A New Hope: Stomping Out Corporatism

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, April 2, 2009 06:53
VIEWED: 11466
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:45 AM

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Imperial Federal Gov and its willing accomplices in the media are fanning the flames of discontent, which should be rightfully reserved for none other than those in Congress, but are instead pulling the wool over everyone's eyes ( or trying to ) in blaming A.I.G. for our entire economic mess.

Folks, the crooks are in Congress, and they're being let off the hook by all of us, while we buy their lies.
Pissed that AIG execs are still getting paid a King's ransom while getting over 170 BILLION in US taxpayer bail out money ????

Fine. But always remember, Ben Bernanke and Congress APPROVED OF THIS MOVE! Whether AIG pays out 1$ in bonuses, or 1 million, doesn't matter. They have a legal right to it.

No god damn new direction - Kristallnacht, baby!

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

WHOZIT

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Imperial Federal Gov and its willing accomplices in the media are fanning the flames of discontent, which should be rightfully reserved for none other than those in Congress, but are instead pulling the wool over everyone's eyes ( or trying to ) in blaming A.I.G. for our entire economic mess.

Folks, the crooks are in Congress, and they're being let off the hook by all of us, while we buy their lies.
Pissed that AIG execs are still getting paid a King's ransom while getting over 170 BILLION in US taxpayer bail out money ????

Fine. But always remember, Ben Bernanke and Congress APPROVED OF THIS MOVE! Whether AIG pays out 1$ in bonuses, or 1 million, doesn't matter. They have a legal right to it.

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

The OK for the bonuses was put into the Pig Package by Senator Chris Dodd (D) Conn, who got more champain money from AIG than any other U.S. Senator.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:58 AM

Pinning this on Dodd is absurd. The REAL culprit is Geithner, who pressured Dodd into accepting the provision.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:07 AM

Hello,

I agree that you do not give a vagrant a truckload of money, no strings attached, and then complain about what he does with it. The fault there is not in the stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_of_Fortune_(2005_film)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:28 AM

Anyone remember this from 2007 ?

Wednesday September 17, 10:32 AM
AIG rescued by Fed, Barclays buys Lehman US unit
By Lilla Zuill and Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Capping an extraordinary day in financial markets, U.S. authorities pieced together an emergency $85 billion rescue of insurance company American International Group Inc to stave off a bankruptcy that could have thrown world markets into deeper turmoil.

How about this from October 2008 ?

A.I.G. to Get Additional $37.8 Billion
Published: October 8, 2008
The Federal Reserve Board said Wednesday that it would provide up to $37.8 billion to the embattled insurer the American International Group to help it deal with a rapidly dwindling supply of cash.

Remember December 2008 ?

With Fed's Help, AIG Unloads $16 Billion in Credit Default Swaps
By Hugh Son
Bloomberg News
Thursday, December 25, 2008; Page D02
American International Group retired $16 billion in credit default swaps, the contracts that almost caused the company's collapse, after buying the underlying securities with help from the Federal Reserve.

$139 Billion of tax money to AIG - and WHO was president ?

***************************************************************

I can't HEEeeaaar you !

RUE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:57 AM

C'mon doooods.

This was cooked up between George and the Fed - no Obama or Congress in sight. But I'm SURE you can find a way to blame them ! Do what you usually do ! Get creative with the truth !

Show us what you're made of.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:16 AM

rue,

I'm not assigning party blame here, because it's all their damn fault. But Dodd blatantly lied to CNN, and then got caught, fessing up the next day.

Don't pass this off on those who are no longer in office. The real crooks are still IN Washington.

I didn't think you'd get it. I had hoped for better, but once again, you proved disappointing.

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

RUE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:31 AM

Once again you seem to not know what you posted.

"the flames of discontent ... should be rightfully reserved for none other than those in Congress ..."

Congress had nothing to do with the vast majority of the AIG bailout - 139 out of 170 billion - its terms or conditions. That was cooked up SOLELY by George and the Fed, and the blame rests solely on them.

"Instead , they're trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, in blaming A.I.G., for our entire economic mess ..."

AIG deserves a nearly all of the blame.
MOST BANKS were invested in AIG. If AIG had gone under, the wave of bank failures would have taken down the world economy overnight. The entire world would have been reduced to the third world. Sound appetizing ?
'Bad debts' or 'toxic assets' weren't the problem, either. The sole unmitigated disaster rests on AIG's 'credit default swaps'.
Yes, AIG is to blame. The rest could easily have been handled.

So ARE the crooks in Congress ? Or are the crooks George, the Fed and AIG ?

Most people get it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:11 AM

AIG was formely spelled OSS, then CIA. Its in The Franklin Coverup.

AIG invests trillions in looted CAFR govt pensions.

RUE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:30 AM

This is not to say I approve of Obama's past actions and future plans either.

As I mentioned before, he is FAR more conservative than most people realize.

The 'troubled assets' at the core of the problem are, dollars-wise, only a small part of the problem.

Let's say there were 1 million foreclosures in 2006, 2 million in 2007 and 3 million in 2008. Of those, let's say people couldn't come up with 25% of the payment. And further, let's say the average home in the US went for $250,000.
That works out to $375 billion in toxic assets - FAR less than the $700 billion in TARP funds plus the $2 - 7 TRILLION the Fed distributed off the books at the end of 2008.

In addition, after ALL that money went to the big money guys, homeowners were STILL on the hook for homes they couldn't afford.

If what Obama had done instead of more of the same as Georgie, was to find a way to directly help homeowners refinance -

he would have saved millions families from foreclosure
he would have saved the housing market
he would have saved the banking institutions
he would have saved TRILLIONS in taxpayer dollars.

He even would have saved AIG's worthless butt for mere pennies. But that's socialism ! And that's probably what put the very conservative Obama off the idea.

Yeah, socialism would have done a better job than capitalism. Too bad people are afraid of what works.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:18 AM

Hello,

I do not think the bailout can be described as anything but socialism. A less effective route, perhaps, than the route you'd have followed. But no one said socialism all had the same stripe.

Capitalism is a great big untried unknown in this scenario. Because capitalism would have required that we do what we are consistently told is unthinkable.

Nothing.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:53 PM

"Capitalism is a great big untried unknown in this scenario."

I think there is one good example of where it had been tried - and that is the Great Depression. Unemployment peaked at 24.9%. People starved. Many were homeless. Meanwhile, the very wealthy were even wealthier.

It did not go well for the vast majority of people.

So, I have to ask you - if the economy is not designed to serves the needs of the people --- what is it for ?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Congress had nothing to do with the vast majority of the AIG bailout - 139 out of 170 billion - its terms or conditions. That was cooked up SOLELY by George and the Fed, and the blame rests solely on them.

Oh really? Is that true ? Then what the hell was it that Chris Dodd was caught lying about, to CNN , to which he came back the VERY NEXT DAY and tried to play CYA ?

