Republican Brown wins Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I didn't that article the same way you did. I don't feel the author is advocating anarchy by any means. I think he was talking about populist arguments in today's day and age, and how the dems are aiming their barbs at an old audience and thats not fitting with today's far more well educated and informed society who have created their own boogeymen and don't need a political party to create them. As Seth Godin says when speaking about social networking technology "No one cares about you, they care about them." This can be translated culturally to massive shifts in how people view politics and governance.

Ok I see where I misunderstood his point.

First, to be clear, I didn't mean that the article was advocating anarchy. I meant that by saying "the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy," he in turn seems to be saying that -- taken to the extreme of "no one telling me what to do" -- the masses desire anarchy. He's not advocating it, but saying that the masses want it. But what I was saying (and you pretty much reiterated with the bit about anarchy) -- despite what the masses may think they want, they actually do want some form of government -- and therefore they want some patronizing person or persons at the top telling us what to do or not to do, or as you said oppressing us in some form. So my point was, I see little reason to pander to the desires of the masses that they don't really want despite what they think.

But anyway, I see that I didn't read his point right. And I think my misunderstanding comes down to this quote:

It is extremely difficult for people steeped in this mindset (as I was for many years) to wrap their heads around the core idea powering American politics in the last generation: a revolt by the 'dumbass masses' against this basic social map of the world. Huge chunks of the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy -- it is the liberal world view that they long to be freed of.

The part in bold being the key part that I missed. Obviously by his quotes, he means the once uneducated masses are for more educated now, but are still treated as the uneducated, dumbass masses by leaders. So basically our leaders are still operating on the old way of leading the dumbass masses, while the masses have moved on to self-autonomy. The leaders haven't caught on to the open-internet, open-software, open-design, open-ideal that has cropped up with the internet age, the idea behind Wikipedia and Firefox and Linux and Apache and Arduino (open-hardware platform) and on and on where the masses together are more powerful than any one chosen individual or group of individuals.

Does that sound right?

If it does, do you think that's why the Dems are losing control?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Does that sound right?

If it does, do you think that's why the Dems are losing control?

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. ~ Ayn Rand

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Then I agree, political leaders on both sides aren't embracing the open-ideal or at least understanding its power over society right now and trying to implement some of it. I hope they do because I see the power everyday of the new socialism. I know the Obama administration at least made some feigns at opening up the government, though I'm guessing he hasn't succeeded much at that. But I digress.

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time. Even educated people can not possibly be educated about everything, which means they can be swayed by misinformation just as much as the uneducated masses. See the vaccines cause autism "debate" for a perfect example of what misinformation can do. So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

Are monopolies the only place where a line should be drawn?

If a company/bank/etc grows to the point where they can destroy the country's economy if they fail.. then they need to be regulated a lot stronger imo. "Too big to fail" shouldn't exist, since it's a threat to our way of life and national security. If a company starts crossing that line, I feel that it's the government's job to protect the masses from them.

Much like a monopoly.

Though it's a very complicated situation.. The best thing to do imo is to prevent things like this from happening, because once they get too big.. it's a situation of being damned if you do something, and damned if you don't. You act on them when they're too big, and it may inspire them to take more risks knowing the government will just save them anyway.. you don't act and there's a financial meltdown. So really the only thing you can do is take steps to prevent AIGs from happening.

As for the whole politic's opinion in that article that was posted, both sides are guilty of that. This is why the Republicans lost power, and why the democrats seem to be losing it now. It's a new era.

[Professor S]

Speaking of populist attacks on business and their consequences...

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks sank, extending the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s biggest three-day tumble since March, as financial shares slumped on President Barack Obama’s plan to rein in banks and results at Google Inc. disappointed investors.

Bank of America Corp. led the S&P 500 Financials Index to a 3.3 percent drop as uncertainty over Ben S. Bernanke’s confirmation for another term as head of the Federal Reserve also weighed on lenders. Google sank 4.3 percent after fourth- quarter sales growth missed the most optimistic of analysts’ estimates. U.S. Steel Corp. fell as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said China’s move to slow its economy will hurt metal producers.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 1.8 percent to 1,096.8 at 3:31 p.m. in New York, erasing its gain for 2010. The gauge has slid 4.7 percent over the past three days as China moved to slow lending and Obama made his proposal. The Dow sank 170.65 points, or 1.6 percent, to 10,219.23 and is down 4.7 percent over the past three days. The VIX, a measure of volatility, jumped 24 percent to 27.67, the highest since November.

“Bernanke is viewed by markets around the world as a positive for the U.S. economy and the uncertainty about his reconfirmation is accelerating today’s sell-off,” said Michael Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion as chairman of Holland & Co. in New York. “Tag that onto the concerns over China’s economy and Washington’s offensive against the banks.”

The S&P 500 is down 4.5 percent since Alcoa Inc. started the fourth-quarter earnings season on Jan. 11 with lower-than- estimated profit. Analyst forecast earnings grew 73 percent in the October-December period following a record nine quarter slump.

Banks Slump

Morgan Stanley lost 4.5 percent to $28.2, Bank of America fell 2.7 percent to $15.06 and Goldman Sachs declined 3.2 percent to $155.69. The S&P 500 Financials Index has slipped 6 percent over the past two days, its biggest decline since September.

Obama yesterday called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce risk- taking and prevent another financial crisis. The proposals, to be added to an overhaul of regulations being considered by Congress, would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds.

