Open thread Sept. 23, 2011 Dan Crawford | September 23, 2011 10:01 am Tags: open thread Comments (8) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
The next thing to try on the economic front is deregulation. All the other arrows have been shot and we have nothing else to try. We can’t afford big spending programs or further tax cuts. Dereguation is our last and only hope — other than time.
it’s nice that Dan sets out a little table for the little people, so the grownups can have a grownup conversation and eat dinner in peace.
there is no way, of course, for you to know that you are talking nonsense. but here is a clue for you: whenever you say “all”, you mean “all i can think of.” and that ain’t all.
unless of course you are joking.
Didn’t they do deregulation back around 1999. Read this review written in 2003 before the actual results of finance deregulation would be fully understood.
“Were the Walls Necessary? – The New Rules of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer. Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions. As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today’s market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves.
Consequently, to the delight of many in the banking industry (not everyone, however, was happy), in November of 1999 Congress repealed the GSA with the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.”
Yeh, deregulation was a “brilliant” idea. At least it made its chief sponsor a great deal of wealth after he left the Congress. It wrecked the economy, but it made a few people happy.
Someday a bright and unconventional grad student is going to examine closely the parts of american business that have been most aggressively deregulated since the experiment really began in earnest ca. 1980.
In telecommunications, in transportation, in finance, in pharmeceuticals, etc. deregulation has been disastrous for employees, customers and (sorry) shareholders. Hello?
I invested in a book The Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America 1970 to the Present. by Jeff Madrick.
Goes in to the demolition of financial regulation from Nixon through today.
US was in trouble when capital went to finance rather than sceince, manufacturing and engineering. The US economy is no more capitalist laissez faire.
I am up to the Rubin/Clinton chgapter of the decline of America part.
Some was done as early as 1970, more by Reagan, a lot by Clinton, then Bush II put it down.
$700B a year for militarists’ version of compassion, cut SS and medicare to pay for it.
I was in a restaurant last night and saw new propaganda (TV advertisement) for the US Navy.
Showed all kinds of humanitarian good deeds around the world, and pulling a few hostages out of Somalia.
The tag line is a “force for good”.
DoD funded propaganda making money for the war profiteers on compassion for poor suffering folks in natural disasters overseas.
The same folks who love the Navy’s $15B carriers doing compassionate things in Japan, are opposed to any kind of compassion for the poor and the lower classes.
Here is your animal video for today. After watching this video, I concluded that anyone who thinks dogs are dumb isn’t paying attention. Somehow, I think this experiment also proves that there is a real difference between liberals and conservatives, if you think of govt spending as delicious smelling sausages. 😉 NancyO