The Koch Brothers and climate change

[an8150]

So I suppose you never heard of Brooksley Bourne and how she was shutdown by Greenspan, Rubin and Saunders, when she warned that there was not oversight of CDO's and Synthetic CDOs and that the level of toxic assets were too high? The transactions were in the dark, the banks did not even know how much they were holding, and nobody knew how much of the securities were backed by AIG.

And where the heck are you coming from bring up the holocaust in a conversation about free markets and if there is the need to bridle that?

Then your complaint is one of inadequate regulation, not of no regulation.

As for the holocaust thing, I think you'll find it stems from discussion of Prospero's Trotsky avatar. I don't think the train of responses/comments has been difficult to follow.

[fivekatz]

Then your complaint is one of inadequate regulation, not of no regulation.

As for the holocaust thing, I think you'll find it stems from discussion of Prospero's Trotsky avatar. I don't think the train of responses/comments has been difficult to follow.

Certainly in the case of off the market derivatives they were unregulated. Brooksley Born asked Congress for oversight by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission of these transactions as well as President Clinton. She had as it turns out quite accurately forecast that CDO's and Synthetic CDO's would become overloaded with toxic assets without adequate reserves to back them. The trio of Rubin, Summers and Greenspan effectively under cut her before Congress, she resigned from the CFTC in 1999 an the merry-go-round kept going until Bear Stearns become the open bell of the meltdown.

I don't think that the elimination of Glass - Steagall was as responsible for the catastrophe in the markets as some people do. Whilst a few players wouldn't have been able to get into the game, Goldman, Lehman and the other investment banks still would have been in the game.

And when we talk about regulation, really it would have been a matter of transparency rather than restriction. Certainly if the investment bankers that were hedging their bets through AIG knew how much paper AIG was holding, they would not have done business with AIG.

The cause of 2008 meltdown was the over riding belief that moral hazard would constrain the dark market, so there was no need for transparency; when in fact left unconstrained the lust for immediate and huge returns was so great that the players involved ignored the risk. When it all went wrong it really was too big to fail, so the mechanism in the free market of moral hazard could not be allowed to happen because the true depths of the economic depression were unmeasurable because they were so huge.

As for the other arguments about government while I read them I really wasn't going to weigh in and that is probably why the holocaust thing caught me off guard if you will.

Government is imperfect. But it has taken many forms from religion being the ruling authority to the various forms we see today. And most wars are almost always about some form of capital, whether it be natural resources, human resources etc.

But IMO they also serve many wonderful purposes. Within capitalism they can act as a counter balance to corporations rightful single minded pursuit of consistent and large returns for its shareholders. Neither business or government is evil but both can do evil I suppose.

[Stavros]

The cause of 2008 meltdown was the over riding belief that moral hazard would constrain the dark market, so there was no need for transparency; when in fact left unconstrained the lust for immediate and huge returns was so great that the players involved ignored the risk. When it all went wrong it really was too big to fail, so the mechanism in the free market of moral hazard could not be allowed to happen because the true depths of the economic depression were unmeasurable because they were so huge.

I think this is at the core of the problem with 'free market capitalism' -what happens when businesses fail? When people fail? Free market capitalism seems to be so addicted to success, so indifferent to failure, that it ignores the human story in success as well as failure. It also doesn't tell us how people with a poor education, no access to capital, and perhaps crucially, neither motivation nor ideas, become successful -except to say: they don't. And yet they are alive, and need food, clothing and shelter.

[robertlouis]

I think this is at the core of the problem with 'free market capitalism' -what happens when businesses fail? When people fail? Free market capitalism seems to be so addicted to success, so indifferent to failure, that it ignores the human story in success as well as failure. It also doesn't tell us how people with a poor education, no access to capital, and perhaps crucially, neither motivation nor ideas, become successful -except to say: they don't. And yet they are alive, and need food, clothing and shelter.

Correct. Not so long ago, many western democracies thrived on a mixed economy of separated but interacting public and private sector activities. What few seem to have understood as the heat and testosterone of the financial sector accelerated was that there has to be a delicate balance between the two to succeed. The UK effectively discarded or sold off its public sector assets in the 80s and 90s and now suffers low tax receipts as a result. Other EU states like France, Italy and Spain failed to separate the interests of state and business sufficiently and are also suffering in their own way - Greece being the most extreme example.