Meredith Whitney, the banking analyst who forecast Citigroup Inc.’s dividend cut in 2008, said Obama’s plan will probably be approved and may “dramatically” reduce trading profits.

Is this how he planned to address the economy after the Mass. Senate upset? By attacking financial institutions in a recession? Is this going to create jobs? Is this going to spur lending and investment?

I simply disagree with Pres. Obama... My 401K plan has hired a hitman.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

I feel like you're going on tangents here, which is fine, but I'm a little slow and I'm not following your main point that followed mine, which I think has something to do with the "shepherding leaders" taking too much control/power. Care to elaborate?

As for the banks, do you not think the banks that were too big to fail should be regulated so that they're not too big to fail, and regulated so that they can't take enormous risky investments that cause the whole economy to implode because of it? It seems like the overall message to the huge banks from the recession and the bailouts is that it's okay for them to make very risky investments, because the government will back them up in the end. It seems to me that message needs to change.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

I feel like you're going on tangents here, which is fine, but I'm a little slow and I'm not following your main point that followed mine, which I think has something to do with the "shepherding leaders" taking too much control/power. Care to elaborate?

I don't think leadership necessrily requires seizing control. My examples given where showing how confusing leadership and control can create oppression, and that relates directly to points I made in earlier posts. To me, it's all interrelated.

As for the banks, do you not think the banks that were too big to fail should be regulated so that they're not too big to fail, and regulated so that they can't take enormous risky investments that cause the whole economy to implode because of it?

I never criticized regulation, I criticized verbally attacking the industry as a whole like a child would attack another on a school bus. Pres. Obama's speech regarding regulation wasn't about pragmatic realities of business and their potential pitfalls; it was about creating an enemy and punishing that enemy. On numerous occassions he has intoned "Fat Cats" to describe bankers. The regulations/taxes themselves are supposed to have loans paid back, but they tax all financial institutions, even those that paid back the loan with interest and those that never took money in the first place. The worst part was that he criticized the entire industry for becoming profitable again, and that was the whole point of the bailout in the first place. It's populist nonsense.

To top it off, other organizations who took massive bailouts will have to pay nothing, and it's very curious that it is the same businesses that the government now partially owns or runs, which takes me back to the point about the corrupting power of centralized control.

If this regulation/tax had been proposed with an even keel, I don't think the markets would have reacted the way that they did and politization needed never take place. Charles Krauthammer made the point that if this tax was levied to pay back what is currently owed, AND to save in the event of a future calamity so there is a large reserve of cash available for a bail-out with no or limited borrowing needed, then reason would have reigned and this would have been seen as a smart regulation.

Instead, he called them poop-heads and decided to take their lunch money. The truth is, Pres. Obama looks like a man looking for a fight with private industry (he even said as much), instead of a President wanting to work with them for future success and stability, and that is a huge character flaw and as the article points out, a tactic that may come to bite him in the ass come election time.

It seems like the overall message to the huge banks from the recession and the bailouts is that it's okay for them to make very risky investments, because the government will back them up in the end. It seems to me that message needs to change.

Keep in mind, regulations also helped create risk that made the eventual fall take place. Google the history of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). Basically, in the 90's this Carter era act was expanded to encourage lending to lower income customers, and preferential treatment was given to lenders who gave out loans to this risky group, and this created many of the risky loan products that are now vilified today (like sub-prime mortgages, etc.). The nature of the market took over selling these unnatural products.

These risky loans where packaged and sold as high-risk but high-profit investments, demand grew as returns poured in and before you knew it no one was noticing these loans were coming due and no one could pay for them (as much a fault of the homeowner as the lender). There is plenty of blame to go around, but remember, it was government intervention that started this economic snowball rolling. Poor risk management by financial institutions was just the last phase of this disaster.

Personally, I think the best way to regulate and keep this happening ever again would be to limit the re-sale of mortgages as equities. Either declare that the originator of a loan must keep it for the life of the loan, or mandate a 5-10 year time span of ownership before that loan can then be re-sold. That way originators will have to be accountable for the loan product they sell. Will this eliminate the origination industry? Maybe. Will it mean a whole lot of people won't be able to get approved for loans to buy homes (because they can't afford them in the first place)? Certainly. In my opinion that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Keep in mind, regulations also helped create risk that made the eventual fall take place. Google the history of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). Basically, in the 90's this Carter era act was expanded to encourage lending to lower income customers, and preferential treatment was given to lenders who gave out loans to this risky group, and this created many of the risky loan products that are now vilified today (like sub-prime mortgages, etc.). The nature of the market took over selling these unnatural products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I think deregulation caused a much bigger problem much faster.

[Acebot44]

Originally Posted by manasecret

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time.

Good hunch.

Check this shit out.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Acebot44

Good hunch.

Check this shit out.

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.

Honestly, corporate entities and other special interest groups regardless of political alignment never stopped financing campaigns. The McCain/Feingold legislation only required that they set up subsidiary organizations to then funnel funds to candidates and "non-affiliated" ad campaigns. George Soros has been doing this for years.

All this ruling does is put it out in the open so you know whose money is going where, instead of the money coming from "Concerned Citizens for _________."

EDIT: Here is little more of the court's ruling, without Huffington's decidedly biased quoting:

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

So in the end, corporations/unions/organizations and other special interests may be required to add disclosure to their speech regarding campaign finance, but it is unconstitutional to prohibit that speech (1st Amendment). If you actually believe in the Constitution (Justice Steven's never really has), there isn't any basis to keep large orgs from financing and campaigning for candidates.