I'm reading a book

[Accountable]

NEW: The Forgotten Man

Campaign 2008 is in its way a campaign of despair, at least when it comes to domestic policy. Democrat or Republican, candidates must address the same problem: on the one hand, voters have enormous faith in the private sector; on the other, they expect government to provide them with ever more generous entitlements. In The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes takes us back to show us how the roots of our disillusionment can be found in a single election year, 1936. In that year, Franklin Roosevelt systematically established the modern political constituency, from unions to artists, to senior citizens. Roosevelt's solution was to spend for these groups, so extensively that federal spending that year outpaced state and local spending, for the first time ever in peacetime. The consequence was the Roosevelt landslide of 1936 --but also the modern entitlement trap. Roosevelt often spoke of the Forgotten Man, the man "at the bottom of the economic pyramid." Yet, Miss Shlaes shows, his New Deal created a new forgotten man, the man who subsidizes the funding of other constituencies -- and who haunts politics in all developed nations today.

 

[Minor Axis]

We don't need excesses in any direction. Keep in your perspective that the two largest negative economic events in this country resulted from laissez-faire business attitudes pushed by people who value profits and minimize people. You reap what you sew.

 

[Accountable]

We don't need excesses in any direction. Keep in your perspective that the two largest negative economic events in this country resulted from laissez-faire business attitudes pushed by people who value profits and minimize people. You reap what you sew.

Actually, you rip what you sew.

Why must I keep your bias in my perspective? History doesn't have a liberal bias, but most American historians certainly do. BTW, how does one push laissez-faire?

 

[edgray]

History doesn't have a liberal bias[/B]

But reality does

 

[Zorak]

History doesn't have a liberal bias

It does here lol

Tony Blair apologised for slavery. :24:

 

[Accountable]

But reality does

Where does that phrase come from? I'm seeing it in another forum as well.

 

[edgray]

Where does that phrase come from? I'm seeing it in another forum as well.

It was from Stephen Corbert in a speech he gave to the Republicans.

"And as we all know reality has strong liberal bias"

Very funny

 

[Minor Axis]

Why must I keep your bias in my perspective? History doesn't have a liberal bias, but most American historians certainly do. BTW, how does one push laissez-faire?

Your naivete is showing. History is written by biased people, usually the winners. We both pick our sources based on our beliefs, not necessarily bias, when citing history.

When I tell you that big business today maximizes profits and minimizes people it is a fact. I've got millions of examples. Just check the statistics on the number of jobs that have been exported out of the country by our business leaders.

 

[Accountable]

Your naivete is showing. History is written by biased people, usually the winners. We both pick our sources based on our beliefs, not necessarily bias, when citing history.

What's the difference?

When I tell you that big business today maximizes profits and minimizes people it is a fact. I've got millions of examples. Just check the statistics on the number of jobs that have been exported out of the country by our business leaders.

That's not in dispute. I was referring to the "the two largest negative economic events in this country resulted from laissez-faire business attitudes" part.

 

[Minor Axis]

What's the difference?

That's not in dispute. I was referring to the "the two largest negative economic events in this country resulted from laissez-faire business attitudes" part.

The Great Depression was predated by pro-business Administrations. Protections/regulations were put into place to keep it from every happening again. Ever since business forces worked to dismantle said protections and was finally achieved allowing banks to invest in "risky" investment vehicles because they could make so much more money. They invested in derivatives and next thing you know we have another not great, but the most significant depression since the Great Depression.

 

[Accountable]

The Great Depression [and the current CF] was predated by pro-business Administrations.

Right. Pro-business, not laissez-faire administrations. Setting up laws to encourage activity that otherwise would be considered too risky is hardly "hands-off."

The natural flow of the market is to have fluctuations - growth followed by correction, but overall trending up. Pro-business legislation tried to maximize the growth, which of course maximized the correction. Government being what it is, then decided the best way to deal with a government fuck-up is for government to fuck with it some more.

