Good riddance.

Don’t believe for one second that “bad” people not paying their mortgage is the cause of this mess. Wall St has been a house of cards run by bandits ever since the GOP deregulated it. Capitalism only works in a transparent, regulated, fair market. We haven’t had that since the GOP’s been running things.

Don’t let them tell you this economic meltdown is a complicated mess. It’s not. Our national financial crisis is readily understood by anyone who has seen greed and hypocrisy…

…These, then, are the people — the Republicans — who want to run our government for four more years. John McCain isn’t just one of them. He rides their jets. He takes their campaign donations. He makes them his campaign advisors. And he tells us to trust him.

This good short article is about repugs and their greed.

VERY GOOD READ.

“Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”

*

3 guesses.

*

and the first 2

don’t count.

:)

thank you.

$

backup Says:
Fred and Ralph. you’re right that there has to be some regulation. Some law for people to have confidence in the marketplace. It can’t be unregulated. Just like we can’t have function without laws and police in the broader society.

But, what I’m seeing lately doesn’t seem to be healthy regulation. Strong rules for a confident market. I see bailouts. Bailouts from poor decisions. We are using government not to form a sound structure for people to do business. We are using government to protect people from their own bad decisions.

Well, that’s one way to look at it, but another, and I think more accurate way to look at it is that we’re seeing government intervention to try to stem the loss of blood from ill-advised deregulation. We’re not using the government to protect people from their own bad decisions; we’re using government to protect the common good from the bad decisions of a small sector of the economy who, coincidentally, profited mightily from those decisions, for a while, at least.

You see these steps as protecting the guilty. I see them as protecting the blameless who would otherwise be damaged by the mistakes of the guilty. If the guilty parties have their own consequences lessened, I’d rather live with that than with the opposite — having the consequences to the blameless magnified in order to give the guilty what they deserve.

But, what I’m seeing lately doesn’t seem to be healthy regulation. Strong rules for a confident market. I see bailouts. Bailouts from poor decisions. We are using government not to form a sound structure for people to do business. We are using government to protect people from their own bad decisions.

Corporations, shareholders, lenders, homeowners, etc.

The sentiment today is that those people are hurting because they are losing money. I agree they are hurting. They are hurting because they took on too much risk, they made poor business decisions.

It’s human nature to want to help them out in the short run. But, when you do, you send a detrimental signal to the future. If your concerned about risk, don’t be. The government will bail you out.

People will continue taking risky loans, lenders will continue to make them, shareholders won’t see the need to diversify or even scrutinize the stocks they buy. Corporations won’t fret over business decisions.

But, the money doesn’t grow on trees. The money is our money. If you are prudent – your efforts are in vain. Because someone much less prudent will eventually fail, turn to the government and tap your wallet to cover their carelessness.

Caving to every situation that suffers in an economic downturn, is very shortsighted. And looks more like election year pandering than rational economic policy.

I do agree that regulation is required.

You hit the nail on the head. The finance companies are rapacious (the credit card companies the most so; good thing they got their favourite bankruptcy reform [read: "abolishment"] law passed the other year, eh?). They’ve been offering absurdly low teaser rates, knowing that they can and will raise the rates for any and no reason at all. They figure once they get you on the hook they can start squeezing for every cent of interest they can wring out until they wring you dry.

We don’t need to buy bad load to protect Wall Street.

What we need is legislation (say, something like a “Fair Lending Act” or “Truth-In-Lending Act”?) that forces fair and full disclosure of terms under which a loan’s conditions can be modified, and regulatory limits as to how much and how fast it can be modified. 0% teaser APRs that jump to 25+% on the first late payment should be banned. In fact, let’s put back the usury laws and ban any APR more than twice the prime rate (or over 5 percentage points over the prime rate). What we allow now (and what the predatory banks charge now) is nauseating, and would make even a Mafia loan shark gag….

Cheers,

Let’s hope Obama raises the Keating 5 savings and loan scandal. That should kill the McBrain-drain/Palid campaign.

ralph the wonder llama Says:
well said, Fred.

Thanks Ralph….it just seems like common sense and that seems to be what is missing from the equasion these days.

I don’t understand why folks think that business should be able to do anything they want for profit.

It begs the question: Is business here to serve our country or is our country here to serve business.

