Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Finally, when I see the same politicans who caused major economic disasters still in power and fawned upon, I get disgusted.

Why? They believe in the same thing you do. It's all about deregulation, the only difference being that they're in a position to line their pockets while doing so. It's not as if "Ron Paul x 535" would suddenly solve that, as he also believes in deregulation. Similar to "not having a health care system", using political positions for personal gain is only immoral if you call it that, and only illegal if you're obvious about it.
The only way to make sure this shit won't happen again is to regulate the system. If you don't, this will just keep happening until the public has no money left to put in the bank, as those bankers, quants and investors obviously don't give a toss about what the consequences of their actions are. On the other hand, they're just doing what they've been spoon fed to believe is right (i.e., maximize profits and personal gain without thinking of the future, or caring about what it does to others). This is the "anglo-saxon business model" (short term profits -> dividends) that's so much a part of your cultural heritage, and the only way to ensure it won't indirectly kill you yet is to regulate them. (mind you, the regulation was firmly in place, and none of it would've happened if the deregulation that started in the 80s hadn't happened, so it'd hardly be "radical", even though the wankers on the radio whining that "american values are being thrown to the wolves" would have you believe otherwise.)

"Classic small-government" is a pipe dream (look at what "small-govt believer" Bush did, pushing spending through the roof in order to try to bankrupt the government, saddling the public with the costs, and making sure lots of the money went to Halliburton & Co., thus ensuring that his friends would gain from his being in power) that I hope has once and for all been proven to be at very, very, very bad idea. Sure, Bush "decreased government", but he did it by outsourcing to companies that were a) his donors, and b) his cabinet's donors/friends/former employers.
Did you know that Halliburton has in some cases charged the federal government up to $80 per coke can delivered to Iraq?
That's what you get when party contributions are necessary for elections, and when the procedures that govern the bidding process that should happen when deciding which companies get which government contracts are ("re)lax(ed"), (I forget the word for this) this will doubly ensure that some corporations make tens of billions off the Iraq war while others don't.
But hey, nobody cares about those things, because they're "legal". And we wouldn't want more regulation, because that's bad. And corporations making money are good.
That's the kind of thing that would disturb me, but as you can see, they're all regulation-related, so I'm just being a european again.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Why? They believe in the same thing you do. It's all about deregulation, the only difference being that they're in a position to line their pockets while doing so. It's not as if "Ron Paul x 535" would suddenly solve that, as he also believes in deregulation. Similar to "not having a health care system", using political positions for personal gain is only immoral if you call it that, and only illegal if you're obvious about it.
The only way to make sure this shit won't happen again is to regulate the system. If you don't, this will just keep happening until the public has no money left to put in the bank, as those bankers, quants and investors obviously don't give a toss about what the consequences of their actions are. On the other hand, they're just doing what they've been spoon fed to believe is right (i.e., maximize profits and personal gain without thinking of the future, or caring about what it does to others). This is the "anglo-saxon business model" (short term profits -> dividends) that's so much a part of your cultural heritage, and the only way to ensure it won't indirectly kill you yet is to regulate them. (mind you, the regulation was firmly in place, and none of it would've happened if the deregulation that started in the 80s hadn't happened, so it'd hardly be "radical", even though the wankers on the radio whining that "american values are being thrown to the wolves" would have you believe otherwise.)

"Classic small-government" is a pipe dream (look at what "small-govt believer" Bush did, pushing spending through the roof in order to try to bankrupt the government, saddling the public with the costs, and making sure lots of the money went to Halliburton & Co., thus ensuring that his friends would gain from his being in power) that I hope has once and for all been proven to be at very, very, very bad idea. Sure, Bush "decreased government", but he did it by outsourcing to companies that were a) his donors, and b) his cabinet's donors/friends/former employers.
Did you know that Halliburton has in some cases charged the federal government up to $80 per coke can delivered to Iraq?
That's what you get when party contributions are necessary for elections, and when the procedures that govern the bidding process that should happen when deciding which companies get which government contracts are ("re)lax(ed"), (I forget the word for this) this will doubly ensure that some corporations make tens of billions off the Iraq war while others don't.
But hey, nobody cares about those things, because they're "legal". And we wouldn't want more regulation, because that's bad. And corporations making money are good.
That's the kind of thing that would disturb me, but as you can see, they're all regulation-related, so I'm just being a european again.

