Skip to main content

Cross posted at our new beta site Voices on the Square and The Stars Hollow Gazette
Yes, another crash is coming. I can't predict precisely when as that would be a fool's errand, but much closer than you think. It will probably be after our President is reelected and will care very little what you or I think once he and his treasury push for criminal TBTF banks to bailed out once again. Doctor Doom: the nickname for economist Nouriel Roubini: one of the relatively few outside the mainstream(part of the Got It Right (pdf) project) who predicted the last crash thinks 2013 is a perfect storm for another one which will be even worse and it makes sense.

Despite on theoretical fiscal policy limits with regard to the US, Roubini is absolutely right on the political deadlock with the coming crisis. We wasted our last crisis and that's something Conservatives have not done whether we're talking about the stagflation crisis of the 70s or 9/11. There won't be as many political options this time to prop up the underlying economy in 2013 because Democrats have failed to change the Senate rules because most of them secretly like the way things work or don't work in Washington. Sadly, if Republicans take over both houses again, they will change the Senate rules as they threatening to do in 2005 and 2006.

Anyway some might still want to scoff at Roubini's prediction, but that will come back to bite them in the ass. Not even Roubini can predict the exact moment it will happen, but if one knows anything about the history of financial crashes, since the 80s when the 1933 banking reforms passed by FDR started slowly being dismantled, they started happening once again in a 5-7 year time-frame(and even closer than that if you count global stock crashes which count now more than ever since our markets turned dark with OTC derivatives and Information Asymmetry all around); some worse than others as the 2008 bust was on par with 1929 but you get the idea.

As you can see, 2013 would fit this pattern as far as major crisis are concerned even if it is in 2014 or 2015 instead. Financial History is on Roubini's side, and it's unfortunate that so many people, especiallay our politicians, want to deny it to our detriment. We're still suffering the reverberations of the last bust on top of 35 years of income inequality and debt deflation. All "recoveries" have been jobless since the .com bust, and because of this jobless recovery dynamic, our underlying economy is not strong enough to withstand the reverberations of these financial panics caused by fraud propped up by our leaders in DC that perpetuate it.

Alexander Arapoglou and Jerri-Lynn Scofield at Alternet lay out 6 reasons Roubini is most likely right in this fairly long, but extremely informative piece. The system is inherently unstable and corrupt.

Uncle Sam Needs YOU for a Bailout: 6 Reasons Another Big Banking Crisis Is Coming Our Way: Rampant financial crime and poor regulation can only mean another blowup, and guess who will be holding the bag?

Failure to pursue banks, culpable management and employees for their complicity in causing the financial crisis is one of six bad policies that ensure we’re likely to see another bust-up of a big U.S. bank -- sooner rather than later.

Who’s going to pay the price for such a failure?  We will, of course. Uncle Sam’s policy of allowing banks to get too big to fail means we’ll all be left holding the bag when that collapse occurs — and another banking bailout is necessary.

1. Too big to fail

Thirty years of financial deregulation have seen unprecedented concentration of the financial sector. Before, financial firms were limited both in where they could do business and the types of business they could do. This prevented a big banking blowup in the U.S. for more than 50 years.

Banks used to be limited to owning branches within individual states. When a bank got into trouble—and some did -- losses stayed confined. Regulators such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) could clean up the mess and preserve depositors’ assets, without unduly burdening taxpayers. But after changes culminating in the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act in 1994, those restrictions vanished.

So some banks got steadily bigger, while the overall number shrank.  From 1990 to 2011, the number of commercial banks halved, from about 12,000 to 6,000, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.

[............]

2. See no evil, hear no evil

While the financial system was consolidating, another threat was looming: the “shadow banking system“ was being created. Another New Deal reform, the Investment Company Act of 1940, imposed heavy restrictions on investment companies, which were intended to protect investors from excessive risks, fraud and scams.

But regulators decided that sophisticated investors, including the wealthy, pension funds and charities, had enough financial savvy to be allowed to invest in shadow banks that were either lightly regulated, or not at all. Such alternative investment vehicles, including hedge funds and private equity funds, were exempt from investment restrictions.

In the last two decades, there’s been an explosive growth in shadow banks. The size of this unregulated system has increased fivefold and today is larger than the regulated financial system.

[.........]

3. Calling in the cavalry, but giving them the wrong directions

Once the U.S. decided to deregulate the financial sector, and banks got bigger, it was inevitable that the government would be called in for a rescue. Most of us were aware that in 2008, the government stepped in to bail out big banks that were destabilized by Lehman Brothers’ collapse and by the bad derivatives bets entered into by AIG Financial Products. The world financial system was at the brink, we were told, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was necessary to save the system.

But a decade before this bailout, U.S. financial regulators were involved in a rescue of a shadow bank, which helped set the stage for TARP.  In 1998, the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) hedge fund got into trouble by placing heavily-leveraged derivatives bets during the Asian financial crisis. Hedge funds are allowed to operate with scant regulatory supervision on the rationale that they cater only to sophisticated investors who could bear the risk.

[.........]

Sometimes you want government intervention to quell a banking panic, and to shore up or reboot a failed banking system. Banks need to be seized, or at minimum assessed by a neutral observer, and their balance sheets cleaned up. Investors, too, must pay a price for making foolish investment choices. Typically, existing shareholders are wiped out, while bondholders see their promises of guaranteed debt payments converted to more speculative shares of stock.

We used to know how to do this. The Depression-era Reconstruction Finance Corporation seized failing banks, cleaned up their balance sheets, and later transferred these institutions back to private ownership. The Resolution Trust Corporation followed similar policies in cleaning up the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s. More recently, the Swedish government nationalized failing banks in the 1990s. Managers were penalized, and shareholders and sometimes bondholders took losses.

But the U.S. forgot all these sound policies in the 2008 TARP. The government provided cash to stabilize shaky financial institutions, guarantees to bondholders, and tax breaks. It also purchased some risky assets. But it didn’t get much in exchange. Regulators didn’t demand that banks open their books and clean up their balance sheets. The big banks continued as going concerns.

Bank managers paid no price and mostly kept their jobs. They paid themselves bonuses rather than using capital to shore up their banks. Bottom line: Managers, shareholders, and bondholders didn’t fully pay for their folly.

[.........]

4. Creating financial weapons of mass destruction

The need to bail out AIG Financial Products in 2008 arose from huge losses in unregulated derivatives trading. We should have seen that coming, because derivatives had caused LTCM to fail back in 1998. In fact, plenty of people saw that derivatives were problematic. Warren Buffett called them “financial weapons of destruction” back in 2003.

So, why wasn’t anything done to defuse these weapons?

Well, in 1998, one very prescient regulator, Brooksley Born, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, tried, and failed, to initiate a unilateral disarmament policy.

[.........]

But folks like Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and his successor, Lawrence Summers, and SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, ganged up on Born to preserve the status quo. They saw derivatives users as sophisticated financial players who should not be regulated.

Congress first passed a temporary provision forbidding any change in regulating derivatives. Born resigned in 1999. Congress then passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which specifically excluded OTC derivatives from regulation. This same state of play remained in 2008 when these weapons of mass destruction nearly destroyed the world financial system.

[.............]

6. Perps get off scot-free

These are the facts. No partisan financial cheerleaders can state otherwise with any credibility but they once tried. They scoffed when criminologist economist at the best economic school(because it doesn't teach the orthodox garbage in most econ departments and in our government) in the country UKMC S&L regulator with a record Bill Black warned us about this. And yet still, they smugly dug up online balance sheets they didn't understand, pretended this is a liquidity crisis instead of an insolvency crisis forgetting none of the assets were marked to market; this means that they believe a magical market in the future will make the books solvent again, so let the betting begin.

