TenuredVulture wrote:Typically, what you call "systemic change" leads a lot of people to the guillotine and the gulag.

Or a New Constitutional Congress, remember that first one turned out ok, nto to mention Bastille etc...

dajafi wrote:



Briefly, what I'd like to see in that sort of shift includes a new commitment to responsible regulation of markets--because the original regime (to your point about the corpocracy) was undermined by both parties in the '80s and '90s, leading to the mess we're seeing today--a redefinition and updating of the social safety net to address health care, retirement savings, mid-career retraining and other issues previously worked out piecemeal, a series of shifts in education policy (some of which was discussed in this thread and others), and a reasserted commitment to the Constitutional principles that have come under such strain in recent years (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and checks and balances, I'm looking in your general direction).

I believe all this could be sold to the public, and could be done without wrecking the economy or causing other major disruptions. But maybe I'm wrong.

I'm less sure that Obama has the chops to pull this off. But I was certain Hillary didn't, and I'm even more sure McCain, at least 2008, Just-Win-Baby McCain, does not.

.

Why don't you run Jeff, I'll be your campaign manager? I'd at least vote for you!

your pal, Jokey

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:



Briefly, what I'd like to see in that sort of shift includes a new commitment to responsible regulation of markets--because the original regime (to your point about the corpocracy) was undermined by both parties in the '80s and '90s, leading to the mess we're seeing today--a redefinition and updating of the social safety net to address health care, retirement savings, mid-career retraining and other issues previously worked out piecemeal, a series of shifts in education policy (some of which was discussed in this thread and others), and a reasserted commitment to the Constitutional principles that have come under such strain in recent years (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and checks and balances, I'm looking in your general direction).

I believe all this could be sold to the public, and could be done without wrecking the economy or causing other major disruptions. But maybe I'm wrong.

I'm less sure that Obama has the chops to pull this off. But I was certain Hillary didn't, and I'm even more sure McCain, at least 2008, Just-Win-Baby McCain, does not.

.

Why don't you run Jeff, I'll be your campaign manager? I'd at least vote for you!

your pal, Jokey

Please let me know where to send the check.

I'd quit my job and work for the campaign for free, as long as PTK were being quoted in the MSM every day. They'd need to add extra column inches

I'm about as far from the ideal political personality as one can get. But thanks. I think.

That said, I'd be better on the Eagles postgame show than Rendell. They'd just need a longer delay, particularly after one like tonight.

VoxOrion wrote:This country is too large for a parliamentary system. This is elementary.

This place also manages parliamentary democracy. With Proportional represtentation (single transferable vote variant, I might add).

Wizlah wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:This country is too large for a parliamentary system. This is elementary.

This place also manages parliamentary democracy. With Proportional represtentation (single transferable vote variant, I might add).

Bah! What do they know!

Seriously, I cop to having forgotten India, but don't they have a pretty loose local control arrangement with the states?

My backpeddaling aside, it sounded to me like that wasn't the kind of arrangement Americans pine for when they want parliamentary democracy. They sound to me like they are describing what what England has - a strong single tier of government, etc.

Didn't our forefathers shoot lots of those blokes in the face with musket balls so we wouldn't have to deal with that wig wearing parliament nonsense. In my mind that's the reason why

Joe Biden is doing a campaign event today at 5:30 pm at Linvilla Orchards, near Philadelphia.

Honestly, I have so many happy childhood memories of autumn trips to Linvilla, I'd really rather not see the place politicized. Oh well, at least it's the good guys (IMO).

While the financial crisis is a real drag, I sure hope it shifts the culture-wars with Palin riding high -- to exposing McCain's lack of any economic answers.

I think Woody alluded to it elsewhere, but the "winnar" this November is going to have a pretty daunting task dealing with this economic mess. Can you say "One Termer"?

Ambinder on the financial markets crisisand what can/should be done:

I talked to a few folks who are dealing with the crisis. As a neophyte, I asked some basic questions: what, exactly, is the problem...can the government fix it? If so, what can -- or should -- the government do?

The consensus is kind of scary. The government, right now, needs to deal with the immediate; they need to stabilize the situation and project confidence as they do. If AIG gets the $70b it needs to stay in business, maybe that'll be enough.

