Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well...I understand that this was a wholly Republican crafted piece of legislation. However, as Ike said, "The buck stops here". Clinton was the one that got to choose which battles were worth fighting, and he chose not to fight this one. This is one of the few things about Clinton's presidency that I was less than pleased with him about.Which is incredibly naive.Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
Who wrote the legislation? Who pushed for the legislation to be passed? Phil Gramm.
Now, when was this presented to President Clinton? The day before everyone was leaving for the Christmas holiday, right on the heels of the Republican impeachment of the president. At the point when he was politically weak, and understandably distracted.
Did Clinton do due diligence in understanding these complex mechanical transactions? No. But he relied on a Wall Street lifer, Rubin, for sound advice, and Rubin is more loyal to Wall Street and his personal wealth than to Clinton or the United States.
I'm not excusing Clinton. But I understand his fuckup in signing it.
But don't even try to blame this on him - Gramm certainly knew what this was all about, and he and wife Wendy are deep into these cabals who wanted Credit Default Swaps.
For starters, there was no unregulated private sector, as has been pointed out to you. Absent Glass-Steagall there's a list of regulations far longer than a mile long. As for Greenspan being a Republican appointee, so what? The Republican Party, at least the elites who run the party, are no more interested in the free market than Democrats. They're corporatists through and through, and having Greenspan running the economy as Chairman of the Fed benefited them handsomely. And it's irrelevant what Greenspan claimed his efforts were attempting to do, because what they did was to distort the capital structure of the economy creating the bubble that inevitably popped. That's what central planning of the economy does, and it doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat who does it. If Greenspan had actually supported the free market, as so many critics say he did, then he never would have kept interest rates artificially low. In fact, he'd have never accepted the position as Fed Chairman to begin with. The Federal Reserve, as I keep saying, is the antithesis of the free market.You mean the Federal Reserve that was headed by Allen Greenspan - a Republican appointee? Actually, Greenspan's efforts were an attenpt to stave off the on-coming disaster created by the selfish, short-sighted behavior of the financial industry. Admittedly, it was a dismal attempt, but are you seriously suggesting that if Greenspan hadn't tried to shore up the industry that it wouldn't have done exactly what it did? Really???? All you're trying to do is find a way to keep from having to admit that the unregulated private sector was the orchestrator of its own demise.Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.
That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.
That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."
Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.
The ones who give her the time of day are the "intellectually stunted children", IMO.
You say that as if the agenda of Corporatism isn't rampant, unfettered "free market" capitalism. The cognative dissonence is almost laughable. Although you're right, the industries were still regulated. They were regulated in totally uselss, stupid ways, but they were regulated.For starters, there was no unregulated private sector, as has been pointed out to you. Absent Glass-Steagall there's a list of regulations far longer than a mile long. As for Greenspan being a Republican appointee, so what? The Republican Party, at least the elites who run the party, are no more interested in the free market than Democrats. They're corporatists through and through, and having Greenspan running the economy as Chairman of the Fed benefited them handsomely. And it's irrelevant what Greenspan claimed his efforts were attempting to do, because what they did was to distort the capital structure of the economy creating the bubble that inevitably popped. That's what central planning of the economy does, and it doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat who does it. If Greenspan had actually supported the free market, as so many critics say he did, then he never would have kept interest rates artificially low. In fact, he'd have never accepted the position as Fed Chairman to begin with. The Federal Reserve, as I keep saying, is the antithesis of the free market.You mean the Federal Reserve that was headed by Allen Greenspan - a Republican appointee? Actually, Greenspan's efforts were an attenpt to stave off the on-coming disaster created by the selfish, short-sighted behavior of the financial industry. Admittedly, it was a dismal attempt, but are you seriously suggesting that if Greenspan hadn't tried to shore up the industry that it wouldn't have done exactly what it did? Really???? All you're trying to do is find a way to keep from having to admit that the unregulated private sector was the orchestrator of its own demise.Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.
That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."
Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.
The same is true for welfare. Most families on welfare have jobs. They just don't earn enough to support their family.[
By looking at the actual RESULTS of that "help" objectively. For instance, since we began spending other people's money on the so called 'great society', whose idea was to end poverty, the rate of poverty has actually increased. In the decades before spending began, the rate of poverty was dropping precipitously. You caused it to go in the opposite direction! But hey, what's tens of trillions of dollars among friends, right? And who cares if you meddlers made the situation worse, it's the intention that counts, right?