It didn't happen that way of course as fake assets turned into crushing liabilities so we should consider their purported knowledge or excuses for whatever politician to be a fraudulent asset as well. This of course goes to most economic departments that were infiltrated by the men who ruined the world and their followers(and people that excuse the politicians that excuse them. Yes. That's right). If this delusion of markets in the future making fraudulent assets whole as they were marked and still are on banks balance sheets now have any credibility, then states would have all the revenue they need. There would be no need for aid to the states but there is still a massive need. Some scoff that the focus on market to market is relying all on the market, but it's the opposite. Efficient market hypothesis states that markets will balance out all investments even if they are Ponzi investments in the future even with no accurate accounting or transaction info.

This is RW absolute historical and analytically garbage. People who call themselves progressives because they are (technically third way) Democrats shilling for this type of propaganda to protect a politician's image have no shame or knowledge. It's best that they just say sorry when the next crash and bailout comes, because they have indirect blood on their hands from the fallout. This kind of smug elitist finance geek crap found among Democratic voters looking to excuse everything the President does or those in Congress need to self reflect when it comes. It's really a shame that so many people in our party have such disdain for the damage these financial machinations cause real people whether blinded by herd mentality or cognitive dissonance.

They should just be glad they got theirs jack and go hang out with the Rubinites they truly admire on the right while pretending they are on the left because of the party label they support. Some of us were advocating for a better Swedish style bank rescue with some accountability and accounting access when the time was ripe for those real solutions. However, remember that we were shouted down by the chorus so sure that what really led to the 2010 mid term losses "wasn't real" because the President is always right and he's "got this." Unlike fake stress tests that have been shown worthless in the past used for PPIP by the failure named Tim Geithner looking to "foam the runway for the banks," these solutions had a wide consensus and history of effectiveness.

If there was to be a bailout at all, it should have been done this was as it had been done in the past, because in the long run, it would have been better if there was no bailout than what happened. When you say that people start talking about stopping a great depression(as if the same dynamics and some worse haven't happened) but there's not a lot of substance to this claim. The lie about the commercial paper market the Fed already had plans to make purchases of does not excuse just handing the financial sector trillions upon trillions more in loan guarantees. It perpetuated a system that is no use to anyone except the Oligarchs that run and control it.

The pain is going to much greater next time because people are probably not going to ever fully recover from the last one. So if you consider yourself one of those "savvy" financial bloggers or anyone else who denied what truly needed to be done in 2008 and today for a functioning financial system, then do us and the world a favor and STFU next time. I'd rather you just thank us for laying out the danger of your ineptitude so you can learn, but you don't have to be a soulless, money worshiping, power worshiping hypocrite forever. You can change, and I hope you do.

Originally posted to The Amateur Left on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:22 AM PDT.

Also republished by Income Inequality Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for stopping permanent banker bailouts (37+ / 0-)

    Oh, and they will be bailed out again. That I can promise you. You were lied to when it was stated that Dodd Frank ended bailouts and the guarantees of a bailout.

    "Finally, because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer funded bailouts. Period. If a large financial institution should ever fail, this reform gives us the ability to wind it down without endangering the broader economy. And there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is "too big to fail," so that we don't have another AIG."

    http://www.marketwatch.com/...

    It was dangerous ahistorical economic nonsense then and it hurts all of us now when people are lulled into thinking that statements was anything but absolute garbage.

    I've posted this paper before, but it should be more widely read and circulated than it has been. Former IMF and MIT economist Simon Johnson's(13 Bankers/Baseline Scenario) paper explains why:

    Governments may now promise not to provide further bailouts, but in the view of Alessandri and Haldane (2009, p.7) – from the Bank of England – such promises are unlikely to be believed: "Ex-ante, they [the authorities] may well say "never again". But the ex-post costs of crisis mean that such a statement lacks credibility. Knowing this, the rational response by market participants is to double their bets. This adds to the costs of future crises. And the larger these costs, the lower the credibility of ‘never again’ announcements."

    In contrast, the current consensus in US official circles is that the government can commit not to bail out large firms. For example, in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill (signed into law on July 21, 2010) there is a "resolution authority" that allows a regulatory agency (the Federal Deposit 1 "Too big to fail" is far from a new issue, as discussed in detail by Stern and Feldman (2004) – in the modern American context, it dates from at least the conservatorship of Continental Illinois in the 1980s.

    snip

    Can such a "no bailout" government policy constitute a credible commitment that solves the problem of "too big to fail"? Ex ante promises to let companies fail – and run through some form of bankruptcy – may not be optimal when the moment for a decision actually arrives. In particular, given the "systemic" nature of financial crises – with widespread perceived contagion both within and across countries – will financial markets really believe any government when it promises not to save
    its biggest firms?

    Recent experience in South Korea suggests an answer: No. When financial crisis broke out at the end of 1997, the banking system was threatened with collapse and the exchange rate depreciated rapidly. At this time of crisis, government policy was explicitly and emphatically not to bailout the largest Korean conglomerates (known as chaebol), which were heavily leveraged and exposed to the ensuing financial crisis. This approach was rooted in the incoming president’s long-standing dislike for and opposition to the political power of large chaebol, and the authorities attempted to make the firmest and most credible commitments in this regard, including through its agreements with the International Monetary Fund.

    Despite this, the largest conglomerates ("chaebol") were able to borrow heavily from households through issuing bonds at low interest rates in 1998 – allowing many of them to avoid immediate failure and become even bigger relative to the economy. The largest conglomerates issued disproportionately more bonds than other firms and were able to do so at rates implying much lower default risk. There is no evidence that this advantageous access to finance was due to better historic performance, stronger prospects, or better governance within the biggest firms – if anything, all objective measures suggest that the largest conglomerates were actually in worse shape (apart from their presumed implicit government backing) relative to other Korean firms.6 Instead, the most plausible interpretation is that investors perceived these large firms as "too big to fail". Investors’ perceptions proved largely correct. Daewoo, Korea’s third largest conglomerate, declared bankruptcy in 1999, and Hyundai, Korea’s largest conglomerate, also had a de facto default in 2000. And in both cases, the Korea government, fearing another economic crisis, intervened so as to effectively and largely bail out the bond investors.7

    ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

    by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:34:26 AM PDT

  •  Okay, I'll be sure to remember. (5+ / 0-)

    In the meantime you'd better support Obama's reelection. Because you need to pick a side. Right now.

    "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

    by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:33:04 AM PDT

    •  This is an election diary. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allenjo, poligirl
        •  It's not a direct election diary, but it's a very (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland, Nice Ogre, MKSinSA

          divisive and insulting diary.

          But I'm sure it'll get recs from those who think they are the only real progressives out there and that everyone who isn't in lock-step with their opinions is a "third way democrat" who has "blood on their hands".

          But hey, priceman's disdain for both the President and those who support him ain't nothing new.

          I'm just glad we don't see these types of pie fight provoking diaries that much anymore.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:57:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt. (9+ / 0-)
            but it's a very divisive and insulting diary
            But your comment is thread-jacking since your comment did not include one point about the content of this diary.
          •  But the Bankers are fraud and crooks, and (18+ / 0-)

            the political class protects them, even enables them. Does real-life factor into politics or not? People's lives are screwed over and, because the status quo was preserved, will continue to be so, and such conditions are likely to spread and become more entrenched.

            You must know that every year more and more people pull away from identification with both parties. Last poll I saw had about half the populace saying they were either Dems or Repubs -- and half of those said they wish they had another choice.

            So about 3/4 of the electorate sees both parties as, at best, non-responsive to the people.

            How can the Democrats grow stronger -- not just relatively stronger in a growing sea of discontent with our politics -- if they don't deal with the real world as actually lived by voters?

            Electoral politics isn't the sum of Politics, it's a fraction of it.


            The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

            by Jim P on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:35:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Jim P, did you just write: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lawrence
              "... if they don't deal with the real world as actually lived by voters?"
              ... in a diary worshipping a financial prophet who is predicting an Armageddon on an unknown date in the future?

              Give me a sector and a reason. Then, we'll talk. Otherwise, I too can go out on a limb and predict something bad will happen in the world economy in 2013. With that, I am outta here. I nibbled on the bait a bit, but didn't take it!   ; )    

              I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

              by Tortmaster on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:53:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because you denigrate someone with (7+ / 0-)

                a silly characterization doesn't change Arithmetic or, in fact, what a very large number of professionals in the field are saying.

