At WaPo, Fareed Zakaria writes that Barack Obama’s first task is to save capitalism. After writing the requisite paragraph explaining that Obama’s supporters love him only because he is charismatic, Zakaria explains to us that being POTUS is real work.
Wow, Fareed, what would we do if we didn’t have you to clarify stuff for us? (/snark)
The task is to restore confidence in credit. But how is confidence restored? “After all, George W. Bush has pretty consistently projected an air of confidence, one that tends to get people even more worried than they need to be.” Yes, and that’s because he has no clue what he’s doing, and everyone in the country knows that but him.
The system has to be stabilized and reformed. And I would say there is one more task, which is to sweep up all the “free market” worship we can find and drown it in a bathtub.
At The Guardian, Gary Younge gets to the heart of the problem.
Greenspan’s ideology was unfettered, free-market capitalism. Its understanding of how the world works was rooted in self-interest. It was a value system that placed the private before the public, the individual before the collective, and the wealth of the few before the welfare of the many.
So pervasive was this worldview that, after a while, it was not even understood to be a view at all. It was just the hard-nosed reality against which only lunatics and leftists raged. “Unlike many economists,” Bob Woodward wrote of Alan Greenspan in his book Maestro (the title speaks volumes), “he has never been rule driven or theory driven. The data drive.” They drove a sleek black limousine over the edge of a steep cliff. And since the invisible hand of the market ostensibly guided everything, there was no one who could really be held accountable or responsible for anything. The buck didn’t stop anywhere. Indeed, for those who were already wealthy, the bucks just kept rolling in.
If you want to see brainwashed cult followers, don’t look at Obama supporters. Look at libertarians, “free market” devotees, and anyone who thinks Ayn Rand had a brilliant intellect. Somehow our economy came to be guided by these nitwits and their transparently absurd belief system. I say “transparently” absurd because it has always been utterly disconnected from real-world human behavior, and those of us living in the real world could see that. But the leaders of the “free markets” cult were insulated enough from reality that they didn’t see it.
One of the most galling aspect of the “free market” religion has been the notion that the wealth generated by an economy belongs only and entirely to those investing capital into it. Workers whose labor creates the wealth have no claim to that wealth. Worse, the status of working people has eroded to the point that workers are looked at as parasites because they have some expectation of a living wage, health care, and some kind of retirement benefits. “Smart” capitalists scraped these parasites out of their companies as quickly as possible by moving to Third World countries where labor can be exploited. And according to the free market culties, any attempt by government to protect wages and benefits or to make sure securities and finance are kept honest is “socialism.”
The problem with this system is that, if a majority of people have no disposable income, who’s going to buy stuff? And what happens to capitalism when money just plain stops flowing? Well, we can see what happens, because that’s pretty much what has happened — money has stopped flowing.
The theory has been that people who rise to the tops of corporations have done so because they are smart and capable, and these smart and capable people naturally will not do anything to hurt the long-term prospects of their businesses, like selling fraudulent products or stealing from shareholders. Therefore, government regulation is an unnecessary burden.
The problem with this theory is that, too often, people rise to the tops of corporations because they are aggressive and ruthless and don’t have the scruples that God gave pickles.
Right-wingers won’t be able to wrap their heads around the idea that saving capitalism requires putting limits on it, but the truth is that capitalism, left entirely unfettered, sooner or later devours itself. That’s what we see happening right now.
We not only need to re-learn the lesson that capitalism needs regulation; we also need to restore the value of work. Citizens who work for paychecks to make a living are not “parasites,” and they are not “cost.” They are America. Capitalists need to remember that. We have an economy for the people, not people for an economy.
Much of what you’re writing here seems, on the surface, to be based on assumption. Employees are not parasites, but health care is indeed a parasitic industry, it depends on continued government interference to maintain the power it holds over all of our lives. If employers weren’t required to provide health care then there actually would be even more money to go around in the form of wages. And if the healthcare industry wasn’t so tied up in the bonds of regulation then it could actually be run by doctors the way it used to (and should) be. Further, insurance would actually be affordable because if doctors can set their own prices, free from the profit-at-any-cost mindset of insurance “providers” then we wouldn’t need coverage for simple visits to the doctor, but could pay reasonable rates out of pocket for those and only use insurance in the event of an emergency or long term situation.
