quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Most people of any persuasion or political leaning would consider a recently ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs (Henry Paulson) appointed Treasury Secretary as  in some fasion a 'deregulation' of the financial industry, but neither would any thinking person allow such a fox into the hen house as transpired in the occurrence of the bail outs that Paulson and Geitner (not E. Warren) presided over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
The Glass-Stegal Act was put in place following the financial melt down that occurred in 1929-30 that engendered economic collapse in the US and world wide for more than a decade. Having been nicked away at for more than a decade at a later time, the legislation that had protected the US economy from the speculators came to an end with passing of the Banking Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) in 1999 and then the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act in 2000. The former action is what allowed your and everybody else's savings to be taken to the casino by way of allowing commercial banks and investment banks and insurance companies to merge, at the request that was actually not a request from Alan Greenspan when he approved the merger of Citigroup and Travelers Insurance when such merger was at the time not legal. The latter action is what allowed CDOs and oil futures contracts to be left to their own playground, no oversight whatsoever, no SEC, no FTC, no nothing, TY Phil Gramm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
And then items such as this, on an ongoing basis: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Phil Gramm, who initiated and sponsored both items of legislation and by legerdemain prevented any discussion of the latter issue in the Senate, was a Democrat?


Fill us in on that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Here you display yourself as the juvenile egg thrower that you are.

Reagan was a union member at one time, sorry to make little boys like you cry, but truth is a part of growing up, however reluctantly on both points in your case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Here you display yourself as the juvenile egg thrower that you are.

Reagan was a union member at one time, sorry to make little boys like you cry, but truth is a part of growing up, however reluctantly on both points in your case.

What does Reagan have to do with anything here? He was just another big-government Keynesian spender. The US became the world's largest debtor nation under him. Who cares if he was in a union?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



The delusional one's claim that more debt was not the problem but rather that the bail outs were, is akin to saying that allowing more gasoline to be spilt on ground where matches are habitually thrown is the fault of the matches.

His claim that the FDIC allowed casino play with national savings stumbles upon 3 or 4 decades of evidence to the contrary, not that anything factual in nature ever stopped him before. He blew his wad in the Elizabeth Warren thing, and even after being proved false on that and every other point, still keeps going like the EverReady bunny thing in the TV commercials ('adverts') here in the states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Australia has been largely spared the ill effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Our economy is growing, the banks are as safe as ever and reporting massive profits. There's an export boom. Unemployment is steady at c5%. The numbers of mortgage failures and house repossessions are pretty much the same as they always are. AFAIK Australia is the only developed country whose economy is thriving - everyone else is in recession or near-recession, with circa double digit unemployment.

Everyone here attributes this happy state of affairs to appropriate regulation of financial institutions and prudential oversight of banks and the finance industry by Govt regulators. A common comment is that by not deregulating to the extent seen in the US and elsewhere, our banks debt-to-equity ratios are excellent, exposure to shaky loans in minimal and (FWIW) our banks enjoy excellent ratings from the agencies.

Except the Right, which, in its usual looney fashion still argues for further deregulation. There is no serious prospect of this happening in the next couple of years.

"Professor Sheila Dow from the University of Stirling in Scotland says the global financial crisis and current European woes can largely be traced back to the deregulation of banking in the 1980s. In this interview with Michael Janda, she says deregulation broke a social contract between central banks and financial institutions, where both cooperated to maintain the stability of money."

"Deregulation, be it tax cuts for big business, scaling down government size or slashing regulatory funding is a foundation of trickle-down economic rationale; a utopian concept where capitalist endeavour is allowed freedom to better lube the way to future financial joy for all.

Trickle-down economics is like doing away with the walls at the lion enclosure at the zoo. We could let the kiddies pat the cute animals and tickle them under the chin except for the nightmare of increasing dramatically the prospect of their livers being eaten in front of our eyes. Therefore it's better to have the walls up."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2835182.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
You are incorrect about him being a Keynesian and why we became a debtor during his administration. As far as being a union member, he had no choice if he wanted to pursue his chosen career. California isnt a right to work state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Australia has been largely spared the ill effects of the Global Financial Crisis. Our economy is growing, the banks are as safe as ever and reporting massive profits. There's an export boom. Unemployment is steady at c5%. The numbers of mortgage failures and house repossessions are pretty much the same as they always are. AFAIK Australia is the only developed country whose economy is thriving - everyone else is in recession or near-recession, with circa double digit unemployment.

Everyone here attributes this happy state of affairs to appropriate regulation of financial institutions and prudential oversight of banks and the finance industry by Govt regulators. A common comment is that by not deregulating to the extent seen in the US and elsewhere, our banks debt-to-equity ratios are excellent, exposure to shaky loans in minimal and (FWIW) our banks enjoy excellent ratings from the agencies.

Except the Right, which, in its usual looney fashion still argues for further deregulation. There is no serious prospect of this happening in the next couple of years.

"Professor Sheila Dow from the University of Stirling in Scotland says the global financial crisis and current European woes can largely be traced back to the deregulation of banking in the 1980s. In this interview with Michael Janda, she says deregulation broke a social contract between central banks and financial institutions, where both cooperated to maintain the stability of money."

"Deregulation, be it tax cuts for big business, scaling down government size or slashing regulatory funding is a foundation of trickle-down economic rationale; a utopian concept where capitalist endeavour is allowed freedom to better lube the way to future financial joy for all.

