Government Deregulation

[Hobo1]

Capitalism doesn't allow things like bailouts, a Capitalist system is built on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange. It seems you are trying to redefine 'capitalism' as, "any time one entity gives another entity money" without regard for what Capitalism is actually all about: Protecting the rights of the Individual. You also seem to disregard what all the Collectivist ideologies are all about: Violating the rights of some for the benefit of others - exactly what happened in the bailouts.

So while you can argue that we aren't quite yet fully Socialist because private "ownership" still exists, there's no denying the fact that America is a hardcore Collectivist nation that routinely violates the rights of some in order to provide an exclusive benefit to others.

Look up socialism in Wikipedia, or capitalism for that matter, and you will see that almost every country in the world has different balances between socialism and democracy. Look at China... Communist government that kicks ass with capitalism. Name is not so important -philosophy and actions define the a government's involvement with the economy.

However, on the OP, I have a great fear that further deregulating banks and wall street will lead us to a depression - like it did in 1929 and 2008. I am afraid the next 4 years will be traumatic, if not apocalyptic for the US. That's why I keep my money in raw land and rental houses as investments - and not in the Wall Street stock market or investment banks. Hard for the big money boys to get their hands on money tied up in land.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Are you trying to claim Bush was a conservative? If so, I can not disagree more strongly. Bush was a moderate progressive, just as was Romney.

Please realize that these terms have become so ridiculously eroded, you're committing the very crime you accuse me of. In current definitions of "progressive" and "conservative" Bush and Romney are conservatives- that's a pretty well-established fact verifiable anywhere. If you want to go back to the classic definition of a conservative, which I am fine with and actually have more respect for, then no, they're not conservatives- but they are much less progressives. A progressive person believes in the idea of a collective; that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That government exists to serve the people as a whole, and not to the individuals who happen to have more pull and power. Progressives believe in unionizing, working for a common good, and taking care of each other rather than leaving each person to fend for themselves. None of this can be applied to Bush, and the only progressive thing you can stick Romney with is the step towards socialized health care in Massachusetts that he basically later distanced himself from while running for president. Bush and Romney are both rich men who come from rich families and believe in keeping the rich rich; they may not be "conservatives" as you define it, but they sure as hell aren't progressive anythings. I believe the term you're looking for is "assholes".

In reality there is very little difference between the Ds and Rs. But, the state run media fills Americans with this bogus belief that the two parties are so different and of course, since the state run media is generally leftist, they attack the Rs for not being progressive enough. It is all a big game to misinform the American public.

We all agree that D's and R's are basically the same and work for the same corporate America. We all agree that this is a problem, and that we need some fresh points of view in congress. The bizarre difference is that you believe the media and the current government are leftist, which is absolutely insane. See the above paragraph as to what I mean. You're right, the news media is a joke and carries on a charade of objectivity while all along just pushing our government's agenda along... but this agenda is not progressive or left-wing in any way. Progressive people don't want war; we've been in a stupid, pointless war for a decade. Progressive people don't want our government to be serving the rich minority- we've been giving them handouts and letting them do what they want since Reagan took over. Progressive people did not support Reagan, Bush #1, or Bush #2; true progressives didn't support Clinton and don't support Obama, although, sadly, a lot of so-called progressives voted for them only out of fear of having the republicans win, which, in their view, is much worse.

I'm glad you don't trust our government either, but get your terms straight! "Progressive" and "Left-wing" bear no resemblance to what you have in mind.

 

[GenSeneca]

Look up socialism in Wikipedia, or capitalism for that matter, and you will see that almost every country in the world has different balances between socialism and democracy. Look at China... Communist government that kicks ass with capitalism. Name is not so important -philosophy and actions define the a government's involvement with the economy.

Capitalism is a political ideology and the Free Market is it's economic system. It's a common error for people to confuse one for the other and use both terms as though they are interchangeable but they are not. Capitalism requires a Free Market and vice versa, you cannot have one without the other and neither exist anywhere in the world today.

Socialism and Democracy... There's no difference. Both are premised on the belief that a majority has the "right" to use force against anyone not in the majority. Whether you want to call it Socialism or Democracy, any system that violates the rights of some to provide a benefit to others is a system of slavery, only the degree to which one is enslaved by the state makes any difference. The Chicoms have moved away from slavery and toward freedom with predictable results. Meanwhile, we're moving ever faster away from freedom and towards slavery and with equally predictable results.