                "Worship" comes from roots meaning "give worth to" or "to value" so, when it comes to economics, yes, I would give worth to people who predicted the 2008 collapse and have a track record of successful prediction. There's Roubini, Peter Schiff, the World Bank, Jim Rogers, Celente....

                Though many can't grasp it, the fact remains: Arithmetic is not an emotion.

                Moreover: Time, when lived through, actually follows cause-and-effect. Since the causes of 2008 are not only fully in place, but enhanced, you'd have to explain by what miracle a fundamentally corrupt and flawed economic system will fail to fall apart in 2013, or 2014, or 2015.

                Surely you're not thinking a politician's winning smile, or even speeches, and with no remedial action, will change that.

                I've got a cavity in a back tooth right now. I can't tell you on what day it will cause me pain if I don't tend to it, but I can be absolutely certain it will cause me pain one day. Because bad things left untended get worse. You've not noticed this on your journey through life?


                The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                by Jim P on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You really need to read more (10+ / 0-)

                This analysis on real estate supports the same conclusions as this essay:

                Two trends are apparent. One is that banks are delaying foreclosures, or not foreclosing at all despite long-term delinquencies. The other is that private equity firms . . . have been bidding up and holding foreclosed houses off the market. These two factors have artificially limited supply and, combined with cheap mortgages rates, driven up prices.  . . .these policies are obviously not long-term sustainable.
                snip

                Holding back inventory means that the houses that are put on offer sell faster and at higher prices. That creates an incentive to delay foreclosures or not foreclose at all even when a home is delinquent. Though this seems obvious, the mainstream housing finance community – aided by a freelance “housing analyst,” – uses the faster figures to somehow prove banks are not holding houses. “. . .

                And yes, "our" government is actively participating in helping obfuscate the actual situation for the sake of short-term profit.  For just one example:
                Besides lower foreclosure activity, the government is going all out to give away houses to private equity firms. Recently Fannie Mae sold 275 properties across metro Phoenix in one sale to a mystery buyer, . . .
                snip

                I’d like to make a strong prediction but trying to gain credible insight into housing and foreclosure information is difficult because the industry, including and especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, continue to hoard housing data. We can’t measure what we can’t see, and thanks to murky and inconsistent housing data all we really know is that there is a lot we don’t really know.
                snip

                Thanks to low lower foreclosures, real-estate speculators buying in bulk, and low interest rates there is enough direct and anecdotal evidence to suggest that we may be seeing a real-estate recovery on paper. Further, these policies are clearly calibrated to bring about a bubble, despite that bubbles are difficult to control and are not, by definition, sustainable: they always eventually pop. Let’s at least hope that when this bubble bursts the new Wall Street bulk buyers are treated with the same ruthless “free market” vigor that the prior owners of these houses were treated with after the last bubble burst. However, I doubt the mystery Asian money buyer, that Fannie sold Phoenix to, will ever be subject to something like the rocket docket.

                And JimP answered your ignorance well. It is about arithmetic, fraud, how regulation and law works, and the application of it all which is the same way it was during the crisis.

                ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:40:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Americans-- left, right, center-- (10+ / 0-)

              are ready for new parties that actually reflect their needs and their wants. That's the only explanation for the sort of alternating mandates we've been seeing. Each election is a big fuck you to whichever Party is in power.

              Inertia and habit are the obstacles. If a third party ever gains traction in a Presidential race, makes a credible showing even if falling short, the dam will break and the entire political landscape will be up for grabs.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:53:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sincerely, Teddy Roosevelt nt (0+ / 0-)

                Note to self, stop before I emulate the habits described in this diary.

                by Rustbelt Dem on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:11:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cosigned, The Whigs. nt (0+ / 0-)

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 05:02:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And when (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PhilJD

                    You have a party composed by two wings, diametrically opposed to each other in regard the fundamental ideological issue of the day and trying to ignore it, that analogy will be apt.

                    Here is what is happening IMO.  We are seeing the consolidation of the middle of the country, a process that Clinton started and Obama is continuing.  We have one party that has marginalized themselves in terms of ideology and demographics, becoming evermore so contained to the South and rural West. And the only thing keeping it barely afloat is unlimited money (proving to be ineffective) and blatant race hatred. That is not the path to sustainability.  Sure, there are still enough voters to swing an off presidential election with low turnout, but that won't last forever.

                    At the same time, you have the other party has marginalized its own ideological wing, due in no small part to the fact that it is ineffective.

                    This isn't the first time this has happened.  During the first gilded age (I'll use 1872-1868 as a shorthand, but that isn't really definitive), there were wild fluctuations in regard to congressional elections (amplified more by the fact that the Senate was indirectly elected, so those waves would have to reach into the state houses as well) and some of the worst labor unrest not inflicted by the Ford Service Department.  Eventually, one side will win out in such a period of flux.  

                    Phil, compare the current electoral map predictions to this, and remember that the parties stand for exactly the opposite these days then they did during that time.  

                    Note to self, stop before I emulate the habits described in this diary.

                    by Rustbelt Dem on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:03:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  growing sea of discontent with our politics (6+ / 0-)
              So about 3/4 of the electorate sees both parties as, at best, non-responsive to the people.

              How can the Democrats grow stronger -- not just relatively stronger in a growing sea of discontent with our politics -- if they don't deal with the real world as actually lived by voters?

              We expect so little of Republicans, and now we accept so little from Democrats.

              There is a deep discontent in this country and politicians pretend to be unaware that things are not peachy keen.

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

              by allenjo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:22:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are right about the discontent (0+ / 0-)

                and the right wingers have been exploiting it.  So the tea party, born from understandable anger, was diverted such that the anger is used to support and further enrich those that are responsible for the problems that created the anger in the first place.  The occupy movement stumbled in the right direction.  Let's hope it returns in some incarnation after the election.  The corporate Democrats may slow our descent into hell, but they are no answer in the long term.

                Want another scarey figure?  There are about $600 trillion of derivatives in the financial markets-- roughly 200 X the US budget.  At some point these too big to fail morons will be too big to be bailed out--maybe we are already beyond that point.

                I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

                by Eric Blair on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:49:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Unhinged partisan politics (10+ / 0-)

              is the cart before the horse politically speaking. A political party is a vehicle, a means to an end. When both parties have the same agenda and direction with slight differences that are for the most part social issues, then they serve no purpose.

              They do keep people distracted with fighting these insane culture wars, and following the endless political kabuki, where they play good cop, bad cop. The Dems. sucked at being the loyal opposition and they really sucked at being the majority. They blew it, the kabuki was so heavy handed that nobody likes either side. congress has what a 11% approval rating.

              This administration is not democratic or Democratic. They are Third Way Dems. They are getting what they want, as they are ideologues of the worst order and calling it, Yankee Doodle. The world as we find it says Axelrod. No this is the world these people have created and it is a nightmare.

              Not centrist not moderate but extreme in every way from their failed bankster NWO to their destruction of the constitution and our system of checks and balances. The Republicans are worse but that's simply not enough when people have no parliamentary way to address their grievances. The planet itself is being destroyed all for empty profit for the too bigs. This house of cards is too big not to fail and fall.          

              •  It can't be coincidence, can it? (6+ / 0-)

                I was just thinking of that good cop/bad cop manipulation not two hours ago.  Damn, I think it supports the notion that there is something to that idea, if two people come to the same conclusion independently.  Anyway, great comment.  This is probably my first recommend in many months, and I'm sure my last for even more to come.

                Thanks, shaharazade. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but it doesn't much matter--you got the gist of it.  It is painful painful painful to watch.

                The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress. - Bacevich

                by geomoo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:19:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Time to pick a side for the election. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, Nice Ogre, JoanMar, MKSinSA

        I've picked mine.  

