Bank Transfer Day Is Tomorrow

[redunderthebed]

They've been at it this time since the early 1960s. This mess didn't happen overnight. And it would have happened ten years earlier if not for Clinton.

Capitalism is based on boom and bust.

Only if it's unregulated.

I disagree may i point you to the doco series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent ... _the_World

It essentially shows that capitalism has a long and sordid history of boom and bust.

[Schneibster]

They've been at it this time since the early 1960s. This mess didn't happen overnight. And it would have happened ten years earlier if not for Clinton.

Capitalism is based on boom and bust.

Only if it's unregulated.

I disagree may i point you to the doco series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent ... _the_World

It essentially shows that capitalism has a long and sordid history of boom and bust.

It's usually unregulated.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It started with Reagan, for sure.

It did? The South Sea Island bubble was all Reagan's fault?

Irresponsible capitalism has been going on since... well since there was capitalism! In fact, although I am sure Seth would beg to differ, irresponsible capitalism is a direct consequence of, and some would say a necessary downside to, capitalism itself!

Capitalists will always seek less regulation in order to make bigger profits in somewhat more dubious ways - it is simply a fact of economics - it is also an economic fact that, while things are (seemingly) going to plan capitalist-wise, ALL governments will eagerly reduce regulation in order to increase growth, a situation which inevitably increases risk and speculation, leads to unsustainable growth and ultimately results in busting bubbles!

Reagan was simply a product of his (economic) times.

[Schneibster]

I'd never read about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's effects on the South Sea Bubble.

There's this area of study you might have heard of called "economics." They even award Nobel Prizes in it, and have degrees 'n' stuff.

Just sayin'.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd never read about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's effects on the South Sea Bubble.

There's this area of study you might have heard of called "economics." They even award Nobel Prizes in it, and have degrees 'n' stuff.

Just sayin'.

...

I was merely pointing out that financial deregulation has a history that far precedes Reagan. Regulations loosen as long as people are getting rich - then they tighten when bubbles burst and people suddenly get poor - then they loosen again in order to stimulate growth in a stagnant ecomnomy. There was a regulation/profitability graph that I saw once (pre-interwebz) that pretty accurately mimics a predator/prey population graph

[Schneibster]

I'd never read about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's effects on the South Sea Bubble.

There's this area of study you might have heard of called "economics." They even award Nobel Prizes in it, and have degrees 'n' stuff.

Just sayin'.

...

I was merely pointing out that financial deregulation has a history that far precedes Reagan. Regulations loosen as long as people are getting rich - then they tighten when bubbles burst and people suddenly get poor - then they loosen again in order to stimulate growth in a stagnant ecomnomy. There was a regulation/profitability graph that I saw once (pre-interwebz) that pretty accurately mimics a predator/prey population graph

Actually, we figured out what to do to prevent it. We even did it, and it even worked; we then found one set of circumstances that it didn't work in, and we've even figured out how to deal with that.

Then we forgot.

Reagan was the forgetter in chief. Because of his ideological bias.

It's a long and complicated story, is my point; you're not only oversimplifying, you're ignoring everything that's important. And I suspect that's because of your ideological bias.

This is the wrong thread for this. But we can do it here and then split it out, if you like.

ETA: Quick tip: "It's not profitable if it's regulated" is propaganda specifically intended and used to avoid regulation. I'm pretty sure your ideological bias is not compatible with its intent.

[JimC]

The whole regulation thing is a continuum, anyway. The "end regulation" crowd attack a strawman by screaming that even a small, rational increase in the regulation of markets is a complete descent into Soviet era central control...

In any given economic situation, there must be some sort of optimum level of financial regulation by government; note that this implies there are clearly potentially excessive levels, which would stifle the innovative nature of free-enterprise. The trick is to find it. The only certainty is that the corporate end of town will always want less regulation, less tax and complaisant politicians...

[Schneibster]

Economics is how we figure out the right amount of regulation.

[JimC]

Economics is how we figure the right amount out.

Trouble is that economists seem to come in so many dissenting factions that it is hard for most people to choose. Perhaps we could play a blind-fold game of "pin the tail on the economist"...

Give me Newtonian mechanics any day, with a little Einstein thrown in for spice when things get speedy...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd never read about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's effects on the South Sea Bubble.

