Market crash: are we there yet ?

[camaraderie]

I part company with Rick when he starts blaming republicans and saying stupid stuff about us.
De-regulation is NOT a bad thing. All that is, is removing obstacles to doing business. De-regulation is NOT lack of oversight or freedom to lie and screw people. Example...wouldn't you all like MEDICAL insurance deregulated and available nationwide from COMPETITORS?? That is not the same thing as saying "you can now treat patients any way you want to"!

As to free trade and social security. They probably deserve their own threads but I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with the premise that if they were to take 15% of their pay for ther lifetime and sock it away in government bonds, they'd be a hell of a lot better off than what SS will give them. (This is NOT to say we shouldn't take care of the other classes of SS recipients...it is a comment on SS retirement. ) I think most Reps think that SS is a great example of how government can screw things up....but we also recognize that it is here to stay...are looking forward to the day WE get some of it...and want it to be there for us and in a way that does not bankrupt our kids.
I like to distinguish between FREE TRADE and FAIR TRADE. The only result of backing out of FREE TRADE agreements like Nafta will be devastaton and job losses as our own exports get retaliated against and higher consumer prices for everything. Unfortunately...to many of our trade agreements are one sided and we get the shaft...we need to nation by nation look at those and re-negotiate the agreements or slap on trade restrictions. But there is no way to fight the globalization of jobs and product sourcing. Our only hope is to insure FAIR competition and produce stuff that can't be done better elsewhere.

[Rickm505]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

I've made the point about the effects of the New Deal before, but Ms Shales does it much better.

OK, you baited me.. admit it..... It's not Shales, it's Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ms. Shlaes wrote a column for the Financial Times arguing that the George W. Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina showed that it had been well-prepared for the disaster.

Then (get this) 10 days later, when the whole country was asking where the help was, in another Financial Times column, she noted that there had in fact been delays in responding to Katrina, but argued that the Bush Administration should not be held responsible for them, as they were simply an unfortunate result of federalism.

Federalism? Yeah, Ok. John you found yet another Neocon and Bush apologist and hold her up as a sterling example of an expert on economics.

Oh yeah, one more thing. She's had no formal economic training. None. Of course, who needs to be an expert economist when writing a book on the economy?

You're catching Sailaway21-itis.

If you really want to learn about the Great Depression, read the undisputed expert... Arthur Schlesinger. I have his paper in PDF, I'll email it to you.

[sailhog]

Rick,
With all due respect -- and I mean that -- you are making the same outrageous leaps of the imagination that you accuse Republicans of making. I am very familiar with era of American history, and I rather doubt that the vast majority of Republicans would advocate a return to the policies that made those circumstances possible. I have no doubt that you can find plenty of fringe right-wing voices that will support your view, but alas they are the fringe. It always drives me NUTS when Bill O'Reilly takes some left wing blogger freak and presents him as your garden variety liberal or Democrat. My mother has been brain washed by that dirt bag's manipulation...

[sailhog]

This deserves a read:

Originally Posted by camaraderie

I part company with Rick when he starts blaming republicans and saying stupid stuff about us.
De-regulation is NOT a bad thing. All that is, is removing obstacles to doing business. De-regulation is NOT lack of oversight or freedom to lie and screw people. Example...wouldn't you all like MEDICAL insurance deregulated and available nationwide from COMPETITORS?? That is not the same thing as saying "you can now treat patients any way you want to"!

As to free trade and social security. They probably deserve their own threads but I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with the premise that if they were to take 15% of their pay for ther lifetime and sock it away in government bonds, they'd be a hell of a lot better off than what SS will give them. (This is NOT to say we shouldn't take care of the other classes of SS recipients...it is a comment on SS retirement. ) I think most Reps think that SS is a great example of how government can screw things up....but we also recognize that it is here to stay...are looking forward to the day WE get some of it...and want it to be there for us and in a way that does not bankrupt our kids.
I like to distinguish between FREE TRADE and FAIR TRADE. The only result of backing out of FREE TRADE agreements like Nafta will be devastaton and job losses as our own exports get retaliated against and higher consumer prices for everything. Unfortunately...to many of our trade agreements are one sided and we get the shaft...we need to nation by nation look at those and re-negotiate the agreements or slap on trade restrictions. But there is no way to fight the globalization of jobs and product sourcing. Our only hope is to insure FAIR competition and produce stuff that can't be done better elsewhere.

[Rickm505]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

I part company with Rick when he starts blaming republicans and saying stupid stuff about us. .

Hey Cam, I didn't make that crack about the New Deal... John did. Is he the lunatic fringe?

Originally Posted by camaraderie

De-regulation is NOT a bad thing. All that is, is removing obstacles to doing business. De-regulation is NOT lack of oversight or freedom to lie and screw people. Example...wouldn't you all like MEDICAL insurance deregulated and available nationwide from COMPETITORS?? That is not the same thing as saying "you can now treat patients any way you want to"!.

Regulations are in place to make the distinction between the example you gave, competition vs sanctioned monopoly

Originally Posted by camaraderie

As to free trade and social security. They probably deserve their own threads but I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with the premise that if they were to take 15% of their pay for ther lifetime and sock it away in government bonds, they'd be a hell of a lot better off than what SS will give them. (This is NOT to say we shouldn't take care of the other classes of SS recipients...it is a comment on SS retirement. ) I think most Reps think that SS is a great example of how government can screw things up....but we also recognize that it is here to stay...are looking forward to the day WE get some of it...and want it to be there for us and in a way that does not bankrupt our kids.

Not all Republicans feel this way. Say the word "Entitlements and they turn red.

Originally Posted by camaraderie

I like to distinguish between FREE TRADE and FAIR TRADE. The only result of backing out of FREE TRADE agreements like Nafta will be devastaton and job losses as our own exports get retaliated against and higher consumer prices for everything. Unfortunately...to many of our trade agreements are one sided and we get the shaft...we need to nation by nation look at those and re-negotiate the agreements or slap on trade restrictions. But there is no way to fight the globalization of jobs and product sourcing. Our only hope is to insure FAIR competition and produce stuff that can't be done better elsewhere.

I agree with you

[Rickm505]

Originally Posted by sailhog

Rick,
With all due respect -- and I mean that -- you are making the same outrageous leaps of the imagination that you accuse Republicans of making...

I defer to my response to Johns comment on the New Deal above.

Originally Posted by sailhog

. I am very familiar with era of American history, and I rather doubt that the vast majority of Republicans would advocate a return to the policies that made those circumstances possible. I have no doubt that you can find plenty of fringe right-wing voices that will support your view, but alas they are the fringe. It always drives me NUTS when Bill O'Reilly takes some left wing blogger freak and presents him as your garden variety liberal or Democrat. My mother has been brain washed by that dirt bag's manipulation...

For all of our sakes, I hope you're right.

[wind_magic]

I really enjoy Rick's posts, and at the same time I am completely bewildered by most of what he says. It is ironic that we actually agree on what's happening much of the time and yet I have completely different understanding and perception going on in my mind. My reasoning has nothing to do with Bush, conservatives, etc, barely anything to do with the government at all, and yet the results are the same. I have no idea what that means, but for some reason it makes me really enjoy Rick's presence here, it is always fun to see what he is going to say.

[Rickm505]

Fed OKs Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley switch to bank holding companies

updated 15 minutes ago

"WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve said Sunday it had granted a request by the last two major U.S. investment banks — Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to change their status to bank holding companies.

The Fed announced that it had approved the request of the two investment banks. The change in status will allow them to create commercial banks that will be able to take deposits, bolstering the resources of both institutions.

The change continued the biggest restructuring on Wall Street since the Great Depression...."

________________________

These are the last two investment banks. Wall Street has completed it's shake up.

I think the worst is now over..

[Rickm505]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

I really enjoy Rick's posts, and at the same time I am completely bewildered by most of what he says. It is ironic that we actually agree on what's happening much of the time and yet I have completely different understanding and perception going on in my mind. My reasoning has nothing to do with Bush, conservatives, etc, barely anything to do with the government at all, and yet the results are the same. I have no idea what that means, but for some reason it makes me really enjoy Rick's presence here, it is always fun to see what he is going to say.

Thanks... At least I think thanks are in order.... There are times that your posts are a bit confusing as you seem to switch sides quite a bit.

[craigtoo]

Just a Quick word.

Thanks Rick. I appreciate your insight. ....(Not to turn this into a Rick's ass kissing session...) but I hope you hang around...I'm learning a great deal.

I really don't think this mess is party related. It's more greed related which I firmly believe is independant of one's political affiliation.

While Mr. Clinton was president, didn't he sign a bill into law (proposed by a Republican congress) which would allow the banks to do as you described? Sell (is that the right word) sub-prime mortgages with AAA ratings...?

Your explanation of the events leading to this mess was enlightnening. However, I failed to make the connection of this catastrophe to either of the major political parties.

Thanks again Rick and all for your insight.