I have friends who have insurance through the company they work for but still don’t go to the doctor because of the expense involved. If doctors are running the show, then they set the prices and are able to make exceptions for lower income families and don’t have to worry about an insurance company telling them what their services are worth. If you leave people alone and allow them to care for each other, you find a great heart.
Will everyone who works hard to rise up do so for the right reasons? No, but I don’t think our current political, economic or corporate environments have too many people that we can hold up as shining examples of success through regulation and doing things the new fashioned way, either.
Good job, maha. I have never been able to understand how anything can run free of regulation – let alone a ‘market’ – starting with the family unit to the city, county, state and on up. I do think that there are those fools who really believe a ‘market’ can run efficiently and for the betterment of all free of regulation. On the other hand, most of the free market champions have glommed on to the buzz word, free, as a ruse used to rip off the unsuspecting among us big time.
Wasn’t it Marx who said that capitalism will destroy itself. Took a while but it’s beginning to look like he was right.
Much of what you’re writing here seems, on the surface, to be based on assumption.
No, actually, it is based on long and hard personal experience, plus several years of actually paying attention to what goes on in the real world.
Employees are not parasites, but health care is indeed a parasitic industry, it depends on continued government interference to maintain the power it holds over all of our lives.
OMG, a cultie. If you really believe that, you are beyond salvation.
Votes, people? Do I ban him now, or should we smack him around awhile first?
Here’s why, even though I don’t support it as a political doctrine, regulation will never go away and all of you who think that it is the best thing that ever happened to America can sleep well at night:
Regulation of any industry is driven, funded and fought for by the major players within that industry that stand to directly benefit from it. By ensuring that expensive and nonsensical rules and processes must be followed within any regulated industry, the big boys can make it cost-prohibitive for a little guy who believes he or she has a better way to even try.
Additionally, because industry regulation typically appears in the form of a dollar or two increase in our monthly electric, phone, insurance or grocery costs, it is spread out so much that it irritates us but does not bring us to the point that we are willing to protest. And it is those one or two dollars a month provided by our collective apathy that the big boys use to continue their lobbying campaigns in DC.
So you see, liberal America, you have done such a fine job of selling us on the principle of “don’t worry, you don’t have to figure this out for yourself, we’ll take care of it for you” that our society is no longer just lazy, but also self-sufficient. Well done.
I do not need your salvation. And apparently, you have no use for open discourse. No need to ban me. I see no reason to come back.
I do not need your salvation. And apparently, you have no use for open discourse. No need to ban me. I see no reason to come back. If you only want to talk to those who think you’re brilliant and never oppose a word you say, then I wasted more time reading your original post than you have in responding. Let’s just call it even.
And apparently, you have no use for open discourse.
No, I love open discourse. It’s brainwashed ideologues I can’t stand.
Brainwashed is in the eye of the beholder.
If you can write anything that convinces me that anyone and everyone who supports, fights for, lobbies for and funds the efforts of government regulation is looking out for my best interests over those of the company or industry they represent, I would love to read it and you may change my mind.
And I do say everyone because that is the standard that you are holding anyone and everyone to who aspires to rise to a position of leadership and influence within a corporation.
I’ve run across so many of thee free-market types in blogs who quote Keynes and Freidman in their jammies and suddently imagine theselves to be Nobel winners capable of arguing economic theory with the likes of Krugman and others. It is soothing to have everything worked out to such a fine degree of perfection in their own minds…a salve for the sharp wounds of a disorderly world. And our conservative legislators were no less afflicted than the free-market jammy crowd, even more to blame.
“And I would say there is one more task, which is to sweep up all the “free market†worship we can find and drown it in a bathtub. ”
Some will be dragged kicking and screaming to the tub but we shouldn’t let up on them a bit. Then there will be that nasty ring to scrub. No doubt there will ne stragglers singing their little free market tune after leading proponents of the punditry class know to keep their mouths shut.
In response to Bush running towards regulation like some scalded dog, Alex Koppelman of Salon.Com suggests “the sound you heard was every single conservative in Washington smacking their hands on their foreheads at once.”
They were wrong, so wrong. Including some who were tapped for Obama’s administration. What makes it even worse is that many of these benefitted from the wrong-minded theories while the rest now suffer.
Will justice be served?
