Is capitalism obselete?

[Yukon]

Look at the results of the past few months on Wall Street and you'll get the answer.

 

[Truthmatters]

very good allie,

Bill Clinton is flat out wrong.

The republican head of the SEC sighted GLB act 1999 as the main reason he had to resort to self regulation by the industry.

He is a republican and was appointed by Bush.

Greenspan who also had a hand in this mess also states deregulation does not work and that its has now been proven.


You seem to like Clinton much more than you used too. I like him much less than I used to.


For him to try and claim he thinks it had no effect is just ass covering.

 

[Dorkazoid_Jones]

"Perhaps if we look to the other European countries, such as Britan, Sweden, France and so on, perhaps it's time to consider their methods of partial-nationalization of our banking industry to prevent another Great Depression"

The great depression did not end by acting like large spending government style programs like Europe. The CCC did't end the depression. Japan's government spending didn't seem to end their downturn in the 90s. Why do we want to take action that hasn't worked in the past? We should take all the stimulus and take on toxic loans. Forget about government spending. That simply siphons off funds for capitalism.

 

[Yukon]

The US Banking system has been nationalized. Where have you been ?

 

[AllieBaba]

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress's 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day.Bill Clinton signed that "deregulation" bill into law, and he knows better.

APIn BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."....

"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."


Bill v. Barack on Banks - WSJ.com

3. Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.

Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.

4. The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought--and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned--are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
The Weekly Standard


Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship....
The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

your sources will be scrutinized.

Lol. Go for it. Hence the links.
Of course, it's rather sad this is the first time you've heard these things. It shows that you are one-sided in your approach to journalism and politics. Some of these articles are quite old.

 

[elvis]

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress's 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day.Bill Clinton signed that "deregulation" bill into law, and he knows better.

APIn BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."....

"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."


Bill v. Barack on Banks - WSJ.com

3. Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.

Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.

4. The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought--and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned--are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
The Weekly Standard


Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship....
The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

your sources will be scrutinized.

Lol. Go for it. Hence the links.
Of course, it's rather sad this is the first time you've heard these things. It shows that you are one-sided in your approach to journalism and politics. Some of these articles are quite old.

It's not the first time I've heard them. I just brought them up in this thread. You must have meant to respond to someone else.
Your sources will be scrutinized by the lefties on here who think the wall street journal is trash.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, I was responding to you but thought you were saying you would scrutinize the links.

But no, the left won't. They disappear when facts come on the scene. They scrutinize nothing except their own privates in hand-held mirrors....

 

[Agnapostate]

No, I was responding to you but thought you were saying you would scrutinize the links.

But no, the left won't. They disappear when facts come on the scene. They scrutinize nothing except their own privates in hand-held mirrors....

Economically speaking, I suppose I'm the most "leftist" one here, so I'll ask you a question that I've asked several individuals who represent themselves as authorities on socialism and capitalism, and we'll see who "disappears."

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of 'impossibility') economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

 

[Truthmatters]

Who owns the wall street journal guys?

 

[Truthmatters]

"Perhaps if we look to the other European countries, such as Britan, Sweden, France and so on, perhaps it's time to consider their methods of partial-nationalization of our banking industry to prevent another Great Depression"

The great depression did not end by acting like large spending government style programs like Europe. The CCC did't end the depression. Japan's government spending didn't seem to end their downturn in the 90s. Why do we want to take action that hasn't worked in the past? We should take all the stimulus and take on toxic loans. Forget about government spending. That simply siphons off funds for capitalism.

all economic numbers show that the New deal indeed worked.

You are listening to partisans who seek to rewrite history because its not in their favor

 

[elvis]

Who owns the wall street journal guys?

see, allie, I told ya.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why do you think its unimportant who owns the media?

 

[AllieBaba]

The quotes stand by themselves. Clinton said what he said. And the record is what the record is.

 

[Agnapostate]

The quotes stand by themselves. Clinton said what he said. And the record is what the record is.

So where's that response, girl?

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of 'impossibility') economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

 

[Truthmatters]

Rupert Murdoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

Wall Street Journal editorial board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the board appears on fox news every sunday.

I think back on all the Shit the right uses to give Ted Turner and just laugh at you people.

 

[elvis]

Wall Street Journal editorial board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the board appears on fox news every sunday.

I think back on all the Shit the right uses to give Ted Turner and just laugh at you people.

yeah, fox news manipulated clinton into saying what he said.

 

[AllieBaba]

The quotes stand by themselves. Clinton said what he said. And the record is what the record is.

So where's that response, girl?

"Do you hold the analysis of Barone having overextended the usefulness of shadow pricing in his (Pareto efficient, a strike at L. Von Mises's claims of 'impossibility') economic model to be accurate, and if so, what can be salvaged from the model, in your view?"

My response remains the same as it is every time you choose to blather a bunch of nonsense meant to hide the fact that you are a eunuch:

THat white stuff around chicken shit, that's chicken shit, too.

 

[Agnapostate]

My response remains the same as it is every time you choose to blather a bunch of nonsense meant to hide the fact that you are a eunuch:

THat white stuff around chicken shit, that's chicken shit, too.

No, your response is the same that you choose to give when you babble like the crackhead banshee that you are.

That swollen stuff around Babble's snatch, that's VD sores too.

 

[Truthmatters]

Wall Street Journal editorial board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the board appears on fox news every sunday.

I think back on all the Shit the right uses to give Ted Turner and just laugh at you people.

yeah, fox news manipulated clinton into saying what he said.

What a stupid thing to say.

WSJ is right wing leaning though, just like Fox is.