Who asked for the bail out was a formality. — Benkei
I've said numerous times, I'd love to see Sanders win but that I just don't think it's on the cards. — Wayfarer
The Chairman of the Fed and the Secrerary of the Treasury were attempting to avoid a massive economic collapse following the failure of financial services companies. — frank
It is a fantastical notion to expect that having once pulled poorly run, systemically threatened firms out of the fire, government won’t do it again, no matter how many times and how loudly it says it won’t. — Richard Fisher, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Alright before we begin this discussion I'll just let you know that I would really never vote for Bernie. I'm just interested in the actual contents of his beliefs. From what I know - off the top of my head - he's said favorable things about Castro and the USSR, and he favored nationalizing.... some industry in the 1980s and doing so in a manner without even compensating the leaders of those industries.
Again, not looking for a debate here just an honest picture of what Bernie believes. — BitconnectCarlos
If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? — NOS4A2
If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? — NOS4A2
But call Bernie what you want. I’ve already stated his policies reek of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century. — NOS4A2
Why would we need another New Deal if the first one was so great? The government’s power was greatly increased and that has not subsided. — NOS4A2
(... and the whole rest of your post, edited for space). :up: :up: :up:Sanders speaks to a very broad range of people across the board of ethnic diversity. Americans come that way, you see. Sanders speaks to all poor people, all those who have struggled, all those who have been taken advantage of by predatory lending practices, which are now legal as a result of the sheer demolition of antitrust laws in America. Sanders knows how these things came to happen. — creativesoul
Very American to condemn other states as authoritarian while the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. — Maw
We've already seen (just in the US):
1. Franklin National Bank failing in 1964;
2. First Pennsulvania Bank failing in 1980;
3. Contintental Illinois Bank failing in 1984 (too big to fail mentioned for the first time);
4. Bank of New England failing in 1991;
5. the national banking crsis of the 80s (1600 banks failed and 1300 savings and loan banks);
The thing is Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers followed the same patterns where assets grew at incredible rates funded by short-term borrowing (with ridiculous maturity mismatch as a result). (... ) — Benkei
Imagine getting upset because Sanders acknowledged some objectively good things Cuba has done. Very American to condemn other states as authoritarian while the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.
And this is of course a huge problem which, even without global warming to worry about, will saddle the next generations of citizens with problems.
Running winning candidates isn't enough (though that is necessary). Several basic reforms are needed:
One, the members of the Supreme Court need to be rotated more often -- which means ending life-time appointments. Fixed terms would solve part of the problem. The court IS POLITICAL. It has to be knocked off its pseudo-august pedestal.
Two, eliminate the Electoral College. I realize it has a point, but direct election by the citizenry works for all the other elected positions.
Three, we need a genuine working class party -- not slightly more and slightly less conservative parties serving the interest of the ruling class.
Four, campaign financing must be socialized. Having someone with $30-40 billion dollars financing his own campaign (Bloomberg) and others scrounging for pocket change is obviously a crooked game. The conservative court laid down Citizens United for a ruling class reason. Citizens United needs to be undone.
We need to repair the gross economic inequalities which prevail in the United States. (Other countries will have to deal with their inequalities.). This means taxing wealth at a high rate. Maybe it should be enshrined in the constitution, so it can't be changed easily. The wealthy stayed wealthy even during periods of high taxation. — Bitter Crank
There is no formal procedure for violating the principle of moral hazard. The Chairman of the Fed and the Secrerary of the Treasury were attempting to avoid a massive economic collapse following the failure of financial services companies.
The banking system was nationalized to thaw a credit freeze.
