Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Pretty amazing.
In the past, you folks (typically) tried to come-off as civil-society's-outlaws/rednecks/Independents; John Wayne's best & brightest.
You used to abhor "entitled"-rich-kids/frat-boys/The Bankers (i.e. the moneyed-people who've always justified rippin'-off the Middle Class); much like the outlaws o' the Roaring Twenties.
Somehow, those same people have turned you into their needy/clinging "kept-women". Every time they screw-you-over, you apologize for them...like some Jr. High chickie who gets slapped-around by her boyfriend, but knows he really does it 'cause he loves her so much...and, when he gets enough money, he'll marry her.
How long's it gonna be, before you folks (finally) realize that...swapping your backbones for hormone-replacement-therapy...probably (just) seemed like a pretty-good-idea at-the-time???
In the past, you folks (typically) tried to come-off as civil-society's-outlaws/rednecks/Independents; John Wayne's best & brightest.
You used to abhor "entitled"-rich-kids/frat-boys/The Bankers (i.e. the moneyed-people who've always justified rippin'-off the Middle Class); much like the outlaws o' the Roaring Twenties.
Somehow, those same people have turned you into their needy/clinging "kept-women". Every time they screw-you-over, you apologize for them...like some Jr. High chickie who gets slapped-around by her boyfriend, but knows he really does it 'cause he loves her so much...and, when he gets enough money, he'll marry her.
How long's it gonna be, before you folks (finally) realize that...swapping your backbones for hormone-replacement-therapy...probably (just) seemed like a pretty-good-idea at-the-time???
"When I first began writing for The Times, I was naïve about many things. But my biggest misconception was this: I actually believed that influential people could be moved by evidence, that they would change their views if events completely refuted their beliefs.
And to be fair, it does happen now and then. I’ve been highly critical of Alan Greenspan over the years (since long before it was fashionable), but give the former Fed chairman credit: he has admitted that he was wrong about the ability of financial markets to police themselves.
Let’s recall how we got into our current mess.
America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to give bankers what they wanted.
The first big wave of deregulation took place under Ronald Reagan — and quickly led to disaster, in the form of the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. Taxpayers ended up paying more than 2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of around $300 billion today, to clean up the mess.
But the proponents of deregulation were undaunted, and in the decade leading up to the current crisis politicians in both parties bought into the notion that New Deal-era restrictions on bankers were nothing but pointless red tape. In a memorable 2003 incident, top bank regulators staged a photo-op in which they used garden shears and a chainsaw to cut up stacks of paper representing regulations.
And the bankers — liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn’t believe in regulation — responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Ironically, the effort to contain the crisis required government intervention on a much larger scale than would have been needed to prevent the crisis in the first place: government rescues of troubled institutions, large-scale lending by the Federal Reserve to the private sector, and so on.
Oh, and conservatives simply ignore the catastrophe in commercial real estate: in their universe the only bad loans were those made to poor people and members of minority groups, because bad loans to developers of shopping malls and office towers don’t fit the narrative.
In part, the prevalence of this narrative reflects the principle enunciated by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
.....And, you Dead-O-Heads & Freepers SURELY aren't gonna expect them to understand.
Hell....they might NEVER invite you to the Country Club, if you do THAT!!!
Hell....they might NEVER invite you to the Country Club, if you do THAT!!!