I’ve heard unfettered capitalism described as a single-eliimination tournament with a single winner emerging at the end…fat and flatulent after having consumed all others . We would have no competition, a cornerstone of the basic tenets that makes capitalism work.
How would you like “the bank” (and their fees), the “grocery store” (no more coupons or deals for you except out of the goodness of one man’s heart) and “the department store” (oops there’s WalMart but think “later” after there is no competition).
if anyone thinks times are hard and we are enslaved now, just wait.
The righties have never had any answers to this except to say the tournament winners are good people and will do the right thing…”Trust them.”
Actually, I think that’s exactly what will happen with continued regulation. The tighter we regulate whole industries, the more expensive it becomes to be a player within it. Therefore, the companies with money will acquire the ones that struggle in an effort to save them – sound familiar?
Right now, there are a few wall street banks that have that capability and, of course, our government can fire up the presses at the Federal Reserve and print more money to do it because everyone knows that more is better.
When small companies start out having to bear the weight of regulation and spend the same amount of time filling out form after form to ensure compliance, there is no time for the actual work to get done. That’s what’s going to ensure that we have one all encompassing CORPORATION, INC that owns everything, including us.
We’ve been through all of this before, in the 1930s. Someone needs to revive the writings/speeches of FDR and his railing against what he called “the economic royalists”. It’s different language, and somewhat different circumstances, but the same basic theme – capitalism failed – or more accurately, capitalism ran to its logical conclusion – and capitalism’s host – our country – had to be rescued. This happens over and over.
If you can write anything that convinces me that anyone and everyone who supports, fights for, lobbies for and funds the efforts of government regulation is looking out for my best interests over those of the company or industry they represent, I would love to read it and you may change my mind.
Dave, I don’t know if it would convince you or change your mind (and frankly I don’t care), but I’d encourage you to look up “A Day in the Life of Joe Middle Class Republican”. It can be found on many different sites scattered throughout the web.
Regulation of any industry is driven, funded and fought for by the major players within that industry that stand to directly benefit from it.
That is, of course, what happened in the Bush Administration, but those of us with long memories know that this is not the way it has to be.
Again, real world. What actually happens. What’s happening right now, and why. Also check out real history, not right-wing or libertarian mythos. The real world is a very different place from what you think it is.
I will read the suggested texts and I will also freely admit that I am pretty new to any involvement in politics whatsoever. These last 16 years have all had their moments worth pulling my hair out. I, frankly, have lost trust and faith in both major parties and feel that they are really nothing more than the same party that disagrees on how to spend money and where it should come from.
I will say that in my comments here, I attempted to speak from my understanding of what I’ve learned over the last year or so, as well as what seems to make sense when I think through a problem. Yes, much of it is based on Libertarian texts, and maybe I am naive but my life experience has always proven to me that people, when left to their own devices are very resourceful, giving and concerned for the greater good. In my opinion, government has done little to encourage that by attempting to bear the weight of the greater good on its own shoulders. And looking for more ways to do so doesn’t help much, either.
I will say that I am pretty surprised by the tone of most responses on here. Perhaps in the future you shouldn’t assume that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t worth your time, your conversation or your understanding. Kinda seems like politics as usual if you ask me.
Employees are not parasites, but health care is indeed a parasitic industry, it depends on continued government interference to maintain the power it holds over all of our lives.
The health care industry has the power it has not because it is over-regulated, but because it holds very literally the power of life and death over millions of Americans and uses that power to make the maximum profit. Poor health is usually not a “choice” that people make, it’s something that happens to them. If we take seriously the ideas of the founders of our republic, then we cannot forget that of the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ,” in the Declaration of Independencelife is the first-named “unalienable right.”
Or do you disagree?
I believe that Greenspan believed that the markets were basically honest and that they would correct for dishonest players like Madoff. I guess he never allowed for the honest players saying, “Whoa, cool! Look at the money THAT guy’s making!” and running off to do the same thing. Human nature, Alan. You have to account for human nature.
[Btw, I’ve been posting here For Ever under the name “Dave.” Regulars please note that I’m not the “Dave” that posted the drivel above. Guess I’ll have to change my sig. Sigh.]
