A Lou Dobbs induced orgasm | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
Nyet (none / 0)
The opposite is true, firstly the Bush administration has NOT been involved and has refused to regulate or enforce the regulations already existing in any effective way, especially in the financial sector. What this administration has done instead is actually make financial manipulation easier with the Bankruptcy law. The Bankruptcy law was obviously written by lobbyists and supported by your party of preference, the Republicans. This is NOT a government of the people its a government of the few against the people. So the real problem is not the government, the real problem is the undue influence that corporate interests have in the creation of US policy.The Bush administration is captured by FIRE, oil companies, and the military-industrial complex. This administration acts not as a government but as a massive corporate machine that co-ordinates corporate welfare programs at the expense of the American people and American economy. That is the problem, the role of the government is to make sure that capitalists do not do something as stupid as...subprime mortgages, because capitalists are UNABLE to plan in the long run. The subprime crisis is how capitlalism works without government intervention, it fails and it always will fail to the logic of accumulation. The government has to get involved in regulating the financial markets especially because left unregulated it will always end up in bubbles and then collapse, what do you think Keynes was most worried about? So, again this free market bull-shit blames government, when it is the very opposite that is the problem, not enough government.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 12:05:12 PM EST

let's recap (none / 0)
You say that Congress passed f ederal bankruptcy legislation that the Executive signed, and it totally screwed up the lending market, but this is not a problem caused by government intervention.

Yet, if borrowers could still walk away from their debt, like they did prior to the bankruptcy law, then the burden would be on lenders to choose their customers with more caution.

Once you start regulating, you create unintended consequences, which are corrected by yet more regulation, which multiplies the unintended consequences, until the entire market spins out of control.

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 12:27:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0)

Be even if this is true which it may or may not be it fails to address the uninted consequences of unregulated capitalism or lending or coal mines or anthing else.

This is how you always argue, "your sides ideas aren't completely perfect therefore my side is right."

Its ludicruous.

When the GOP gets control of the country everything falls apart.  See the 1920s and 2000s.  Go ahead and throw in the nightmare that was the average American's life in the Golden Age of Deregulation follwing the Civil War until 1900 when regulation began.

So not all regulation works perfectly, it is still demonstrably better than no regulation. 

by ProfRich on 05/09/2008 12:38:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: (none / 0)

No, re-read what I wrote and try to understand it. What I am saying is that the government you have today in the US is not a government, it is captured by special interests. It is a corporatist (as in actual corporation) state which allows special interests to write the laws of the land. Thus, how can the government regulate effectively if it is not autonomous from the private sector? The problem is not the government, the role of the government again is to prevent the private sector from engaging in short-term speculative investments and games, a la subprime mortgages.



Historically Ken, the market "spins out of control" when there is NO government intervention, reference 1929-1933. Do you think that the welfare state came out of no where? The free market does not exist, capitalism would destroy itself without state intervention due to its own inherent contradictions, and capitalism is only possible with a state. I know you believe all those myths of supply and demand, and equilibrium, but there is NO theoretical foundations for those theories, unless of course you can measure utility and assuming that the whole economy is one consumer with the same tastes...and if you believe that you'll believe anything. You have to study more about economic history and not refer to some graph that tells you have supply will equal demand at a unique point. Read Keynes for starters.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 12:40:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its hopeless (none / 0)

There is a cult (its called the Republican Party) here in the US that rejects everything Keynes says and insists that all economic situations can be handled by regulating the money supply.  They insist demand is completely irrlevant to the functioning of the economy and support the complete intertwining of the government and corporations.

They accept the twin premises that the best people in a society will become rich and the rich are the best people in a society without seeing the apparent contradiction in this worldview in that it automatically justifies the wealth of the wealthy by the very fact they are wealthy.

I believe that during the period 1932-1968 America shifted so dramatically to government control of the corporate sector that we have to live through a reactionary period.  This period appears to have reached its zenith which is the government becoming controlled by the corporations. 

This cycle began with corporations raping America in the post Civil War era.  This ended in the collapse of the economy in the 1890s which was followed by the brief period of reform in the first two decades of the 20th Century.

Then rampant corporate raping in the 1920s, followed by utter economic collapse in the 1930s, then another big war (WWII), then a really marvelous period of responsible government, then the reaction, corporate rape.

This seems to suggest next comes economic collapse, a big war and then a period of reform.

Ask yourself which periods of time do you think were best to live in in US History?

Massive war: 1861-1865, 1939-1945

Corporate Rape: 1866-1890, 1920-1929, 1968-2008

Depression: 1890-1900, 1929-1939

Reform: 1900-1920, 1946-1968

by ProfRich on 05/09/2008 01:22:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
thank you for the Canadian perspective (none / 0)
Read this and try to understand it. The U.S. Government is no more or less captive to special interests than it has been throughout history. The business of America is business.

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 01:27:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@KenTX (none / 0)
@ KenTX

The business of America is business.

That goes for EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, do not forget that the state is really the executive committee of the capitalist class. The difference is that corporate interests in America are so powerful due their size they control cause a lot damage internally and externally. Also, the difference is which corporate interests are in control, back in the Golden Age it was more industrial capitalism and thus producing goods and jobs, now its FIRE which does neither and depends on debt.

I would also say that American business is FAILING, look at America's GDP as a percentage of world GDP its going down rapidly, stock market valuation relative to the world it is also declining. The only place where the US is rolling ahead is in debt accumulation. America, if its a business, is bankrupt.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 05:00:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
facts to consider (none / 0)
Everyone knows the emerging economies of China and India are growing at explosive rates as a result of low labor cost.