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:17 PM

Dodd's Wife a Former Director of Bermuda-Based IPC Holdings, an AIG Controlled Company

No wonder Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) went wobbly last week when asked about his February amendment ratifying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at insurance giant AIG. Dodd has been one of the company's favorite recipients of campaign contributions. But it turns out that Senator Dodd's wife has also benefited from past connections to AIG as well.

From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 and currently has a market cap of $1.4 billion and trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol IPCR. In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)

Clegg was compensated for her duties to the company, which was managed by a subsidiary of AIG. In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each Directors' and committee meeting she attended. Clegg served on the Audit and Investment committees during her final year on the board.

IPC paid millions each year to other AIG-related companies for administrative and other services. Clegg was a diligent director. In 2003, the proxy statement report, she attended more than 75% of board and committee meetings. This while she served as the managing partner of Clegg International Consultants, LLC, which she created in 2001, the year she joined the board of IPC. (See Dodd's public financial disclosure reports with the Senate from 2001-2004 here.)

Dodd is likely more familiar with the complicated workings of AIG than he was letting on last week. This week may provide him with another opportunity to refresh his recollections.
---------------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_
director_o.html

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:31 PM

"So, I have to ask you - if the economy is not designed to serves the needs of the people --- what is it for?"

Hello,

Rue, you should know that you have been instrumental in refining and even shattering and rebuilding many of my perceptions of socialism. I am currently leaning towards the concept of a 'minimum guarantee' for all citizens, that is a guarantee that the minimum necessities of life will be provided, whilst all luxuries must be striven for.

Essentially, you ought to be able to count on a roof over your head, food in your mouth, education in your mind, and medicine in your body. This would be the 'minimum guarantee' of government, its promise to the people, right up there with freedom of speech and the rest.

So even I am no longer an advocate for 'pure capitalism.'

However, the point I am arguing is that we have not seen the ultimate path of 'pure capitalism.' In each case where capitalism enters a major self-corrective phase (which we call a depression/recession) it seems to me that the government steps in and interrupts the process. We don't know what, if anything, comes after a depression that is left unmolested. It's entirely possible that the system goes on in its sine wave, escalating back up without help.

I am reminded of a short story by, I believe, Isaac Asimov. It is called Nightfall. A society lives on a world where it is always daylight. Always. But an archaeologist on the world notes that every few thousand years, all of civilization is consumed in a conflagration. This is both puzzling and troubling, because the next conflagration is scheduled soon. If he can not figure out why civilization periodically dies out, it will happen again.

Soon enough, a rare alignment of the suns and solar objects causes a total eclipse. One which lasts for several days. A world that knows only perpetual daylight is thrust into night. Going mad for want of light, the citizenry start to burn everything they can find. Books, furniture, even buildings are set to blaze. Some people go to rioting and murder. Eventually, the sun rises again, but the damage is done. Civilization has once again been destroyed, and must rebuild from the ashes.

The actions during a recession/depression remind me of this story. Times become difficult, and on the premise that something must be done immediately, drastic action is taken. The very framework of society is often altered.

But what if, as the song says, The Sun will Come Up Tomorrow?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:59 PM

'Rap, thanks for the info on Dodd and his wife. Interesting stuff.

Now, if you can bear it, look into Phil & Wendy Gramm, and see where that takes you. It's not pretty, and it may be eye-opening.

As has been noted before, there's plenty of bad to go around, on both sides of the aisle.

STARTROOP

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:41 PM

I shouldn't do this. I'll pay in the morning ;-) Guess who manages the retirement fund that Congress pays into (with your money) since they opted out of Social Security? AIG.

I don't care which party you want to blame this on, they (AIG) should be allowed to go down in flames. It won't happen though because of the Congressional Pension issue. Pretty damned cheap "get out of jail free card" if you ask me.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:51 PM

Phil Gramm? Dude's been out of office for 6 years. WTF ?

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:50 AM

Guess it was too much to ask...

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

GEEZER

Friday, March 27, 2009 2:57 AM

Just running some figures, without any opinion.

If the government loans to AIG are around $170 billion and the bonuses AIG paid are around $170 million, then the all bonuses paid by AIG (before they cancelled most of them) are one tenth of one percent (one thousandth) of the loan.

If the AIG workforce of 118,000 earns an average salary of $50,000(it's probably more, but I can't find the figures), then the total bonuses is a bit less than 3% of AIGs total payroll.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 27, 2009 3:04 AM

Oh yeah? But what about Huey Long!

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:36 AM

Why stop there? Why not blame FDR some more?

YINYANG

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why stop there? Why not blame FDR some more?

Everything bad that has ever happened in the history of the universe is completely and entirely 100% FDR's fault. All of it.

(Oh, wait, what does that smiley mean?)

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why stop there? Why not blame FDR some more?

Everything bad that has ever happened in the history of the universe is completely and entirely 100% FDR's fault. All of it.

(Oh, wait, what does that smiley mean?)

Weird - I thought Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were to blame for everything bad that ever happened. Are you SURE it was FDR? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure Barney Frank sank the USS Maine.

Bastard killed Gus Grissom, too. :(

STARTROOP

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:22 PM

Don't forget assinating Lincoln .... the John Wilkes Booth thing was a CIA plant.

STARTROOP

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:22 PM

Don't forget assinating Lincoln .... the John Wilkes Booth thing was a CIA plant.

CITIZEN

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:29 PM

Barney Frank caused the above double post.

STARTROOP

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:32 PM

The fact that I am a klutz is also a clever CIA ruse.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 27, 2009 7:20 PM

Quote:
However, the point I am arguing is that we have not seen the ultimate path of 'pure capitalism.'

The ultimate path of pure captalism is monopolism and abject poverty for the vast majority. That's based on trajectories established by (1) economies of scale (2) ever-decreasing labor costs (3) efficiency of undivided power and (4) profit motive.

The ultimate end:

Quote:
70,000 workers or hormigueros, "ants", carry sacks of dirt down ladders at the Serra Pelada, or Naked Mountain, gold mine in Brazil.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:37 PM

Kibera slum, land of the "flying toilet". (That's when you shit in a plastic bag and toss the bag up and out because there's no sanitation. But, ya got the ubiquitous plastic bag, by god!)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:44 PM

The lucky ones:

Quote:
The center's 40-page report found sexual and physical abuse, debt bondage, child labor and unsafe working conditions are common in Thailand and Bangladesh's shrimp processing factories, and that Thai plants often use trafficked workers.
"There's so much slime on the floor you can hardly stand up, and that just keeping your bearing and footing while you are trying to do work that involves using sharp knives," Ellie Larson, the executive director of the Solidarity Center, told CNN.

