Recently I watched a documentary called "Inside Job" which detailed the collapse of the financial market that led to our current depression. I think it is a film everybody who is concerned about the financial future of this country should watch. Wall Street and the government will not want us to watch it because it shows who really control our country.
As I asked before, why nobody has gone to jail for what happened with subprime loans and derivatives that caused the financial meltdown? Somebody like Angelo Mazzillo, head of Countrywide, used subprime loans to inflate the profits of his company and then when he realized that the whole thing was going to collapsed, sold his stocks before they fell. Now if Martha Stewart can be jailed for getting inside information to sell her stocks in a company she does not own, how is that Mazzillo is not guilty? The film also showed how academics were paid by corporations or foreign government to tell how well the economic conditions of these entities were. For example one economics professor wrote that Iceland was in great shape in an article when he was a consultant for Iceland banks. This was just before Iceland collapsed. And he did not have to disclose his financial ties to Iceland. How is this different situation than a doctor who is paid by a pharmaceutical company have to reveal that relationship when he writes or talks about a drug from that company?
Worse than that above sample is companies like Standard and Poor who rates companies, governments etc. S & P recently wrote that they may have to downgrade the U.S. government in the future. Why should we listen to firms like that when they were paid by investment banks to tout how financially sound these banks are? Just right before Lehman Brothers collapsed, S&P had double AA ratings or them. Bottom line we can trust them. We also cannot trust people like Greenspan who refused to regulate the industry as the government should. If people like him didn't understand the dangers of derivatives, who can?
People on the right accuses Obama being a socialist. I always said that presidents have very little control of the economy and I think he is doing as well if not better than Reagan did after he took over the disaster from Carter. But if I fault Obama, it would be that he really did not change anything from Bush. Bernanke is still here as Fed chairman, Geithner is a protege of Hank Paulson and Larry Summers has been around presidents for many years. They are not socialists and they are not for increasing regulations on Wall Street. It is the same policies that have gone on since Regan deregulated. By the way, that led to the savings and loan debacle which we never learned from. Obama is not a socialist. He just does not have great ideas about economics. But then neither did any of the people I mentioned in this paragraph.
Couple blogs ago I complained about public unions. I stand by that. I will admit that after watching this film which just confirm what I had believed all along, I find the people in the financial sector more despicable than the union people. I can understand somebody making average money trying to get more, even if they buy off politicians to do that. What I don't understand is that people making millions already is trying to rip people off. How much is enough?
I will have to check this documentary out. Did you watch it on Netflix?
ReplyDeleteI am of the belief that unions and corporations exist to balance each other out. A sort of yin/yang I guess.
Can you imagine if either had their way in government?
I am all for a free market but I guess a part of me believes there needs to be a limit, especially when greed comes into the equation.
All I know is that I don't belong to either a union or am directly associated with a Wall Street insider.
I think it would have been impossible for any president to fix the economy quickly. It's a global economy now and what happens across the globe effects things at home. There are a lot of things to consider. I personally think that stability in the middle east will help that along. We've got to invest in infrastructure and in alternative energies.
China is a difficult subject because we know they have us by the balls, so obviously any political posturing needs to be taken carefully. I don't know if anything will happen this week and I would venture for the sake of publicity that some things will be announced, but nothing solid.
-LBOAYM
Yes, I watched it on Netflix. It is narrated by Matt Damon, by the way. I didn't recognize his voice but my wife did. That will remind me never to rent another Matt Damon movie again!
ReplyDeleteTheoretically corporations and unions are fighting each other and keeping each other in check. But a public union is not opposed by any corporation. Only tax payers association really oppose public unions. And the tax payers association usually have very little money so the state and local politicians are in the back pocket of public unions.
Presidents not only have very little control of the economy, they have very little control of world affairs in the short term. How does a president have any say of a tsunami causing gas prices to go up? What control they have over the protests in the Middle East. Obama was lucky with capturing bin Laden but Carter made the same decision to send in helicopters to Iran and it blew up in his face. Neither have control of the helicopters or the men they sent. I look for a president for what they are trying to do in the long term such as you mentioned about infrastructure and alternative energy. All of these take a long time to accomplish,way beyond the president's term in office. These things obviously would not help a president get reelected. By the way, after the energy crisis in the 70's, Carter put up solar panels in the White House as a symbol of turning to alternative energy. Reagan took the panels off after he took office. Well, Reagan is revered by Republicans while the Democrats do not think much of Carter!
Well, I think in the short term, presidents have a chance to stimulate the economy and unify the country. It's harder now because there is way too much partisanship.
ReplyDeleteJust by being elected, Reagan was able to push his agenda quickly because the country wanted to change a lot of the policies from the Carter administration. The perception was that Carter left the economy in poor shape. There was a feeling of confidence that Reagan conveyed which led to Wall Street boosting the economy. In some ways, trickle down economics worked. What the GOP didn't plan for was the deficit.
Clinton was able to use his popularity to get the economy back on track too. This again was caused by the perception that Bush Sr. was out of touch and had continued the same path Reagan was on, thus causing the economy to falter.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that a good president has to adapt and do what's right in the short term while always keeping an eye to the future. The problem too is that whoever takes over for him/her will have to continue the infrastructure plans in order for it to take hold. For example, Bush overturned a lot of the things Clinton did. It would be interesting to have seen where the economy would have been had Gore been elected.
As far as Carter goes, that plan to save the hostages has to be one of the big things that each president after him thinks about when they're planning an operation. It seems to me that as the years go by, Carter's legacy gets better. There's no doubt that his humanity work helps him.
-LBOAYM
I maybe wrong about nobody going to jail for the financial market collapse. Today on tv I saw a derivative trader being arrested for inside trading. This guy looks like Indian and has an Indian sounding name. He supposedly got inside info from Goldman Sachs, among others. You mean you can't find any white guys who are guilty of passing the info to this guy? And he is the only guy they found after two years? This looks very suspicious to me!
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say what makes a president popular besides my theory of just being lucky or unlucky. Carter just had incredible bad luck with the economy and the Iran hostage crisis. Neither one of which he created. Clinton got lucky with the computer boom during his watch and the Serbians gave up rather than going into a prolong fight. Of course personalities make a big difference. People seems to have more confidence in Clinton than Carter even though one lied about his affairs and one chastise himself for thinking about another woman.
I think I know why Obama put out bin Laden's pictures. It shows him to be lying on the couch in his pajamas with a blanket. He is surfing the channels on his tv. He does nothing all day except play with his computer and plan war games. He is living a typical American male's life! It shows that he had converted to our side already. His followers should quit and join us also! Of course he actually lived better than the typical American male. He has several wives, tons of money and couriers bring food and stuff for him. No wonder al Qaeda has not been productive for 10 years! Check his furniture, they are probably bought at Walmart and made in China!
Good stuff! I can't believe bin Laden did not have internet but he did have the essentials. I would think living in a house would be better than a cave, unless you're Batman.
ReplyDeleteI think Clinton was unlucky, that he got caught cheating and I still don't know how he and Hilary got away with Whitewater. Also, didn't Clinton miss killing bin Laden with a missile? Another lesson learned that Obama had filed into memory.
Did the Indian guy look like a terrorist? If so, maybe it's all a stunt by the government to show that we are winning the war on terrorism here and abroad!
-LBOAYM