Trickle-down economics is like doing away with the walls at the lion enclosure at the zoo. We could let the kiddies pat the cute animals and tickle them under the chin except for the nightmare of increasing dramatically the prospect of their livers being eaten in front of our eyes. Therefore it's better to have the walls up."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2835182.html

Australia did not suffer as bad for a few reasons. First and foremost, Australia's central bank is more conservative than most of the world's central banks and did not lower rates like the FED did.


Secondly, Australia did not engage in a reckless housing policy, nor did the Australian government guarantee mortgages. Also, Australia doesn't have to defend itself. America does it for them.

They won't be as lucky when the next depression hits though.

As far as that link goes...that professor does what every other leftist does: claim that the de-regulation started in the 1970's and 1980's without ever providing an example. What bill in the 1970's or 1980's de-regulated the financial industry? The Left loves to do this because they want to blame the de-regulation on Republicans when the Democrats were doing the de-regulating. The de-regulation she speaks of was done by President Clinton, which had nothing to do with the crisis. It's an absurd statement to claim that we had a depression solely because OTC's were not subjected to futures and securities regulation.

As far as trickle down economics: What economist has ever advocated this? It's a myth that the left perpetuates. "The "trickle down theory" has been a stock phrase on the left for decades and yet not one of those who denounce it can find anybody who advocated it. The tenacity with which they cling to these catchwords shows how desperately they need them, if only to safeguard their vision of the world and of themselves."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
The delusional one's claim that more debt was not the problem but rather that the bail outs were, is akin to saying that allowing more gasoline to be spilt on ground where matches are habitually thrown is the fault of the matches.

The bail outs were in fact a guaranteed product of financial deregulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
His claim that the FDIC allowed casino play with national savings stumbles upon 3 or 4 decades of evidence to the contrary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

You are truly lost here.

You consider deregulation as something that could only occur by legislative fiat. The first class in political science tells us that the vast majority of regulation is in the realm of the agencies that administer it, heads of such agencies being appointed by presidents in this country. Reagan fired most heads of such agencies as he came into office and replaced them with his 'boys.'

When the FDA panel of scientists said that the Aspartame artificial sweetener was not safe for human consumption, Donald Rumsfeld (CEO of the GD Searle company that manufactured it) proclaimed that he would 'call in my markers' on this one. Sure enough, Reagan fired the head of the FDA at the time and replaced him with Rummy's boy.

That's the situation here in the US: be a player or be a Kennedy.

Every R and every D since has understood that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

Australia did not suffer as bad for a few reasons. First and foremost, Australia's central bank is more conservative than most of the world's central banks and did not lower rates like the FED did.


Secondly, Australia did not engage in a reckless housing policy, nor did the Australian government guarantee mortgages. Also, Australia doesn't have to defend itself. America does it for them.

quote:



How is that? The US was on a Gold Standard until 1972, which severely restricted the government's ability to inflate and borrow like today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Thank you for presenting a truly unique view of the Australian economy. So unique that I have never heard any Australian economist present anything like it. Should I suppose Those Of Us Who Know Better really do know better ..... ?

For instance, your claim about defence policy is flat wrong. There's a few American bases here - they're all satellite communications centres stuck in the middle of the country (yes literally!), thousands of kilometres from any potential battle site. The largest is Pine Gap, with a massive 800 employees (including the maintainence and cleaning staff and the little old lady who rolls the cookie tray around). They have no actual combat role or potential. We take care of our own defence tyvm. And even if your claim were true, I've never heard anyone ever mention defence policy as a factor in our economic success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
As I said, every Australian economist I've heard substantially attributes our success in avoiding the GFC to prudential regulation of the finance industry and banks. I suspect they're far more on top of the detail of all that than some recent university graduate living on the other side of the Pacific and then some away from us. I've never heard anyone of them talk about Reserve Bank (not central bank, please get your terms right if you're going to pretend you know what you're talking about! It looks so much more professional.) interest rate policy in the way you do. Or housing policy. Or mortagage guarantees. They talk about a whole range of things you haven't seen fit to mention (eg commodity exports levels and prices, exchange rates to mention just two)

So when I compare your analysis to the consensus of economists, Australian academics and commentators here, deciding which is the more credible is something I find amazingly easy. And guess what ...... I've just discovered some Australian People Who Know Far Far Better than Those Of Us Who Know Better

But please don't get the impression that I am ungrateful for your rather meagre offerings. I really really really do appreciate your efforts, such as they are. Do keep trying ..... with a bit of luck, sooner or later you might just get it almost right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine


I was hoping you'd bring up the GLB act. First off, if you're going to blame this on anyone, then it would have to be on President Clinton and the Democrats, since they were the ones that signed it. Secondly, even if you blamed the people who passed the legislation, your criticism is unfounded. The repeal of Glass-Steagal by the Democrats had nothing to do with turning banks into casinos. The banks have been casinos all along. What turns the banks into casinos is the fact that bank deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC. Under this arrangement, depositors don't care what is done with their money. When was the last time that you called your bank and asked to check the balance sheet? Did you call your bank after 1999 to inquire about the repeal of Glass-Steagal?

CEO's of banks know that depositors don't care what's done with their money since the FDIC will bail them out if the banks go under. Banks can therefore gamble recklessly. Restoring Glass-Steagal will do nothing to prevent risky gambling; it never did in the first place. Heads, the banks win. Tails, the taxpayers lose - Glass Steagal or not.