Let's see, who lowered the underwriting standard for writing mortgages? My hometown "hero", Henry Cisneros (who would later do time for making payoff to his mistress to keep her quite and lying about to the FBI. Gee if only he'd been President, he would have gotten off nearly scott-free)

Who was in charge of the mortagage sub-committee in the House? Barney Frank. Who is on audio and video record multiple times saying "there no risk here (to subprime mortgages)" and besides, we need to help these people (who couldn't qualify for a mortgage).

And the guy in charge of Fannie Mae, who bought those subprime motgage pools? He became Obama's economic adviser.

These are free marketers?

I'm old enough to remember the double digit inflation in the '70s, under regulation....

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Why? They believe in the same thing you do. It's all about deregulation, the only difference being that they're in a position to line their pockets while doing so. It's not as if "Ron Paul x 535" would suddenly solve that, as he also believes in deregulation. Similar to "not having a health care system", using political positions for personal gain is only immoral if you call it that, and only illegal if you're obvious about it.

It seems rather odd to blame deregulation for this particular basket of problems. More on this farther down.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

The only way to make sure this shit won't happen again is to regulate the system. If you don't, this will just keep happening [...] and the only way to ensure it won't indirectly kill you yet is to regulate them. (mind you, the regulation was firmly in place, and none of it would've happened if the deregulation that started in the 80s hadn't happened, so it'd hardly be "radical", even though the wankers on the radio whining that "american values are being thrown to the wolves" would have you believe otherwise.)

Let's see here... Lots of economists and PoliSci types have been looking at the banking system trying to figure out what went wrong. It's far too soon for the analysis to be done -- after all, economists are still arguing about the causes of the Great Depression most of a century later -- but there are some indications that may be relevant:

• Deregulation does not appear to be at fault. For example, relaxing the Glass-Steagal act (which previously kept investment banking separate from other banking) didn't cause it. On average the banks that have the biggest problems took least advantage of the rule change; those with the smallest problems are more diverse.
• The lax standards in mortgage origination didn't result from deregulation. Rather they came from changes in regulation, most notably much stronger requirements for loans made to marginally qualified (or even UNqualified) buyers -- the "financially disadvantaged." This is hardly "deregulation."

Oh fooey... you may find this opinion article a good place to start reading on the subject. Although it doesn't give references you can use its points as search terms which can point you (indirectly) at some of the topics to consider. But any assertion that "X caused the problems" or "Y would have prevented the problems" must be considered highly suspect. There just hasn't been enough time for anyone to do careful evaluation of what's happened... even if we assume that there's anyone with access to all the necessary data at this point.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

"Classic small-government" is a pipe dream (look at what "small-govt believer" Bush did, pushing spending through the roof in order to try to bankrupt the government, saddling the public with the costs, and making sure lots of the money went to Halliburton & Co., thus ensuring that his friends would gain from his being in power) that I hope has once and for all been proven to be at very, very, very bad idea. [SNIP Halliburton examples]
That's the kind of thing that would disturb me, but as you can see, they're all regulation-related, so I'm just being a european again.

Firstly, you should remember that neither W nor his father even remotely approach being "small-government" supporters. I rather doubt that the Republican party has supported anything I would consider small government since the days of Barry Goldwater -- if even then.

W presided over the largest increase in government regulation in US history. This doesn't prove that small government is a bad idea! Rather it proves that the Republicrats and the Demoblicans can't be trusted with the reins of government power. (Of course we already knew that...) One party can be counted on to increase the size and power of the federal government in the name of Labor, "taking care of the poor," and "think of the children." The other party can be counted on to increase the size and power of the federal government in the name of "morality," "family values," "getting back to business" and "think of the children." A plague on both their houses!

The view from over here where the small-l libertarians hang out is that the recent meltdown certainly cannot honestly be blamed on deregulation when the supposed deregulation never happened in the first place! Further, most small-l libertarians are generally in favor of regulation (perhaps better called commercial law and enforcement thereof) that address things like financial transparency in corporations, anti-fraud laws (which apparently should have been strongly applied to many mortgage brokers!), and other legal constructs that encourage honest and fair dealing. Likewise, the very large contributions of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac appear to have been driven by the moral hazard created by their government backing. "We don't have to worry about the downside risk -- Uncle Sam backs our stock!" That's a problem that has nothing to do with free markets or lack of regulation, and everything to do with government intervention.

Xenophon

[wodin]

I’ve heard more than one intelligent person express vague unsubstantiated suspicions that this whole debacle is an intentional political maneuver gone horribly out of control.