Maha,
Great post, pretty much sums it up. One of my musical (and political for that matter) hero’s is the great Steve Earle, he pretty much recognizes our economic (lack of a middle class) problems with one line from a great tune “sweet little 66”: at the begining of the song done live for ACL he says “ya out of work, ya hungry, eat your NISSAN” The song was recorded in 1986.
Heres the song done elsewhere without the opening line? arghhh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivGgqnXytwY
maha, I get the impression Dave was born 1981 or later. Possibly on the planet Ork.
Otherwise, no excuse.
Joanr16,
1972.
And God, how I wish I possessed your wit.
Dave, you’re nothing but a time waster, and that is why you’re going to be banned. It isn’t the rest of the world’s job to straighten out your tangled misconceptions.
One day you might just figure out that you have the concepts of regulation and deregulation completely ass-backwards. Based on your ridiculously addled comments above, that won’t be for quite a while. I’ll let that continue to be your problem.
Thank you, joanr16! Thank you! Just when we were on the verge of an actual conversation, you and your 48 cats step in and ruin it. I actually admitted to not knowing everything. In my real world, that’s the first step to gaining knowledge. On the other hand, people who think they know everything end up talking only to themselves, which does nothing but perpetuate their own misunderstandings. Then again, in your real world of kitty litter and housecoats, I’d imagine you’re used to that. You’re right about one thing though, this discussion has become a waste of time. Nice work, cat lady.
Ah, Dave was born in 1972. A mere babe.
Dave, the problem is that you aren’t saying anything we all haven’t heard ten thousand times already, and it was absurd the first time. No one is inclined to argue with you because we’ve all had these same arguments for year after year, to the same result — the brainwashed won’t listen. Come back when you’ve learned to think for yourself. I am tired of wasting my time.
The thing is, the arguments you make about healthcare almost made sense 30 years ago, but now reflect cluelessness about the healthcare system on a massive scale. And I don’t have time to give you life lessons.
Maha, I believe this is why I’ve never had time for the political “discourse” that goes on all around us every day. If you’re new to it, everybody considers you a waste of time. If you’re interested and want to debate, everyone considers you stupid. If you don’t immediately glom on to the rest of the conversation and vigorously shake your head in agreement, you get banned. Whatever.
Since when does simply agreeing with the “opposition” equal thinking for yourself?
Aside from politics, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of the beginner’s mind. Maybe your older and more mature principles could stand to be rattled. But don’t let some young neophyte like me tell you that. You can figure that one out for yourself.
I don’t need lessons. I need discussion. Used to be what made this country great. Maybe we’ll see if more taxes and more rules and less competition and more secrets and higher utilities and crappy healtchare can make it great again.
The reason that my statements about healthcare would have made sense 30 years ago but seem ridiculous now is because we were first legislated into thinking that we all needed expanded coverage through HMOs and now the very legislators who tried to sell us on that are the ones arguing for less interference from insurance companies and holding up health savings accounts as the industry’s ultimate solution. I may be a mere babe, but I have spent a little bit of time looking back over some historical documents such as healthcare legislation. Even the Constitution. (And the chorus starts: OH, DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THAT ARCHANE PIECE OF PARCHMENT!)
Dave:
More taxes- unless you make over a million your paying higher taxes now. Tax cuts are only for the rich people. My taxes never went down, I make dam good coin, taxes never went down under Bush, in fact my state is so broke they have been raising property taxes every year. If you don’t want to pay taxes than build a rocket and fly somewhere else.
More rules-How about some fucking rules and some people in government who are actually smart enough to implement them-we are in the big period of deregulation now, how is that working?
Less competition-Everyone buys everything at fucking Wal-mart, can you get less competition than that? Conservative free-markets led all of our manufacturing to china so Wal-mart can sell all the junk. Come on.
Crappy Healthcare- I work as an engineer for a large multi-national, our engineers in Canada always laugh when they here some young American rightie say “crappy government healthcare”. What’s crappier healthcare or no healthcare?
Dave –
Consider Nursing Homes and Day Care. In both cases the ‘customer’ is likely to be unable to stand up for themselves. Family is frequently unable to monitor what happens. And the profit motive dictates that the LESS you do for the old fart or the baby, the more PROFIT you make. To level the playing field, you have government regulation and supervision. Now the honest owner/operators in those industries are not competing with price-slashing ‘capitalists’ who will let your parent or infant die while they are in pursuit of a few more bucks.