But the problem -- or "the problem" is that investment banks are paralyzed; they can't find counterparties; they can't lend money with monkeys on their backs. The monkeys, as I understand it, are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad mortgages. The risk doesn't disappear.

So -- basically -- the government has to take some of these things off the balance sheet, hold them for a while, and give the investment banks a clean slate.

If that sounds a lot like socialism -- like massive government intervention -- it is.

Project Two -- get the regular economy going again. Get people spending. Tax cuts might do it, but both parties are going to have get over their allergy to deficit spending.

Maybe it's a bad bit of fortune that this comes up during a close election campaign. That both McCain and Obama are against a "bailout" makes political sense, but does it make policy sense? I don't know enough here really to say.

A similar dynamic holds for "Project Two": everybody loves tax cuts, but nobody loves (the political atmospherics of) deficit spending. But that might be the way to proceed now. The Republicans will be loath to embrace it because of dogma; the Dems because of political cowardice.

More pork! Let's build some roads! I-49 needs to be finished now! I-69 needs to get moving! I've just united just about everyone in my county, Republican, Democrat, liberal, converstive, Baptist and Methodist!

The problem, from my point of view, is that the government didn't have a plan from Day 1. Paulsen has now basically said that there will be no more bailouts. But how is that fair to AIG, Merrill and Lehman Brothers after the Fed dumped all of that money on Freddie, Fannie and Bear Sterns? The problem is, they didn't have a plan of "no bailouts" before they started to bail companies out, now they are changing the policy in the middle of the game. AIG is much more important to this company's economy than Bear Sterns was, and is more important than Freddie and Fannie.

While I think it really sucks having to use taxpayer money to bail out these companies, you can't leave AIG to die. Its the largest insurance company in the world. Every mutual fund out there worth anything has holdings in AIG. All of the hedge funds have holdings in AIG. A lot of regular people have AIG life insurance.

The even bigger problem is that people just aren't confident investing money anymore. I forgot where I saw it, but I saw something like 60% of people asked in this one survey said they have cash, but they are too scared to invest it. The sub prime crisis is killing the market. Its killed investor confidence, and investor confidence is one of the cornerstones of our country's economy. I think the academics are sitting back and saying this is just a cycle. But its not a cycle. There are major issues here, and if they aren't solved quickly, we're looking at the Great Depression, v2.0. Thats not really fear mongering, its just a pessimistic view of a really awful situation.

Whats really troubling to me is that no one is able to discuss this kind of stuff with any kind of clarity. I wasn't an Econ or Finance major in college, I've spent time reading about this stuff to understand it. And when you understand it, you realize how scary it is. Why are the two dillholes running for President not talking about it? Why are they focusing their energy on these moronic culture issues that affect a small segment of the population? Why are they talking about lipstick on a pig when some of the oldest, most prestigious companies in US history are filing for bankruptcy and falling apart? Is it because they don't understand it? If they don't understand it, maybe neither of them are fit to be President. Is it because they can't articulate complex points in simple terms? Is that a big part of being President?

The whole thing really pisses me off.

I think there are few who actually do understand, flop

FTN wrote: Is it because they don't understand it? If they don't understand it, maybe neither of them are fit to be President. Is it because they can't articulate complex points in simple terms? Is that a big part of being President?

The whole thing really pisses me off.

I'm sure they know all about it and probably have some semblance of what needs to be done. Talking about it to the undecided ninnies isn't going to get them any votes. Our leaders are decided by that 10% who make superficial decisions based on stupid crap.

I think much like casual football fans over-state the importance of the quarterback (heh, heh, Jets favored over the Pats) people put too much emphasis on the role of federal policy in the economy. Especially in a global market, there ability of governments to intervene is rather more limited than people think. We can attribute some of these problems to poor regulation, but not all. And the problem with regulated financial markets is that it's always a moving target. The compexities are enormous, and you've got moral hazards and unintended consequences galore. It's like a high pressure hose spraying water all over the place--you can try to grab it, but you're going to get wet.

Actually, it's more like trying to grab a dozen high pressure hoses all going crazy at the same time.

Woody wrote:I think there are few who actually do understand, flop

who understands what?

why aren't they talking about it?