        "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

        by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:49:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, see Inland, we stay home, Romney wins, (0+ / 0-)

          we get another recession from the austerity programs, and then it's "Obama's fault" for not "inspiring" idealist hippies who have never been happy during the course of our country's history, and so they'll all be "right" in their predictions.

          vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:03:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Romney were to be elected, (9+ / 0-)

            would you refuse to blame him (Romney) for the coming collapse and bailouts just for the sake of not giving us "idealist hippies" the pleasure of seeing you take an anti-White House position for once?

            "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

            by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:10:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Doesn't even make sense. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Blair

              Obviously my position is not "anti-white house", it's "anti-austerity" and "anti-cut-my-nose-off-to-spite-my-face".

              vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

              by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:14:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you sure you're anti-austerity? (13+ / 0-)

                From that idealist hippie Jeffrey Sachs:

                http://www.ft.com/...

                In fact, Mr Obama’s overall discretionary spending targets are essentially the same as Mr Ryan’s.
                Now, as for the election, I suppose there are two schools of thought on the matter.  One of them is that maybe the liberals and progressives will feel more free to be anti-austerity when being anti-austerity means being anti-President Romney.  The other is that only with an Obama victory will the liberals and progressives see that Obama is in fact pro-austerity, and has been so since his appointment of the Catfood Commission.

                http://www.blackagendareport.com/...

                So if you're wondering why some of the respondents to this diary seem so indifferent to election outcomes relative to you, perhaps it's because we've got reasons for hope either way.  In other words, it's all good.

                "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

                by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:26:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ((facepalm)) (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JoanMar

                  "Discretionary spending" does not include social security and medicare.   So saying "Aside from getting rid of medicare, they are equally austere" doesn't really make sense, does it.

                  I don't understand the diary, or you, being so intent on making people pick sides in a manner that doesn't make a fig's difference except for scoring points on a blog about who is and who isn't [put label du jour here].   There's a choice to be made out in the real world, one that is either going to help or hurt.  Try to focus.

                  "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                  by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:59:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Which choice would "help"? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    priceman, poligirl, gooderservice
                    There's a choice to be made out in the real world, one that is either going to help or hurt.
                    If you can find a choice in this year's Presidential election that would "help," I'm sure you could take your case up with Jeffrey Sachs.  You'd probably win the debate, too -- you're smarter than he is, right?

                    "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

                    by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I won't bother you with what's good for the nation (0+ / 0-)

                      I'll take up the election with Sachs, since you aren't interested in my answer to your question.  

                      By the way...thanks for nothing.  Literally.  

                      "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                      by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm so disappointed! (4+ / 0-)

                        I was so hoping for a defense of Obama's austerity planning.

                        "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

                        by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:56:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't be, just read some more editorials and (0+ / 0-)

                          hold them as "fact" without worrying about any criticism or complete pictures.

                          vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

                          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:04:25 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually, you told me to take it up with Sachs. (0+ / 0-)

                          You pretty much chickened out when I brought up what "discretionary" means.  

                          That's what happens when you're more interested in scoring purity points on a blog than what's good for the country.

                          By the way....for all that....thanks for nothing.

                          "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                          by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:09:00 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  "Idealist hippies"? (11+ / 0-)

            Fuck that.

            Fuck,
            fuck,
            fuck that.

            Where the fuck do you get this shit?

            The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

            by TheOrchid on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:31:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  WTF is that Go Go, Conservative republican (10+ / 0-)

            redneck talk?  Are you really a republican fucking redneck?

            "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:33:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Half the country (11+ / 0-)

            are idealist hippies?  That's quite a stretch there, Gogo!

            It's not the fault of the voters if they, after careful consideration, find that there is no viable candidate who they feel will represent them and in fact works against them.  The voters didn't choose endless wars overt and covert in dozens of countries, didn't want their president to consider bombing Iran and starting WWIII, trashing the constitution and international law, giving oneself the power to detain (via military) and even assassinate American citizens with no due process, just a judge/jury/executioner decree, didn't adopt a drone policy where a large percentage of innocent civilians and first responders are murdered in "signature strikes" without even knowing their names and for no crime, didn't decide not to prosecute war crimes or bankster criminals, broadly collect and store private communications of American citizens... I could go on.  The candidate chose that and the other candidate agrees.  There are some voters who cannot give their tacit approval to these things.  Some very much want to vote for a president but cannot compromise themselves that far down into the abyss to do it.  I have heard this expressed by many, many people now in recent months, from people who are D, R and I.  Most recently from a family member who usually votes R, and it floored me.

            You've got it all backwards.  If a lack of turn out results in a loss for either side, they have no one to blame but themselves, not the voters. You can try to blame the people all you like, but it will just be you and the hyperpartisans who will believe that bunk.  It is the responsibility of elected officials to keep their promises as best they can, to be honest in their stated intentions, to represent the people of this country and not the megacorps and banks.  Nothing in the constitution says that our government is a representative government of the megacorps, megabanks and the wealthiest few.  It says it is a representative government of the people.  Elected officials who throw that by the wayside as soon as they reach office have nobody but themselves to blame if they sell out the very people who elected them.  It is a weak and specious argument to say that it is any voter's fault, let alone a small mythical segment that you call the idealist hippies.

            There is still some time left for the Democratic leadership to change their minds about who they represent.  I hope they do. But there's all that campaign money and wealth to be gained after office, win or lose, and all.... so I doubt they will.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:10:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You're thread-jacking. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, poligirl, triv33
          •  The tag says "elections". So remember what side (0+ / 0-)

            you were on.  Time to pick.  Silence means you aren't with us.   Speak up right now.

            "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

            by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:14:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Silence (6+ / 0-)

              means no such thing.

              Our votes are private in this country and nobody, I mean nobody, get to demand that we disclose who we voted for or who we intend to vote for.  Plus, voting intention or indecision does not mean a damn thing until after one pulls that lever.

              You have no right to do what you are doing right now with your bullying and demands for personal information that you have no right to.  Respect the law and constitution for once.  Yes they are still in effect, those things.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:15:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No such thing as being "silently" with us. (0+ / 0-)

                Just saying that you don't get both your "constitutional" right to say nothing AND join our side.   "Joining" requires an affirmative act.

                People who don't respond are either indifferent, or for some reason want to hide their opposition.  But they aren't with us.  

                Thats' the bottom line, and nobody is ever going to think otherwise.

                "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:53:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong again (6+ / 0-)

                  People who are silent might very well be undecided about what to do.  This vote is important and a yes vote for any candidate is a tacit approval of the things they have done and plan to do, and these are not ordinary times, they are extraordinary times.  Some of the things on the table now include the gravest of actions and plans, some involving war crimes, long wars and more war instead of less war, widespread fraud and corruption, survival and safety nets, education of our children, ability to make a living, and more. A lot of people take a serious look at the realities in the world today, take a serious look at what the current candidates are saying and at what they are doing, and weigh their options.  According to the law, they have no obligation to make that decision until election day and according to the law, you have no right to demand that that they disclose that private information to you, an anonymous bully on the internet.


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:22:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Being undecided isn't being with us. (0+ / 0-)

                    You can either pat yourself on the back for being too serious to be with us, or you can be with us.  

                    I don't get it.  You have actual contempt for people who have signed on.  But you are pulling out all the stops to insult me into pointing out the obvious.  Who's the bully?

                    "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                    by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:32:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Speaking for myself, I am not with you. (8+ / 0-)

                      You, personally.

                      We do not share any of the same aims, and we share almost none of the same values.

                      To whatever extent you represent a side, I am not now nor will I ever be on it.  Much of what you advocate is, simply put, grotesquely evil.

                      We may vote for the same people at times - it will never mean I'm "with you".

                      All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

                      by JesseCW on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:35:22 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Now, about that election...pick a side. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        I give in to sin

                        I swear, there's nothing the purists hate more than to have to admit they are going to dirty themselves with some part of the real world, like deciding how to vote.  

                        People who don't have the fortitude to deal with an election can just skip it.   But don't expect thanks from a greatful nation for being too pure to take sides.