"They are treated in ways I'm sure most American people think went by in the days of slavery. In fact that's the kind of conditions these workers are engaged in -- slave conditions," Larson said.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 27, 2009 9:04 PM

Hello,

I suppose pure capitalism in the absence of any protective governmental framework does indeed look like this.

You know, without laws or a bill or rights or things like that there.

Perhaps also with the government performing enforcement on behalf of the corporations, instead of the people.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by startroop:
The fact that I am a klutz is also a clever CIA ruse.

"Klutz", huh? Sounds... Jewish.

I'm gonna be watchin' you...

(If you're not sure whether or not I'm joking, refer to some of my past posts to PN's nuttiness!)

SIGNYM

Friday, March 27, 2009 9:13 PM

Quote:
Perhaps also with the government performing enforcement on behalf of the corporations, instead of the people.

That's the problem with the law of efficiency of undivided power: a corporate head can direct the work of many towards a single goal (even if the goal is political) while the many will be divided in their individual directions.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 27, 2009 9:22 PM

Hello,

This sounds somewhat like the prelude to a law making the meeting of ten or more people illegal.

If what you say is true, then it is organizations, not capitalism, that is a problem. How do we cope with the fact that large organizations hold large amounts of power?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I suppose pure capitalism in the absence of any protective governmental framework does indeed look like this.

You know, without laws or a bill or rights or things like that there.

Perhaps also with the government performing enforcement on behalf of the corporations, instead of the people.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

What you are describing sounds an awful lot like the end-goal of Republican deregulation.

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

STARTROOP

Friday, March 27, 2009 9:46 PM

If you are watching me, you obviously have way too much free time ;-)

CITIZEN

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by startroop:
If you are watching me, you obviously have way too much free time ;-)

He's getting Barney Frank to do it.

STARTROOP

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:12 PM

That is so wrong on so many levels that I am just going to surrender. You win the quip contest!

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by startroop:
That is so wrong on so many levels that I am just going to surrender. You win the quip contest!

Don't surrender! Join the fun!

By the way, NSA is going to be renaming their Echelon surveillance system "Barney Frank" in honor of his awesome power!

STARTROOP

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:44 PM

I would be so non-PC with what is going through my head that I might get drummed out of the Browncoats ......

CITIZEN

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by startroop:
That is so wrong on so many levels that I am just going to surrender. You win the quip contest!

Barney Frank says you're cute.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Perhaps also with the government performing enforcement on behalf of the corporations, instead of the people.

Check out the history of Union Labor, particularly the IWW, from 1905-1960

That's EXACTLY what much of the problem was, and is.

A corporation can always call on the entire might of the US Military under the guise of keeping the peace, they've done it historically so often that the workers never stood a chance - and had to spill ludicrous amounts of their own blood for even the most minimal of gains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes
While the deletionists (aka pro-corp revisionists) have been desperately trying to make this little problem dissappear, the list is still useful for general research despite many of the pages for the incidents themselves having been dropped down the memory hole.

Times the US Military intervened on behalf of corporations - uncountable.

Times the US Military intervened to protect the workers from corporate abuses - ZERO.

Unionists can fight a corporation and its goons, they can NOT fight a corporation, and its goons backed up by the entire might of the US Military, and if they *could*, then what would be the point of not simply taking over ?

The collusion has always been there, just out of the public eye, in fact the US Dept of Justice was initially formed on the structure of Pinkertons murderous strikebreaker goons, and THAT apple never really has fallen far from the original tree - although in 1893 the Anti-Pinkerton Act was passed to prevent this practice, it's still to this day mostly ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act

Especially given that US Gov contracts with Blackwater, Dyncorp and others quite specifically violate it.

All the Gov would have to do... is simply NOT intervene, and while there would be a period of ugliness without a doubt, without the "big stick" of the whole US Military behind them the corporations would soon learn it's simply not cost effective when you not only have to pay off mercs, but once you engage them, lose public sympathy and have trouble getting anyone to work for you.

The problem is most folk do not know enough history to understand how we wound up here, in spite of our current system being a very close copy of Mussolini Corpo-Fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_Fascism,_1922%E2%8
0%931943

I use the signature I do for a right good reason, cause it's really painful to watch our country go round and round endlessly repeating even it's most OBVIOUS historical mistakes.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by startroop:
I would be so non-PC with what is going through my head that I might get drummed out of the Browncoats ......

Don't bet on it - this is the RWED area! Anything goes!

And thin skins don't last long around here.

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:03 PM

Startroop: I heartily encourage you to join the discussions. Argue. Debate. If nothing else, just drop in and toss some snark into a heated argument now and again.

You might be surprised. You might learn some new stuff, and you damn well might TEACH some new stuff, too.

Just one warning, at least as far as me personally: I tend to respond in kind. Ask RIPWash - he (or she; I'm not sure yet) has been nothing but kind and respectful, even when we disagree vehemently, so I strive to respond in the same fashion. Some others have taken... different avenues, so I have accommodated them similarly.

But anyway, you're here, the water's fine, so jump on in!

SIGNYM

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:15 PM

Quote:
Times the US Military intervened on behalf of corporations - uncountable.

especially considering that most of our interventions overseas had more to do with making the world safe for capitalism, not freedom. That's why we fostered, armed, and trained so many tyrants.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:55 PM

Hello,

But is this any more a damnation of the Capitalist process than Cuba or Russia should be a damnation of the Socialist process?

None of these things seem to be about an economic system.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:11 AM

"But is this any more a damnation of the Capitalist process ... ?"

I'd say yes. Capitalism must either expand or crash. That's b/c profit is like entropy - wealth is inevitably made unavailable for circulation as it accumulates in the hands of the few. Sooner or later the system grinds to a halt unless something is done. That something is either creating new money out of nothing to inject at the bottom - inflation; or constant expansion into new labor markets - war, colonialism, or 3rd-world production.

We don't feel the effects of capitalism b/c, so far, we've exported them. However, given the globalists intent to turn the entire world into a company town, we may yet have the delightful opportunity to do so.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:14 AM

Hello,

But what of the cruelties generated in human attempts at Socialist societies?

Do they demonstrate that Socialism is bad?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:21 AM

We had a discussion of socialism a while back. To the best of my recollection we decided there are -

those who call themselves socialist but aren't (Hitler)
those who call themselves socialist and control the means of production (USSR)
those who call themselves socialist and control the distribution of wealth (Denmark, Sweden etc).

I'm not sure which 'socialism' you're thinking of.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:23 AM

Hello,

Well, which Socialism do you advocate?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:28 AM

None of the above !

But that's just me. If I HAD to pick out of the three, I'd pick the wealth-distribution model (which is not really socialist, but a mixed-economy).

***************************************************************
ETA
Anyway, insofar as it is capitalist the same things happen, only more slowly. Wealth accumulates, the economy needs to exploit to cheaper labor sources, poverty is exported. I think as far as 'inevitable consequences' of socialism, however, Sweden and similar countries are a good indication that the end reult of socialism is not necessarily bad.