The only states which continue to operate in balance and with the consent of their electorates, broadly speaking, are the enlightened but small social democracies in northern Europe such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

[fivekatz]

I think this is at the core of the problem with 'free market capitalism' -what happens when businesses fail? When people fail? Free market capitalism seems to be so addicted to success, so indifferent to failure, that it ignores the human story in success as well as failure. It also doesn't tell us how people with a poor education, no access to capital, and perhaps crucially, neither motivation nor ideas, become successful -except to say: they don't. And yet they are alive, and need food, clothing and shelter.

In fairness, capitalism does create an environment where entrepreneur can flourish. Their success while unlikely if they lack education and capital backing can happen. The system does depend on uneven distribution of wealth, it needs cheap labor to make the system work.

IMHO what the intellectual positions of the likes of Ayn Rand miss is that it as a society we do not smooth out the hardest edges of income inequity (hunger, lack of health care, education for our children to give them that 1-100 shot at entrepreneurial success, that the 99% will eventual get really pissed off and eat the 1% alive.

This is where well intentioned and well prosecuted government can make capitalism work. It will create structures for doing business and trade where moral hazard does not have to be the only safety rail. It will through taxation create a standard of living for every citizen who can and will work and for every citizen suffering disability can not work have a minimal substance of health care, shelter and nourishment or better, equal with their efforts.

In long run 1% can't dominate 99% before the 99% get tired of it and rid themselves of that ruling elite. That is why the spreading income iniquity in America is so concerning to me because when American's get really sick of a dream undelivered their reaction may be quite unattractive but given the wealth in the nation anger would not be unjustified. American's can not only ask corporations to play more fair, they can ask its most wealthy to pay more tax and its government to spend less on its military and more own its own citizens.

Just my take and sure as hell a platform that would never get a peron elected to political office.

[robertlouis]

In fairness, capitalism does create an environment where entrepreneur can flourish. Their success while unlikely if they lack education and capital backing can happen. The system does depend on uneven distribution of wealth, it needs cheap labor to make the system work.

IMHO what the intellectual positions of the likes of Ayn Rand miss is that it as a society we do not smooth out the hardest edges of income inequity (hunger, lack of health care, education for our children to give them that 1-100 shot at entrepreneurial success, that the 99% will eventual get really pissed off and eat the 1% alive.

This is where well intentioned and well prosecuted government can make capitalism work. It will create structures for doing business and trade where moral hazard does not have to be the only safety rail. It will through taxation create a standard of living for every citizen who can and will work and for every citizen suffering disability can not work have a minimal substance of health care, shelter and nourishment or better, equal with their efforts.

In long run 1% can't dominate 99% before the 99% get tired of it and rid themselves of that ruling elite. That is why the spreading income iniquity in America is so concerning to me because when American's get really sick of a dream undelivered their reaction may be quite unattractive but given the wealth in the nation anger would not be unjustified. American's can not only ask corporations to play more fair, they can ask its most wealthy to pay more tax and its government to spend less on its military and more own its own citizens.

Just my take and sure as hell a platform that would never get a peron elected to political office.

Not while the idiots who persist in voting against their own interest and in favour of the plutocratic 1% continue to do so. The Republicans may not be that bright, but they're bright enough to pull off a massive con trick against the struggling and dispossessed who can be guaranteed to kneejerk against the bogey man word socialism, when they wouldn't know true socialism if it leaped up and bit them. Pardon my cynicism.

When I see bankers in jail instead of drawing down obscene bonuses despite their direct authoring of the crisis, then, and only then, might I start to believe.

[fivekatz]

Not while the idiots who persist in voting against their own interest and in favour of the plutocratic 1% continue to do so. The Republicans may not be that bright, but they're bright enough to pull off a massive con trick against the struggling and dispossessed who can be guaranteed to kneejerk against the bogey man word socialism, when they wouldn't know true socialism if it leaped up and bit them. Pardon my cynicism.

When I see bankers in jail instead of drawing down obscene bonuses despite their direct authoring of the crisis, then, and only then, might I start to believe.

Hard to argue with you though I see hope in the fact the GOPs favorite wedge issues are drawing no traction with demographic groups that are growing like people of color and younger Americans.

The GOP success was displacing the Democrats in the South because of civil rights etc.

I too share your disapointment that Fuld and Dimon are not doing time for fraud.

[an8150]

"Just my take and sure as hell a platform that would never get a peron elected to political office. "

Indeed, thank God someone had the courage to speak out.

[Ben]

[Ben]