|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Last year, Republicans voted to add 6 trillion in new debt... (12/19/2012 7:12:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
They didn't even need to take illegal actions, though some few of them did. All it took was gross ineptitude, for the most part. The relinquishing of regulation Q was needed, but in the same law the S&Ls also got the right to venture into territory where no S&L had gone before, and they completely blew it. They kept asking for a BB gun, were finally given it, and shot out most of the windows in the neighborhood, most with out even intending to. But results are what matter, and a few thousand S&L closings and commercial RE bankruptcies later, at great taxpayer expense, the government took the BB gun away.
The expense wasn't really all that much ($124B) compared to what we spent during this past recession ($144B on Fannie and Freddie alone). The dumbasses who took the illegal route were the ones that fucked everything up for all the S&L's. When Congress found out and put the rules back in place, and forced a fire sale of all the no-longer-allowed assets, the S&L's crashed and burned. Had Congress gone after the ones who were involved in the illegal activities, and simply barred any new loans that were previously allowed, the S&L solution wouldn't have cost taxpayers as much. Hell, S&L's could possibly still be around.
Please read the above again. Thousands of S&Ls went under. If you and I are both saying that the crooks were running only a relatively small number of the S&Ls, the logical conclusion would be that the predominance of the failures is attributable to ineptitude. They were given license to venture out into speculative lending on speculative ventures in which they had no expertise. But again, the result is what matters, however it came about, and the result was not good. With out a single crook in the bunch, the result would have been nearly the same.
Don't need to read it again. You're missing my point. The S&L's went under because they had to sell off their assets at prices that fucked them. There was absolutely no way the could stay solvent after the forced fire sale. Were they good at their newly allowed ventures? Not really. But, should they have been forced into selling those new assets at below market prices? No. They were screwed six ways to Sunday by the Feds, and it was not consensual.
quote:
BTW, it is noteworthy that the $144B to Fan&Fred combined seems to trouble you more than the unrestricted $182B to AIG alone ($80B of which went to bonuses for job well done), not to mention over $300B in direct funds to Citigroup, over $476B in total economic benefit. I am not surprised, not in the least.
There is a reason. We are still funding Fannie and Freddie. The $144B is a "so far" number. And, you shouldn't be surprised, either. I have stated all along that I was pissed that the banks were bailed out. I was in the camp of "they took the risk, allow them the consequence of their actions." I am continually amazed at those here that keep missing that fact.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Just WTF is the real difference between a regulation not existing and an existing regulation not being enforced? Wendy Gramm's assiduous non-enforcement as chair of the CFTC (she being an avid porn watcher, apparently) and her husband Phill's Commodities Futures Modernization Act that prohibited regulation were both as Misesenic as they come, what are you guys bitching about?
What's the difference? Gee, I don't know. Maybe if we forced our regulators to do their jobs, this could have been averted, or stopped sooner? Without making the regulators do their jobs, what good is adding more regulations for them to not enforce?
My point is that non-enforcement serves the Misesenic cause every bit as well as lack of whatever law to enforce. You invoke Mises in argument for less regulation, then now claim that we should have enforced what regulation there was.
You are confused by this ideology. Understandable.
I'm not confused. Not a bit. Would you be okay with everything being on the books as illegal, but them not enforcing half of it? I wouldn't be. What would stop them from changing their minds and enforcing the other things, too? Nothing. If something isn't going to be enforced, get it off the books. If it's going to be on the books, enforce it. I'm not happy with his DoJ not defending DOMA in court cases. That isn't because I support DOMA, but if it's not going to be defended, get rid of it. If you aren't going to get rid of it, defend it. The Congressional Report on the Recession stated that had the regulators done their jobs, the crisis would have been prevented.
quote:
quote:
quote:
consequence of inordinately concentrated economic power translating directly into comensurate political power. Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and Theodore Roosevelt could recognize this right off the top. The Mises ideology refuses to recognize this inevitability of their ideology as played out through history in the real world.
It is not inevitable. We just need principled officials. Government being "on the take" (which is how I view Corporatism) isn't an Austrian Economic principle at all. If Government is making Market changes to give advantage to one company, or sector, to the detriment of another, there is a diversion from Austrian Economics.
What needs to happen is to make unprincipled officials ineluctably unelectable. [:D]
Mises doesn't want ANY government officials, so consideration of how principled they are or not is thereby a moot point.
That's not correct.
quote:
But the inevitable result of full-blown Mises capitalism is that monopoly power increases exponentially, even if falling short of a single worldwide monopoly-on-everything by one entity. Look at economic history, read about various giants of historic conglomerates; the one theme that stands out above all is that what these 'giants' hate most of all and spend the largest portion of their time in dealing with is the dreaded- competition.
Mises denies even the possibility of a monopoly.
It is difficult to even bother troubling oneself with anything else he had to say given that, even though I certainly did waste some bit of time actually doing just that.
But in any event, just how do you expect a regulator to regulate when the conglomerates are so huge, thanks to Mises-inspired deregulation of antitrust laws (Reagan basically told the FTC to go take an 8 yr. nap) and elimination of Glass-Stegal, that those under such meek regulation as exists openly offer him/her a job at 3-8 times his/her current pay? That is, after the job is done. Those in the regulatory agencies who act (or more accurately, don't act) in accord with Misesenic principles are the most unprincipled regulators, by your estimation, along with that of others.
Again, this ideology confuses you.
It does not confuse me. There is a definite place for Government Regulation in the Markets. At some point though, which I maintain we passed long ago, increased regulation negatively impacts the economy, leaving those most vulnerable to take the hit. I have yet to hear anyone here, or any leader of any party, or any talking head call for zero Government regulation. Not a single one. I would consider that person a nutjob for doing so.
quote:
On the other side, how 'principled' would you expect Goldman CEOs Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson to be when in their government job? Do you think these multimillionaires took the job of Sec. Treas. paying $120-150k a year out of a sense of civic duty?
Seriously? You want to go there? How many of those guys are in the Obama Administration? I'm against it. I'm not happy that Bush did it. I'm not happy that Obama continued it. I decried what I saw as favoritism when Bush allowed Bear Stearns to fold, but bailed out Goldman. WTF was that all about? Government picking and choosing winners and losers is a bad, bad way to govern.
Let Government set the rules the same for everyone. Then, let Government make sure the rules are followed. IMO, that is where Government should be working (and, don't forget, I have stated many times that I am in favor of cutting all tax loopholes and carve outs, and cutting all subsidies to businesses).
|
|
|
|
