative. A certain percentage likes to be vomited on. That's just the way things are.

Edited September 22, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

The anthropological record is replete with historical examples of human societies living is some sort of balance with each other and with their environment often lasting for hundreds of years. There is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding these topics, but there seems little doubt that the acceleration of ecological destruction, population crises, the unleashing of selfish desire and the rewards offered for such behavior only reaches its peak in capitalist market society. That greed and avarice are part of human experience is beyond doubt, but reading what is historically unique to capitalism into all of human history and elevating them to the fundamental characteristic of human nature requires a level of abstraction and an ideological leap provided only in the quasi-religious teachings "human nature" and the "state of nature" found in Hobbes and Locke. For more recent iterations, check out The Trap.

Edited September 22, 2008 by prole

[glassgowkiss]

A certain percentage of a given population is conservative. A certain percentage likes to be vomited on. That's just the way things are.

 

and mass populous is just plain uneducated, stupid and unable to think for themselves and draw the conclusions. hence the popularity of vp candidate Palin, as they can relate to her 100%.

[Hugh Conway]

Alfred might say: "OH BS! Carter deregulated like a fiend and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use."

 

But Peter - you've told us that Carter was the second coming of Stalin!

[JosephH]

People these days don't vote issues or even their wallet - they vote solely based on their social identity. That is the true genius of Rovian electology - split them on social identity using race and religion. That this is even a remotely close election tells you the strategy is still working fine and that people are predictably and hypnotically dumb as a stump every four years.

[tvashtarkatena]

The anthropological record is replete with historical examples of human societies living is some sort of balance with each other and with their environment often lasting for hundreds of years.

 

From a percentage of overall human population standpoint, the record is hardly 'replete'. Nearly all societies, even very small populations, fought with each other. In any case, I hardly think Homo Erectus was 'capitalistic', yet this creature was responsible for driving large populations of large game to extinction in a relatively short period of time. Similarly, the plains indians hunted buffalo by driving large numbers over a cliff and picking the best few from the top of the heap. Not exactly living in balance.

 

Humans evolved 'by nature' as social predators. We are fundamentally tribal by nature, and that has nothing at all to do with what kind of economic system we live under. There is little controversy in the anthropological record concerning that conclusion. Modern humans certainly retain some, if not many, of the characteristics of our predatory forebearers, and modern human behavior, across virtually all societies, confirms that. Regarding your 'only in capitalism' statement, are you implying that feudal, imperial, dictatorial, communist, or theocratic societies were/are somehow more humane than our own? Uh...OK.

 

It seems to me that the most humane societies in history include today's first world, capitalistic nations. To say that 'CAPITALISM IS BAD' is as simplistic, and wrong, as saying that 'REGULATION IS BAD'.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

The anthropological record is replete with historical examples of human societies living is some sort of balance with each other and with their environment often lasting for hundreds of years.

 

From a percentage of overall human population standpoint, the record is hardly 'replete'. Nearly all societies, even very small populations, fought with each other. In any case, I hardly think Homo Erectus was 'capitalistic', yet this creature was responsible for driving large populations of large game to extinction in a relatively short period of time. Similarly, the plains indians hunted buffalo by driving large numbers over a cliff and picking the best few from the top of the heap. Not exactly living in balance.

 

I'm not saying that other human societies didn't/don't fight with each other or that past human populations didn't exploit their environment (sometimes unsustainably), only that catastrophic convulsions in the environment and the kind of "total war" we're seeing are greater in scale, scope and rapidity than any we've seen in human history. And this period coincides with an historically specific kind of political economy. It's not evolutionary. That would simply beg the question "what species would develop such an obviously destructive strategy?"

 

 

 

Humans evolved 'by nature' as social predators. We are fundamentally tribal by nature, and that has nothing at all to do with what kind of economic system we live under. There is little controversy in the anthropological record concerning that conclusion. Modern humans certainly retain some, if not many, of the characteristics of our predatory forebearers, and modern human behavior, across virtually all societies, confirms that.