Want a true laissez-faire administration? Look to the ones nobody remembers. That's the kind I'd love to have today.

 

[Minor Axis]

Right. Pro-business, not laissez-faire administrations. Setting up laws to encourage activity that otherwise would be considered too risky is hardly "hands-off."

The natural flow of the market is to have fluctuations - growth followed by correction, but overall trending up. Pro-business legislation tried to maximize the growth, which of course maximized the correction. Government being what it is, then decided the best way to deal with a government fuck-up is for government to fuck with it some more.

Want a true laissez-faire administration? Look to the ones nobody remembers. That's the kind I'd love to have today.

These terms boil depend on who is doing the defining. Laissez-faire means to me, standing out of the way of business, not regulating, en essence pro-business. Most conservatives would call "regulation" anti-business.

 

[Accountable]

These terms boil depend on who is doing the defining. Laissez-faire means to me, standing out of the way of business, not regulating, en essence pro-business. Most conservatives would call "regulation" anti-business.

That's what it means, and that's nowhere near what's happened in the past several decades. Pro-business legislation, tax incentives, subsidies, and loan guarantees are NOT laissez-faire by any definition.

eta: Sure, they call "regulation" anti-business, but they don't define all legislation as regulation, just like everybody in Washington calls spending increases "spending cuts" if they project a bigger increase then reduce it.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not sure exactly what happened prior to the great depression as far as regulations, but I do know that since then, business forces have been hard at work trying to dismantle the regulations that were put into place after the fact to prevent it from ever happening again and they succeeded. I could be wrong, but I believe it was rescinding the Steagall Act in 1999 by a Democrat President and a Republican Congress that allowed banks to invest in risky derivatives. This falls under my definition of laissez-faire, stand back and allow them to make lots of money with no regard to the downside.

 

[Alien Allen]

I'm not sure exactly what happened prior to the great depression as far as regulations, but I do know that since then, business forces have been hard at work trying to dismantle the regulations that were put into place after the fact to prevent it from ever happening again and they succeeded. I could be wrong, but I believe it was rescinding the Steagall Act in 1999 by a Democrat President and a Republican Congress that allowed banks to invest in risky derivatives. This falls under my definition of laissez-faire, stand back and allow them to make lots of money with no regard to the downside.

You obviously never have owned a business

Look at just what monstrosities Nixon created in the EPA and OSHA

I could cite you all kinds of regulations my business has been subjected to post Reagan

And this crap all costs money to comply with and has done nothing to improve things in the workplace which could not have been dealt with differently.

You are right about the banking deregulation but the rest of your spin about business being deregulated does not pass the smell test

 

[Minor Axis]

You are right about the banking deregulation but the rest of your spin about business being deregulated does not pass the smell test

My focus was intended to be on banking regulation. What you highlighted in my post was about banks and preventing another great depression. :shrug:

 

[Accountable]

I'm not sure exactly what happened prior to the great depression as far as regulations, but I do know that since then, business forces have been hard at work trying to dismantle the regulations that were put into place after the fact to prevent it from ever happening again and they succeeded. I could be wrong, but I believe it was rescinding the Steagall Act in 1999 by a Democrat President and a Republican Congress that allowed banks to invest in risky derivatives. This falls under my definition of laissez-faire, stand back and allow them to make lots of money with no regard to the downside.

My focus was intended to be on banking regulation. What you highlighted in my post was about banks and preventing another great depression. :shrug:

All your posts prior to this were about big business in general. I know that lifting the Glass-Steagall Act is blamed for the insanity, and I agree it was probably the main event, but that didn't happen in a vacuum. Along with that were other laws enacted to take away risk, laying it on the taxpayer. I believe CNBC had a documentary about it.

 

[Accountable]

Here it is. It's titled House of Cards.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1145392808&play=1

Here is the PBS program "Inside the Meltdown."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/