There's this area of study you might have heard of called "economics." They even award Nobel Prizes in it, and have degrees 'n' stuff.

Just sayin'.

...

I was merely pointing out that financial deregulation has a history that far precedes Reagan. Regulations loosen as long as people are getting rich - then they tighten when bubbles burst and people suddenly get poor - then they loosen again in order to stimulate growth in a stagnant ecomnomy. There was a regulation/profitability graph that I saw once (pre-interwebz) that pretty accurately mimics a predator/prey population graph

Actually, we figured out what to do to prevent it. We even did it, and it even worked; we then found one set of circumstances that it didn't work in, and we've even figured out how to deal with that.

Then we forgot.

Reagan was the forgetter in chief. Because of his ideological bias.

It's a long and complicated story, is my point; you're not only oversimplifying, you're ignoring everything that's important. And I suspect that's because of your ideological bias.

This is the wrong thread for this. But we can do it here and then split it out, if you like.

ETA: Quick tip: "It's not profitable if it's regulated" is propaganda specifically intended and used to avoid regulation. I'm pretty sure your ideological bias is not compatible with its intent.

I think you may be confusing me with some hardcore capitalist. I never claimed that regulation DID stifle growth. Although, it is certainly a fact that those eager to make money with complete disregard for sustainability or equitability will shout that mantra at the top of their voices. The optimum solution, as with any system, lies in a maintainable equilibrium - in this case between regulation and entrepreneurship. Reagan (and Thatcher in this country) shifted that equilibrium too far one way and it really could do with a tweak in the other direction (which it has not had since) - but no more than that.

Basically, we need to give the freest rein possible to honest businessmen while keeping the controls tight enough to weed out the greedy cunts!

[Schneibster]

No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is the same as the problem with AGW. They were greedy and didn't like what the real economists told them so they hired fake ones and endowed chairs for them in Chicago. Thought they had it all figured out until 2008 and the AIG crash.

The truth will out. OWS is the tip of the iceberg. Money is flowing out of the banksters' pockets and into credit unions and local banks as we correspond here. They'll get the message pretty quick.

[JimC]

XC wrote:

Basically, we need to give the freest rein possible to honest businessmen while keeping the controls tight enough to weed out the greedy cunts!

I know what you mean, mate, but it is certainly easier said than done!

[Schneibster]

I think you may be confusing me with some hardcore capitalist.

Nope, rather the other way 'round actually. You should know I lean pretty left myself (if it's not obvious already). I don't disapprove, I just disagree.

I never claimed that regulation DID stifle growth.

That was not in any way clear to me from what you wrote.

Although, it is certainly a fact that those eager to make money with complete disregard for sustainability or equitability will shout that mantra at the top of their voices. The optimum solution, as with any system, lies in a maintainable equilibrium - in this case between regulation and entrepreneurship. Reagan (and Thatcher in this country) shifted that equilibrium too far one way and it really could do with a tweak in the other direction (which it has not had since) - but no more than that.

Basically, we need to give the freest rein possible to honest businessmen while keeping the controls tight enough to weed out the greedy cunts!

We know a lot about how to do it, too. The thing we need to do is listen to the economists whose theories have actually been tested and actually worked. To do that we need to know who they are and how they're different.

I disagree that honest businessmen need free rein. I think they have plenty, anyway here in the US. I think they had plenty before Reagan came along, and everybody was making a shitload of money, and the dishonest ones went about stealing it. I think they succeeded by about halfway through Bush 43's second term, and the 2008 crash was the result. I think they're avoiding and denying and trying to pretend it wasn't them.

I have articles that tell exactly how it was done and exactly who came up with the math they used. This is known and the economists who were paying attention know what to do about it. What's necessary is to make the government listen, and that doesn't mean Obama, it means the Congress, because laws have to be made. The investment banks must be separated from the commercial banks, and both must be separated from insurance. Insurance must also be separated from healthcare. Until these things happen the greedy cunts will keep fucking everyone over, including themselves because they're not bright enough to see that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Greedy people seek out positions of power to sate that thirst. The best ones hide their greed skillfully until they get into positions of great power. So we'll rarely really know who we're giving control to until it's too late.

[Schneibster]

Well, we'll have to get everyone smarter.

It's the long fight.

At least this time they didn't manage to start a world war.

So far.