or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism

post #1 of 101
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

After giving billions to Big Finance, the government has now decided two wrongs make a right. In these companies' defense, they accepted a "deal" that included certain conditions for taking government money. However, they are now told after the fact that the government is altering the deal (Darth Vader/Empire Strikes Back style!). The government will now set executive pay limits, ban certain types of perks, etc. Fascism/Statism on the march!

Granted, these companies DID take taxpayer money, which necessarily came with restrictions. However, the government did not buy controlling stakes in these companies. Therefore, it would seem they could certainly tell the government to go "pound sand."

As a conservative, I find this kind of government dictating extremely concerning. Does anyone support this move?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 101
Hey, everyone! Party at my place!



Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #3 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

After giving billions to Big Finance, the government has now decided two wrongs make a right. In these companies' defense, they accepted a "deal" that included certain conditions for taking government money. However, they are now told after the fact that the government is altering the deal (Darth Vader/Empire Strikes Back). The government will now set executive pay limits, ban certain types of perks, etc. Fascism/Statism on the march!

Granted, these companies DID take taxpayer money, which necessarily came with restrictions. However, the government did not buy controlling stakes in these companies. Therefore, it would seem they could certainly tell the government to go "pound sand."

As a conservative, I find this kind of government dictating extremely concerning. Does anyone support this move?

One thing is for sure: we do not have a meritocracy! The senior executives who were responsible for the decisions that brought so much chaos and collapse to the nation's economy were being paid 8 and 9 figure salaries. The bail-out money belongs to the taxpayers...ie the public.. and even though I am no fan of dictatorial government, in these times of economic woes, its is an insult to everyone to have another batch of high-flying executives being paid such grossly disproportionate salaries to continue displaying the same degree of incompetence (perhaps even criminality?) ... after all, what has changed in the world of finance that is going to prevent a similar meltdown from happening yet again, or worse even?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #4 of 101
I think it's time someone stood up to these executives so that they learn people just aren't going to take it any longer. I think they'd have to go a long ways beyond this before I'd be concerned.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #5 of 101
They made their deal with the devil. Of course some didn't have too much of a choice. When some wanted to pay it back they were told they couldn't. That didn't last long, thankfully.

This heavy handed government action may have the benefit of scarring away other companies that might want to get involved with the government.

At least Obama's fund raiser on Wall Street went well. The take was 3.something million?
post #6 of 101
The end result of this global car crash is unchecked growth of government, trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars and a continuation of Bush-era policies. The corruption is wide, deep and getting deeper.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 101
There is no solution to this either way, America has poisoned itself with greed and lawlessness -- it is no longer functional. There is nothing left for America, except to let the oligarchy fight over the scraps.

With every crisis the country will entrench into more and more messianic government intervention, which will only make matters worse -- this is inevitable.

You can't run the "greatest country in the world" on cycles of dependency and addiction, a 30th place public education system, epidemic obesity, and women who want their cesarean sections and tummy tucks scheduled on the same weekend.

If you will not be ruled by True morality (God) you will be ruled by tyrants.

We wanted it, and we'll get it.



Frontline had a great episode the other night:

The Warning

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #8 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The end result of this global car crash is unchecked growth of government, trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars and a continuation of Bush-era policies. The corruption is wide, deep and getting deeper.

Absolutely.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #9 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Absolutely.

Originally posted by SpamSandwich :
Quote:
a continuation of Bush-era policies

Yes all Bush era policies need to be stopped.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Originally posted by SpamSandwich :


Yes all Bush era policies need to be stopped.

Not only that, but all Obama era policies need to be stopped!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Not only that, but all Obama era policies need to be stopped!

Well that of course is where we disagree. However I wonder if Frank777 would have agreed to the first statement a short time ago.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #12 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well that of course is where we disagree. However I wonder if Frank777 would have agreed to the first statement a short time ago.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 101
God money Ill do anything for you.
God money just tell me what you want me to.
God money nail me up against the wall.
God money dont want everything he wants it all.

No you cant take it
No you cant take it
No you cant take that away from me
No you cant take it
No you cant take it
No you cant take that away from me

Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
Id rather die than give you control.
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
Id rather die than give you control.

Bow down before the one you serve.
Youre going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
Youre going to get what you deserve.

God moneys not looking for the cure.
God moneys not concerned with the sick among the pure.
God money lets go dancing on the backs of the bruised.
God moneys not one to choose
No you cant take it
No you cant take it
No you cant take that away from me
No you cant take it
No you cant take it
No you cant take that away from me

Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
Id rather die than give you control.
Head like a hole.
Black as your soul.
Id rather die than give you control.

