There are over $100 trillion dollars of derivatives floating out there that are completely unregulated.But enforcement of laws currently on the books that prevent centralization of corporate power.
majorspark wrote:Footwedge wrote: Capitalism the way Adam Smith presented it was/is a great economics model. Today's capitalism is exactly what he feared it would become.
Adam Smith feared oligopolies and monopolies and he argued vigorously against corporations. He didn't want them. He didn't want them for the very reasons that they have evolved today.
Meritacracies have always fueled the human spirit. Unfortunately, we have massive abuses at the top of the ladder wrung.
The way the system has evolved, if not redirected to some degree, you will end up with only one megacorporation owning everything. No different than the Parker Bros. game of monopoly, whereby, if played long enough, one person owns the entire board, and the rest of the players are bankrupt.
If you want "no rules" capitalism, then be prepared for a true proletariat and bourgeosie state. It is inevitable. Similar to serfdom.First off, corporations are not only national, but international in scope. If the SEC, a large federal agency cannot police the corporatists, how in the world are they going to be policed by the individual states? It is impossible.I agree with most of what you are saying here. The answer in my opinion is not more government intervention. But enforcement of laws currently on the books that prevent centralization of corporate power. The answer is not to further empower the political elite. They seek to use the private elite to further their power/wealth and vise versa the private elite use the government to further their power/wealth over the market.
If you think I am in favor of "no rules" capitalism you are misunderstanding my opinion. I seek robust competition of small government entities (the states) within the public sector of the union as well as I do competition of similarly small business entities operating in the private sector of the union.
I just finished reading all the articles regarding G.S. over on the National Review, and Breitbart. No wonder conservatives have such a distorted view on just how corrupt these invesrment bankers have become....and how devious and treacherous their motives and modus operandi were.
Only Larry Kudlow had the stones to report the truth. Kudos to him.
Until the people get it through their thick skulls, and realize that the government has been ruled by the corporate elite, will there ever be true reform which will save the global economy from tanking.
The SEC should be praised to the highest hilt, for taking on these scumbags, who were complicit in lying to the masses regarding tens of billions of dollars in overall investments.
But instead, they listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Frank Luntz and Ann Coulter, who all breathe the fire that the gubmint is socializing the banking industries, crippling the overall economy, or somehow "timing" another political issue.
If the SEC had politics in mind, they damn sure wouldn't have pursued, and charged fraud, to the second biggest doner to the Obama campaign fund. Emphasis added!
To be honest here, the right winged sites that I read tonight are disgusting slime in their editorials on the matter.
We had a sutuation whereby the entire financial world was going to collapse internationally. And future taxpayers were saddled with a fresh new deficit of 700 billion dollars. A chunk that was force fed by a democratically controlled Congress, but also pushed to the hilt by George Bush.
Conservatives should be piling on the praise for these actions....but instead, they listen to the same talking points from their political pundits, and then buy into the bullshit.
Rant/
Ya know Footie, for someone who considers himself an enlightened, politically balanced libertarian, you sure seem to have an oddly skewed hard-on for Republicans and conservatives.Footwedge wrote:To be honest here, the right winged sites that I read tonight are disgusting slime in their editorials on the matter.
Conservatives should be piling on the praise for these actions....but instead, they listen to the same talking points from their political pundits, and then buy into the bullshit.
Pehaps not but asking Dodd, Frank, BHO, Pelosi, Reid & Co. to do the policing won't make me sleep better at night.I Wear Pants wrote:Point being, something has to be done. Whether it is this particular bill or not, the financial industry has shown that it cannot police itself.
Funny...that sounds a lot like the platform of the SDP in Germany.bigmanbt wrote: I agree with you there, too Foot. After reading Hayek a little bit, true laissez faire doesn't work that well either. There has to be a good legal system that goes with the monetary system. Regulations in favor of competition are just needed checks on "no rules" capitalism.
We stop playing Monopoly at the Belly house .........to many cheater at one table. Plus cleaning up the pee on the floor is a bitch.LJ wrote:If you are playing monopoly, would you trust everyone to not cheat if you left the room? Or would you ask one of the other people playing to make sure everyone follows the rules?believer wrote: I'm trying to understand this.
So it's a good thing to want corrupt, inefficient Big Government Feds to super-regulate the corrupt, greedy Big Business Wall Streeters to make sure the taxpayers are protected?
Isn't this like asking the inmates to run the asylum, or the blind leading the blind, or asking Jesse James to insure that Al Capone is playing by the rules?