                        "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                        by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:43:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Show me the rule (6+ / 0-)

                  that says we can't join your "side" and still retain privacy, the choice of keeping voting decisions private.

                  Just saying that you don't get both your "constitutional" right to say nothing AND join our side.
                  Joining your "side" requires forfeiting a constitutional right?  

                  Where is the rule that says that to be on this site, a person must disclose all of their voting decisions when some anonymous bully on the internet illegally demands it?  I would like a credible source for that specious claim right now or retract it right now.

                  Show me the rule set forth by the person who owns this site that says that indecision means that a person is disqualified from participating here or from being on "our side".  I'd like to see that right now.

                  And what exactly is it that we would be kicked out of if we do not comply with your demands?


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:28:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You stopped mattering the day you anounced (7+ / 0-)

              that your vote was decided and nothing would change your mind.

              Politicians aren't your friends.  They don't love you, or want to make you happy.

              They want your vote, your time, and your cash.  If they can have that no matter what they do or will never get it no matter what they do, your opinions and views mean fuck all to them.

              All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

              by JesseCW on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:28:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

                How's that holding out working for you?  I mean in the real world.

                "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:04:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  no inland. the problem is that you pikers... (8+ / 1-)

              are just concerned about short term reward and there are a lot of us who are worried about the long term health and viability of this country. if you're still doing the lesser evils thing, you're doing this country on the whole and the long term no good at all. you're near sighted, and the country is going to continue to pay for it as long as there are those of you that buy in to the system's false dichotomies and continue your short sightedness.

              playing to the next election is short term crap that is one of the reasons this country is where it is right now in the first place.

              A) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12 B) "Stoking the base’s enthusiasm is part of a campaign’s job, whether or not it thinks it should have to do it." ~Michelle Goldberg

              by poligirl on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:40:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're asking for a loyalty oath? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman
              Silence means you aren't with us

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

              by allenjo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:29:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Silence means to me that I don't respond to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman

              Internet bullies other point out to others to beware of the bullies.

              Oh, and hey, if this is your approach to GOTV, good luck with the bullying.  I'm so sure you'll get people to vote for Obama with your tactics.

        •  Me too. The right side, unfortunately for Obama, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gooderservice, priceman, chipmo, poligirl

          he's not on it.

          "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

          by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:27:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I won't praise you for being more forthcoming (0+ / 0-)

            than the others.  Failing to support Obama for the election means you're of no help to me, or the country, and if were to hand out gold stars for being openly contrary to the nation's interest, I'd be sending them to Mitt Romney.

            "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

            by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:50:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sure I'm of no help to you. As for the (6+ / 0-)

              country, I served in the Navy during the Vietnam war, then served 30 years in the federal government.  I've done my thing for my "country".  Voting for Obama or not is not a test of one's patriotism.

              "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

              by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:04:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Being patriotic isn't the same as being of help. (0+ / 0-)

                But if you think you've done enough, why, by all means, stop.  

                But don't get all bent out of shape when you get lumped in with all the other people who aren't helping, like the republicans.   Because if I were to hand out gold stars for being openly contrary to the nation's interest and having military service, I'd have sent them to McCain.  

                "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

                by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:13:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hey Big Al, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                priceman, BigAlinWashSt

                Ask not what Obama can do for you, ask what you can do for Obama.  

                ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

                by Nada Lemming on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 05:58:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  On The Daily Show was a thing about (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassiodorus, BigAlinWashSt, poligirl

            how the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill had been gutted in Congressional committee- like, only 12 of its 42 provisions had been passed. (I'm low-info, correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

            I think Obama would like to do more to take on the Banksters, but he knows Congress wouldn't go along, and it'd  swing the Banksters to the other side, cost him the election and with it, the chance for the public to hear anything pro-reform from the President.

            We just have to work outside the political system, in other words, Occupy.

            •  mookins, I think the problem is this: (6+ / 0-)

              Dodd-Frank required additional legislation to be written and passed before it could actually regulate.  Not all of that additional legislation has been written and passed.

              Correct me if I'm wrong.

              "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

              by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:02:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The laws we have are not being enforced. (7+ / 0-)

              That's purely an executive decision.

              If you ever find yourself ponder what the President "would like to do...", check yourself.  You don't know his heart or mind or fond desires.

              Perhaps he's Nelson Mandela in his heart  of hearts.  None of us have any idea.

              All we know is what he's done.  And what he's done is fail to prosecute powerful thieves and torturers.

              All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

              by JesseCW on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:38:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think Obama would like to do more to take on the (7+ / 0-)
              I think Obama would like to do more to take on the Banksters
              What leads you to think that, mookins?

              There have been no criminal investigations of those banksters who destroyed our economy.

              Do you think that congress is blocking any efforts by the Department of Justice to investigate?

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

              by allenjo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:07:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Great answers, this place is the best! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eric Blair

                Obama's heart seems to me to be with the people- taking the profiteers out of student loans is the best example I can think of.

                But don't get me wrong, I think it's a staggering blow to our democracy that our government has acquiesced in the crimes of the Banksters and the war crimes of the Bush gang.

                Add to that Obama's war on whistleblowers, that REALLY didn't need to happen, and the best thing I can say is:

                Obama is the '76 Eldorado. That car was the same old gashog, but it debuted the slabsided shape of the fuel-efficient Cadillacs to come.

                He speaks of community, people working together, and that's a sea change in  the national self-image, and the polar opposite of the Republicans' ideal.

                To me this is nothing less than the clash between the Domination and the Cooperation model of existence, the culmination of a dialectic that's existed since the Patriarchal invaders imposed themselves onto the Goddess civilization.

                The Republicans' War on Women really throws a bright light on this, shows it up in stark relief.

                So there's another Mookins comment that tells you nothing you didn't already know. And I'm pushing a thousand of these now. Sorry, everybody!

                •  thanks, mookins, for your response but I really (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mookins, gooderservice, priceman

                  was interested to know why you think this.

                  I think Obama would like to do more to take on the Banksters
                  What stopped him?

                  "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

                  by allenjo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:41:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK here: Congress shows no stomach for (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eric Blair

                    bank regulation, right?

                    From that I'm inferring big-time Bankster clout over them.  Enough clout to be able to derail their re-election by switching support to some pol who'll swing their way with more enthusiasm.

                    I mean, Main Street wants Wall Street held accountable right? And it's not happening, so- Banksters have more clout than voters.

                    Then, I'm inferring that this is also true at the Presidential level. Obama has to gloss over the whole thing just like the other pols.

                    If you're a pol, the Banksters can make you lose. You can't go against them very much.

                    So we'll do it ourselves, like Occupy. I keep thinking of that line from the song 'Ohio': 'We're finally on our own'. It just seems more and more true.

                    •  The DOJ, namely one Eric Holder, has only to open (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mookins, priceman

                      criminal investigations, and that hasn't happened.

                      Obama has to gloss over the whole thing just like the other pols.
                      How terrible for our justice system under Obama if Holder acts like just another politician.

                      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

                      by allenjo on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:22:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  If you fight the king.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mookins

                      you have to kill the king.  Obama's choice was 1) to really take on Wall St.  Go after them in his inaugural address as Roosevelt did, appoint an attorney general that would prosecute them (and the previous admin).  Propose legislation to regulate them properly etc. etc.  or 2) to get along with Wall St. Say a few mildly accusative things about them, appoint Holder who will not investigate Wall St. in any meaningful way and not solve the country's problems.  So he took alternative 2, but be aware that if he had taken alternative 1, Wall St. and the corporate media they own, would have gone after him with a vengeance.  You can not do this by half measures, Wall St. and their media stooges would not have patted him on the back and said "nice try." He and the Democrats would have had to campaign against Wall St. with resolve and vigor or be crushed.  There was no stomach for that and, besides, Obama is really a corporate kind of guy in any case, and the big paychecks after he leaves office are sooo difficult to give up...so alternative 2 it is.

                      I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

                      by Eric Blair on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:12:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Hey Inland (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigAlinWashSt, allenjo, poligirl, priceman

          let me give you an obvious hint.

          Everybody has picked a side.

          The difference being that some choose to push leftward instead of bending over and saying "thank you sir may I have another".

          There are no sacred cows.

          by LaEscapee on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:37:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I hope so. (6+ / 0-)

      Oh shit! Is it election day today? I wouldn't worry too much. I live in TX where my vote doesn't matter.

      But I would suggest a better tact for those "swing voters." I think the President will win regardless of what I do, but I fear we will not.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:57:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Time for you to pick a side. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mookins

        I'm not afraid to pick a side and remember it.  I'm voting to Obama. Your turn.

        "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

        by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:04:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  None (6+ / 0-)

          of your business.

          I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who regularly participates at this site who plans to vote for Romney.

          But a person's vote is private and you have no right to go around demanding that personal information, not to mention the fact that for people who are on the fence right now about voting or not voting, voting independent or leaving the lever unflipped for particular races, you are doing much more harm than good.  Do you actually think that your demands are helpful?  You are more likely to push people away.  And yes, a person should not base his/her vote on the way they were treated by the candidate's zealous supporters, but after being hammered and bullied repeatedly by them, it happens.  I know of at least one person who did not vote for Obama in 2008 because of they way they were treated by the hyperpartisans.

          If you are intentionally trying to lose votes for your candidate, continue with this treatment.


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:47:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  when are going to stop hounding every commenter (7+ / 0-)

          with demands to know how they are going to vote? You are hijacking the thread and if you want to know about my choice I'll tell you...it's none of your freakin' business.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:56:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Economic insanity will be so much nicer -- (5+ / 0-)

      with a (D) in charge!

      Go (+6, +6)!  Down with (+7, +6.5)!!

      http://www.politicalcompass.org/...

      "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On this issue, its the same side. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Blair, priceman

      The differences between a Hedge Fund Democrat and a Private Equity Republican on genuine reform of the banking system to eliminate the threat of serious financial crisis is whether they are against it and anything that even looks like it, or whether they are against it but willing to support some window dressing.

      No difference on whether the middle class gets screwed
      The difference is whether the banksters are supposed to use lube.

      In purely partisan terms, insisting that people decide whether they are for or against the Romney/Obama side on this issue is not good politics for a democratic partisan.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:07:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh, c'mon - what could go wrong? (18+ / 0-)

    markets regulate themselves!  see we don't need to prosecute all those wall street crooks because wall street is already punishing them.  after all, what honest broker on wall street would do business with a firm that they know is crooked?  

    unless there are no honest...  

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:42:32 AM PDT

  •  Best one yet, Priceman. (6+ / 0-)

    Thank you.

  •  Roubini is right (9+ / 0-)

    Global economy is going to collapse in 2013 and I think with this comes resource wars.

    Bombing Iran will make this happen sooner though.

    "And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue; They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space" Khalil Gibran

    by bcdelta on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:49:01 AM PDT

    •  Indeed, and both parties are saber rattling. nt (9+ / 0-)

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 08:54:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? Meteor Blades says "I don't bluff" (5+ / 0-)

        and "All options are on the table" aren't saber rattling.

        They're proof that the eventual bombing campaign will be "reluctant", which will be a great comfort for the dead kids and the people ethnically cleansed in the resulting chaos.

        Just like it was for those folks in Libya.

        "Reluctance".  It's like morphine gutted countries.

        All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

        by JesseCW on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:41:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's dissapointing. I vehemently disagree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl, aliasalias, JesseCW

          All options were on the table when Clinton bombed Iraq, too.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:02:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  For all my criticism of Obama (0+ / 0-)

      Romney will bring a collapse much sooner and with a nastier aftermath.  I have not doubt about that.  I contribute to Obama and will vote for him, but not because I think he is doing a good job. I just think Romney would be unfathomably bad for the country and the world.  Obama will at least delay the collapse, I hope.

      I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

      by Eric Blair on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:17:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If I only read and listened to negative stuff all (0+ / 0-)

    day, I'd probably think the sky was falling too.

    I can't imagine why people like Roubini, Greenwald, etc aren't suicidal.

    Eventually, something bad will happen, and the folks that are pretty sure something bad will happen will be "right".

    vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

    by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:00:44 AM PDT

    •  You're thread-jacking now, too. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chipmo, JesseCW, poligirl
    •  Eventually? (10+ / 0-)

      The global growth rate has been in decline for four decades now.

      http://monthlyreview.org/...

      And Tabb's piece came out before the (last) crash.

      How does "eventually" compute when the trend has been downward since 1973?

      "Once the Lords of Capital are no longer the lords of anything, humanity gets another shot at rational development of the species and the planet." - Glen Ford

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:13:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, you could walk the streets and see (11+ / 0-)

      how many closed stores there are, and then do a happy-dance and see how many open.

      Perhaps you are independently wealthy, have no people dependent on you for sustenance, and so the fact that it is increasingly hard to live causes you no discomfort. But if you are not, then you know that by every metric the lives of people have been getting poorer since the bank bail-outs. (Permanently unemployed, on food stamps, loss of assets, income decline, inflation on necessities, etc etc)

      Don't fear reality. Not discussing it helps the Republicans more than it does the Democrats. Use Reality to see what is going on and what the trend is. It's the reality-based, adult, thing to do.

      PS: Economic discussions are about Arithmetic, which is NOT an emotion.


      The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

      by Jim P on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The wage gap has been increasing since Reagan. (0+ / 0-)

        Which is a huge problem and is part of the reason I am a Democratic-voting liberal....and why I wouldn't dream of doing anything but voting for Obama, including "staying home."

        vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

        by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:08:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ??? Okay, voting takes an hour or so (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl, priceman, aliasalias, Eric Blair

          and then life goes on.

          The wage-gap increasing since Reagan includes 2 terms of Clinton and one of Obama. This is because both political parties are supporters of Finance Capitalism, US job-killing trade agreements, deregulation, and a belief that Corporatism is best.

          So, okay, for sure polio is better than ebola, and people absolutely MUST pick the least damaging option, but what about getting healthy before, and after, that's done?

          Saying "gosh, we ain't really that bad off, let's just shut up about the problem" isn't going to make that happen, is it?


          The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

          by Jim P on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:07:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Voting does not equal shutting up. (0+ / 0-)

            And in our nation of a binary choice on Nov 2, it's illogical and frankly immoral to do anything to support the chance that a conservative republican will win the presidency, and that includes staying home.

            vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

            by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:14:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think you are reading things carefully, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, joanneleon, Eric Blair, priceman

              nor are in touch with your intent in criticizing this diary. Nobody said anything about staying home but you.

              If you think people can't say, "okay this is bad, so let me do the best possible in this context, but still try to deal with things that are bad and get a bead on what needs fixing" you might be judging others' thinking by an unnecessarily limited frame of reference.

              Of course, Democrats always do better when they acknowledge what the public is concerned about, and address it. So a Democratic win is less likely if they ignore the reality experienced by voters.

              You might remember that President Obama, just a few weeks ago in two separate interviews said that his two biggest mistakes were a) going too far to entice Republicans into deal-making, b) not strongly and consistently expressing a forward-looking agenda to the public.

              Exactly the two things critics of the President were advocating here at DailyKos and getting swarmed by trolls and routinely character assassinated for.

              It is Republicans that depend on willful blindness, and yes, they do win from time to time, but we all lose by that route. Democrats exercising willful blindness help neither the Democratic Party win elections, nor the future of their own selves and loved ones.

              Have a good day. Bye.


              The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

              by Jim P on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:47:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Supporting a slower increase ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Blair

          ... in the wage gap over a faster increase in the wage gap is fine, but does nothing to reverse the growth in the wage gap.

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:34:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  One of the things (7+ / 0-)

      that bothers me most is the people who have  not yet fallen into hardship willfully denying the difficult or even dire circumstances that others are experiencing right now, or on the precipice of.  Especially the ones who use their currently superior circumstances to mock and bully those who have less, who have legitimate fears about a very difficult road ahead, or who are in dire straits.