STARTROOP

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:34 AM

There! He said it!

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:50 AM

Hello,

Can you describe the wealth distribution model?

We might have talked about this in months or years gone by, and I apologize if this is so and I forgot.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by startroop:
There! He said it!

?

Who said it? And said WHAT?

Now I'm on pins and needles.

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:46 AM

I think you missed it during your hiatus.

Just some background first - it started as a discussion of what is socialism - some people pointing to Hitler, some to Russia and some to Sweden as examples. So, as I recall, the Hitler example was quickly disposed of, while the USSR and Sweden examples were competitively proffered.

"1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Since the USSR sort of had the means of control of production covered (though it was by the state, and not by the community as a whole), and Sweden had the distribution covered through social services (again by the state, and not by the community as a whole), either one could be a viable candidate.

I think that's where it ended up, since neither had a lock on the entire definition, and both were by government, not 'community'. (Though I would suggest that since Sweden is a democracy, the government on the whole might be considered an extension of the 'community'.)

Anyway, in Sweden production is often private (though there are many government-run businesses, and businesses run under the strict oversight of government and labor). That's the capitalist portion.
A lot (but not all) of the profit is recycled through taxes and distributed through social services. That's the socialist distribution portion.

That's where it ended, I think.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:51 AM

Quote:
But what of the cruelties generated in human attempts at Socialist societies? Do they demonstrate that Socialism is bad?

Needs some thought as to what they demonstrate, exactly. I guess it's like fetal development... a million ways to go wrong, only afew ways to go right.

To go back to the law of efficiency of undivided power.... There are two parts to the idea (1)undivided and (2) power.

The more people you have in a system, the more potential power behind that system. People aggregate into very large systems simply because it provides a more efficient division of labor and greater productivity. (That's why societies at a certain stage of development with centralized peace-keeping may have an advantage over societies without: Others have a chance to farm, build, research etc without always keeping a gun at their hip and one eye looking behind them.)

But the power has to be UNDIVIDED in order to head off in any particular direction. Maybe the answer is never to create centralized postions of power in the first place. No CEOs, CIOs, CFOs. No Presidents. No Boards of Very Important People.

Just a thought.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
None of the above !
Anyway, insofar as it is capitalist the same things happen, only more slowly. Wealth accumulates, the economy needs to exploit to cheaper labor sources, poverty is exported. I think as far as 'inevitable consequences' of socialism, however, Sweden and similar countries are a good indication that the end reult of socialism is not necessarily bad.

Sweden is not a socialist country. It's a monarchy for a start, a parliamentary democracy, and has a market economy. It also has a strong trade union movement and a comprehensive welfare system.

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:20 AM

That was part of the discussion. Someone, I don't remember who, suggested that Sweden be called 'soft socialism'. As for not being a democracy, neither is the US, but we certainly call ourselves one ! So, I propose that any place where people select what gets done by who they vote for be called a deomcracy. OK by you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But what of the cruelties generated in human attempts at Socialist societies? Do they demonstrate that Socialism is bad?
Needs some thought as to what they demonstrate, exactly. I guess it's like fetal development... a million ways to go wrong, only afew ways to go right.

Indeed. As well as any number of ways to attribute success and failure. As much as it chagrins me, I have to admit that it all comes down to our subjective, favored narratives. You can look at the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history and see it as a condemnation of capitalism. Others of us see it as just the opposite. In the end it seems each of us looks at the "facts" and chooses a story that plausibly accounts for them, but expresses the values we prefer.

Quote:
Maybe the answer is never to create centralized postions of power in the first place. No CEOs, CIOs, CFOs. No Presidents. No Boards of Very Important People.

Just a thought.

And a pleasant thought at that. But then, do "we" create them? Or do they create themselves?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:37 AM

"You can look at the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history and see it as a condemnation of capitalism. Others of us see it as just the opposite."

Do you mean that the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history be seen as a commendation of capitalism ?

Or that the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history be seen as a condemnation of socialism ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:42 AM

"Maybe the answer is never to create centralized postions of power in the first place. No CEOs, CIOs, CFOs. No Presidents. No Boards of Very Important People."

If I may liken this to the economy - you know, the meltdown that didn't happen till recently even though the safeties had been removed years ago. It's kind of like an explosion - you can have the fuel, you can have the oxidizer, but nothing will happen till you have the spark. In the case of the economy, the spark was the predatory lending that was allowed under Bush. In the case of people, the spark would be the accumulation of resources that allows the centralized groups leverage over everyone else.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You can look at the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history and see it as a condemnation of capitalism. Others of us see it as just the opposite."

Do you mean that the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history be seen as a commendation of capitalism ?

Or that the expansionist militarism and corporatism of recent western history be seen as a condemnation of socialism ?

heh... I don't suppose that sentence rings with clarity. What I meant is that some may see recent history as the inevitable outcome of a free market capitalism, while some of us may as it as the folly of indulging statist intervention. There are plenty of "facts" to support either story. It just depends on what assumptions you start with and which explanation highlights your favored values.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:50 AM

Hey - thanks for the clarification ! I was wondering what you meant.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
None of the above !
Anyway, insofar as it is capitalist the same things happen, only more slowly. Wealth accumulates, the economy needs to exploit to cheaper labor sources, poverty is exported. I think as far as 'inevitable consequences' of socialism, however, Sweden and similar countries are a good indication that the end reult of socialism is not necessarily bad.

Sweden is not a socialist country. It's a monarchy for a start, a parliamentary democracy, and has a market economy. It also has a strong trade union movement and a comprehensive welfare system.

Shall I take it then, that you would view a move by our market economy into areas of stronger trade union involvement and more comprehensive welfare systems to NOT be any kind of move towards "socialism"?

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:03 AM

I will say this much in regard to the role of deregulation in the current debacle. Once you start down the regulation path, it can be very dangerous to start pulling back. Once the government steps in and says "we got it. We'll keep an eye on things and make sure that all deals are reasonably safe and free from unseen risk", well from then on, people are basing decisions on the assumption that the government is doing what they claim. Without the presumption of government oversight, investors would be more dubious when presented with investment "products" that seemed questionable.

This is the point that Ron Paul and others are making when they say that regulation causes more harm then it prevents. It diminishes the notion of "buyer beware" and sets up expectations of safety that might not be warranted.

But like I said, pulling back from regulatory responsibilities once they've become the presumptive norm is dangerous and looks to have contributed to the current crisis.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:09 AM

Hello,

Human beings being social animals, I think we will always eventually form into large organizations.

And large organizations being unmanageable by committee (particularly if a swift decision is ever called for) there will eventually be a few people charged with responsibility over the many.

