Grand political roundup

[Luther Lansfeld]

I can't read the poll. pdf files no worky .-.

[Cmdr_King]

Considering the times I've seen people try to promote switching to an Information Economy, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say economists don't understand economics myself.

Of course, I'm a cynic and think the invisible hand started failing us sometime around the 70's, so I've never looked deeply into economics.

[NotMiki]

I suppose that's also a reflection on national leaders' total failure to explain what the economic issue even is.

I thought the president did a decent job of it in his address, put it in language anyone could understand but didn't dumb it down to such an extent that it lost meaning.  (A largely non-partisan explanation, with the exception of a dig on Fannie and Freddie as if they were the cause of all this, and the so-characteristic-it-doesn't-bear-mentioning lack of any admission of responsibility on the part of the president).  Still, I do wish occasionally that the President or a candidate or high-ranking member of congress would make an address in full-on wonk mode, complete with graphs and technical terms.

On the other side of things, he didn't explain it well because Paulson wouldn't even explain it well.  Paul Krugman said that for him, warning bells went off when Paulson, in front of congress, was evasive about how he would value the securities (buying them at what they're probably worth just to get them out of the market vs. intentionally overpaying to insert liquidity).  How can you sell the American people on something this huge if you don't even want to explain how the plan works?

Ciato: I haven't seen a non-pdf version, sorry.  In any case, most of the poll's conclusions can be seen here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/opinion/polls/main500160.shtml

[metroid composite]

That poll shows how disturbingly sad and utterly ignorant the average person is when it comes to economics. Is liquidity really that tough of an issue to understand? I suppose that's also a reflection on national leaders' total failure to explain what the economic issue even is.

Oh I dunno--I have the impression GWB is actually doing a good, responsible job with the liquidity stuff.  Yet the financial crisis still lowers my overall opinion of GWB.  I mean, when the American dollar got weak, there were a lot of factors at work, so I was hardly inclined to blame the administration.  This economic crisis, though, comes straight from sub-prime lending, which is the direct result of bad government regulation policies; hence I feel no qualms about pointing a finger at the Bush administration and saying "they kinda caused this mess".  Not them exclusively, mind you--from what I read, the Clinton administration was allowing $300k loans to people who make $20k per year (retarded).

...Er, anyway, back to the Bush administration: they made a mess; they're doing a good cleanup job now, but I'd really rather not be in this mess to begin with.  Hence my opinion has lowered.

[Idun]

That poll shows how disturbingly sad and utterly ignorant the average person is when it comes to economics. Is liquidity really that tough of an issue to understand? I suppose that's also a reflection on national leaders' total failure to explain what the economic issue even is.

I don't believe liquidity is difficult to understand. I believe the overwhelming acknowledgement it takes to admit a mass populus as irresponsible when handling funds, the involvement of the federal government in a free market society - particularly with private companies, retirement fund guarantees based on our current system, and the process to go about correcting is rarely on the tip of anyone's tongue. Not to mention the huge influence of globalization by a free market society on the basis of liquidity.

Edit* I had to put in the quote. Just noticed there was another page after I posted.

[Dhyerwolf]

Alternately, there could be other reasons to disapprove. While my approval of his actions would have recently gone up, he also recently started pressuring California to make sure illegal immigrants aren't using some state programs of family planning even though it would either take loads of money to check who is or isn't illegal, would mean immigrants wouldn't sign up, and would cost the state in the end lots of money in for child services (not to mention school overcrowding, which is already a major issue here).

[InfinityDragon]

Oh I dunno--I have the impression GWB is actually doing a good, responsible job with the liquidity stuff.  Yet the financial crisis still lowers my overall opinion of GWB.  I mean, when the American dollar got weak, there were a lot of factors at work, so I was hardly inclined to blame the administration.

That wasn't really my point. If you read the entire PDF, you'll see that one of the polls indicates that a staggering number of people were against the actual bailout plan (nearly 70%). The fact that this many people don't realize just how damn important credit markets are to the economy is what I was commenting on.

This economic crisis, though, comes straight from sub-prime lending, which is the direct result of bad government regulation policies; hence I feel no qualms about pointing a finger at the Bush administration and saying "they kinda caused this mess".  Not them exclusively, mind you--from what I read, the Clinton administration was allowing $300k loans to people who make $20k per year (retarded).