An unregulated market will not work for long, because it’s perfectly suited to reward fraud and corruption in the short term. Then there is no long term because an unregulated market will not last until the long term comes to be.

“The market” is not some abstract mechanism like the celestial spheres of Ptolemy. It’s a complex interaction of society, economics and even psychology. It should serve the society, not the other way around.

We are not anti-business cap. We want business to profit as much as anyone but regulations are essential.

deregulation was the buzzword of the 1920’s and the years of raygun/bush.

What we are seeing now is not capitalism that can work, it is designed to fail when you allow capitalists to do as they wish.(unleashed free market)

Socialism in itself is not an answer either. Most societies that are sucessful in the world today have incorporated the best qualities of both ideals and thier businesses flourish and their citizens live well. It can be done. Not doing it is a choice.

What in recent history tells you that republicans are interested in making a better society and stronger country here in the USA? Nothing is the correct answer. They answer only to the call of profit and have no conciense about who gets hurt in their quest for wealth. It is not healthy, in fact it is a sure sign of a sick society.

Republicans are not noble people, they are just greedy. If you want dedicated, loyal, patriots then you need to turn your back on the republican party and look elsewhere.

There are foreclosures, slower GDP growth, high deficits, high spending, moderate but increasing unemployment. etc. But, the numbers aren’t unprecedented. I dispute they are the worse since the Great Depression. But, in any case, why not let the market work.

Let the homes foreclose. Let the companies go out of business. Let the shares drop. It should be a free market. The tinkering is a short term effort to avoid the inevitable.

I understand that I will be accused of insensitivity. But, if someone loses their home, they won’t die. They’ll probably rent an apartment. Being a landlord might again be profitable. And the lower prices for the homes will attract new homeowners (maybe first time buyers that can’t afford an artificially inflated home). If a company fails, it probably wasn’t a profitable company. The money, employees and resources, will be freed up to a possibly more profitable enterprise. If a CEO losses a few billion in share price – how is that our problem? He made his decisions. And I’m pretty confident that he wasn’t going to share his profit with us, why should we share his loss?

I not trying to stir the post, but isn’t anyone concerned that if we try to take out the risk. And the responsibility. Won’t we be enabling that same future behavior? What incentive will greedy CEOs have to not making risky or bad decisions if we shield their interests? What incentive will future homeowners have to avoid risky loans, if we bail them out today? If it becomes government policy to insure stock prices – will there be any incentive for companies to operate profitably? Or shareholders to chose wisely?

backup Says:
ralph. I agree with you here. If a market is free to work on the upside, but regulated to avoid any potential downside, it’s not really a free market.

Stupid stupid stupid

The most asinine statement I have ever seen uttered on a blog.

I guess freedom isn’t really freedom if we have laws to abide by.

I would be very relieved if some free-market capitalist had the integrity to take ownership of the downside of his philosophy as well as the upside.

ralph. I agree with you here. If a market is free to work on the upside, but regulated to avoid any potential downside, it’s not really a free market. I also want those on wall street to stand in defense of the market. What did they think it was? I don’t scream at my television, but this past week I’ve been absolutely dumbfounded, that those that profited by capitalism on the way up are crying the loudest for government intervention and protectionism. There is absolutely no reason behind it. Since when did the market place offer any guarantees?

I see no adult supervision anywhere. I see talking heads and politicians reacting to news as far back as the last 24hr news cycle. I’m obviously not an expert, but I’m more convinced that there is not a coherent message to be found.

Markets go up and go down. People make money and lose money. You by a house (that you should be able to afford). You hope it increases in value, but you could lose money. You work hard to try to get a good job. But, your company could go under; and you have to get another one. You hope for the best, but you insure yourself against loss. The more risk you take, the higher the chances you’ll make or lose money. You invest in a company with poor management, you lose money, and they go out of business.

But, lately, that’s not the game plan.

Different forces around the world have experimented with more government control of the economy. Sometimes it works. Cuba. But, mostly, it does not. Soviet Union. Pre-market reform China. I think it’s a mistake. I’m sure many will disagree.

But, Republicans should stand up for the market they are supposed to believe in. Good times and bad. Capitalists should take the bitter with the sweet. If they aren’t willing to do it, Obama and Democrats should, or explain why government intervention is the real long term answer.