Now with the auto industry, there is a level of interference that’s justified becuase autos are a prime contributor to global warming. While gas prices were down, auto makers wanted to make big expensive cars – because they were more profitable. CAFE standards would have mandated fuel-efficiant cars but they were relaxed – and peto-pigs like the Hummer were the result.
You asked if anything ever came from regulation. In ’96 GM produced an electric car (the EV-1). It could go 60 MPH – had a range of 60 miles , had A/C – a real car. It was developed in response to CA regulations which the big-3 got overturned in court. GM recalled the 1200 cars that were on lease and destoyed them. The battery was the development of GM – and the heart of the car. They sold the pattent for the battery – to Texaco. Now the battery is unavailable for any price, and GM has the plans for a workable electric car that they can’t power.
No one doubts your intentions, Dave, but you got your head up your ass. You have your mind made up – and you think you are inviting dialogue. If you actually displayed any fraction of an open mind and asked real questions, most of the folks on this blog would gladly teach you.
Dave, I just returned from a day’s worth of errands, was a bit horrified at reading the comments upstream, and feel I should try to reach out a bit.
Most of the commenters here have been fighting the kinds of views you hold for a very long time. This site too often draws wingnuts who are very militant about their views, which often brings out our own militant side. You seem to be more open and inquiring than most. I hope you can be patient with what you’ve seen here so far – it’s not our best side.
It took a generation, but the USS Conservative has hit the iceberg and is going down. There are loads of people on board who still believe the ideology the right pushes out; there are also loads of people in the water who are dazed and confused and lost. You were born in 1972, which means you probably know nothing else but Reagan and the conservative ideology that followed. Old timers on this blog: this guy cannot help when he was born or into what ideological milieu he was subjected to growing up. He needs a hand up.
Dave, your task then, if you wish to accept it, is to learn about the past, before you can begin to dialogue. Because of the times you grew into, you were indoctrinated with the belief that government is the problem and can do no good. This is one of conservativism’s self fulfulling prophecies – if you install a government that doesn’t believe it can do good, then that’s what you’ll get. We see the result unfolding in the news. It wasn’t always this way.
The New Deal, which began in the 1930s Depression was a time when people turned to the government to save them from destitution, because capitalism had just failed (sound familiar?). The amazing thing is that it largely worked. I grew up in the 1960s, which was a time of unbelievable general prosperity and optimism. My parents’ generation managed to pull together, and, through government: defeat fascism in WW2, provide for the elderly via Social Security, build the interstate highway system, and put a man on the moon. None of this had previously existed. This degree of cooperation and pulling together for the common good would be unheard of today, but it really did happen. We literally are standing on the shoulders of giants, and most people – particularly those of your own generation – don’t know it.
And so you need to learn about the past, so you can begin to question the things you were taught, and can converse with those of us who are already up on all this stuff. I mentioned “A Day in the Life of Joe Middle Class Republican” as a place to start. MahaBarb has written a lot about how the New Deal and Liberalism ended, perhaps she can provide some links to her own fine writing. I recommend finding books on this subject that appeal to you. http://www.BuzzFlash.com has a large selection of books that may help. Thom Hartmann, who has a talk radio show and a fine mind, also has an extensive selection of books that are illuminating. You’ll need to do some research here. One of my favorites is about how generations succeed each other, and the themes and ideologies they regularly and predictably embrace. It’s called “The Fourth Turning”.
I hope you aren’t too put off by the reactions here – most of us have just been through a lot, and have yet to fully grasp that things have changed and there is a tremendous opportunity for both healing and leadership.
Right o Moonbat
The reason that my statements about healthcare would have made sense 30 years ago but seem ridiculous now is because we were first legislated into thinking that we all needed expanded coverage through HMOs
“Expanded” coverage? Exactly what planet are you from, dear? The HMOs put limits on coverage.
The health insurance industry pushed HMOs on us beginning in the late 1980s. At the time costs already were spiraling out of control, and HMOs were supposed to be the answer. They probably have controlled cost a bit, but not by “expanding” coverage. They control costs by putting screws to physicians not to order anything expensive.
and now the very legislators who tried to sell us on that are the ones arguing for less interference from insurance companies and holding up health savings accounts as the industry’s ultimate solution.
The health savings accounts are a joke and not an option for most people, anyway.