Bad regulation policies are due to key Democrats in Congress refusing to increase and overhaul the regulatory agency since 2000. Bush actually pushed for stronger regulations, but those plans were shot down in Congress who believed that Freddie Mac and Fannie May were financially secure. The bill proposed for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was amended into a weaker, watered down version which nobody supported and was never voted on.

See, e.g.,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Unfortunately for Bush, this all happened on his watch so he'll likely be shouldering the blame for the regulation failure, but it was something ultimately beyond his control. Executive administrative agencies can only act under the scope of power granted to them by Congress, so if an agency cannot convince Congress to broaden its powers, there's little it can do.

That said, poor regulation and Congress alone aren't the root of the problem. Mortgage brokers, banking, and investment firms had stars in their eyes when they made loans, people such as Alan Greenspan were encouraging poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford, this is followed by the actual people with shitty credit that bought houses they couldn't afford, along with the Federal Reserve that created the proper setting by slashing interest rates too quickly over too short a time period.

[Shale]

Bad regulation policies are due to key Democrats in Congress refusing to increase and overhaul the regulatory agency since 2000. Bush actually pushed for stronger regulations, but those plans were shot down in Congress who believed that Freddie Mac and Fannie May were financially secure. The bill proposed for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was amended into a weaker, watered down version which nobody supported and was never voted on.

Yeah, all the Democrats' fault. Shame the Republicans never got control of Congress so they could do something about it, right?

[InfinityDragon]

Yeah, all the Democrats' fault. Shame the Republicans never got control of Congress so they could do something about it, right?

You need to have 60% control to invoke cloture, otherwise a bill gets filibustered and dies. Democrats were stridently against the bill in the Committee of Housing, Banking, and Urban Development, which means that it would likely face strong Democrat opposition, along with moderate Republican opposition, in the Senate.

Republican's didn't have a 60% majority in the Senate, and even if they did, there were some Republicans against that bill. Democrats assuming the majority in Congress in Jan. 2007 sealed the deal.

[metroid composite]

That said, poor regulation and Congress alone aren't the root of the problem. Mortgage brokers, banking, and investment firms had stars in their eyes when they made loans, people such as Alan Greenspan were encouraging poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford, this is followed by the actual people with shitty credit that bought houses they couldn't afford, along with the Federal Reserve that created the proper setting by slashing interest rates too quickly over too short a time period.

I can't really blame businesses.  Businesses are what they are.  If you don't, say, stop them from using false advertising, they'll advertise that drinking Windex makes you smarter, stronger, and more patriotic.

Fundamentally businesses have an obligation to the shareholders to do everything they can to make money.  Basically they are legally obligated to be 100% selfish.  Personality-wise it's the equivalent of a psychopath; someone who has no feeling for anyone besides themselves.  A Business might donate to a charity, but only if their banner is displayed prominently at the charity event--otherwise they can't justify it to the shareholders.  Same way a psychopath might warmly hug a person if they perceive this action to be advantageous, but not otherwise.

And you know what?  The business system works just fine.  However, it does mean that you can't trust businesses to be moral, and that everybody knows you can't trust businesses.  Specifically, the government knows you can't trust businesses, and that morality needs to come from the government.

[InfinityDragon]

I can't really blame businesses.  Businesses are what they are.  If you don't, say, stop them from using false advertising, they'll advertise that drinking Windex makes you smarter, stronger, and more patriotic.

Fundamentally businesses have an obligation to the shareholders to do everything they can to make money.  Basically they are legally obligated to be 100% selfish.  Personality-wise it's the equivalent of a psychopath; someone who has no feeling for anyone besides themselves.  A Business might donate to a charity, but only if their banner is displayed prominently at the charity event--otherwise they can't justify it to the shareholders.  Same way a psychopath might warmly hug a person if they perceive this action to be advantageous, but not otherwise.

I'm well aware of the multiple obligations that directors and officers have towards the businesses they work for (they even have fancy legal names--the duty of loyalty and the duty of care!!). This doesn't change the fact that engaging in extremely self-destructive behavior, such as issuing, buying, and selling junk subprime mortgages, does nothing to help a business's customers nor that business's shareholders.