An article from "Thestreet.com", owned by Jim Cramer, former Goldman employee and massive Wallstreet schill is hardly something I would use to refute the case against banning derivatives.
You are correct that government is the only body that can make and enforce law. But their power should be as balanced as possible. The great power that they have should also be regulated by the people. I am sure you agree. Government power when concentrated in the hands of a few can be just as dangerous as economic power concentrated in the hands of a few.IggyPride00 wrote:There are over $100 trillion dollars of derivatives floating out there that are completely unregulated.But enforcement of laws currently on the books that prevent centralization of corporate power.
Enforcing the laws on the books would not sufficiently deal with them the way they need to be.
Since the government is the only body in this country that can make and enforce laws it will fall on them to do so.
That's what Republics do. We don't have mob rule in our country.majorspark wrote:
The great power that they have should also be regulated by the people. I am sure you agree. Government power when concentrated in the hands of a few can be just as dangerous as economic power concentrated in the hands of a few.
I just skimmed over the article. All this article does is confirm my point that consersatives are nincompoops for blasting this fraud case...citing the same talking points about "timing"..or "what about F & F"?
"Timing" is under scrutiny. . .Footwedge wrote:I just skimmed over the article. All this article does is confirm my point that consersatives are nincompoops for blasting this fraud case...citing the same talking points about "timing"..or "what about F & F"?
Goldman Sachs was the second largest doner to the Obama camp. Conservatives should be praising the investigation....not bitching about it.
Unfortunately Pants, this is what President's do nowdays.I Wear Pants wrote: ^^^^ You're right, every single thing Obama does is a ruse or a ploy to distract us from what's really happening.
Or maybe they just think that the industry needs some reform?
Easy, explain that they would rather let Wall Street continue to pull the shit that they've been pulling for the last 10 years or so instead of trying to make some rules.stlouiedipalma wrote: Based on the vote held today, I would say that GOP members are NOT falling away from McConnell. They seemed pretty unified in their opposition. The only question is how do the Dems use this to portray the Repubs as soft on Wall Street.
They were operating under that premise before the bailout (with no oversight or regulation to speak of) and they managed to bring the global financial system to the precipice.If the banks know that they have to compete and profit to stay in business
No, they didn't have to compete or profit to stay in business. They knew they would be in business no matter what happened, so they could take wild risks selling debt instruments backed by bad mortgages. They wouldn't exist if the banks knew they were finished when those mortgages went bad.IggyPride00 wrote:They were operating under that premise before the bailout (with no oversight or regulation to speak of) and they managed to bring the global financial system to the precipice.If the banks know that they have to compete and profit to stay in business
They need to be broken up, then have the shit regulated out of them after the fact to keep them from rebuilding the house of cards that happened in the first place.
You know why they were allowed to sell those debt instruments? Deregulation.Cleveland Buck wrote:No, they didn't have to compete or profit to stay in business. They knew they would be in business no matter what happened, so they could take wild risks selling debt instruments backed by bad mortgages. They wouldn't exist if the banks knew they were finished when those mortgages went bad.IggyPride00 wrote:They were operating under that premise before the bailout (with no oversight or regulation to speak of) and they managed to bring the global financial system to the precipice.If the banks know that they have to compete and profit to stay in business
They need to be broken up, then have the shit regulated out of them after the fact to keep them from rebuilding the house of cards that happened in the first place.
Couldn't a "sell whatever you want, but when you go bankrupt you won't be getting any federal money to pay your bonuses" clause have helped out even more?I Wear Pants wrote:You know why they were allowed to sell those debt instruments? Deregulation.Cleveland Buck wrote:No, they didn't have to compete or profit to stay in business. They knew they would be in business no matter what happened, so they could take wild risks selling debt instruments backed by bad mortgages. They wouldn't exist if the banks knew they were finished when those mortgages went bad.IggyPride00 wrote:They were operating under that premise before the bailout (with no oversight or regulation to speak of) and they managed to bring the global financial system to the precipice.If the banks know that they have to compete and profit to stay in business
They need to be broken up, then have the shit regulated out of them after the fact to keep them from rebuilding the house of cards that happened in the first place.
Couldn't a "don't sell shitty debt instruments" clause in some law have helped out here?
Thank you.jhay78 wrote: I agree with this point made in the article:
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteeing mortgages of all shapes, sizes and dubious quality."
GW Bush (you know, whose "failed policies" ruined our economy and helped BHO get elected?) tried stave off an economic disaster in 2003:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
But Democrats obstructed him:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
Goldman is not without blame, but let's get the blame for the economic disaster of 2008 right.