After all, if you can turn an otherwise thriving economy a little south, then blame it on an unpopular president; why just maybe you can get your ultra left wing president elected along with an even farther left leaning congress. Why it’d just be … uh … why it’d be UTOPIA!

Somehow, I’m not sure those folks are too far off base, just look how well it worked!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

They had indifferent success retaking the "foundry" section, even with the help of a high placed traitor and a back door attack from Canada.

Ahem! Which side were the "traitors"? The way that I was taught my history, it was the rebels who were the traitors .

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The attitude that "the government is my enemy and is trying to harm me" does seem to be a uniquely American perspective (not one, I know, which all Americans share!). I've often seen it expressed by Americans, but never by a European. We may not always agree with what our governments do, but I don't think that any of us actually believe that our government is actively trying to harm us.

Then you never have argued with an European anarchist

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by thomasmorus

Sorry guy
I have to speak against you. Since I am back from the states I love Germany Buerocracy - The are just efficient, Fast and in the last three or four yours even friendly- You just need a compoarison to really like them!

Then you are not a pyrotechnician or working in a similar "obscure" field - because the bureaucracy in those fields is .. terrible.

@Ralph Sir Edward: Btw: Article 20 of the German Constitution enables every German citizen to act against a government violating the basics of our nation with whatever force you see fit (e.g. a government striving to become a tyranny). No government is allowed to change this article - no matter what.)
So - defending ones rights is not unique to the US
And we have a federal court that has the right to object laws if they are violating the constitution, and we have a President who can veto laws... Seems like there is at least some kind of control.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

[Snip, sorry, don't have time to respond to this point by point at the moment; will do so later]

please have a look at these three articles though (fairly lengthy). I found them interesting to read.
Also, it's a myth that clinton's expansion of the homeowner program is what played a decisive role in this; subprimes were a later invention. (can't find the article to support that atm though)
Furthermore, also very relevant: this nytimes article, and What Went wrong (WaPo) (the last article deals specifically with my deregulation claim)

[HarryT]

It certainly appears to be the prevailing view in the UK that the deregulation of the 80's went rather too far, and at least played a significant contribution in the problems faced in the last year by the UK's banking system, even if it wasn't the ultimate cause of them.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It certainly appears to be the prevailing view in the UK that the deregulation of the 80's went rather too far, and at least played a significant contribution in the problems faced in the last year by the UK's banking system, even if it wasn't the ultimate cause of them.

The recent C4 Despatches documentary on the credit crunch pointed an accusing finger at Gordon Brown's regulatory reforms when he was Chancellor since Labour came to power.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ahem! Which side were the "traitors"? The way that I was taught my history, it was the rebels who were the traitors .

Benedict Arnold, to be precise. As a general in the American Revolutionary army, he certainly could not be considered a loyal subject of the King. After continual snubbing by the other senior revolutary American generals, he sold out certain military secrets to the British. Therefore, he would then be a traitor to the American cause. That would seem to make him a traitor all around....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Benedict Arnold, to be precise. As a general in the American Revolutionary army, he certainly could not be considered a loyal subject of the King. After continual snubbing by the other senior revolutary American generals, he sold out certain military secrets to the British. Therefore, he would then be a traitor to the American cause. That would seem to make him a traitor all around....

What was the 'American cause'?

I thought the British negotiations with native Americans was one of the reasons for the war of independence, as they were seen as a threat to the interests of the settlers from Europe.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

What was the 'American cause'?

I thought the British negotiations with native Americans was one of the reasons for the war of independence, as they were seen as a threat to the interests of the settlers from Europe.

The American cause would be to form a separate country (from 1776 forward...)

One, but not a major one. Being tax dodgers was far more important...

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The American cause would be to form a separate country (from 1776 forward...)

One, but not a major one. Being tax dodgers was far more important...

According to Wikipedia's 'American Revolution' article:

"For Native Americans, the American Revolution was not a war of patriotism or independence. The great majority supported the British cause. Some tried to remain neutral, seeing little value in participating yet again in a European conflict. A few supported the American cause. The losers lost their lands, especially in New York state, and were driven into Canada."

Is the Native American positon one that needs to be taken into account?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

According to Wikipedia's 'American Revolution' article:

"For Native Americans, the American Revolution was not a war of patriotism or independence. The great majority supported the British cause. Some tried to remain neutral, seeing little value in participating yet again in a European conflict. A few supported the American cause. The losers lost their lands, especially in New York state, and were driven into Canada."

Is the Native American positon one that needs to be taken into account?

Did the British take the Boer viewpoint in account?