How could this possibly be avoided?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:19 AM

There have been large, thriving civilizations that seem to have avoided concentrating wealth and power, and also war. I'm racking my brain trying to remember the names. One was in the Mediterranean, one was Mohenjo-Daro, and one was in South America. But I'm drawing a blank on two of three names.
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:28 AM

"Without the presumption of government oversight, investors would be more dubious when presented with investment "products" that seemed questionable."

I know this is a 'thing' of yours, but recent history doesn't support your idea at all.

The three biggest failures - AIG, Citigroup and BankofAmerica, were all conglomerate commercial/investment/insurance purveyors formed after the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act (which deregulated banking even more), the approval of CDS and naked CDS, etc.

They knew, in fact everyone in finance knew, that the raison d'etre of these places and products was a lack of regulation. Did they get MORE careful ? MORE dubious ?

If anything, they went even crazier. As SignyM pointed out, even Greenspan got it. Deregulation doesn't work.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:36 AM

Hello,

It should be notable that there have been large, thriving civilizations of every kind. Even the very bad kinds.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I know this is a 'thing' of yours, but recent history doesn't support your idea at all.

It's supporting it right now, in real time.

Quote:

The three biggest failures - AIG, Citigroup and BankofAmerica, were all conglomerate commercial/investment/insurance purveyors formed after the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act (which deregulated banking even more), the approval of CDS and naked CDS, etc.

They knew, in fact everyone in finance knew, that the raison d'etre of these places and products was a lack of regulation. Did they get MORE careful ? MORE dubious ?

I think I was clear that deregulation in a culture of regulation is dangerous. Once the concept of government oversight is entrenched, as it has been for decades, piecemeal deregulation is a game of pulling the supports out from underneath the current foundation.

Deregulation requires that we make it abundantly clear that risk is real and there won't be bailouts when it takes it's toll. Investors didn't believe that the government would let things fail and they were right. That's the "moral hazard" aspect that Ron Paul was referring to. We've only compounded that problem with the current bailouts.

We can't deregulate if we don't let bad decisions lead to bad consequences.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Shall I take it then, that you would view a move by our market economy into areas of stronger trade union involvement and more comprehensive welfare systems to NOT be any kind of move towards "socialism"?

Correct.

Socialism is a term thrown around in the US to engender panic about any changes which involve things like universal healthcare, higher taxes, or trade union activity. Plenty of free market economies have those traits, they just operate differently to the US, but they're not socialist states.

It's a bit like, "Oh, no, universal healthcare, next they'll be sending us to gulags" Not so much a leap, as a rocket into space.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:42 AM

"We can't deregulate if we don't let bad decisions lead to bad consequences."

Hello,

This is something I meant to allude to when I indicated we were not seeing the end game of 'pure capitalism.' Which maybe was a bad choice of words to properly show my meaning.

The bad horrible depression has to be allowed to happen. We have to see if people recover from it. And then we have to see if they learn from it, before capitalism can be properly branded.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:04 AM

Quote:
piecemeal deregulation is a game of pulling the supports out from underneath the current foundation.

Bull

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
piecemeal deregulation is a game of pulling the supports out from underneath the current foundation.
Bull

Hamster

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:18 AM

Hello,

We can do better than 'bull' I think.

We are having a good conversation where I am learning things. I'd like to keep having it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:40 AM

I was in the middle of stuff and didn't have time for more.

Here's the REAL deal: Investment bankers pushed for YEARS to get deregulation. Thanks to Phil Gramm and the SEC, they got it. When it came to capitalization, they got a buy-off from the SEC to leverage themselves out to the hilt (2004). When it came to collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) the investment bankers convinced the rating firms (Moodys, S&P) that since the combined debts would never actually default, they were AAA-grade paper.

Quote:
Suddenly, thanks to this financial seal of approval, banks had a way to turn their shittiest mortgages and other financial waste into investment-grade paper and sell them to institutional investors like pensions and insurance companies, which were forced by regulators to keep their portfolios as safe as possible. Because CDOs offered higher rates of return than truly safe products like Treasury bills, it was a win-win: Banks made a fortune selling CDOs, and big investors made much more holding them. The problem was, none of this was based on reality.

“The banks knew they were selling crap,” says a London-based trader from one of the bailed-out companies. To get AAA ratings, the CDOs relied not on their actual underlying assets but on crazy mathematical formulas that the banks cooked up to make the investments look safer than they really were. “They had some back room somewhere where a bunch of Indian guys who’d been doing nothing but math for God knows how many years would come up with some kind of model saying that this or that combination of debtors would only default once every 10,000 years,” says one young trader who sold CDOs for a major investment bank. “It was nuts.”
Now that even the crappiest mortgages could be sold to conservative investors, the CDOs spurred a massive explosion of irresponsible and predatory lending. In fact, there was such a crush to underwrite CDOs that it became hard to find enough subprime mortgages

Then, the insurance companies (lie AIG) decided they could "underwrite" these CDOs by selling a form of insurance called Credit Default Swaps (CDSs)... thus,,, making more MONEY!!! WHEEEE!!!!

AIG went on a selling spree.

Quote:
The very next year, Gramm compounded the problem by writing a sweeping new law called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that made it impossible to regulate credit swaps as either gambling or securities.

In addition, AIG London managed to convince EU regulators - who were about to rein it it- that it was going to be regulated by the Office of Thrift regulation and therefore not to be bothered. But the Office of Thrift Regulation was so underpowered that AIG wound up not being regulated at all.

EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, investment bankers, commercial bankers, insurances, mortgage machines... made decision after decision to loosen, evade, or avoid regulation, and to stuff money as fast as they could into complex, unregulated, dangerous investments.

This wasn't a mistake by financial interest lulled into complacency by past regulations and government insurances. The fuckers knew what they were doing, and I'm sick and tired of Sarge making excuses for those poor, defenseless, innocent pricks.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 28, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Sweden is not a socialist country. It's a monarchy for a start, a parliamentary democracy, and has a market economy. It also has a strong trade union movement and a comprehensive welfare system.

It's a mixed economy, meaning it's economic principles include some socialist principles (i.e. Regulation) and it has a strong welfare state, again socialist.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Human beings being social animals, I think we will always eventually form into large organizations.

And large organizations being unmanageable by committee (particularly if a swift decision is ever called for) there will eventually be a few people charged with responsibility over the many.

How could this possibly be avoided?

I remember reading a book called the business, which centred around an ancient company that had started out as a sort of trade union of merchants in Ancient Rome. It had expanded to a huge mostly benign multinational looking to buy a country, so that it could get a seat on the UN. And know one knows it exists. I think they were primarily concerned with keeping conspiracy theorists in work.

Anyway, they operated a sort of popular meritocracy (as opposed to the false meritocracy of most businesses) where by a person would be nominated for promotion, and their colleagues would have to vote for them.