Bow down before the one you serve.
Youre going to get what you deserve.
Bow down before the one you serve.
Youre going to get what you deserve.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #14 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However I wonder if Frank777 would have agreed to the first statement a short time ago.

I don't agree with your silly statement now. Brainless jingoism is your thing, not mine.

Not everything Bush did was bad. Not everything Obama has done has been bad.
I don't expect someone like you to understand that.

However, when it comes to the subject of this thread, Bush did give in to a lot of nanny state nonsense, and Obama has made it a thousand times worse.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #15 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

There is no solution to this either way, America has poisoned itself with greed and lawlessness -- it is no longer functional. There is nothing left for America, except to let the oligarchy fight over the scraps.

With every crisis the country will entrench into more and more messianic government intervention, which will only make matters worse -- this is inevitable.

You can't run the "greatest country in the world" on cycles of dependency and addiction, a 30th place public education system, epidemic obesity, and women who want their cesarean sections and tummy tucks scheduled on the same weekend.

If you will not be ruled by True morality (God) you will be ruled by tyrants.

We wanted it, and we'll get it.

[/URL]

The economic crisis is the Holy Wrath of the Lord God of Abraham!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGE-6cpeko
post #16 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The economic crisis is the Holy Wrath of the Lord God of Abraham!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, if you've been keeping up on current events, we have done this to ourselves.


In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #17 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

If you will not be ruled by True morality (God) you will be ruled by tyrants.

Ah.

Do you mean your moderate centre-left president Barack Obama?

Is he the tyrant you mean here?
post #18 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Ah.

Do you mean your moderate centre-left president Barack Obama?

Is he the tyrant you mean here?

I think it's known as "being a slave to sin".


We are our own problems.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #19 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't agree with your silly statement now. Brainless jingoism is your thing, not mine.

Not everything Bush did was bad. Not everything Obama has done has been bad.
I don't expect someone like you to understand that.

However, when it comes to the subject of this thread, Bush did give in to a lot of nanny state nonsense, and Obama has made it a thousand times worse.

How 'bout the White House trying to keep "Fox News" (which I detest, by the way) out of the press pool? IMO, that is really overreaching on the part of the administration. News organizations, such as they are, should have as much access as is practical. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." (quote by H. L. Mencken)

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #20 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How 'bout the White House trying to keep "Fox News" (which I detest, by the way) out of the press pool? IMO, that is really overreaching on the part of the administration. News organizations, such as they are, should have as much access as is practical. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." (quote by H. L. Mencken)

They tried, but it looks as if the efforts are being rebuffed, which they should.

Quote:
In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us...ics/23fox.html
post #21 of 101
I've noticed over the years that many people who call themselves conservatives are actually corporatists. What they really believe is that the government's job is to aid and comfort corporations, and if the government ever demands anything return, that this can immediately be called fascism. Funny, that. In a better world, many of these top executives (who after all brought the economy to the brink of collapse) wouldn't have jobs anymore, let alone big bonuses.

In 1978 CEO compensation was a multiple of 35 times the pay of the average worker. In 2007, the multiple was 275. That must be a function of the great job they are doing -- and if you don't believe it, you must be a fascist.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #22 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

One thing is for sure: we do not have a meritocracy! The senior executives who were responsible for the decisions that brought so much chaos and collapse to the nation's economy were being paid 8 and 9 figure salaries. The bail-out money belongs to the taxpayers...ie the public.. and even though I am no fan of dictatorial government, in these times of economic woes, its is an insult to everyone to have another batch of high-flying executives being paid such grossly disproportionate salaries to continue displaying the same degree of incompetence (perhaps even criminality?) ... after all, what has changed in the world of finance that is going to prevent a similar meltdown from happening yet again, or worse even?

So the government can now change the terms of its bailout after the fact...because the corporations are insulting people? Our founding fathers were deathly afraid and aware of the dangers of unchecked government expansion and power. If the government can dictate pay because it's insulting now, then we might as well burn the Constitution.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think it's time someone stood up to these executives so that they learn people just aren't going to take it any longer. I think they'd have to go a long ways beyond this before I'd be concerned.

Take what? These are publicly traded companies. They are responsible to their shareholders, not the federal government. And really...how do high salaries affect you? Do you really think the government has the right to limit pay like that, just because at one point these companies took bailout money? Don't get me wrong jimmac, I think keeping outrageous salaries is is an extremely bad idea in terms of PR. As a shareholder, I would be having a fit. I just don't think the government should have the right to do what they are doing...unless it was part of the initial agreement to take the money in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I've noticed over the years that many people who call themselves conservatives are actually corporatists.