This has nothing to do with morals--unless you're one of those wacko's that think banks were preying on low-income black families or some such shit--and everything to do with making prudent business judgments. Bank's and investment firms made exceptionally stupid judgments on how to make a profit. Their business models exploded in front of their faces and they are now going bankrupt. It's pretty simple and easy to see why part of the blame can be laid by their feet.

[Grefter]

The business system doesn't work fine if you require it to be governmentally regulated not to fuck everyone for all of eternity (You could blame this on the legal requirements for the business to do this).  You are blatantly saying right there that it is a broken system that requires government intervention and control.  If you already have taken that step you may as well take the next 2 steps and drop so much of the capitalist bullshit and run in a socialist democracy instead of a liberal democracy since the liberal part clearly is actively fighting against the democratic component of it.

I personally lay the blame entirely at the feet of the banks and the people that perpetuate the system.

[InfinityDragon]

The business system doesn't work fine if you require it to be governmentally regulated not to fuck everyone for all of eternity (You could blame this on the legal requirements for the business to do this).

This does beg the question of whether or not the banks would have made the same stupid business decisions had there been no governmental interference in the first place. The Community Reinvestment Act, the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act, and some of the implied guaranties made to Fannie May and Freddie Mac all increased the incentives for banks to compete and give out loans to people with bad credit. Less incentives to make risky loans would have decreased the number of those loans made.

[Grefter]

They are both a self perpetuating cycle.  If you left business unchecked you wouldn't have people like Nixon going into Politics.  They would be CEOs instead.

[metroid composite]

I'm well aware of the multiple obligations that directors and officers have towards the businesses they work for (they even have fancy legal names--the duty of loyalty and the duty of care!!). This doesn't change the fact that engaging in extremely self-destructive behavior, such as issuing, buying, and selling junk subprime mortgages, does nothing to help a business's customers nor that business's shareholders.

Well...okay, there is one significant problem with the model in that it emphasizes short-term.  Most executives are very focused on paying back shareholders in 6-month to 12-month time intervals, and not in terms of, say, 25-year intervals.  This kind of mindset encourages short-term gains, even if they're unsustainable.

The business system doesn't work fine if you require it to be governmentally regulated not to fuck everyone for all of eternity

Is it?  Even if businesses weren't encouraged to "play dirty", would you trust them not to?  I'd argue that you're going to need the regulations one way or another; some people are greedy, specifically some businessmen are greedy.

[Grefter]

They are both a self perpetuating cycle.  If you left business unchecked you wouldn't have people like Nixon going into Politics.  They would be CEOs instead.

>_>  Yeah I agree entirely Met.  The thing I fear the most in the worlds current global politics is this kind of thing happening.  It is why Libertarian stance absolutely scares the fuck out of me.

My point is that because we even need to have laws to prevent them from not "Playing dirty", there is something flawed there.  Why have we as a society allowed such mindless greedy fucks obtain positions with such power through unelected means?

[Excal]

Because they have to show they're at least capable of doing something worth getting paid money for, whereas all you need to do to get elected is appeal to a mob.  And a mob is only as smart as it's dumbest loudmouth.  Granted, you could argue that that's a large part of the capitalist system to, except that the people holding the leashes of these CEOs are much smaller mobs of generally more intelligent people.  So there's at least some hint of merit in who gets to the top.

[Cmdr_King]

Alternatively, because it's essentially a job requirement in "head of a successful business" to be an amoral asshole who will do nearly anything for profit, no matter how many people have to be screwed over.  If you can't do that, someone that can overtakes you and puts you out of business.  See Also: Microsoft vs Apple  (not a great example given Apple is little better, but.)

[NotMiki]

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/09/chicago_sheriff_puts_his_foot/

think this happened to someone in the DL community once, so...go Sheriff Dart!

EDIT:

another thing, I wish there were more political ads like this:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/a_night_at_the_congressional_r_19.php

It is my fantasy that voters respond positively to proof that a quote was taken out of context.  Bet Howard Dean wished the same thing.

EDIT:

and another thing while I'm at it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803776.html

the government wins its appeal to keep the 17 Uighur separatists in Gitmo.  No surprise, since the executive branch's clear position with regard to trying detainees is to delay as long as possible and leave the tough choices for the next administration.  Personally, there is little I find more offensive than the idea that these men are going to rot in jail for that.  The government doesn't think they're enemy combatants.  They're just unwilling to release them into the US for political reasons (they can't be released back to China or the Chinese will kill them).

