But this was in response to a prior remark where you said it didn’t matter what the system was, tyranny would evolve.
I didn’t say “tyranny”; I simply pointed out that there will always be people who grab a higher level of control than others, regardless of the system.
Kind of makes my point. You want this to happen? You think this is an acceptable path for civilization to take.
Just the opposite. My point is that the shift in wealth to the top is a systemic problem related to the infotechnological age we now live in, where a select few who are both market savvy and techno savvy can amass a huge amount of money. Whenever a technoentrepeneur says that he’s about to “disrupt” an existing market, what he’s saying is that he’s about to reroute a load of money from the middle class into his own pocket.
Last decade in retail, the bogeyman was WalMart. The Left railed against them, and voted with their wallets by staying out of their stores (WMT’s demographic is overwhemingly surburban/rural/bluecollar/working class).
Well, now Bezos is doing exactly the same thing to moms and pops AND WalMart — — and he’s doing it with the approval of the same people who hated WMT. There’s simply no way that any government action gets in the way of that freight train, or any other similar endeavor.
You think Bezos is serving any kind of valuable purpose in society by keeping his laborers on food stamps and Medicaid while becoming the wealthiest human being on the planet? (Please tell me you don’t.)
But not all of them. Yet, I concede the point that Glass Stegal was not critical to the Subprime debacle. Nonetheless, my contextual argument that lack of regulation remains to be the root of both the 2008 collapse and wealth inequality in general is still valid.
A lack of regulation was definitely the problem. I just enjoy pointing out that this slate of de-regulation was driven by Democrats. :-)
It’s also one of my favorite examples of government corruption. Andrew Mozila (Countrywide CEO) was raked over the coals in congressional testimony by Henry Cisneros (HUD Sect at the time) for not providing minority borrowers preferential treatment that their credit and job histories did not justify. Countrywide changed its policies, becoming a small part of the 2008 meltdown. Cisneros later left office in a bit of a scandal having to do with a mistress. So, where did he go after leaving the Cabinet? The Board of Directors of Countrywide, of course. :-)
Really? I’ve read a buttload of explanations about how derivatives evolved, but this is the first I’ve head of the Fair Housing Act being involved. You want to connect the dots for me on that one?
Sure. It was illegal to securitize mortgages prior to LBJ’s 1968 legislation; the lender either had to service the loan themselves, or sell it as an individual unit to a servicer. No packaging. The 1968 legislation permitted mortgages to be packaged and sold to servicers. In the early 1970’s, Ginnie Mae figured out that you could get investor money into the system by packaging those mortgages as securities, which allowed the sellor to go out and loan that investor money for more mortgages. They called those secuirities “Collateralized Debt Obligations”, or CDO’s.
I find it painfully ironic that the government had to orchestrate a bailout that was caused by securities that wouldn’t have existed if they had not (a) legalized them and (b) invented them.
What I am trying to tell you is that if you don’t accept a rigorous, comprehensive package of governmental controls (or some viable external force that accommodates the needs of the entire population) on the excesses of capitalism, now before it’s too late, then you risk destabilization and God-knows-what (communism, fascism, civil war…).
I have no quarrel with that as a general philosophy. I just want the package to be as minimalistic as possible, and when possible, avoid governmental controls because you’re using price competition when possible (Example being our prior discussion regarding health care systems. You can control costs by limiting payments to providers, or you can control costs by making individual shop for better prices. I like the latter.
So, you cut the budget to a penny a person per year and problem solved? Come on.
Nobody said the problem was solved.
Which is exactly what I am saying. Your 401K schtick is as bad as the Dem’s SSC scares. I don’t buy either of them.
The difference is that yours was just a powerless blogger. The 401K notions were coming in congressional testimony, and some of the Dem Senators voiced a modicum of support, particularly Ben Cardin.
Whatever your philosophy, you don’t change the rules on people while they’re in-flight. If you want to ADD to a program, that’s fine, but don’t CUT that program without giving people plenty of time to respond accordingly.