However, on the OP, I have a great fear that further deregulating banks and wall street will lead us to a depression - like it did in 1929 and 2008.

What exactly is it that you believe regulation accomplishes? I see government regulations as causing, rather than solving, problems.

 

[cashmcall]

I misspoke, sorry. We all agree who the bad guys are- corporations and the government that bends over backwards to serve them. What I was referring to was the complete lack of understand of political history, and the bizarre things that pass for "fact" around here... like, Mitt Romney is a progressive, George Bush is a progressive... everyone around here seems to think they were both the lesser of two evils... which makes no sense. The people you guys are complaining about are not pursing a socialist doctrine, but a neo-liberal conservative one; they don't see this world as a communal chunk of land we all live on and need to take care of, they see it as a gigantic real-estate opportunity to be gobbled up like a Monopoly board. Hence the removal of all sorts of regulations that kept Wall Street from gambling with our economy- but somehow you think the opposite is happening (maybe not "cashmcall" whos name I don't remember seeing, but most of the other folks on this board that were piping up during the election.)

You said"Hence the removal of all sorts of regulations that kept Wall Street from gambling with our economy"..I believe Clinto had something to do with deregulations and then there is this...
(I’m copying this post from the White House webpage in it’s entirety because I want people to read the whole thing).

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).
2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).
More comming​

 

[cashmcall]

2005​

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).​

2007​

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.​

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).​

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.​

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.​

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).​

2008​

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.​

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.​

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).​

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.​

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).​

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).​

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.​

• “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).
• “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).
• “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).​

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.​

facts do matter​

​

 

[cashmcall]

Nobody understands the need for government regulation more than I, a CANADIAN. You see, you Americans and your rampant greed, mixed with deregulation, brought the world to the brink of ruin. The result was the need for socialisation of your banks (in the cradle of CAPITALISM, no less), along with many other countries forced to do the same in order to survive the mess YOU created. Alas, Canadian banks are amongst the most-heavily regulated in the world, and this fact left our banks intact, basically without a scratch, so to speak. What the greedy American Wall Street scum perpetrated in the financial world would NEVER happen here. Were they to attempt to do so, the RCMP would be marching on Bay Street pronto. As a fascist, I see the need for controlled-capitalism via heavy regulation. In other words, you are free to make some money, but do NOT risk the State in the process... or else.

I agree with you banking..Canada's banks are well run..The rest of your post is just ranting..Glad you love Canada..You must have missed the earl 90's when Cananda had to cut spendind..AND CUT THEY DID..I am proud of them..

 

[dogtowner]

I agree with you banking..Canada's banks are well run..The rest of your post is just ranting..Glad you love Canada..You must have missed the earl 90's when Cananda had to cut spendind..AND CUT THEY DID..I am proud of them..

Canada's government didn't dictate irresponsible lending but they have a solid enough basic economy thanks to their abun dant natural resources that they didn't need to roll the dice on gaming in our markets unlike europe.

 

[GenSeneca]

A progressive person believes in the idea of a collective; that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

That last part should read, "the needs of the few outweigh the rights of the many" because every Progressive policy that attempts to deals with "need" does just that. You also left off the most import part of what being a Progressive is all about: Initiating the use of force against others to get what you want.

 

[dogtowner]

That last part should read, "the needs of the few outweigh the rights of the many" because every Progressive policy that attempts to deals with "need" does just that. You also left off the most import part of what being a Progressive is all about: Initiating the use of force against others to get what you want.

true dat put another way...