Which means the ultimate CEO is there because all the way down the hierarchy of the Business their colleagues had wanted them to be in charge, rather than them trampling their colleagues to get there. Which would seem to be the ultimate difference between some form of Representative Democracy, and Dictatorial Fascism.

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The bad horrible depression has to be allowed to happen. We have to see if people recover from it. And then we have to see if they learn from it, before capitalism can be properly branded.

Was the Great Depression not enough?

KWICKO

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Shall I take it then, that you would view a move by our market economy into areas of stronger trade union involvement and more comprehensive welfare systems to NOT be any kind of move towards "socialism"?

Correct.

Socialism is a term thrown around in the US to engender panic about any changes which involve things like universal healthcare, higher taxes, or trade union activity. Plenty of free market economies have those traits, they just operate differently to the US, but they're not socialist states.

It's a bit like, "Oh, no, universal healthcare, next they'll be sending us to gulags" Not so much a leap, as a rocket into space.

Thanks for clarifying. And I find myself widely in agreement with you.

When people bring up universal healthcare as being "socialism", and claim that it will force independent doctors out of business, I bring up auto repair shops. Most of us are forced to carry auto insurance, yes? Do small repair shops and independent paint & body shops still exist? If so, how can that be? Didn't "universal car insurance" run them out of business?

By the way, would those gulags have universal health care? 'Cause that's a deal-breaker for me...

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was in the middle of stuff and didn't have time for more.

Here's the REAL deal: Investment bankers pushed for YEARS to get deregulation. Thanks to Phil Gramm and the SEC, they got it. When it came to capitalization, they got a buy-off from the SEC to leverage themselves out to the hilt (2004). When it came to collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) the investment bankers convinced the rating firms (Moodys, S&P) that since the combined debts would never actually default, they were AAA-grade paper.
Quote:
Suddenly, thanks to this financial seal of approval, banks had a way to turn their shittiest mortgages and other financial waste into investment-grade paper and sell them to institutional investors like pensions and insurance companies, which were forced by regulators to keep their portfolios as safe as possible. Because CDOs offered higher rates of return than truly safe products like Treasury bills, it was a win-win: Banks made a fortune selling CDOs, and big investors made much more holding them. The problem was, none of this was based on reality.

“The banks knew they were selling crap,” says a London-based trader from one of the bailed-out companies. To get AAA ratings, the CDOs relied not on their actual underlying assets but on crazy mathematical formulas that the banks cooked up to make the investments look safer than they really were. “They had some back room somewhere where a bunch of Indian guys who’d been doing nothing but math for God knows how many years would come up with some kind of model saying that this or that combination of debtors would only default once every 10,000 years,” says one young trader who sold CDOs for a major investment bank. “It was nuts.”
Now that even the crappiest mortgages could be sold to conservative investors, the CDOs spurred a massive explosion of irresponsible and predatory lending. In fact, there was such a crush to underwrite CDOs that it became hard to find enough subprime mortgages

Then, the insurance companies (lie AIG) decided they could "underwrite" these CDOs by selling a form of insurance called Credit Default Swaps (CDSs)... thus,,, making more MONEY!!! WHEEEE!!!!

AIG went on a selling spree.
Quote:
The very next year, Gramm compounded the problem by writing a sweeping new law called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that made it impossible to regulate credit swaps as either gambling or securities.
In addition, AIG London managed to convince EU regulators - who were about to rein it it- that it was going to be regulated by the Office of Thrift regulation and therefore not to be bothered. But the Office of Thrift Regulation was so underpowered that AIG wound up not being regulated at all.

EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, investment bankers, commercial bankers, insurances, mortgage machines... made decision after decision to loosen, evade, or avoid regulation, and to stuff money as fast as they could into complex, unregulated, dangerous investments.

This wasn't a mistake by financial interest lulled into complacency by past regulations and government insurances. The fuckers knew what they were doing, and I'm sick and tired of Sarge making excuses for those poor, defenseless, innocent pricks.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

[sarcasm] No, no, no, NO, Sig - Phil Gramm couldn't have had ANYTHING to do with this mess; after all, he'd been out of office for YEARS! Just ask 'Rappo. Nope, this is all Bill Clinton's fault. Or Barney Frank's.

[/sarcasm]

BTW, thanks for bringing this up.

And if you don't think Phil Gramm had any part in this, you should note that in 2000, the CDS market was essentially zero. In December 2000, Gramm snuck an amendment into a budget bill which let CDSs be completely unregulated. It was the last major bill that Bill Clinton signed. Gramm's amendment went in hours before the vote, and was never even debated.

By the end of 2007, on the back of that

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This wasn't a mistake by financial interest lulled into complacency by past regulations and government insurances. The fuckers knew what they were doing, and I'm sick and tired of Sarge making excuses for those poor, defenseless, innocent pricks.

I honestly have no idea what you're going on about here, but if that's what you think I was doing than either I'm a woefully poor communicator, or your reading comprehension could use some work.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This wasn't a mistake by financial interest lulled into complacency by past regulations and government insurances. The fuckers knew what they were doing, and I'm sick and tired of Sarge making excuses for those poor, defenseless, innocent pricks.

I honestly have no idea what you're going on about here, but if that's what you think I was doing than either I'm a woefully poor communicator, or your reading comprehension could use some work.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I *think* I get what you're talking about, Sarge, but I'm still not sure how to get there.

One HUGE problem we seem to keep running into is that:

1) Politician X becomes convinced that deregulation of a certain area of a certain market is a Good Thing™ - because he's had the lobbyists of that market area whispering in his ear for quite some time.

2) Politician X then convinces others in his party that his Good Thing™ will be a boon for all of them, and for the nation.

3) Politician X's party then convinces the people to support this Good Thing™ at the polls, and then they get enough power to actually do it.

4) Investment Firm Y then takes their newfound unregulated market and goes apeshit with it, trumpeting to all that this Good Thing™ is an all-but-guaranteed investment that can't possibly go wrong, and you'd be crazy NOT to put your money into this part of the market. The only reason it's unregulated, they say, is because it's so new and revolutionary that bureaucracies can't keep up with them, and governments are so far behind that they'll never "get it", and thus will never be able to ride this money train to Richville.

5) Investors jump in, and as with any pyramid scheme, the first ones in really DO make a fortune - which feeds the frenzy to get others investing in this new, better-than-ever Good Thing™.

6) At some point, the market is saturated, and that's when people stop, think, look around, and say "oh FUCK!", when they realize they've been hoodwinked. And then the Good Thing™ becomes a Very Bad Thing™.

The bottom line is, it's not necessarily the deregulation that's the culprit - it's WHAT is deregulated, and WHY, and WHO is behind it being deregulated. And from there, it's also a matter of HOW it's packaged and sold to an unwitting public. The issue isn't deregulation, but rather who stands to benefit from it, and what means they'll use to achieve those ends. It's not as if some politician just got it into his head to deregulate something (like Phil Gramm just deciding one day to deregulate the CDS market), and suddenly the markets noticed that there was a loophole in the rules now that could make them rich if they acted quickly. No, the deregulation is specifically DESIGNED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS with a specific goal of helping them get richer. And when one group gets richer, it's generally at the expense of another group, or several other groups, who end up poorer because of it.