Insurance companies literally are killing people. In many states they can dump anyone they like as customers and refuse to insure anyone they don’t want to insure. Millions of people can’t get health insurance coverage and as a result put up with third-world level healthcare in what is supposed to be the richest country in the world. Used to be, anyway, before Bush got hold of it. Our current “system” delivers healthcare in the least cost-effective, most wasteful manner it possibly could.
I have written copiously about the health care system and what’s wrong with it. If you’d like to read through the health care file, you are welcome to do so. I don’t have time to walk you through this extremely complex subject.
I may be a mere babe, but I have spent a little bit of time looking back over some historical documents such as healthcare legislation.
I think you missed something, somewhere.
Even the Constitution. (And the chorus starts: OH, DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THAT ARCHANE PIECE OF PARCHMENT!)
Now I know you are brainwashed. Liberals take the Constitution much more seriously than conservatives, and more seriously than libertarians, in my opinion. Unlike conservatives, we don’t think we should ignore parts of it whenever we want to. (Warrantless wiretaps, anyone? Signing statements?) Unlike libertarians, we don’t believe in putting ideologically driven restraints on it that make it unusable as a blueprint for 21st century government. We think it should be preserved and respected as the tool for self-government it was intended to be.
Now you’re banned, btw. That ignorant sneer about the Constitution pushed me too far.
Moonbat, thank you. In my mind, I had signed off of this stream with “typical”. I came back one more time to see what people were saying about me, and to try to objectively gauge whether it was true or not.
I put it out there that my beliefs are new. To me. I never said they were new to the world around us. I have lost complete faith in the way things have been. At the same time, I am not setting aside rations and ammunitions to go off and live free from the confines of the state on some remote island. I am realistic to a point and realize that government can do right by the people it governs.
I just don’t see many examples of that jumping up and smacking me in the face from any time in recent history, and I have what I think are legitimate concerns about some of the people who are forming this next administration and their ties to recent history.
Perhaps it is pure skepticism on my part based solely on the number of times I believe we as a country have been let down by our leaders. I hope I’m wrong. I would like nothing more than four years from now, to hear the entire country say, “Damn. That wasn’t so bad. Let’s do it again.” Not because I blindly follow a doctrine, but because stuff actually makes sense again.
Somewhere in the midst of government scandal and poorly planned handouts, I feel like we’ve lost our collective common sense. I just want to get it back.
So Moonbat, thanks again. My first intention is always to learn. Particularly in this arena. I appreciate the links. I doubt, from the name calling and dismissals that maha will be forthcoming with any links, but I will gladly take your suggestions to heart.
Thanks
Old timers on this blog: this guy cannot help when he was born or into what ideological milieu he was subjected to growing up. He needs a hand up.
Too late. I don’t have time to paper train puppies.
Quoted from Dave:
“Brainwashed is in the eye of the beholder. If you can write anything that convinces me that anyone and everyone who supports, fights for, lobbies for and funds the efforts of government regulation is looking out for my best interests over those of the company or industry they represent, I would love to read it and you may change my mind”.
===============================================
“Increasing home ownership in America is a legitimate political goal. Waiving down-payments requirements, dropping lending standards, allowing predatory lenders to flourish — that is what is the underlying cause of boom bust and collapse. Once again, we relearn that worthy ends do not justify foolish means. Of the four Presidents since the mid 80’s, President George W. Bush is the one with the seemingly greatest culpability. Not just because this crisis happened on his watch — although that is reason enough to give him a fair share of responsibility. More significantly, the basis of his culpability is that he shared Greenspan’s and Gramm’s radical belief system — that markets could police themselves, and that all regulation was inherently bad. This philosophy colored all of the President’s appointments to key supervisory positions, as well as his legislative agenda (Excerpt from “Bailout Nationâ€).
Lawrence B. Lindsay, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals. “No one wanted to stop that bubble,†Mr. Lindsay said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.†As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks. The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, said, “They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West.†The cost of this fiasco is now $2 Trillion USD and rising.
Whoa. I’m a fan of your writing, Maha, but the patronizing condescension and rush to ban Dave on this discussion thread is one of the most cringe-inducingly inappropriate responses I’ve ever seen.
Disgusting and way, way beneath you.
Perhaps.
