Bailout Debacle

[prole]

Whether the current bailout deal addresses the underlying crisis or not, whether it's good for taxpayers or not, what the political chaos it's creating is telling global elites is that liberal democracies, politics, and "the people" are incapable of understanding and managing crises in the current form of global capitalism. What it means for them is that the Chinese model is looking really good right now. What it means for us is that the waves of deregulation that have occurred under the banner of "free market" ideology are inherently undemocratic and if unchecked will lead toward anti-democratic technocracy. When we gave up our oversight and regulatory systems we allowed ourselves to be taken hostage. And when our choices are depression or slowly being bled to death for generations to come, we are being held hostage.

[billcoe]

Whether the current bailout deal addresses the underlying crisis or not, whether it's good for taxpayers or not, what the political chaos it's creating is telling global elites is that liberal democracies, politics, and "the people" are incapable of understanding and managing crises in the current form of global capitalism. What it means for them is that the Chinese model is looking really good right now. What it means for us is that the waves of deregulation that have occurred under the banner of "free market" ideology are inherently undemocratic and if unchecked will lead toward anti-democratic technocracy. When we gave up our oversight and regulatory systems we allowed ourselves to be taken hostage. And when our choices are depression or slowly being bled to death for generations to come, we are being held hostage.

 

No one will argue that I'd imagine.

[prole]

In the bigger picture, when people say we're at a turning point, we're looking at the survival of democracy as a viable political system for global capitalism to expand in. These tensions have been exposed in the developing world for some time. Most spectacularly with regards to IMF imposed structural adjustments which basically remove elected governments from economic decision making. In the wake of their failure, we've seen the rebirth of socialist movements attempting to re-embed economic policy under some democratic control in Latin America and a reactionary authoritarianism in Russia. Wither America?

Edited October 1, 2008 by prole

[Mal_Con]

If we use the "Chinese Model" do we get to shoot economic criminals and charge their families for the bullets? Please say YES

[tvashtarkatena]

In the bigger picture, when people say we're at a turning point, we're looking at the survival of democracy as a viable political system for global capitalism to expand in. These tensions have been exposed in the developing world for some time. Most spectacularly with regards to IMF imposed structural adjustments. In the wake of their failure, we've seen the rebirth of socialist movements in Latin America and authoritarianism in Russia. Wither America?

 

I wouldn't compose a requiem for democracy just yet.

 

The world has steadily marched towards democracy over the past century, most notably since the end of colonialism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Even China, officially communist, has become far more democratic since its Maoist days. Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution is a temporary luxury funded by petro-dollars, not a latin American-wide movement. Most of latin America, although perhaps less aligned with the United States now, remains solidly democratic. Truly totalitarian states, once the norm for half the world, can only be found in a few backwater nations these days. I suppose you could point to Putin and Chavez as bellweathers, but somehow, I doubt they're leading some world trend. So what of the future?

 

The future will bring more localism forced by increasingly expensive energy. Localism typically brings a more democratic system for obvious reasons, particularly when there is already a culture of democracy in place, as is the case over much of the world now. Larger national goverments will weaken as a result of this decentralization of political control brought about by resource limitations. Resource scarcity will mean less surplus with which to buy big national luxuries such as air craft carriers, space weapons, and fighter planes. The role of national goverments will shrink accordingly. That is not to say that national systems won't exist; information systems to aid in providing more efficient health care would be one consolidation that would greatly cut duplicated costs and waste, for example. But the nice-to-haves-but-don't-really-need, such as a huge offensive military (which sucks up 59% of our discresionary national budget) will no longer be affordable.

 

In short, we in the US will probably see what seems like a contradiction; increased socialism (it's already happening, and will need to happen much more to achieve energy independence, etc) and a weaker federal goverment, primarily through shrinking a bloated military, paid for with debt, that we haven't been able to afford for quite some time now. Reaganesque federal control mechanisms, such as block grants to states, will probably go away to, leaving states to fend for themselves on most infrastructure issues.