Overly simplistic, I know, but it might help a few folks get their heads around the ideas being bandied about.

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:58 PM

"EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, investment bankers, commercial bankers, insurances, mortgage machines... made decision after decision to loosen, evade, or avoid regulation, and to stuff money as fast as they could into complex, unregulated, dangerous investments.

This wasn't a mistake by financial interest lulled into complacency by past regulations and government insurances. The fuckers knew what they were doing..."

Hello,

As someone who saw things from the front lines (from inside a home equity lender) I have to agree with you that unbridled greed was definitely going on. Some have asserted that the banks were forced to lend badly, and I've often emphatically stated that such was not the case for my institution.

They made loans they never should have made (in my opinion) and I feel they did it to remain competitive with all the other banks who were making loans they never should have made. In fact, the bank where I work was one of the most conservative lenders around during the equity bubble. I know what they did that made me cringe at the time. I can only begin to imagine what some of the 'faster and looser' players were up to.

I'd also like to note that as the roller-coaster of profit was running away with the competition, my bank was gradually loosening its conservative grip on the lending process. I think in another 2-5 years, we would have been indistinguishable from any other shady lender. The lure of remaining competitive is just too strong to resist in a runaway market.

"Was the Great Depression not enough?"

No. The Great Depression was an 'interfered with' crisis that resulted in things like bank deposits insured by the government, and other interventions. I have no idea what the country would look like today (or if even we'd have a country today) if the government had responded to the Depression with a great big 'caveat emptor' and gone on about its business. Since every economic crisis has been interfered with, I don't know 'what happens next' in a natural cycle. It may be something digustingly horrible. But I recognize that I can't say for sure.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

"Was the Great Depression not enough?"

No. The Great Depression was an 'interfered with' crisis that resulted in things like bank deposits insured by the government, and other interventions. I have no idea what the country would look like today (or if even we'd have a country today) if the government had responded to the Depression with a great big 'caveat emptor' and gone on about its business. Since every economic crisis has been interfered with, I don't know 'what happens next' in a natural cycle. It may be something digustingly horrible. But I recognize that I can't say for sure.

Those measures came years after the start of the crisis, and were rather light. So were the previous years before such measures (4-5 between 1929 and 1933-34+) not enough to show that the market wasn't going to magically fix itself?

The reason FDR was elected and able to put these mostly regulatory rather than active interventionist policies in to action was because 'caveat emptor' simply wasn't working.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The bottom line is, it's not necessarily the deregulation that's the culprit - it's WHAT is deregulated, and WHY, and WHO is behind it being deregulated. And from there, it's also a matter of HOW it's packaged and sold to an unwitting public. The issue isn't deregulation, but rather who stands to benefit from it, and what means they'll use to achieve those ends. It's not as if some politician just got it into his head to deregulate something (like Phil Gramm just deciding one day to deregulate the CDS market), and suddenly the markets noticed that there was a loophole in the rules now that could make them rich if they acted quickly. No, the deregulation is specifically DESIGNED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS with a specific goal of helping them get richer. And when one group gets richer, it's generally at the expense of another group, or several other groups, who end up poorer because of it.

That sounds about right. I was also making that point that being against regulation in the first place isn't necessarily the same as being for deregulation, especially not willy nilly deregulation without properly preparing the people who will be affected. ie, even though I think regulation can be harmful in the long run, removing it haphazardly can be disastrous.

The "moral hazard" concept seems to be particularly contentious and I don't understand why. It seems a pretty staightforward observation of human psychology: People will be less discriminating about risk if they believe they are protected from it somehow. I guess this rankles some folks because it points to a weakness in the practice of "regulation", but it doesn't condemn it wholesale. You could make the same argument against stop signs, but I'm not out there campaigning for deregulating intersections.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:17 PM

For anyone who wants to start their own thread, by all means, have at it. But I started this thread to express a specific point of view - that we are being fed this line of false outrage by the Government on purpose, so we don't get angry at them - THEY are the ones who did this, not A.I.G.

Agree or not, but this business of changing the thread title is childish and takes away from the discussion at hand.

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
For anyone who wants to start their own thread, by all means, have at it. But I started this thread to express a specific point of view - that we are being fed this line of false outrage by the Government on purpose, so we don't get angry at them - THEY are the ones who did this, not A.I.G.

Agreed to a point, depending on what you mean by "this". But AIG went completely off the rails and lobbied aggressively for government to make the mistakes it did.

Quote:
Agree or not, but this business of changing the thread title is childish and takes away from the discussion at hand.

Yeah, the thread title stuff is getting ridiculous. I'd hope we could all agree to be adults and stop doing it.

But as far as OT discussion, well, thread drift happens and sometimes leads to better discussions than the original topic. Should we start another thread? Maybe, but not necessarily. Tangents work for me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:38 PM

Quote:
You could make the same argument against stop signs, but I'm not out there campaigning for deregulating intersections.

Nope, that'd be me.

Anarchist Traffic Control ?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=36987

-F

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:41 PM

AIG lobbied, and who was the biggest recipient of that lobbying effort?

Name Office Total Contributions
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $104,332
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $103,900
McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $59,499
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $37,965
Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $24,750
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE) Senate $19,975
Larson, John B (D-CT) House $19,750
Sununu, John E (R-NH) Senate $18,500
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) House $12,000
Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Senate $11,000
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) House $10,500

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123&type=P&state=
&sort=A&cycle=2008

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

KWICKO

Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:36 PM

Quote:

Yeah, the thread title stuff is getting ridiculous. I'd hope we could all agree to be adults and stop doing it.

It seems to come in flurries. It was on EVERY thread in RWED for a while, and then it died down. Now it's back.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:52 PM

Rapo... but the deregulation occurred in 1999, which made it impossible to regulate AIG's CDSs at all. And what exactly did AIG's recipients do (including McCain) that makes you think they were responsible for the mess?

Now, if you were to say that Geithner was responsible for the bailout, I'd agree! But his name is nowhere in your list!

Okay, maybe they "could have" written laws to rein in AIG, but (as I recall), when this was all peaking (2002-2007) it was the REPUBS in power. Right?

I find it fascinating, in a sad kind of way, how you always manage to pin everything wrong on "the Dems" despite all evidence to the contrary.

Are you sure "Blame the Dems" isn't one of your core beliefs?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Yeah, the thread title stuff is getting ridiculous. I'd hope we could all agree to be adults and stop doing it.

It seems to come in flurries. It was on EVERY thread in RWED for a while, and then it died down. Now it's back.