[VySaika]

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/09/chicago_sheriff_puts_his_foot/

think this happened to someone in the DL community once, so...go Sheriff Dart!

That would likely be me you're thinking of(the situation was slightly different, though not overly so), and yes, that is awesome. He deserves much applause for taking that stance.

[Cotigo]

The obvious response?

http://www.holyjuan.com/2008/10/blackwater-contracted-to-evict-people.html

[NotMiki]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101003167.html?hpid=topnews

I just can't believe it!  This is only a day after the McCain campaign released a 21-page report exonerating Palin, finding that the fault lay with the trooper, police chief, investigator, congressional committee, police union, and Obama campaign.  How dare those slimy liberals do this to her!  Well, I guess this is to be expected when pinkos like the Alaskan congress decide they want to play politics with justice.

Here's the McCain campaigns definitive analysis of the inquiry's findings (released a day before the...inquiry's findings.)

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/08/FINAL_ANALYSIS_OF_MONEGAN_INQUIRY_10-9-08.source.prod_affiliate.7.doc

And here's the real crux of the matter:

Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, tried to preemptively discredit the report, telling the ADN that it won't be comprehensive because Branchflower didn't interview Palin or her chief of staff, Mike Tibbles.

"They didn't even try to interview the governor. You want to know why she reassigned Monegan, it would be nice to talk to her. They didn't even try," Van Flein said. "It's a report that's going to be half-done at best. And anything that's half-done will likely be half-baked."

In response, Hollis French told the paper that he wrote a letter to Van Flein last month asking to set up the interview.

They didn't even interview Palin!  If they were really interested in justice, they would have subpoenaed her after she refused to testify!

[Idun]

My point is that because we even need to have laws to prevent them from not "Playing dirty", there is something flawed there.  Why have we as a society allowed such mindless greedy fucks obtain positions with such power through unelected means?

I think it's always been like that. Even globally.  Edit* To not seem as "it has always happened, it's okay," I feel like the opportunity is available to those willing to take it people many people aren't leaders.

What's frustrating is that there were signs back in 2001 of the outcome that would happen around then and the Democrats were nonchalant. And everyone wants to blame it on Bush. During a time of war, spending shouldn't increase. . . but it has, with all of the damned subprime mortgaging. Bam. Look who hit the supply and demand chain right in the fucking kisser in a "free market." I do think things will get better, but I don't believe mass hysteria will change anything. I just learned that the Fed is thinking of purchasing stocks in order to help stabilize (not completely at all though) some stocks, and then later sell it back. I mean, hey, it's tax payers money and they ultimately get it back. But if stocks keep going the way they are, I'm not sure of the great outcome.

When AIG (?) took that 440,000$ spa retreat to "rally" their associates, I feel like that was a complete slap in the face to the government and the people giving those people the damned 75-88 bil/tril dollars . . . They should be required to pay that back ASAP. Fuckers.

[Grefter]

Wait what?  People not in the government are managing money retardedly in a way that was reminiscent of the .Com boom that everyone could see was a credit bubble that was going to burst.  The government in power goes to war during this period (with questionable reasons).  And this is the party NOT in power's fault?

[Cmdr_King]

Common reasoning in politics, in my experience, is to claim that changes in economic policy don't show their effects for 4-8 years; in other words, up and downturns in the economy should be traced to the previous guys in charge.  In this case, the economic troubles of today are the fault of the Clinton administration, according to this theory.

I tend to think it's bunk and the president, hell the government in general, doesn't hold enough sway on economics to have so potent an effect, they can just amplify or dampen existing trends via taxes, unemployment efforts, etc etc.  Really I think the current economy of... well, the world really, is due to raw idiocy on the parts of business owners.  They decided that it would save them money (and thus increase their profits) to use the cheapest labor possible, and as such have slashed the income of the people buying their products (both by underpaying them and by outsourcing jobs, much as I hate to use a buzzword here), leading to a spiral of fail that lands us in today.  Admittedly, I'm probably heavily influenced by being in Michigan and thus seeing the effects these tactics had on the auto industry, but I don't htink it's outlandish to think this was a large trend whose repercussions are finally being felt.  Basically, the invisible hand doesn't work, these days you make more money short term by screwing over the overall economy in the long term.