 

I always find it odd that those who place a premium on "higher thought" and science are so quick to revert to a crude biological determinism. The complexity and diversity of human societies resists this kind of reduction.

 

Regarding your 'only in capitalism' statement, are you implying that feudal, imperial, dictatorial, communist, or theocratic societies were/are somehow more humane than our own? Uh...OK.

 

Nope, not saying that at all. Only that capitalist society is unique and that its features (in particular, reward for greedy and avaristic behavior) shouldn't be abstracted to the level of "human nature".

 

It seems to me that the most humane societies in history include today's first world, capitalistic nations.

 

The horrors perpetrated in the 20th century alone should make one pause to take another look at this statement.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Never wrt deregulation. Fav Kahn quote: "Planes are just marginal costs with wings!"

 

 

 

[j_b]

Alfred might say: "OH BS! Carter deregulated like a fiend and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use."

 

But Peter - you've told us that Carter was the second coming of Stalin!

 

Ain't that the truth. Reagan campaigned against Carter as if he was a commie when in fact Carter bought laissez-faire propaganda on how to stimulate the economy. Carter started deregulating because it was all the so-called economists of the times were arguing for (following the coup in Chile and the distrastous experiment of the Chicago school on Chile's economy) and because he was under heavy attack for the languishing economy following the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. Airline deregulation proved to be a total catastrophy despite what the free marketeers say (more than 160 airlines disappeared or bankrupt while those left still need bail outs). But at least Carter had a consequent energy policy which was dismantled by subsequent administrations. If we had continued Carter's energy plan we would be way ahead of where we are today regarding peak oil, alternative energy and infrastructure

[JosephH]

Republicans don't think regulation is bad - hell, they positively love regulation if you're talking regulating people's thoughts and bodies, as opposed to their finances which is clearly off-limits.

[j_b]

There is more availability of a full range of media and viewpoints than ever before.

 

Only if you think that Pepsi and Coke represent the full range of beverages.

[Buckaroo]

I aint no economist.

 

But it appears these S&L bailout and the current bailout have resulted in poor decisions by management after deregulation in their industries came about.

 

Then the question for the current crises was what was the deregulation, and who voted for it?

 

 

The Subprime Mess and Phil Gramm: An Experiment in Deregulation

June 24, 2008 - 04:12 PM

 

In 1933, a few years following the stock market crash, Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, in hopes that regulating banks will help prevent market instability, particularly amongst Wall Street banks. The purpose of the act is to separate commercial banks that focus on consumers from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers.

 

The Glass-Steagall Act provided the proper oversight and entity separation that would prohibit banks and other financial companies from merging into giant trusts (conflict of interests)...

 

In 1999, former Republican Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies....

 

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.......

 

LINKY

 

 

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

 

 

The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[3] The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The anthropological record is replete with historical examples of human societies living is some sort of balance with each other and with their environment often lasting for hundreds of years.

 

From a percentage of overall human population standpoint, the record is hardly 'replete'. Nearly all societies, even very small populations, fought with each other. In any case, I hardly think Homo Erectus was 'capitalistic', yet this creature was responsible for driving large populations of large game to extinction in a relatively short period of time. Similarly, the plains indians hunted buffalo by driving large numbers over a cliff and picking the best few from the top of the heap. Not exactly living in balance.

 

I'm not saying that other human societies didn't/don't fight with each other or that past human populations didn't exploit their environment (sometimes unsustainably), only that catastrophic convulsions in the environment and the kind of "total war" we're seeing are greater in scale, scope and rapidity than any we've seen in human history. And this period coincides with an historically specific kind of political economy. It's not evolutionary. That would simply beg the question "what species would develop such an obviously destructive strategy?"