It's worth noting that whenever you edit a previous post, the title will revert to whatever is showing as the thread title in that post - which may be in correct if you posted while someone was monkeying around.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 28, 2009 9:14 PM

Musta not noticed. I only saw two titles: kristallnacht and new direction. The first seems overblown* but what the hell- it was the one selected by the original poster (*Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew. In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 91 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and deported to concentration camps. More than 200 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked.) The second adequately described the new thread direction, I thought. Didn't seem snarky or like misdirection to me.

Did I miss something?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:07 PM

SergeantX

I just have time for one more quick post, then I gotta' get going ...

You claim (and it is only a claim) that somehow a 'regulated' environment leads to recklessness.

Regulations are simply limits on actions, generally with punitive consequences for going beyond bounds. As such, regulations imply no bailout, no safety net, no positive consequence for going too far.

Still, given that, for the sake of the discussion I'll move forward with your rather sloppy description of a regulated environment: the situation is instructive.
Here we have large financial institutions going crazy when regulations are lifted, in precisely those unregulated areas. Further, there was nothing is the Rolling Stone article indicating that they thought the government would be there if it went bad. What drove them forward, by all accounts, was greed. But then it DID go bad. And when government in the guise of Georgie and cohorts stepped in a shoveled TRILLIONS to those institutions, no strings attached, no regulations to get in the way - did they go even crazier ? After all, that is exactly the scenario you claim makes for people taking too much risk - a proven safety net and an unregulated arena in a regulated environment.

No, they got really, really conservative. Lending stopped, not just to consumers but to each other.

You can't have it both ways - a regulated environment creating risky behavior, and also creating cautious behavior. And yet, there it is.

Something is wrong here - and it is your argument.

***************************************************************

BTW: just 'cause your hero uses the term moral risk inappropriately doesn't mean you have to, too.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:16 PM

rue, once again (actually I guess it was Signym before, but anyway) you're chasing ghosts that have little to do with what I'm saying. Perhaps you're missing the part where I'm am acknowledging that in the current context the deregulation that occurred was a bad idea - and that it encouraged more reckless behavior by the bankers and traders that drove us into the ground. In any case, it's hard to say whether you've shown my argument to be faulty because you don't seem to have read it.

When I read about the bizarrely convoluted investment "products" that these people were dealing with I can't help but wonder why anyone would invest their money in such a scam. And I'm not talking about the bankers, traders and fund managers themselves - it wasn't merely their own money they were flushing down the toilet. I'm talking everyday investors whose money was the fuel for all of the speculation and gambling. Why would anyone willingly play Russian Roulette with their life savings? Why would they hand their money over to those who were? Why would they have so much blind trust that their money was being managed responsibly?

I'm not sure why it is such an alien concept to you, but moral hazard is a very real phenomenon. It's a common unintended consequence of any scheme that reduces perceived risk. It's not that it directly encourages investors to seek more risk, but it does reduce the incentive for scrutiny and due diligence. The presumption that a regulatory body has been tasked with making things "safe", makes it less likely that players will worry about danger. That's such a simple concept, I'm not sure how you can deny it, but it seems you are.

Anyway, lest you make the same mistake yet again I'm not defending the deregulation that happened, and I'm not saying it was a good idea. I'm saying the opposite: Once you've set up a regulatory presumption, deregulation becomes a very risky prospect and is certainly not something we should grant for political purposes, which is what seems to have happened.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:30 PM

Quote:
I find it fascinating, in a sad kind of way, how you always manage to pin everything wrong on "the Dems" despite all evidence to the contrary.

Are you sure "Blame the Dems" isn't one of your core beliefs?

Now you're assigning core beliefs for others ? Wow.

I posted the list of A.I.G. benefactors for a reason. It did not consist of ONLY Democrats, did it ? No. And to the point about A.I.G. and the bonus $$ specifically, it's vital to point out that Chris Dodd ( Democrat ) did indeed know about the bonus clause in the loophole which allowed them to keep the money.

I'm sorry you tire of me pointing out some basic truths, but there they are, and I'm not going to deny they exist simply because it annoys you or anyone else.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:50 PM

Quote:
I posted the list of A.I.G. benefactors for a reason

What reason was that? You didn't follow up with anything substantive (no action assigned to any of the recipients) so your only "reason" appears to be innuendo.... creating the appearance of wrongdoing by implication.

Now, if you were to say they were at fault for voting for a bailout which includes AIG, I'd say... maybe you have a point. (But then, a lot of other Congressmen voted for it too w/out the benefit of AIG contributions, so...)

So... what WAS your point, exactly? Do you have one?

Quote:
it's vital to point out that Chris Dodd ( Democrat ) did indeed know about the bonus clause

Vital to whom and for what? Wrong implications are NEVER vital! Yeah, Dodd knew about it. He knew about it and fought against it, as Congressional records prove. Had his arm twisted into it. "Knowing about" something doesn't automatically make someone a willing participant. You can know about something and be against it, be for it, be forced into it, be forced our of it, or be neutral. Again, your logic fails due to lack of actual vital information.

Try to draw some REAL connections, rapo. Go from point A to B and then to C using information and logic, instead of posting point A and Z and assuming we're' going to make those connections for you!

Quote:
I'm sorry you tire of me pointing out some basic truths

I wish they WERE truths. But, they're not. They're just.... factoids. Meaningless bits of uninteresting information with no dots connecting them except the desire on your part to make it so.

FWIW, I assign blame for creating the mess to Phil Gramm and other "deregulating, feed the rich" republicans.. But the response to the AIG mess I assign to Tim Geithner (and therefore Obama). I think their hearts are too close to Wall Street and investment banking. My view is similar to the big cardboard sign that someone put up on wall Street:

JUMP, you fuckers.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:16 PM

Sarge, perhaps I mistake your point. But in general you seem to have this "blame the gubmint" assumption which prevails when information to the contrary lacking.

Quote:
I'm talking everyday investors whose money was the fuel for all of the speculation and gambling. Why would anyone willingly play Russian Roulette with their life savings? Why would they hand their money over to those who were? Why would they have so much blind trust that their money was being managed responsibly?

Because businesses colluded with each other to portray their products as less risky than they really were? It was very much the Wild West: a whole new frontier of previously unexplored investment gambling with little government oversight.

AFA the insurances, it took (1) lack of regulation of new "products", (2) collusion of S&P and Moody's to grant AAA status, (3) the willingness of AIG to jump into naked Credit Default Swaps (30 lots of backdoor dealings to funnel "safe" money into unsafe investments.

I suppose if commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, mortgage firms, and credit unions all had BUYER BEWARE posted on their doors, MAYBE people would have looked a little more deeply into the investments behind their investments.... but it seems to me with the big shroud of secrecy that the money launderers on Wall Street threw over the mess, I don't think the outcome would have been much different.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE