You say Centrist - I say Corporatist

There's a lot of discussion about centrist candidates, but not a lot of discussion about what they stand for, except for not doing much of anything to rock the boat.

The problem with "centrists" in America, is that they tend to line up with the interests of Wall Street and corporate America - and by definition not with the interests of you and me.

They tend to mollify Dem's liberal instinct on social issues, while bashing us on the head on economic issues. (Biden should be disqualified by every Dem solely for his role in the Bankruptcy Act of 2005)

And that's the main problem I have with candidates like Biden and Buttigieg.

They both also seem to have rosy, pollyann-ish views of today's Republican party. Another "centrist" type of view, and yet another disqualifying factor.


Is this thread really about Booker?


You say capitalism - I say Corporatism. 


terp said:

You say capitalism - I say Corporatism. 

 You say capitalism, I say too big to fail. 


Yeah, that didn't happen in a free market.


terp said:

Yeah, that didn't happen in a free market.

 No true Scotsman would agree that we have a free market....


No such thing as a free market. It's a figment of the imagination along with fairy dust and unicorns.


drummerboy said:

No such thing as a free market. It's a figment of the imagination along with fairy dust and unicorns.

To avoid a rabbit hole, allow me to restate.  The too big to fail entities became that way in an extremely highly regulated market rampant with government & quasi-government intervention.  


terp said:

drummerboy said:

No such thing as a free market. It's a figment of the imagination along with fairy dust and unicorns.

To avoid a rabbit hole, allow me to restate.  The too big to fail entities became that way in an extremely highly regulated market rampant with government & quasi-government intervention.  

 Yeah, except the parts that caused the failure were largely unregulated.


What part is that?  The artificially low interest rates?  The ratings agencies that have a monopoly?  Or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac who also enjoy an implicit and ultimately explicit government bailout?


Why do the rating agencies have a monopoly? Because they were essentially unregulated and allowed to do whatever the eff they wanted?

The Mac's were bit players. (except in liberterian land)

The real estate bubble (again, allowed to exist because of lax regulation) and the lack of regulation on CDO's were the two major things that led to the collapse.

Anyway, to think that the 2008 collapse was due to too much regulation is borderline insane.


To clarify my comment on the ratings agencies - the problem is not that they had an effective monopoly. It's because they were downright dishonest and there was no one who held them to account.

I.e. - they were free to do what they wanted - just the way you like it.


Wikipedia on the ratings agencies:

The Big Three credit rating agencies are Standard & Poor's (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch Group. S&P and Moody's are based in the US, while Fitch is dual-headquartered in New York City and London, and is controlled by Hearst. As of 2013 they hold a collective global market share of "roughly 95 percent"[1] with Moody's and Standard & Poor's having approximately 40% each, and Fitch around 15%.[2]According to an analysis by Deutsche Welle, "their special status has been cemented by law — at first only in the United States, but then in Europe as well."[1][3] From the mid-1990s until early 2003, the Big Three were the only "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs)" in the United States — a designation meaning they were used by the US government in several regulatory areas. (Four other NRSROs merged with Fitch in the 1990s.)[4]


yeah, so what?

No one in the ratings agencies saw any consequence for their dishonesty and essential criminality during the bubble.

That's the freaking problem.


I highly recommend The Big Short by Michael Lewis on this topic.  Spoiler alert, it wasn't regulation that did it.


drummerboy said:

yeah, so what?

No one in the ratings agencies saw any consequence for their dishonesty and essential criminality during the bubble.

That's the freaking problem.

 And they were an authority blessed by government.  They were in a unique position of authority and it was abused.  


****. I was saying those things were safe as can be, but nobody listened to little ole me. 


drummerboy said:

yeah, so what?

No one in the ratings agencies saw any consequence for their dishonesty and essential criminality during the bubble.

That's the freaking problem.

My take on what caused the 2008 debacle was the downfall of Lehman Brothers.  Which in turn was caused by the Repo 105 accounting scam.  See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_105



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals

Advertise here!