But let's compare the U.S. economy with that of Europe or Canada or some other non-emerging economy. Who is doing better?
laugh this off

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:17:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
National income inequality narrowing (none / 0)
...look at America's GDP as a percentage of world GDP its going down rapidly...

Many countries have a lot of room for growth. It's not a bad thing that world GDP is growing faster than America's.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 05:19:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
History (none / 0)
Historically Ken, the market "spins out of control" when there is NO government intervention, reference 1929-1933.

Only a fool believes there was no government intervention in that time period.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 01:45:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
only a fool would post /believe this (none / 0)
The U.S. Government is no more or less captive to special interests than it has been throughout history

by Chinese Democracy on 05/09/2008 03:00:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
only a fool would look for love in a bathhouse (none / 0)
But it hasn't stopped you.

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 03:34:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank God It's Dubya! (none / 0)
Dub, please weigh in with neoclassical liberal economic theory. We are winning over hazmat, and Prof Rich is ready to embrace Uncle Milty.

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 03:32:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TGIF (none / 0)
...Prof Rich is ready to embrace Uncle Milty.

Rich has a long way to go still.

Nick86 is stuck on Marxist nonsense. I recommend that he check this out of the university's library.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 05:22:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Neoliberalism is on the march! (none / 0)
Rich is trying to apply old fashioned Marx and Engels socialist economic models that have been repudiated the world over. The days of static trench warfare between labor and capital are forever dead. In France and Canada and Germany and Italy and the Czech Republic, pro-American, pro-Bush, pro-free market presidents were elected because voters ha ve had it with socialism. 
harper 
berlusconi

havel 



sakozy
merkel

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:32:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where did Nick go? (none / 0)
He started this thread with his typical challenge in the form of an insult,

"Sorry to break it to you "free market" morons"

and then, after he starts getting his ass kicked, he runs away like a little girl.

This causes me to lose respect for him. If an elite, intellectual grad student in economics can be punk slapped on the subject of economics by a couple of regular Americans who cling to their beer and guns, then what exactly is he supposed to be good at? 

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:39:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nick wants to French-Fry the U.S. economy. (none / 0)
I think I'm beginning to understand Nick's obsession with the U.S. economy. He understands that when we embrace neoliberal economic policies, the rest of the world must follow our path in order to compete. Globalization has no time for the lazy and non-productive.

Nick is campaigning hard to have the U.S. follow France in constructing a socialist’s dreamland.

France’s top personal tax rate is 48 percent, with a VAT tax of nearly 20 percent. So that means French laborers face a combined 68 percent tax rate on consumption and investment. No wonder France has created less than 3 million jobs over the past 20 years, compared to 31 million in the United States. Economic growth in “cowboy capitalist” America has exceeded that of France’s worker paradise by nearly 50 percent.

In a dramatic speech to the European Parliament last summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair hit the mark when he criticized all Western European economies for their inability to compete on an acceptable global level. Asked Blair, “What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy — skills, R&D, patents, information technology — is going down, not up?”

Financial Times international editor Olaf Gersemann blames French and European unemployment on high minimum-wage requirements and overly strict employment-protection laws. Gersemann, who scathingly criticized Western Europe in his book “Cowboy Capitalism,” says these labor-market regulations have created millions of involuntary unemployed throughout Europe, affecting immigrants in particular. He writes, “Most French, German, and Italian voters simply refuse to accept the necessity of a Thatcher-Reagan style economic revolution.” He notes that per capita income in the U.S. now exceeds that of France by close to 40 percent, with Germany and Italy lagging even further behind.

This explains why investment capital is fleeing France, and the only thing they still produce is wine, cheese, and truffles.

On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study.

At a time when France is struggling to stay competitive in an increasingly integrated world, business leaders say the country can't afford to make refugees of some of its most established business families. They include members of the Taittinger champagne empire, the Peugeot auto magnates and leading shareholders of dominant retailers Carrefour and Darty. Also going are members of a new generation of high-tech entrepreneurs.

Socialist leaders and some government officials argue that the rich are merely trying to shirk their social responsibilities by fleeing the country with their millions.

The wealth tax -- officially called the solidarity tax -- is collected on top of income, capital gains, inheritance and social security taxes. It's part of the reason France consistently ranks at the top of Forbes magazine's annual Tax Misery Index -- a global listing of the most heavily taxed nations.

"This tendency to take from the rich and give to the poor which is supposed to solve all the problems in France is ruining the country," said Alain Marchand, who left France six years ago and now has a London-based consulting business that helps relocate French business leaders and entrepreneurs in England and other countries. "That's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded vision of economic life."


Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.

In France, employers are required to pay social security taxes equal to 48 percent of each employee's salary. Labor laws make it difficult and costly to fire incompetent workers.

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:51:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fact (none / 0)
Facts are facts, the US gvt under Hoover cut the budget to maintain a budgetary surplus making the depression worse. So no the government was withdrawing from the economy during the period 1929-1933. Hoover was a neoclassical thinker who thought that the depression was actually a good thing, and that eventually (like in neverneverland) the economy would recover if left to its own devices. Obviously, that would NEVER happen as, I am going to get Keynesian here, expectations of future profit were nil thus so was investment. It was under FDR that the state got rid of the illogical neoclassical theory that the market would correct itself, reality check it never would. He increased demand by inserting the government into the economy and regulating the uncontrolled corporate oligarchy, so much so that they tried to overthrow him in a fascist coup in 1933. The only fool here is you my friend.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 04:55:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fool me once (none / 0)
So no the government was withdrawing from the economy during the period 1929-1933.... The only fool here is you my friend.

President Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. If that is not intervention, then you are a fool, my friend.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 05:17:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

A Lou Dobbs induced orgasm | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)