No, you mean in your opinion they are corporatists. It's not like you've just now seen some readily observable fact.

Quote:
What they really believe is that the government's job is to aid and comfort corporations, and if the government ever demands anything return, that this can immediately be called fascism.

I can't speak for others, but what I'm taking issue with is the government altering the deal after the fact based on public perception/politics and nothing more.

Quote:
Funny, that. In a better world, many of these top executives (who after all brought the economy to the brink of collapse) wouldn't have jobs anymore, let alone big bonuses.

Many don't. Let the shareholders sort it out. Besides, the government encouraged and accelerated the collapse to begin with.

Quote:

In 1978 CEO compensation was a multiple of 35 times the pay of the average worker. In 2007, the multiple was 275. That must be a function of the great job they are doing -- and if you don't believe it, you must be a fascist.

What you're presenting here is a sort of false dilemma. It's quite possible to not believe either. The point is that it is not the government's job, right or responsibility to set limits on the private sector like this. That is, unless such limits were part of the bailout to begin with (which would have been understandable, even if I'm not sure it would be a good idea).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #23 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I've noticed over the years that many people who call themselves conservatives are actually corporatists.

What is the difference between your "corporatists" and capitalists?
post #24 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

What is the difference between your "corporatists" and capitalists?

A great deal. Corporatism describes a fairly specific type of relationship between business and government -- wherein it's the government's role to aid and promote business interests above all else. There's quite a long if not too glorious history behind corporatism in the U.S. going back to the mid-19th century, when it was quite openly stated that this was arguably the government's primary mission.

The odd part is that while few would admit to being corporatists today (because they've never heard of it?), we've come quite a long way towards "perfecting" the relationship between business and government. Not only do corporations virtually write laws to protect themselves, they can orchestrate instant and often very effective "conservative" backlash against any proposed regulation that they didn't author for and by themselves. Just call it "fascism" -- that size fits all.

My point is that I don't see this as conservatism at all, but instead as people arguing in favor of a corporate state. Real conservatives aren't in favor of that, but corporatists are. Sadly this has become so much the status quo that hardly anybody knows the difference anymore.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #25 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't agree with your silly statement now. Brainless jingoism is your thing, not mine.

Not everything Bush did was bad. Not everything Obama has done has been bad.
I don't expect someone like you to understand that.

However, when it comes to the subject of this thread, Bush did give in to a lot of nanny state nonsense, and Obama has made it a thousand times worse.

Quote:
Brainless

Just can't stay away from the insults can you?

In my opinion most everything Bush did was either bad or ineffective. You want proof? Just look at the state of affairs in this country ( let alone the world ) after 8 years of him as president. If after 8 years of Obama it's worse or the same you could say the same thing.

It's something you can't hang on Clinton or the democrats. It lands squarly at the foot of George W. Bush.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #26 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So the government can now change the terms of its bailout after the fact...because the corporations are insulting people? Our founding fathers were deathly afraid and aware of the dangers of unchecked government expansion and power. If the government can dictate pay because it's insulting now, then we might as well burn the Constitution.





Take what? These are publicly traded companies. They are responsible to their shareholders, not the federal government. And really...how do high salaries affect you? Do you really think the government has the right to limit pay like that, just because at one point these companies took bailout money? Don't get me wrong jimmac, I think keeping outrageous salaries is is an extremely bad idea in terms of PR. As a shareholder, I would be having a fit. I just don't think the government should have the right to do what they are doing...unless it was part of the initial agreement to take the money in the first place.



No, you mean in your opinion they are corporatists. It's not like you've just now seen some readily observable fact.



I can't speak for others, but what I'm taking issue with is the government altering the deal after the fact based on public perception/politics and nothing more.



Many don't. Let the shareholders sort it out. Besides, the government encouraged and accelerated the collapse to begin with.



What you're presenting here is a sort of false dilemma. It's quite possible to not believe either. The point is that it is not the government's job, right or responsibility to set limits on the private sector like this. That is, unless such limits were part of the bailout to begin with (which would have been understandable, even if I'm not sure it would be a good idea).

Quote:
Take what? These are publicly traded companies.

And because of the current laws they get away with a lot.

Sometimes government has to step in. Sorry but it's gone that far.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I've noticed over the years that many people who call themselves conservatives are actually corporatists. What they really believe is that the government's job is to aid and comfort corporations, and if the government ever demands anything return, that this can immediately be called fascism. Funny, that. In a better world, many of these top executives (who after all brought the economy to the brink of collapse) wouldn't have jobs anymore, let alone big bonuses.