And sorry, you don't get to determine what is and what is not "civilized".
So, I ask again, what exactly is it that you find creepy about the notion of personal responsibility and the promise to not accept charity that is forced from strangers? Be specific now...
The problem with your argument is that spending to help poor people increased poverty.
Nope.
What increased poverty was that the wealthy, the 1%ers dismantled the unions that allowed people to get out of poverty with jobs that paid fair wages. They sent the good paying jobs overseas, they replaced people with machines. and all those fucking poor people who couldn't get jobs as good as their parents just fucking refused to dutifully starve to death.
You guys complain about the layabouts who wait for their government checks to arrive, but the fact is, 40% of households that get SNAP benefits have at least one person with a job.
And then you wonder why people vote for democrats.
What's not to like about anarchy?
Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
Only if enforced. Christopher Cox did not enforce them, in accordance with Bush administration priorities to ease regulatory oversight, and with Republican Congress priorities to cut funding to regulatory agencies. Fact.Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.
Well, except for the fact that the Financial and Real Estate industries are highly regulated, that the Fed is basically owned by Wall Street with a direct line to the White House, that Federally Subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the mainstreaming of subprime liar loans, that the Federal Government de facto mandated race based quotas for mortgages which could only be met by subprime loans, that politically connected speculators used such subprime loans to bid up real estate prices in an inflated bubble and then cashed out.....
You say that as if the agenda of Corporatism isn't rampant, unfettered "free market" capitalism. The cognative dissonence is almost laughable. Although you're right, the industries were still regulated. They were regulated in totally uselss, stupid ways, but they were regulated.
It would be kind of like having a law that specifically says "You cannot print $5 bills", while you are printing billions of dollars worth of $20 bills, and flooding the market with them. Then, when the economy crashes, you insisting, "Well, I was regulated! And I even obeyed the law! I didn't print one single 5 dollar bill!" Well, yeah! That's because the regulation was completely useless, and did nothing to regulate what you were actually doing.
Yes, the problem with Utopian philosophies lies in the implementation. People are driven by emotion, not reason.Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
However, even Clinton admitted his mistake there:
“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.
“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”
The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.
This is the problem with Rand's theories - they assume that business owners are capable of enlightened self-interest, and when left on their own will police themselves, and enure that they do not take any actions that will hurt themselves in the long run. Unfortunately the reality is that business owners are human, and are subject to human nature - they are selfish, greedy, short-sighted, and interested in instant gratification. As such, they only think as far as the next quarter, and how to generate shit-loads of profit - they never consider what that short view will do to the market, or the economy, in the long term, and so they make really bad choices that fuck everyone, including themselves. They also think nothing of their laborers, the consumers, or the environment. So, there needs to be a bit of government oversight to ensure that these short-sighted business owners don't fuck up the whole system in the name of chasing that "last dollar".
No, the agenda of corporatism, as we plainly see, is to have the state regulate competition so that the largest already established firms can get away with murder. This is corporatism, otherwise known as fascism. Under free market capitalism, however, competition flourishes because the state does not pick and choose winners. Neither Republicans, Democrats, or Wall Street want that in the least.You say that as if the agenda of Corporatism isn't rampant, unfettered "free market" capitalism. The cognative dissonence is almost laughable. Although you're right, the industries were still regulated. They were regulated in totally uselss, stupid ways, but they were regulated.For starters, there was no unregulated private sector, as has been pointed out to you. Absent Glass-Steagall there's a list of regulations far longer than a mile long. As for Greenspan being a Republican appointee, so what? The Republican Party, at least the elites who run the party, are no more interested in the free market than Democrats. They're corporatists through and through, and having Greenspan running the economy as Chairman of the Fed benefited them handsomely. And it's irrelevant what Greenspan claimed his efforts were attempting to do, because what they did was to distort the capital structure of the economy creating the bubble that inevitably popped. That's what central planning of the economy does, and it doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat who does it. If Greenspan had actually supported the free market, as so many critics say he did, then he never would have kept interest rates artificially low. In fact, he'd have never accepted the position as Fed Chairman to begin with. The Federal Reserve, as I keep saying, is the antithesis of the free market.You mean the Federal Reserve that was headed by Allen Greenspan - a Republican appointee? Actually, Greenspan's efforts were an attenpt to stave off the on-coming disaster created by the selfish, short-sighted behavior of the financial industry. Admittedly, it was a dismal attempt, but are you seriously suggesting that if Greenspan hadn't tried to shore up the industry that it wouldn't have done exactly what it did? Really???? All you're trying to do is find a way to keep from having to admit that the unregulated private sector was the orchestrator of its own demise.Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."
Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.
It would be kind of like having a law that specifically says "You cannot print $5 bills", while you are printing billions of dollars worth of $20 bills, and flooding the market with them. Then, when the economy crashes, you insisting, "Well, I was regulated! And I even obeyed the law! I didn't print one single 5 dollar bill!" Well, yeah! That's because the regulation was completely useless, and did nothing to regulate what you were actually doing.
One cannot be an absolute supporter of free markets and support the existence of the state. Therefore, she was only a general supporter of free markets.
First of all, you're right - I'm a "noob", which means you have no excuse for trying to judge me based on your experience with other posters.Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
You're a noob. I'm not. I've seen how G-S has been thrown around as the Big Reason on this board for years.
It's a diversion...just like blaming Bush and the Koch Brothers are.
First of all, you're right - I'm a "noob", which means you have no excuse for trying to judge me based on your experience with other posters.Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
You're a noob. I'm not. I've seen how G-S has been thrown around as the Big Reason on this board for years.
It's a diversion...just like blaming Bush and the Koch Brothers are.
Second of all, no one is suggesting that there were not a number of factors leading to the crisis, but to just dismiss deregulation, as if it were irrelevant, and just a "distraction", as you keep trying to do, is dishonest.
At the same time don't forget that , in the end, there was no difference between the Men, and the Pigs. (Yeah...I've read Orwell, too).First of all, you're right - I'm a "noob", which means you have no excuse for trying to judge me based on your experience with other posters.Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
You're a noob. I'm not. I've seen how G-S has been thrown around as the Big Reason on this board for years.
It's a diversion...just like blaming Bush and the Koch Brothers are.
Second of all, no one is suggesting that there were not a number of factors leading to the crisis, but to just dismiss deregulation, as if it were irrelevant, and just a "distraction", as you keep trying to do, is dishonest.
I'll judge you based on what you post. And so far, you're proving to be quite thoroughly indoctrinated. Congrats.
And just remember:
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
At the same time don't forget that , in the end, there was no difference between the Men, and the Pigs. (Yeah...I've read Orwell, too).First of all, you're right - I'm a "noob", which means you have no excuse for trying to judge me based on your experience with other posters.Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
You're a noob. I'm not. I've seen how G-S has been thrown around as the Big Reason on this board for years.
It's a diversion...just like blaming Bush and the Koch Brothers are.
Second of all, no one is suggesting that there were not a number of factors leading to the crisis, but to just dismiss deregulation, as if it were irrelevant, and just a "distraction", as you keep trying to do, is dishonest.
I'll judge you based on what you post. And so far, you're proving to be quite thoroughly indoctrinated. Congrats.
And just remember:
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Yep. Ayn Rand essentially viewed the role of the state (to paraphrase) as being responsible for basic infrastructure, the courts, military, police, and otherwise the protection of individual rights.Regardless, Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, which assumes that she saw a role for the state.An absolute supporter of free markets would see defense, roads, etc.. provided by the free market, as opposed to being provided by the state. Ayn Rand did not support this, thus she is not an absolute supporter of free markets.One cannot be an absolute supporter of free markets and support the existence of the state. Therefore, she was only a general supporter of free markets.Well, perhaps you should read her before commenting. She was an absolute supporter of free markets.
Could you explain that?
Defense, maybe. That is a common need for everyone in the country. I'm not sure she supported the government building roads.
What makes you think so?
Anyway, what exactly is it that you find creepy about the notion of personal responsibility and the promise to not accept charity that is forced from strangers?Personally, I find her creepy
Besides the fact that if you accept it, then it isn't "forced", you also have the problem that Ayn Rand didn't die like a rugged individualist when she got old and sick.
She took Medicare and Social Security. She wasn't living on Book Royalties.