Maha, your post is spot on. Dave, go read it again, there is nothing to argue or debate about.We had a similar discussion yesterday at lunch regarding the bailout of the big three. My friend asked why we should bailout UAW workers who make over $70.00 per hr. I said they don’t make that much, he said yes they do because of their benefits. I said, not true, the seventy dollar figure counts all direct costs, PLUS the “legacy” benefits paid to retired workers.
He said they make too much money for what they do. I asked him what he thinks they should be paid, and why, after someone works their whole life under a collective bargaining agreement, would a company not be responsible to honor a retirement agreement?
I find it odd that conservatives have their panties in a knot over the UAW, but think nothing about the massive pensions and continuing health care benefits for the military.
There is a lot I like “in theory” about libertarian thought, but we sadly live in a world full of sociopaths, and true libertarian free market just won’t work ( unless one has no problem with dead bodies littering the landscape).The past eight years are proof of this, the financial melt down we are going through is not due to people getting generous benefit packages, but is directly linked to a coordinated effort to destroy the worker class. Thankfully, people are waking up, sadly, it may be too late.
Disgusting and way, way beneath you.
I’ve spent most of the past seven years setting straight the brainless arguments and revisionist history of the Right. I’m exhausted with it, frankly. I need it to just go away for awhile and give me a rest.
In maha’s defense (not that she needs me for this):
Dave, you want to debate what are, for the rest of us, settled issues. That’s fine, nothing wrong with that – free inquiry and all that!
But the place for that is the classroom. This is not a classroom and not a school; these people have no responsibility to educate you. You need to educate yourself. Take some courses at the community college, spend a few nights in the local library, or just read through the archives here (as suggested above).
You wouldn’t come waltzing into your boss’ office and start demanding he or she debate you on economic principles, but that’s the equivalent of what you’ve done here.
First of all, do not equate Maha with my boss. He has way too much integrity to be mentioned in the same breath.
Second of all, this mortgage fiasco we’re in was rooted in issues that stem back to the Clinton administration and the desire to lower lending standards so that people who couldn’t afford home ownership could pretend for a couple years that they could.
Fine, if this isn’t the place to debate. I thought one of the premises of debate was sharing viewpoints whether settled in one’s mind or not. I suppose the charade of Presidential debates this past season has also changed that long-held belief as well. Hurray for progress.
And Maha, I think if you keep talking to your readers like this, you won’t have any problem at all with all of this going away and giving you a rest.
[i]I need it to just go away for awhile and give me a rest. [/i]
Don’t we all.
But there is a way to overcome, and it has more to do with the last 7 years of repeatedly countering bad ideas with good than the kind of sloppy nonsense that has taken place in this discussion thread.
hotspock — goodbye.
That’s it, Maha!
Get rid of everyone who disagrees!
You’re making my point faster than me.
Second of all, this mortgage fiasco we’re in was rooted in issues that stem back to the Clinton administration and the desire to lower lending standards so that people who couldn’t afford home ownership could pretend for a couple years that they could.
Clinton wasn’t perfect, but it was Bush who pushed the “ownership society” to the point of disaster. And that was a part of the failure, but the bigger part was …
DEREGULATION
… of the financial sector. Very simply, the guys in charge of the money did things with it that wouldn’t have been allowed under earlier regulations. (And it was Bill Clinton who signed the deregulation bill.)
And no, this isn’t the place to debate. I’m done debating. It’s all I’ve done for the past seven years, and I am now retired from it. My role from here on out is strictly educational. If you want to be educated, fine; if you think you already know the answers, get lost.
Get rid of everyone who disagrees!
People who disagree with me and can support their arguments with FACTS get my respect. I don’t mind disagreement. It’s the lies and fantasies you are spreading that I will not tolerate on my site.
I find this series of comments very depressing.
Maha, I believe I understand your utter exhaustion. I myself no longer post comments on rightwing blogs. It is an exercise in futility. This is your blog and you certainly have a right to do with it as you please. And as you know, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful, intelligent commentary.
I don’t know Dave. Perhaps his “I’m here to learn and discuss” persona is real. Perhaps he’s just another rightwinger looking to annoy and waste the time of thinking people. I have to say, though, that I really liked Moonbat’s comprehensive response. Moonbat is obviously not as exhausted as Maha is–and with good reason, Maha! You’re out in the virtual trenches every day, looking for the good and having to wallow in the stench and filth of the bad. At a certain point, even the (relatively for a libertarian/right winger) mild-mannered Dave can be enough to set someone off.