A progressive person believes in the idea of a collective; that the wants of the many justify the jackboot extortion of the few.​

​

​

 

[Gipper]

Please realize that these terms have become so ridiculously eroded, you're committing the very crime you accuse me of. In current definitions of "progressive" and "conservative" Bush and Romney are conservatives- that's a pretty well-established fact verifiable anywhere. If you want to go back to the classic definition of a conservative, which I am fine with and actually have more respect for, then no, they're not conservatives- but they are much less progressives. A progressive person believes in the idea of a collective; that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That government exists to serve the people as a whole, and not to the individuals who happen to have more pull and power. Progressives believe in unionizing, working for a common good, and taking care of each other rather than leaving each person to fend for themselves. None of this can be applied to Bush, and the only progressive thing you can stick Romney with is the step towards socialized health care in Massachusetts that he basically later distanced himself from while running for president. Bush and Romney are both rich men who come from rich families and believe in keeping the rich rich; they may not be "conservatives" as you define it, but they sure as hell aren't progressive anythings. I believe the term you're looking for is "assholes".



We all agree that D's and R's are basically the same and work for the same corporate America. We all agree that this is a problem, and that we need some fresh points of view in congress. The bizarre difference is that you believe the media and the current government are leftist, which is absolutely insane. See the above paragraph as to what I mean. You're right, the news media is a joke and carries on a charade of objectivity while all along just pushing our government's agenda along... but this agenda is not progressive or left-wing in any way. Progressive people don't want war; we've been in a stupid, pointless war for a decade. Progressive people don't want our government to be serving the rich minority- we've been giving them handouts and letting them do what they want since Reagan took over. Progressive people did not support Reagan, Bush #1, or Bush #2; true progressives didn't support Clinton and don't support Obama, although, sadly, a lot of so-called progressives voted for them only out of fear of having the republicans win, which, in their view, is much worse.

I'm glad you don't trust our government either, but get your terms straight! "Progressive" and "Left-wing" bear no resemblance to what you have in mind.

Bush and Romney are progressives. They believe in big omnipresent government just like Big Ears does and most progressives do. That makes them progressives in my book. If you are trying to say both W and Mitt are not as progressive as BO, I can buy that. But that does not make them conservative in any sense...unless YOU have changed the definition.....which I suspect you have.

And what does being rich have to do with anything? Do you not know that BO and most Ds are extraordinarily rich?

I think we agree on much.

But the media is firmly in the D camp and the old media is entirely. W got burned by the media daily and deservedly so. Does BO get bad press? I think not. That idiot David Gregory says on Meet The Press...."hey Big Ears did you have a Lincoln moment?" But in the end, the press is all about promoting the state....and they think Ds do it better.

I have never trusted government. True conservatives and libertarians never will. Sadly most on the left and many on the right, have been brainwashed into loving the state.

 

[Hobo1]

I think the big problem is these HUGE government programs are too big and complex for the vast majority of people to understand. Freddie and Fannie are vague names thrown around by loan officers. Borrowers have no idea all the details. The President may have just as well been talking about the Quantum Theory - citizens, Congress members, and probably Bush didn't really know what he was talking about. Words given to him by the the Sec. Treasury. Consequently, it was impossible to raise the level of concern to a high pitch of concern so Congress would act.

The same thing is going to happen with ObamaCare. No "world class administrator" to run everything, and basically a system that is far too complex for most people to understand. This program is so complex that hospitals, doctors and the government could easily run deep into debt with this program before anybody realizes it. Suddenly hospitals close doors and talk about bankruptcy. And Washington starts talking about "too important to fail".

The exact same horrible results that seem to happen every time the government socialism thinks it can run programs better than the free market.

 

[Pandora]

Great post

Doubt it will do any good with those who "feel" that blaming Bush is the key to everything

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Bush and Romney are progressives. They believe in big omnipresent government just like Big Ears does and most progressives do. That makes them progressives in my book. If you are trying to say both W and Mitt are not as progressive as BO, I can buy that. But that does not make them conservative in any sense...unless YOU have changed the definition.....which I suspect you have.

Please listen to what I'm saying. I never called them conservatives- I said they're not progressives, and I explained why. Under the current mainstream-held ideas of the "conservative/liberal" scale, they are way closer to the right (conservative) than they are to the left (liberal) but, as we both agree, the current mainstream concepts are stupid and useless.

And what does being rich have to do with anything? Do you not know that BO and most Ds are extraordinarily rich?