[prole]

In the bigger picture, when people say we're at a turning point, we're looking at the survival of democracy as a viable political system for global capitalism to expand in. These tensions have been exposed in the developing world for some time. Most spectacularly with regards to IMF imposed structural adjustments. In the wake of their failure, we've seen the rebirth of socialist movements in Latin America and authoritarianism in Russia. Wither America?

 

I wouldn't compose a requiem for democracy just yet.

 

The world has steadily marched towards democracy over the past century, most notably since the end of colonialism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Even China, officially communist, has become far more democratic since its Maoist days. Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution is a temporary luxury funded by petro-dollars, not a latin American-wide movement. Most of latin America, although perhaps less aligned with the United States now, remains solidly democratic. Truly totalitarian states, once the norm for half the world, can only be found in a few backwater nations these days. I suppose you could point to Putin and Chavez as bellweathers, but somehow, I doubt they're leading some world trend. So what of the future?

 

The future will bring more localism forced by increasingly expensive energy. Localism typically brings a more democratic system for obvious reasons, particularly when there is already a culture of democracy in place, as is the case over much of the world now. Larger national goverments will weaken as a result of this decentralization of political control brought about by resource limitations. Resource scarcity will mean less surplus with which to buy big national luxuries such as air craft carriers, space weapons, and fighter planes. The role of national goverments will shrink accordingly. That is not to say that national systems won't exist; information systems to aid in providing more efficient health care would be one consolidation that would greatly cut duplicated costs and waste, for example. But the nice-to-haves-but-don't-really-need, such as a huge offensive military (which sucks up 59% of our discresionary national budget) will no longer be affordable.

 

In short, we in the US will probably see what seems like a contradiction; increased socialism (it's already happening, and will need to happen much more to achieve energy independence, etc) and a weaker federal goverment, primarily through shrinking a bloated military, paid for with debt, that we haven't been able to afford for quite some time now. Reaganesque federal control mechanisms, such as block grants to states, will probably go away to, leaving states to fend for themselves on most infrastructure issues.

 

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat with you as this is all complex, open to interpretation, and lacking in a common understanding of the terms we're using. The limits of debate in an open forum, I suppose...

 

Anyone playing attention to Latin American politics has seen a shift to the left in the region as a whole in the wake of upheavals in the 90's caused by the Washington Consensus. Lula, Chavez, Morales, etc., some in name only, but nevertheless... This is important to consider as these countries often bore the most intense instances of privatization, deregulation, and First world corporate penetration characteristic of neoliberalism and bundled in the programs imposed from without by the IMF. That America, Europe and parts of Asia are now reaping the whirlwind from similar policies derived from the exact same ideology, I'd say it's a potential future. As people attempt to shield themselves from the systemic chaos that unfettered capitalism is wreaking (or some try to maintain it at any cost) they will choose(?) political alternatives particular to their social histories. The pendulum could swing toward the left in countries and regions where leftist politics have some historical foundation (regions where Bolivarian revolutions took place is a prime example). I would not count the US as one of these. Furthermore, I would not, as you have, place socialist politics in opposition to democratic principles or practice. The pendulum can/and is swinging to the right where authoritarianism is strong or democracy is quite weak.

All of this makes "localism" quite contingent in the bigger picture. Considering the 20th century variations and its ultimate results, it doesn't look too rosy. While I understand and share the ecological concerns and rewards offered by localism, it needs to focus on the dissemination and decentralization of political power at the "local" level as you've suggested and on forging broader networks for democratic movements at the international and supranational level.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2008 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Yeah, I'd like to see you quote where I pitted socialism against democracy. I thought only GOP simpletons played the 'ism only' game. Also a nice rhetorical ploy to dodge the debate by claiming that we're not speaking the same language or using the same terms or whatever bullshit you just tried to foist here. Yes, we're speaking exactly the same language. And I'm saying that, for the most part, you're thesis is full of shit given current trends.