So thanks for the (as usual) great article, Maha. Mais du calme, s’il vous plaît. And thanks to Moonbat too for responding to Dave. In fact, I feel the need to read the article he recommends too.
And as for Dave, all I can say is that the US is the only Western nation without universal health care. That, for me, says it all about the state of your union. And what it says isn’t very good.
Dave wasted two whole days writing comments that have no basis in fact. Anyone who’s not Dave, reread his comments if you don’t believe me; I don’t have time to reiterate all his nonsense. I have a job, and a life.
It’s impossible to “debate” someone who lacks even a basic understanding of the topic at hand, and when challenged, turns childishly petulant. Like all of us, Dave was maha’s guest here, although he behaved more like a vandal. maha can ban whom she pleases, and Dave and his pals really can’t say boo about it.
Thank you, joan. I may have been too hard on Dave, but I take it as a given that anyone who spouts common right-wing talking points as if they were received wisdom is not here to learn or debate.
I’ve been “debating” these people since the 1980s, before there was a Web. I tried reasoning with them back in the days of Usenet and CompuServe. I’ve had it. It’s always the same damn zombie nonsense that won’t die, and I’ve seen 8,734 times already, at least, and I’m not responding any more. If they want to know what I think, they can read the archives.
May I inquire just what error eliminated my comment at 32 just after 6 am?
‘I don’t need lessons. I need discussion. Used to be what made this country great. Maybe we’ll see if more taxes and more rules and less competiton and more secrets and higher utilities and crappy healthcare can make it great again.” Comment by Dave
This irked me. Dave has his mind made up. He also has all his facts wrong. Go over that last sentance – item by item. He has it ALL wrong. And he wants to ‘debate’ from that premise.
I stand by my previous statement. He has his head up his ass. Barbara should have banned him. Re tolerance. In the public sector – I am for it. 100% That’s one reason Pastor Warren does not bother me. This is NOT a public forum!. Barbara does not post a LOT of what I write, and I do not object because it’s HER forum, not just by ownership rights, but because she built it.
To comment on the blog entry – which is spot-on, I lived through the Nixon years. I remember the phrase ‘wage-price spiral’ which was the Rightie explanation for double-digit inflation (blame it on labor). Fast-forward to our current trade situation; we have a $ 250,000,000,000 annual trade deficit with China. The number is too big to wrap your mind around – 250 thousand times a million. A big chunk of that number represents not just lost jobs – entire industries are gone. And I wonder if Nixon knew and planned on using cheap Chinese labor to break the back of domestic labor?
Nixon ‘normalized’ relations with China, which paved the way to the demise of the US textile industry, electronics, and a host of other industries which migrated to super-cheap labor. Did Tricky-Dick know and is he laughing? He laid the foundation for the Tower of Conservatism. Bush completed the upper stories pushing the ultra-rich to hights they never reached before,. But the design robbed the middle class – the backbone of the building – of all structural integrity.
The short-term fix of the economy will include an infusion of job-creation by gov’t spending, The long-term solution MUST involve the restoration of the economic strength of the middle class. Conservatives are deathly afraid of ‘protectionism & isolationism’ which makes me think that’s a good place to start. I would run the numbers on tarrifs with the revenue earmarked to be the capital to restart domestic industries which could compete with the imports.
Want to experiment? Make the companies employee-owned, employee-run; let the rank-and-file select management and design executive compensation. No one inside the beltway has the cohones to utter such blasphemey out loud.
This WaPo article (and especially the comments on it!) say so much about what has happened and what is happening. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122302765.html?wprss=rss_print
Sorry I don’t know how to make that a hyperlink or whatever you call those blue things that take you places instantly. But it is worth the read.
There is some value in the classical division of inputs and outputs; that is, land, labor and capital produce returns to each of rent, wage and interest respectively.
Now this division is not as these words may be used in ordinary speech; land encompasses all natural resources, for instance, and rent has a larger meaning that I don’t want to try to explain right now. Anyhow not to write an essay here, but treating all inputs as capital (i.e., “human capital” — a term which should offend anyone with the slightest sense) has pernicious effects.