      And these same people are, from my experience, the first ones to expect others to help them, they expect understanding and support when they themselves eventually fall on hard times.  Suddenly everything is different and nobody should ever dare to question them about their callous and damaging attitude toward those who fell on hard times before them.  


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:54:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the things that bothers me is people who (0+ / 0-)

        because they do not feel they were personally sufficiently helped, therefore deny and essentially throw a "i'm not voting" tantrum and "I'm not on your side" cry while ignoring how many people HAVE been helped and are better off.

        vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

        by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What bothers me is people who close their eyes (8+ / 0-)

          and celebrate their ignorance by pretending that they are living a life or helping people through a politician while ignoring the data that says most people's situation is getting worse not better so instead they rely on fluffy quantitative lists put out by those with an interest to misrepresent the data that tells them what they want to hear so they can use their status to lord it over others just as joanneleon is saying.

          As in somehow their favorite politician is living life through them and these fantasies ignore the rising poverty numbers and how the economic metrics don't measure up. But they don't care, because it's about them vicariously living their life as a working class hero through a brand.

          The problem is less and less people are buying it, so if you want to pretend, go pretend by yourself.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:19:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Make no mistake; you are in the vast, vast (0+ / 0-)

            minority in your doomsday opinions, you know that, but feel free to belittle the people who are 2 feet lower than you while you stand on your soapbox in the square.

            vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

            by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:21:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Citation please (6+ / 0-)

              Please prove that claim.  I'm waiting.  Here on dkos it is valid and encouraged to ask people to prove it or retract it when they make claims like that.  So let's see some credible support for that claim.

              (My prediction? 1)Crickets or 2)A dodge and/or 3)ad hominem and ultimately no valid credible citation.  Anybody want to place a gentleperson's wager on this?  I'll rec your comments for a day if I lose the wager).

              And you've already twisted the argument unsuccessfully by claiming that priceman is belittling people who are two feet lower than him because he is in fact defending people who have less and are in worse situations while you are the one belittling them/us.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:42:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We are both editorializing, not publishing (0+ / 0-)

                scientific journals. I didn't say my opinion is any better, but it's no less valid.

                vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

                by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:46:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This was put forth as an assertion (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  priceman, poligirl

                  not an opinion.  There was no "I think" or "I believe" or "in my opinion".  You said "make no mistake" and asserted this as fact.   So you need to back that up or retract it.  You even quantified it by asserting that there was some authoritative poll or study, speaking about percentages/minorities.

                  Make no mistake; you are in the vast, vast (0+ / 0-)
                  minority in your doomsday opinions,


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:19:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Those economists who predicted a crisis ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Blair, priceman

              ... prior to 2008 where not in as "vast, vast minority of people" as the mainstream economists like to believe ..

              ... but we were definitely in a minority.

              And the problems that caused the crisis have not been fixed. Anyone who has confidence that there is not another round coming when both sides in the current Presidential election are promising austerity have not been paying attention to the economic trajectory of the European economies that have been pursuing austerity policies.

              Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

              by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:29:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Your time will come (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, poligirl

          Gogo.


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:34:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it does, I'll be ashamed that (0+ / 0-)

            I'll be communicating so selfishly.

            vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

            by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:36:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wanting more fairness (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, priceman, Eric Blair

              and a better life, within reason, is being selfish? Working for a better deal for everybody when they are being screwed, during a time of extreme unfairness under both the law and the financial system is being selfish? Citing facts is selfish?


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:53:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not believe you should form your political (0+ / 0-)

                philosophy based on your current personal circumstances. I would hope that, if you won the lottery tomorrow, you woudn't turn into a Romneyite Republican.

                vigilant COYB - Who are ya Van Persie?

                by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:58:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  priceman, poligirl

                  that you should not form your political philosophy based on your current personal circumstances, especially if your circumstances are relatively better than most.  As I said in my comment above: "Working for a better deal for everybody".

                  But I'm glad you are starting to come around.

                  Not everybody has the kind of safety net that the Brits have in Everton, Gogo.  When you fall on hard times here, there is not much help to be had.  


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:13:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The annoying tantrums of the poor certainly (5+ / 0-)

          are one of the greatest problems society faces.

          Thank you for taking the mask off.

          All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

          by JesseCW on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:43:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The private debt burden remains ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, priceman

      ... in financial crisis territory, so the question to be discussed is what form the next phase of the crisis will take.

      Its fine to imagine that it will just go away without de-leveraging taking place, but it never has before, so there's no reason to think it will now.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:38:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Clinton's quite busy over the next few wks... (22+ / 0-)

    ...he's got the Democratic convention, and a few weeks later he's giving the keynote address at the 99th Annual Mortgage Bankers Association Convention in Chicago.

    He'll probably make a lot of bucks for that speech. Certainly in the very healthy six-figure range. But, not nearly as much as he's earned from the likes of Bank of America, et al.

    This is a bipartisan problem, to say the least.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

  •  The Solution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, Cedwyn, rockhound

    Re-elect Obama and give huge majorities to Democrats in the House and Senate. Short of that, the GOP will block Obama from implementing any common sense solutions, or if the GOP gains control of the govt. Their austerity programs will cause the economy to tank.

    •  Like in 2008? When the next crisis hits... (7+ / 0-)

      There is where your importunity is. They come once in 30 years. Pick the candidate that will raise hell for what you want during that time, but be careful of speeches promising it and those that tell you it's OK when that oppurtunnity is squandered. It doesn't come every day or even every 4 years. The RW knows this, so why don't you?

      The Democrats do have a chance to change the rules and Reid ws whining about how he could woulda shoulda not too long ago, but they love pitching what is in your comment to you because it makes them money so they can fund anti-choice small gov blue dogs and Conservadems who like private equity.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:39:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe You Should Run for Office (0+ / 0-)

        You might not win, but at least you'd get your message out better than complaining about how hopeless everything is in an anonymous diary. And if you win, then you'll get the chance to change the rules.

        •  The system is not built for you and me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl

          When the game is rigged you don't play the game. And Tom Undall and Jeff Merkley didn't get to change the rules even though they are in the Senate so no.

          And "be serious about rigged politics" is a big yawn.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:00:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The 'next crisis' won't be 30 years ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, TheMomCat, priceman

        ... the structural flaws underlying the Panic of 2008 were not fixed, and so the next Panic that hits will be a continuation of the current crisis.

        Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

        by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:17:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The next crisis with Dems in power is what I meant (0+ / 0-)

          Obviously I'm aware it won't be 30 years(going by everything I put in this diary), but the chance for a Democrat to take advantage of it comes once every 30 years or so.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:09:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dems with the chance to exploit a crisis, I mean (0+ / 0-)

            When Democrats are in power the public will blame them(as they did Carter even though if Reagan won the primary and GE in 1976 the blame would have went to him of the fall of Bretton Woods and oil shocks which was really what was behind stagflation, not a failure of Keynesian policies) so it won't be the same. It was a point on the political dynamics of crisis and financial panics, not an economic prediction.

            ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

            by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:26:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Oh wait (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman, poligirl, Funkygal

      I've heard (and worked hard for) that solution before in 2006.


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We did this (5+ / 0-)
      elect Obama and give huge majorities to Democrats in the House and Senate.
      It's fair to advance the argument that doing so was rather like ignoring a patient on the verge of death from blood loss, while electing Republicans would have been like covering her in leeches.

      It's just kind of silly to call it "a solution", in and of itself.

      All Cretans are sockpuppets. -- Epimenides the Cretan

      by JesseCW on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 11:46:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But the President does not propose to ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Blair, priceman

      ... pursue common sense solutions. Indeed, he is running on a policy platform of pushing the country into the next financial crisis by trying to cut the deficit.

      Now its true that Romney is promising that if he is elected, he won't be pursuing any namby pamby lesser Depression, but an honest to goodness Great Depression ...

      ... and given a Two-Party LOTE choice between a lesser and a greater depression, a lesser depression is the lesser evil ...