 

Localism will occur in most places regardless of politics due to the hard limitations of resource depletion. Sooner or later, it's a hard stop. Sustainable cultures, the only kind that will survive eventually, will necessarily be managing their resources more tightly and locally.

 

Latin America may be abandoning some of the more rapacious economic 'reforms' of the past, but this does not equate to a substantial move away from democracy with the notable exception of Venezuela. Similarly, the increased regionalism in response to a United States-gone-wild is a form of localism, not a movement away from Democracy. Finally, a movement towards socialist policies also does not constitute a movement away from democracy. Latins, like us, have used their democratic power to vote for leaders who will enact them. I'd say their democracies are as healthy as ever.

 

America has already drifted pretty far towards a European model of socialist democracy, thanks to Bush, and will continue to do so. The issues of most concern to Americans nowadays are nearly all domestic and demand such a movement: health care, job protection, financial regulation, energy independence, and the environment. The fact that our federal government is a dinosaur doesn't mean that this tidal change isn't happening among the populace and at all other levels of government. In a way, the incompetence of the Bush administration has forced this necessary change. Unfortunately, the cost of their failures may take everyone, even at the state and local levels, down the toilette with them. We'll see...pretty soon, I'd wager. America is saddled with just under half the population who seem to be living in the middle ages. This half is definitely holding the country back...no, make that dragging the country down, but I believe the conservative movement of which I speak is dying in the face of a harsh reality.

[prole]

Yeah, I'd like to see you quote where I pitted socialism against democracy. I thought only GOP simpletons played the 'ism only' game. Also a nice rhetorical ploy to dodge the debate by claiming that we're not speaking the same language or using the same terms or whatever bullshit you just tried to foist here. Yes, we're speaking exactly the same language. And I'm saying that, for the most part, you're thesis is full of shit given current trends.

Great discussion! You really are a psycho asshole. Didn't finish the rest of your post. Buh-bye.

[tvashtarkatena]

You read the synopsis, and that's what counts. The rest is just supporting arguments you won't grasp anyway.

 

In any case, I got you to stop posting. Cool. I didn't think that was possible.

Edited October 1, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

No one will argue that I'd imagine.

 

I stand corrected.

[tvashtarkatena]

HEY JO! I GOT REARY GOOD ROOKING MODEL FO YU, RI HEYA!

 

[billcoe]

HEY JO! I GOT REARY GOOD ROOKING MODEL FO YU, RI HEYA!

 

So my wife of 28 years is of Japanese ancestry if thats suppose to be a personal slam. BFD.

[Peter_Puget]

Words to live by:

WSJ 10-02-08

What They Said About Fan and Fred

 

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .

 

 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

 

Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.

This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

 

Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

 

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don't know how we do it.

I mean, you've alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It's important, is it not?

Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact.

I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing, and at the same time, let's not overreact. . .

Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.

[tvashtarkatena]

a) I know nothing about your wife, but if I did, I would never make a disparaging remark about her.

 

b) I have a Japanese brother in law and two half Japanese nephews, so the anti-japanese thing isn't really my thing.

 

c) My comment was a parody of a previous poster's comment regarding the 'Chinese model looking really good now'.

 

d) Don't be so paranoid.

[billcoe]

 

 

c) My comment was a parody of a previous poster's comment regarding the 'Chinese model looking really good now'.

 

DOHHH. I get it now. I might be a little dense but it's of course possible that I may have some other positive attributes to make up for that.

 

 

d) Don't be so paranoid.

Easier to do if you'd just loan me that tin-foil hat you have.

[pc313]

[TheOtter]

[img:center]http://rense.com/1.imagesH/bail_dees.jpg[/img]

[tomtom]

c) My comment was a parody of a previous poster's comment regarding the 'Chinese model looking really good now'.

 

Chinese model looking really good now.

 

[benmurphy]

Salvia Divinorum looking really good now...