None of that was socialism for the rich. — frank
On the first issue of whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient, I'm ambivalent about it. Republicans would call him "socialist" anyway, they would call any policies like his "socialist", and because they control the propaganda machine, that's what increasingly many Americans think "socialism" is, and increasingly think is actually a good thing not a bad thing. So it seems like just pragmatic identification with the label people use to mean what he is for, to me. It does come with a bunch of pejorative baggage, but since the label would be applied to him anyway, I don't really see the harm (and maybe even some benefit) in owning the word. Reclaiming it if you will. "We're here, we're 'socialist', get used to it." — Pfhorrest
I personally consider even that further-left viewpoint "centrist", in a good way -- there is still further left than that that one could go, but that would be too far left -- but even from that far-widened-to-the-left Overton window I think in, I kinda dislike this attacking of establishment Democrats and "centrists" from the left. I'm a big-tent kind of guy, — Pfhorrest
On the other hand, I wonder if it truly is "socialism" at all. [..] I think both the State and Capitalism in many ways remains intact with Bernie. — Xtrix
What is the "left"-most ideology, in other words? [...] I would like to define the "left" as any ideology with the goal of creating a truly democratic society where the government and business are run by communities and workers. In the socialist-anarchist tradition. — Xtrix
I do think there is such a thing as too far in each of those ways, though; it's just much much farther than anyone would ever consider, because it's obviously unworkable. — Pfhorrest
Absolute maximal liberty would mean nobody had any claims against anyone... including, say, punching you in the face. Slightly to the right of that would allow for self-enforced claims against some limited things like that. The truly centrist position on that would allow for some kind of institutional enforcement of such reasonable claims, a government, without granting it any monopoly on powers that are denies other people, so no state. More to the right of that would be a state of some kind, but limited in some ways. The farthest to the right would be an unlimited state. — Pfhorrest
Bernie is like... 12.5% right of true center, on that scale. But that in turn is about 25% left of center in the limited-state-and-capitalism that has moderate Democrats at its center. And that in turn is like 50% further left of far left on the parochial scale American media pundits seem to think in, by which those moderate Democrats are "far left". — Pfhorrest
Here it's useful to define some terms. What's the difference between "government" and "state"? I see them as essentially the same thing, although reserving "state" (or even government) for the Federal government isn't unreasonable. — Xtrix
Nails it :100: :clap:The moral hazard, e.g. the risks banks are willing to take because they will be bailed out, remains the same or has even increased. A typical "first as tragedy then as farce" and the farcical nature of these bailouts will only increase over time.
We've already seen (just in the US):
1. Franklin National Bank failing in 1964;
2. First Pennsulvania Bank failing in 1980;
3. Contintental Illinois Bank failing in 1984 (too big to fail mentioned for the first time);
4. Bank of New England failing in 1991;
5. the national banking crsis of the 80s (1600 banks failed and 1300 savings and loan banks);
The thing is Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers followed the same patterns where assets grew at incredible rates funded by short-term borrowing (with ridiculous maturity mismatch as a result).
Same pattern but different market circumstances exacerbated the failures in 2008. Money market funds provided better returns from the 80s onwards than those available on savings accounts, because those were set by the Fed at the time, so the set rate was rescinded. The growth of those funds fueled demand for short-term corporate commercial paper, which lowered the long term revolving lines of credits existing between banks and corporates.
Junk bonds started to finance M&A and longterm borrowing needs for corporates, further lowering income for the traditional banking model.
Add to that the various asset-backed securitisation and the role of banks changed from ultimate lender to an intermediary making money from loan origination fees, underwriting fees (for securitasation) and lona-servicing fees. Banks thought they had no risk on poor quality loans except, of ourse, that the riskier loans generated higher fees and were more profitable.
The increased competition of capital markets to provide funding as opposed to banks resulted in the slow but steady repeal or easing of various aspects of the Glass-Steagall act. During the 80s, banks were allowed to enter the following more riskier businesses:
- to own retail brokerage subsidiaries;
- to own and trade in a holding company proprietary account any form of equity, debt, or derivative security;
- to underwrite municipal securities; and to underwrite corporate securities.
The result: only a small percentage of income originates from loans to US corporates and instead investment banking, prop trading, morgtage and loan origination and processsing fees drive profits for banks. The banking model changed.
Then there's the derivatives business they entered into and in particular the Credit Default Swap (CDS), that were sold as "insurance". But it isn't insurance. If you buy insurance, you can only insure the event once and the insurance will only pay out actual loss and give insurance only to a person who has an insurable interest. The insurance has an obligation to only insure amounts for which it has sufficient reserves to cover estimated probabilities of loss. Anybody can buy a CDS (no insurable interest needed), the person writing the CDS has no limit on how much it can write (no reserves to cover estimated losses) and it can be more than the underlying value of expected loss. So at it's peak the CDS market was 60 trillion USD; 10 times the size of the value of default.
Add to the above the extraordinary consolidation of the past three decades and the incredibly increase in banking assets. In 1995 the combined assets of the six largest banks equaled 20% of US GDP, in 2009 that was more than 60%.
It is a fantastical notion to expect that having once pulled poorly run, systemically threatened firms out of the fire, government won’t do it again, no matter how many times and how loudly it says it won’t.
— Richard Fisher, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
And the reason for these consolidations was not because bigger banks make better banks but because of the greater profitability for too-big-to-fail banks due to the implicit government guarantee. This reduces borrowing rates by 78 bps on average, which saved the 18 largest banks about 34 billion USD a year. (See: The Value of the “Too Big to Fail” Big Bank Subsidy)
It doesn't benefit consumers. It doesn't benefit tax payers. It does benefit stockholders and bank executives. So yeah, "socialism for the rich" seems a pretty good shorthand for the above. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.