In 1978 CEO compensation was a multiple of 35 times the pay of the average worker. In 2007, the multiple was 275. That must be a function of the great job they are doing -- and if you don't believe it, you must be a fascist.

Conservatives don't believe that the government's job is to comfort anybody - corporations, unions, special interests etc.

However, most of us also don't believe it's the government's job to set pay levels in the corporate sector if something is amiss. I agree that many those reckless idiots in the finance and auto sectors should be out of a job now. And if our economy worked as it should, those companies would have gone bankrupt and better run companies would have taken them over or gained their customers.

The government has now designated some companies/industries as 'too big to fail', meaning that greedy, incompetent management & staff will be bailed out when they get into serious trouble.

In short, the bad corporate pay situation you mention is only going to get worse.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #28 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Conservatives don't believe that the government's job is to comfort anybody - corporations, unions, special interests etc.

Well as I said, I believe a lot of people who call themselves conservatives are in fact corporatists. Whether they know it or not, this is functionally the philosophy they espouse.

It's easy to talk about an economy that "behaves as it should" but what kind of behavior is that, precisely? It's not the government that created these financial institutions that are "too big to fail," it was the urge to merge, which is created by the corporations themselves. It wasn't the government that made AIG gamble its entire future on derivative insurance, the risks of which they themselves clearly did not comprehend. It was corporate greed and stupidity.

I don't want to get into an argument that these companies weren't too big to fail, because making this argument inevitably comes down to historical revisionism, a pretense that it would have all been sorted out, and we would not have been in a worldwide depression right now if governments around the world (not just in the US) had not stepped in to prevent it. Even Alan Greenspan, a lifelong disciple of Adam Smith, had to admit to his horror that corporations don't always look out for their best interests, and when they don't, the results can be calamitous for the economy.

I don't like all of this government intervention. Still, I don't want to be squatting in a cave around a campfire talking about how we stayed ideologically pure. I also think we do need to do something about the wealth gulf, because I don't want the US to become Brazil.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #29 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Well as I said, I believe a lot of people who call themselves conservatives are in fact corporatists. Whether they know it or not, this is functionally the philosophy they espouse.

It's easy to talk about an economy that "behaves as it should" but what kind of behavior is that, precisely? It's not the government that created these financial institutions that are "too big to fail," it was the urge to merge, which is created by the corporations themselves. It wasn't the government that made AIG gamble its entire future on derivative insurance, the risks of which they themselves clearly did not comprehend. It was corporate greed and stupidity.

I don't want to get into an argument that these companies weren't too big to fail, because making this argument inevitably comes down to historical revisionism, a pretense that it would have all been sorted out, and we would not have been in a worldwide depression right now if governments around the world (not just in the US) had not stepped in to prevent it. Even Alan Greenspan, a lifelong disciple of Adam Smith, had to admit to his horror that corporations don't always look out for their best interests, and when they don't, the results can be calamitous for the economy.

I don't like all of this government intervention. Still, I don't want to be squatting in a cave around a campfire talking about how we stayed ideologically pure. I also think we do need to do something about the wealth gulf, because I don't want the US to become Brazil.

Now here's a guy that sees the situation for what it is.

Well said!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

...
It's something you can't hang on Clinton or the democrats. It lands squarly at the foot of George W. Bush.

Watch Frontline's recent piece: The Warning and get back to us on how this is "all Bush's fault".

Quote:
In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

You partisans need to see this for what it is: an American problem.

Quote:
Problems cannot be solved by the level of awareness that created them
-Albert Einstein

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #31 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Watch Frontline's recent piece: The Warning and get back to us on how this is "all Bush's fault".



You partisans need to see this for what it is: an American problem.

Quote:
It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."

The program begins in 2005. It figures Bush prominently. However it seems to point to Greenspan who started in the Reagan years. So you could blame Reagan. You must understand none of these people could do these things without the president's ok.
Letting the market run on it's own can be good as was seen in the 90's. However there are people who will take advantage of no regulation. It's nice to have a free society however you just can't trust people with no laws to regulate them.

And yes I'm sure this no regulation free ride has been going on for years. Each president in turn has had a chance to stop it. That doesn't make it ok for Bush.

Guess which most recent president was for deregulation?

Yes there were many involved but at the top of the law making, at the top of the decision making, at the top with his hand on the regulation controls, at the top of all of this for the last 8 years was guess who ( Hint : it wasn't Clinton for the last 8 years )?

Now we have the right screaming that goverment getting involved is socialism. But goverment stepping in is necessary sometimes.