 

Nearly all species. The only difference between us and other species is that we have few natural checks to our population growth. In large numbers, human behave very much like bacteria; we eat all the food available in shit in our environment until we can't take it anymore. Desertification due to game driving fires and overgrazing, deforestation, overhunting, soil destruction, pollution, and resource depletion have been going on since humans first began aggregating in numbers. Many large societies have collapsed as a result. It's what we do.

 

That is not to say that that is what we should be doing, however. You've used another basic rhetorical mistake in your arguments; that of equating human nature (our most primal attributes of greed, and altruism, for that matter, which is most certainly a result of evolution) with actual behavior. We are all responsible to resist our more destructive instincts and act in a manner that leaves things better than we found them, and governments should act to limit behavior that is degrades public welfare.

 

 

 

 

 

Humans evolved 'by nature' as social predators. We are fundamentally tribal by nature, and that has nothing at all to do with what kind of economic system we live under. There is little controversy in the anthropological record concerning that conclusion. Modern humans certainly retain some, if not many, of the characteristics of our predatory forebearers, and modern human behavior, across virtually all societies, confirms that.

 

I always find it odd that those who place a premium on "higher thought" and science are so quick to revert to a crude biological determinism. The complexity and diversity of human societies resists this kind of reduction.

 

You're making up your own counterarguments here. Have fun.

 

Regarding your 'only in capitalism' statement, are you implying that feudal, imperial, dictatorial, communist, or theocratic societies were/are somehow more humane than our own? Uh...OK.

 

Nope, not saying that at all. Only that capitalist society is unique and that its features (in particular, reward for greedy and avaristic behavior) shouldn't be abstracted to the level of "human nature".

 

It seems to me that the most humane societies in history include today's first world, capitalistic nations.

 

The horrors perpetrated in the 20th century alone should make one pause to take another look at this statement.

 

 

So, Switzerland and Ireland are not humane societies today because Nazi Germany was naughty? Another failed rhetorical device, one that KKK and Co. uses often.

 

Communist and fascist nations participating in 20th century wars just as enthusiastically as capitalist nations. Industrialization made such wars possible; but that can be achieved under any economic system. Capitalism doesn't really seem very unique to me; it does seem ubiquitous, even in the most communist of countries, however, and therefore probably something that comes very naturally to way humans have evolved to interact.

[prole]

So if we didn't bail out the billionaires, how would they continue to provide the charitable contributions upon which our social safety net is supposed to rely?

[Peter_Puget]

From WSJ

 

It is important to understand that, as GSEs [Government-Sponsored Enterprises], Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them. By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. Their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that — despite their subsidized borrowing rates — they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates. In the wake of Freddie’s 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing? The answer was their affordable-housing mission. So it was that, beginning in 2004, their portfolios of subprime and Alt-A loans and securities began to grow. Subprime and Alt-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages in 2003 to over 20% in 2006. During this period the quality of subprime loans also declined, going from fixed rate, long-term amortizing loans to loans with low down payments and low (but adjustable) initial rates, indicating that originators were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find product for buyers like the GSEs.

 

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. Mr. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Mr. Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent.

 

From the Washington Post:

[Obama said McCain] has fought time and time again against the common-sense rules of the road that could’ve prevented this crisis,” neglecting to mention that his new brain trust on the crisis includes two Clinton administration Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, who helped negotiate the deregulation of the financial services industries in 1999. In an interview on Friday, Rubin said the law, named after its now-retired congressional sponsors — Phil Gramm (Tex.), a top McCain economic adviser; Jim Leach (Iowa), who heads Republicans for Obama; and Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (Va.) — “had no impact, zero,” on the current crisis

 

[olyclimber]

Its clear where the blame lies...just look at this poll!!!!!!1111@ The American people have spoken.

 

Of course, this must be a LIBERAL MEDIA poll. I don't even see an option to pick Obama as the blame of the economic mess!!!

[olyclimber]

I FORGOT THE POLL!!!! MY LIBERALLY ADDLED MIND.

 

http://allison-linnmsnbc.newsvine.com/_question/2008/09/22/1897791-whos-to-blame-for-the-current-economic-crisis