      ... but it sure would be nice to be able to vote for positive good in fiscal policy rather than for the lesser evil.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:25:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The job isn't done, the people still need to be (13+ / 0-)

    taken down quite a few notches to make the plan work. It was obvious Obama wasn't going to do anything about what caused the first crash when he hired Summers and Geithner, Treasury by Goldman Sachs.  First we'll be treated to another collaborative two party Kabuki theatre presentation of How to Get Americans to Fall for Austerity Cuts While Continuing the Military Empire.

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:32:17 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary (12+ / 0-)

    Some truths are very inconvenient and are bound to happen again.  Thank you for having the courage to publish this diary at a time when it may not be well accepted.  But we must accept the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be.

    In early 2009, Stiglitz also called for nationalizing the banks.  

    Nationalization is the only answer. These banks are effectively bankrupt.

    By November of that same year, Stiglitz was quoted as saying that the US is already paying for failing to nationalize the banks.  That was three long and very painful years ago and things are only marginally better (?).  

    One year ago, goinsouth published a diary here based upon Roubini's interview by the Wall Street Journal.  I have referenced that interview many times since.

    The bottom line is that the underlying lack of oversight that allowed the collapse to occur has not changed. The banks are too big, lack adequate regulation, and are running a huge casino.  And yet even after JP Morgan Chase admits to huge losses, Jamie Dimon was treated as royalty when he appeared before Congress. The foxes are still guarding the hen house and are still using our economy as their personal casino.  

    "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

    by gulfgal98 on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:39:25 AM PDT

  •  Yes, the Old Revelations Game! (0+ / 0-)

    misunderstanding24

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:41:53 AM PDT

    •  Not big on macroeconomic data are you? (5+ / 0-)

      Or the dynamics of banking regulation covered in this diary along with economic history that supports what I laid out.

      Just look at the private debt levels and laugh yourself into a stupor.

      Also Armegeddon hasn't happened nor has it happened every 5 years or so. So FAIL. I'm sorry you are blissfully unaware.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:19:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Except that those who ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman

      ... predicted it coming from an American Institutionalist, Post Keynesian, and Minskyist theoretical approaches also explain why they predicted it coming, and its based on macroeconomic dynamics rather than on a "revealed scripture".

      The "revealed scripture" approach is closer to the mainstream economics, which is based on common adherence to the same modeling toolkit, and defining those who do not use that modeling toolkit as "not real economists".

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:14:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All regulations (9+ / 0-)

    go through Cass Sunstein.  He is the gatekeeper.  Now I guess he has paid his due, done the dirty work, and is leaving so that he will be available for the next Supreme Court slot.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:51:02 AM PDT

  •  It makes me depressed (6+ / 0-)

    These greedy fuckers would privatize the air if they could.

    They get away with it all.

    We're just a carpet to be walked on.

    It's not over unfortunately. Thank you for the chilling diaries.

  •  Its not all THAT few that predicted the crash ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    ... Stephen Keen and Randall Wray and Eric Tymoigne and Hyman Minsky and Sen. Dorgan and the list goes on.

    Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

    by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 02:09:26 PM PDT

    •  Figure of speech (0+ / 0-)

      I'll edit the diary. Few means heterodox.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:12:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too bad Oprah isn't around and willing to give (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    out prizes for thread-jackers.  The thread-jackers would be loading up on them there prizes ;)

  •  Tipped and Rec'd because (0+ / 0-)

    the analysis is valuable to a critical discussion BUT gratuitous insults are lousy salesmanship and serve no purpose but self gratification.

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 03:09:57 PM PDT

    •  Gratuitous=lacking good reason (0+ / 0-)
      http://dictionary.reference.com/...

      given, done, bestowed, or obtained without charge or payment; free; voluntary.
      2.
      being without apparent reason, cause, or justification: a gratuitous insult.
      3.
      Law . given without receiving any return value.

      I qualified all the harsh items and sugarcoating things at this point given the failures to deal with this crisis and the propaganda to support those failures is not something that's going to make me lose sleep at night if I call it what it is as I did, with relevance.

      Thanks for the rec and tip, though.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:22:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your welcome (0+ / 0-)

        but assuming you're interested in convincing people who don't already agree with you, it would be wise to try and see things from the perspective of your intended audience.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:23:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not about convincing at this point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaEscapee, poligirl

          1. People create their own realities and I'm trying to wake them up, shame them out, break up the spell cast that has the effect of not being able to convince someone to acknowledge reality if their ideology is dependent on them not acknowledging it.

          2. The Neoliberal economic orthodoxy that now owns the Democratic party power structure needs to be an anathema. The facts I laid out and the harsh nature I associate those that deal with fantasies opposed to facts should also make it unacceptable, even shameful to deny them.

          It would be wise, IMO, to acknowledge that people sometimes have to be ridiculed in order to realize that the position they hold is unacceptable, like racism, like sexism; both still with us today but on a much lesser acceptable level deemed by society because it's shameful to openly be associated with those things. Having a nice conversation with bigots didn't work.

          Stepping between the pitch forks and Wall St also didn't work. that was the nice polite thing to do. Yet, suddenly, Wall St didn't see it as a sign that they needed to change their ways or there would be consequences like with FDR welcoming their hatred, no. They continue to plunder this country, and Republicans continue to filibuster everything in Congress even though the President is very nice and cordial to them as he is Wall St.

          I understand it sounds like proper etiquette, but the times don't call for that brand and now it would not be proper etiquette to pretend that being cordial to psychotic economic views merits any relevance at all. No, if people come around, they'll do it on their own terms anyway, regardless of what I said; perhaps the facts will sink in and once they show they are seeping in I'll build them up, but not until the process starts on some level.

          But again, I thank you for the tip and rec.

          ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by priceman on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 09:46:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not about "ettiquette" (0+ / 0-)

            It's about effectiveness.

            If you believe what you say, go to it.

            However, I think you should know that this is hardly the first time I've heard this kind of argument. I've yet to see such Puritanism produce the results you imagine.

            Nevertheless, it's your choice. If you're convinced that shaming others is the effective choice, have a go. The worst you could do is repeat the failure of others.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:20:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's that alternate world I speak of (0+ / 0-)

              where wishy washy positions, pretending there are always two legitimate sides to everything like the media does, and not standing for anything "is effective."

              I think you should know that I know otherwise and so does history.

              ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

              by priceman on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 08:17:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's the self obsorbed, self righteousness (0+ / 0-)

                that imagines itself superior to all other viewpoints. Someone offers you a differing perspective and you resort to caricature and projection because you can't abide the suggestion that you might not be 100% correct in your approach. Like I said, knock yourself out.

                Apparently your grasp of history is as faulty as your notion of my politics but don't let facts get in the way of your self indulgent egotism.

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 08:43:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No (0+ / 0-)
                  However, I think you should know that this is hardly the first time I've heard this kind of argument. I've yet to see such Puritanism produce the results you imagine.
                  This oversimplified mischaracterization is what prompted that response. I don't believe that was respectful to my views so you're not following your own advice. I laid out my case. I didn't say it was 100% right, but I laid out a good case as to why that was the case.

                  I didn't like that last particular comment you made and it was a response to that.

                  Apparently your grasp of history is as faulty as your notion of my politics but don't let facts get in the way of your self indulgent egotism.
                  Yes your personal anecdote on puritanism and ponies really speaks to that. that's the problem with these critiques of my pieces, inconsistent standards and logic. I also don't need your approval and I have convinced some people with my arguments.

                  Good day.

                  ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

                  by priceman on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 09:02:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The "Good Day" spoiled it. (0+ / 0-)

                    Such melodramatic posturing reveals an insincerity of purpose.

                    I think that espousing shaming as a principle of advocacy is aptly described as puritanism.

                    If you think that the decline in public expressions of racism, sexism, etc., is due to public shaming, you are mistaken. Proof of such bias is grounds for civil or criminal sanctions in many areas of contemporary life. Consequently, open expressions of bigotry in areas governed by such law have become a material liability.

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 09:52:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site