Also there are many economists coming foward and saying they saw this coming for the very same reasons. The bottom line is that it's nice to have a society based on freedom but you still can't trust people. That's why we are regulated by laws.

However I wasn't just talking about just the economy when I made my statement about the state of things post Bush.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #32 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The program begins in 2005. It figures Bush prominently. ....

No, that program is about the Clinton years, and their chance to not drop the ball. Rubin went to CITI (LEVERED 87:1 BABY!!) and Summers is advising the President. The Bush years were a problem as well, to say the least. But in 2005 we all thought that we could lever ourselves and the economy into infinity.

Greed, confirmation bias, and regulatory capture -- which of those has changed? -- that's right, none of them have changed.

Just wait for Enron 3.0 -- it's going to be a riot.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #33 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, that program is about the Clinton years, and their chance to not drop the ball. Rubin went to CITI (LEVERED 87:1 BABY!!) and Summers is advising the President. The Bush years were a problem as well, to say the least. But in 2005 we all thought that we could lever ourselves and the economy into infinity.

Greed, confirmation bias, and regulatory capture -- which of those has changed? -- that's right, none of them have changed.

Just wait for Enron 3.0 -- it's going to be a riot.

To quote myself :
Quote:
However it seems to point to Greenspan who started in the Reagan years
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

To quote myself :


However it seems to point to Greenspan who started in the Reagan years

Ford -- Greenspan started in the Ford administration as the chairman of Ford's CEA.

(and, I'm not making this up, Ayn Rand was in the Oval Office when he was sworn in.)


Just watch the program -- you know PBS would never broadcast anything less than the unvarnished truth.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #35 of 101
I don't care who was in charge at the time, when it started, what party was in office, or any of these things. The problem is free market fundamentalism -- the theory that all is needed for a thriving economy is for the government to take a hands off approach. Everybody looks out for their own interests and everything turns out okay. After this last episode, even Alan Greenspan doesn't believe that anymore. I wonder where that leaves the people who still do. Way, way out on a distant fringe, I believe.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #36 of 101
Right, but with the regulatory capture on the one hand, and not just the belief but the necessity that Americans spend money they don't have to keep the economy moving, on the other, we've only begun to solve one of the problems -- and really don't have much incentive to do the little that wont get done.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #37 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And because of the current laws they get away with a lot.

Sometimes government has to step in. Sorry but it's gone that far.

I would like to know more about what current laws cause them to get away with "a lot." Could you cite some?

As for stepping in, I am very wary of that. Obviously we need regulation, particularly in the financial sector. However, I would disagree that the government has any right to control salaries, just to make things more "fair." That seems like what is happening here. Again..if this regulation was part of the original deal to take taxpayer money, that's different (I don't think there should have been taxpayer money at all, but that's besides the point).

Expanding on this a bit: Doesn't it seem to me that whenever the government "steps in," to artificially control prices, wages, etc...that things get even more screwed up than before? Not only do I think it's against our founding father's intent, I think the government simply sucks at it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 101
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I don't care who was in charge at the time, when it started, what party was in office, or any of these things. The problem is free market fundamentalism -- the theory that all is needed for a thriving economy is for the government to take a hands off approach. Everybody looks out for their own interests and everything turns out okay. After this last episode, even Alan Greenspan doesn't believe that anymore. I wonder where that leaves the people who still do. Way, way out on a distant fringe, I believe.

This is utterly wrong-headed thinking. The free market leads to excesses, but it also is self-correcting. Free market capitalism, while flawed, has produced the greatest standard of living in history. And really...your last statement...seriously? You claim that anyone who believes in free market capitalism is "on the distant fringe?" Wow.

Let me ask then...what system should we use? What regulations should be passed?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is utterly wrong-headed thinking. The free market leads to excesses, but it also is self-correcting. Free market capitalism, while flawed, has produced the greatest standard of living in history. And really...your last statement...seriously? You claim that anyone who believes in free market capitalism is "on the distant fringe?" Wow.

I claimed what I wrote, not some other thing, convenient as that might be for you.

Quote:
Let me ask then...what system should we use? What regulations should be passed?

I'm not suggesting a different system, only that some of our assumptions about markets need to be reexamined. This is what Greenspan was doing in a very public way about a year ago.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #40 of 101
Every time I look at this thread title I think it says: Another Step Towards Satanism

Then it sort of comes back into horrible focus and with a rush of nostalgia and sorrow I realize that the best we can hope for is the unbearable lightness of consciousness we've already got: the mind-numbingly quotidian United States of Stepford..
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism