The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

For the life of me, I can not figure this out.

 

 

[zoogs]

22 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Banking industry is a prime example.  It would be disastrous if we did away with all banking regulations.  The system that is in place is an amazingly efficient system that allows commerce to take place in a controlled environment.  Now...yes....there are tweaks that could happen that would make it better and more fair.  But, in general, it's a great system....in very large part due to the framework and regulations the government has put in place over time.

 

A pretty significant chunk of that framework has to refer to what was built after the 2008 crisis, right? Dodd-Frank, the CFPB being the two examples that come to my mind.

[RedDenver]

26 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

A pretty significant chunk of that framework has to refer to what was built after the 2008 crisis, right? Dodd-Frank, the CFPB being the two examples that come to my mind.

Banking regulations have been around for 100+ years, so I'm not sure how to even know how much there are to make a comparison like how "big" Dodd-Frank or CFPB even are relative to what already existed.

[zoogs]

Well, I don't mean in quantity, but it would be strange to call the whole system a great status quo when a lack of regulations contributed to the great financial crisis of our time. So I do think the response to it meaningfully defines how stable we view the current framework.

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Well, I don't mean in quantity, but it would be strange to call the whole system a great status quo when a lack of regulations contributed to the great financial crisis of our time. So I do think the response to it meaningfully defines how stable we view the current framework.

I see. From my own reading, I think the CFPB is very good for the public but wouldn't prevent another financial crisis, and that Dodd-Frank is dependent on regulators doing something, so it's also unlikely to prevent another financial crisis.

[zoogs]

From my limited understanding, I would also be very moderate in describing the current system as terrific or failsafe. However, insofar as we could say it's the basic status quo from which to work...I don't think we could even keep that if we go back before the '08 response happened.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

 

A pretty significant chunk of that framework has to refer to what was built after the 2008 crisis, right? Dodd-Frank, the CFPB being the two examples that come to my mind.

 

No.

 

Dodd Frank...etc. doesn't come anywhere close to being a significant chunk of the framework and systems in place for our financial institutions.

[Danny Bateman]

I meant to post this earlier - but here is some very good reading from the Intercept on how American libertarian interests (e..g., Kochs brothers etc.) are working to remake Latin America into a libertarian mold after failed socialist (often autocratic) governments failed & left a power vacuum:

 

 

I very much agree with your take with the two ideologies with the coin metaphor, Red. Both sides definitely have their blindspots. Personally, I cringe when young people call for full-blown socialism (or even communism!) & claim it's "never been done right." That reeks of naiveté. 

 

On the other hand, it seems to me most libertarians are already super financially secure people who aren't reliant on many government programs & thus think they'd be just fine if the government just disappeared (I tend to disagree.). I'm not sure why they opt for corporate oppression over government oppression, other than they think they can make money off of the former.

 

On Dodd-Frank/CFPB - BOTH of those rely on enforcement by actors who want to see those entities succeed. If instead you have a Republican Congress who is hostile to any type of legislation & Mick Mulvaney as acting CFPB director - they're essentially toothless.

[zoogs]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

No.

 

Dodd Frank...etc. doesn't come anywhere close to being a significant chunk of the framework and systems in place for our financial institutions.

 

I would say this is a true enough statement, but then I would no longer be able to agree with describing it as amazing or efficient. 2008 was a pretty searing indictment of the extent to which deregulation had prevailed, in my view. It's why I do view not dismantling Dodd-Frank or the CFPB as a real political priority, and this may just be an area in which we differ politically. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, zoogs said:

 

I would say this is a true enough statement, but then I would no longer be able to agree with describing it as amazing or efficient. 2008 was a pretty searing indictment of the extent to which deregulation had prevailed, in my view. It's why I do view not dismantling Dodd-Frank or the CFPB as a real political priority, and this may just be an area in which we differ politically. 

You do realize the banking and financial systems in this country are much bigger and historic than since 2008....don't you?

[zoogs]

I'm not sure where you're going with this exactly. It seems like we're just indicating our disagreement about whether it's a rock solid system with or without regulatory measures put in place after the last shock -- and therefore whether undermining those things are in the category of up for debate or not. It's fine! Reasonable people will disagree about this; I just wanted to draw attention to the distinction by adding the qualifier to "amazingly effiient", but maybe I'm not interpreting your point correctly here.

[BigRedBuster]

First off, I don't believe I have ever said I was for getting rid of Dodd Frank or any banking regulations.  What I said, actually, was that I don't feel sorry for bankers that complain about the regulations because it was their industry's actions that caused them to be put in place.

 

I also never said this system is failsafe.  No financial system is failsafe and...I would argue you don't want a financial system that people believe is failsafe.  Financial transactions need to have real risk to them in varying degrees.  Some very little risk while some should have a lot of risk.  Making a system "failsafe" actually......makes it not "failsafe".  This is exactly what happened in 2007 or 2008.  The banking industry felt like they could do whatever they wanted and it's all safe....we found out that wasn't true.

 

What I said was that we have an amazing system in place that is very efficient in what it does.  My argument was that this was mainly because governmental regulations have been in place for probably well over a century that creates a framework that everyone knows the rules.  Really, we have been building this system since our country was founded over 200 years ago.  For instance, typically, Americans don't worry about putting their money in the bank because they know the bank is FDIC insured up to a certain amount.  (This is an example of a transaction with little risk).  On the other hand, people can also take that money and go buy stock options (which is a high risk transaction).  Both of these have a framework and system in place that is extremely efficient in accomplishing the task.  People can go into the transaction with a high level of understanding the rules and how it works....then make a decision if it's right for them.  

 

All this is possible with regulations.  Now, the debate needs to be how much regulation is the right level and what those regulations are.

Edited January 11, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[zoogs]

Ah, I see. I agree with that pretty broadly: what makes our system "amazing", beyond the particular details of so and so bill, is that we fundamentally view the government as responsible for being a caretaker and regulator. So it's up to discretion how much is sensible, and this regular maintenance is the oil that makes the whole machine keep functioning smoothly. It's a strike against a competing narrative, the "regulations are bad and the government is only doing the right thing by deconstructing regulations". That is the philosophy that I think undergirds a lot of the deregulatory movement. Because while reasonable people can think a bit more or a bit less regulation is the right way to go, it takes a pretty fanatical commitment to the "regulation is evil" axiom to take stock of current events and conclude, you know what, the biggest problem facing us right now is too much regulation on banks, etc. 

 

This is what I appreciate about the few sane voices in the national conservative conversation. When it comes down to it, they probably do still think regulations are basically bad. But that's not what they speak up about, because they know it's the wrong moment to make that the rallying priority. For example, you could be a 'less regulations' guy and still think: the current environment is one where there aren't enough, actually. Or, it's about appropriate give or take. You can do this under the framework you outline, but not under the alternative.

 

What I think recent history has revealed to us is just how far that commitment goes in the Republican party. They are the guys who look at Trump and say, "well, at least he's not a regulations guy." They're the ones who will throw down for him because, evidently, not even the rhetorical defense of the First Amendment matters anymore. To me, this calls the whole 'regulations are basically bad' philosophy into question. Because if you look around, all the serious people who have been advancing this argument have revealed themselves to be rabid loons about this, who have always used such lines as sweet nectar to bolster their aims not of market stewardship, but serving industry interests. They were actors in bad faith, and their words worth clinging to as much as Wormtongue's.

 

That's not to say go all the way to the other end and say "all regulation is good regulation", but it is cause, I think, to seriously recalibrate what we consider reasonable. I actually really like the way you put it, because instead of picking either side, it's just a view that hey, tending to the framework is the government's job. That it's something we should strive to do well, rather than always more or always less. Hopefully I'm not contradicting or misrepresenting you at this point.

[Danny Bateman]

This is the current Ambassador to the Netherlands. For some backstory, in 2015, he made the dubious claim below:

 

Quote

“There are cars being burned. There are politicians that are being burned,” he said then, at a conference hosted by a conservative group. “And yes, there are no-go zones in the Netherlands.”

 

There is no record of that occurring. A few weeks ago, after he was confirmed, he was interviewed by a Dutch journalist about said claims. the following ensued:

 

Quote

Trump’s new choice for ambassador, Pete Hoekstra, who was only sworn in by the vice president, Mike Pence, on 11 December, was being interviewed for current affairs programme Nieuwsuur by reporter Wouter Zwart. 

 

Zwart says: “You mentioned in a debate that there are no-go zones in the Netherlands, and that cars and politicians are being set on fire in the Netherlands.”

Hoekstra replies: “I didn’t say that. This is actually an incorrect statement. We would call it fake news.”

 

Hoekstra is then shown clips of him saying: “The Islamic movement has now gotten to a point where they have put Europe into chaos. Chaos in the Netherlands, there are cars being burnt, there are politicians that are being burnt ... and yes there are no-go zones in the Netherlands.”

 

Challenged about having called this “fake news”, Hoekstra then went on to deny to Zwart that he had in fact used the phrase “fake news”.
 

“I didn’t call that fake news. I didn’t use the words today. I don’t think I did.”

 

Then he's doing a presser yesterday with Dutch media. The following ensues when he asked about it.

 

 

They ganged up on him & continued to ask variations of the same question because he refused to recant his glaring falsehood. The sad thing is this guy was a Republican congressman for Michigan for nearly 20 years.

Good for the Dutch. How aggressively idiotic & ignorant the rest of the world must think we are right now.

[Danny Bateman]

In fairness, I did see as I was closing out the journalist's Twitter page that after being so thoroughly humiliated, Hoekstra managed to apologize. FINALLY.

 

Pride is a dangerous thing.