Of course they are- that's my point. You seem to equate "Democrat" with "Progressive" which is ridiculous; some progressives align themselves with that party either because it is the less odious of the two or because they hold on to some outdated-belief of what the democratic party was supposed to represent (which is wrong, anyway, since if you go back in time, it was the Democrats that were against abolitionism, for example, a very un-progressive stance.) But a true progressive sees nothing worthwhile in either of those parties. What it all boils down to is the same thing it's always boiled down to- rich vs poor. We've always had some rich and some poor and the majority has fallen somewhere in between, which is a sign of a balanced society. Now there are more rich and more poor, and the rich have a lot more of the wealth, and the balance is messed up.

But the media is firmly in the D camp and the old media is entirely. W got burned by the media daily and deservedly so. Does BO get bad press? I think not. That idiot David Gregory says on Meet The Press...."hey Big Ears did you have a Lincoln moment?" But in the end, the press is all about promoting the state....and they think Ds do it better.

The media is in the camp of the status quo; when Bush ruled the land, they backed that guy up from the get go until his actions were so ridiculously terrible that our dormant public finally woke up and the media followed. When 9-11 hit, the media was as patriotic as you can get, and no one questioned Bush's underhanded push towards war- so you can't say the media is pro-Democratic because that's just silly. They are just pro-keeping the crap game afloat, regardless of who's dealing the cards.

 

[Cruella]

The media is in the camp of the status quo; when Bush ruled the land, they backed that guy up from the get go until his actions were so ridiculously terrible that our dormant public finally woke up and the media followed.

You and I must not have been on the same planet when Bush was in office.

 

[Gipper]

Please listen to what I'm saying. I never called them conservatives- I said they're not progressives, and I explained why. Under the current mainstream-held ideas of the "conservative/liberal" scale, they are way closer to the right (conservative) than they are to the left (liberal) but, as we both agree, the current mainstream concepts are stupid and useless.



Of course they are- that's my point. You seem to equate "Democrat" with "Progressive" which is ridiculous; some progressives align themselves with that party either because it is the less odious of the two or because they hold on to some outdated-belief of what the democratic party was supposed to represent (which is wrong, anyway, since if you go back in time, it was the Democrats that were against abolitionism, for example, a very un-progressive stance.) But a true progressive sees nothing worthwhile in either of those parties. What it all boils down to is the same thing it's always boiled down to- rich vs poor. We've always had some rich and some poor and the majority has fallen somewhere in between, which is a sign of a balanced society. Now there are more rich and more poor, and the rich have a lot more of the wealth, and the balance is messed up.



The media is in the camp of the status quo; when Bush ruled the land, they backed that guy up from the get go until his actions were so ridiculously terrible that our dormant public finally woke up and the media followed. When 9-11 hit, the media was as patriotic as you can get, and no one questioned Bush's underhanded push towards war- so you can't say the media is pro-Democratic because that's just silly. They are just pro-keeping the crap game afloat, regardless of who's dealing the cards.

Most D politicians are progressive, socialist, or worse. They believe in big government, income redistribution, and the expansion of the welfare/entitlement state. Hence they are progressives, socialists, or worse. You might research some of the policies and comments made by the Congressional Black Caucus, many of BO's appointees (particularly the many communist czars), and Bo himself.

However many Rs believe in much the same things as the Ds. Many Rs are progressives meaning, again, they promote big government, income redistribution, and the welfare/entitlement state. However many Rs are moderate in their progressive views, while the Ds are radical in theirs.

You like many leftists find the media treatment of W appropriate because he was a such a complete failure. However I would argue that BO is just as much a failure and yet, the media treats him with the utmost respect and even admiration. You say the media is about the status quo. Yes I agree. But, we may not agree on what the status quo is. I think it is the continued growth in size and power of the central state, promotion of socialism, and class warfare....all leftist positions. The old media is a cheerleader for these positions...and this is why they love BO so much.

And regarding the growth of income disparity, it is becoming a major problem, but I believe this is a consequence of the expansion of government, the subversion of the rule of law, and government corrupting the free market system. The banking crisis exemplifies this perfectly. The elites on Wall Street get their buddies in DC to change the rules, government regulators look away, the big banks then rip off the American people in outrageous trillion dollar frauds, then government bails out the big banks, and amazingly NO ONE GOES TO JAIL. Leading to even greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the criminal bailed out big banks...whose CEOs go to Capital Hill and lie repeatedly to Congress and nothing happens and the media ignores the over the top corruption and illegalities.