jeff2sf wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:
I still contend that liberals are less stuck to their ideology than conservatives. With big problems like we're facing now, whether in Iraq or in the financial sector, if there's a solution that seems like it will work out best, liberals generally will support it. Conservatives still need to be sure the solution won't violate conservative principles (even if conservative views - like regulation bad, free, unfettered markets good - helped create the problem in the first place). So, for example, their first argument against almost any plan to address the problem of people lacking medical insurance is to call out "socialized medicine" or "government-run healthcare" without seriously considering whether the plan would improve the situation.

That's ridiculous. You guys both suck at it. You both suck really bad and really hard at it.

close thread.



seriously, that's the shittiest response to an honest post i've read in this thread. you suck at life.

BuddyGroom wrote:Bill O'Reilly wants the next administration to "really watch" the big oil companies and other big corporations, but not increase regulation, so "the folks" don't get hurt.

Not to defend O'Reilly (ewwww) but enforcing existing regulations might be a good start and there, the executive branch does have a lot of discretion.

jeff2sf wrote:
That's ridiculous. You guys both suck at it. You both suck really bad and really hard at it.

There's only 2 guys?

drsmooth wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:
That's ridiculous. You guys both suck at it. You both suck really bad and really hard at it.

There's only 2 guys?

How many cups?

Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

Werthless wrote:Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

We're de facto moving in that direction, but it doesn't do much to get us out of the current crisis, and it doesn't really address other sources of financial turmoil. At this point, what I'm worried about (what I always worry about) are what Rumsfeld called the unknown unknowns.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

We're de facto moving in that direction, but it doesn't do much to get us out of the current crisis, and it doesn't really address other sources of financial turmoil. At this point, what I'm worried about (what I always worry about) are what Rumsfeld called the unknown unknowns.

wouldn't that then just be the unknown? i like the phrasing of known unknowns and unknown knowns, but unknown unknowns is just kinda fucked.

it's just the unknown.

steagles wrote:wouldn't that then just be the unknown? i like the phrasing of known unknowns and unknown knowns, but unknown unknowns is just kinda $#@!.

it's just the unknown.

steagles wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

We're de facto moving in that direction, but it doesn't do much to get us out of the current crisis, and it doesn't really address other sources of financial turmoil. At this point, what I'm worried about (what I always worry about) are what Rumsfeld called the unknown unknowns.

wouldn't that then just be the unknown? i like the phrasing of known unknowns and unknown knowns, but unknown unknowns is just kinda $#@!.

it's just the unknown.

No, because there are known unknowns. Right?

jerseyhoya wrote:

steagles wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

We're de facto moving in that direction, but it doesn't do much to get us out of the current crisis, and it doesn't really address other sources of financial turmoil. At this point, what I'm worried about (what I always worry about) are what Rumsfeld called the unknown unknowns.

wouldn't that then just be the unknown? i like the phrasing of known unknowns and unknown knowns, but unknown unknowns is just kinda $#@!.

it's just the unknown.

No, because there are known unknowns. Right?

Exactly. The financial future of AIG is a known unknown. The closing price of a barrel of oil is a known unknown. An unknown unknown would be some significant financial event that no one is anticipating and thus no one is watching for.

jerseyhoya wrote:

steagles wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

We're de facto moving in that direction, but it doesn't do much to get us out of the current crisis, and it doesn't really address other sources of financial turmoil. At this point, what I'm worried about (what I always worry about) are what Rumsfeld called the unknown unknowns.

wouldn't that then just be the unknown? i like the phrasing of known unknowns and unknown knowns, but unknown unknowns is just kinda $#@!.

it's just the unknown.

No, because there are known unknowns. Right?

yes, and i like and accept that phrasing.

but unknown unknowns is just redundant. the extra word doesn't add anything or change the meaning.

BuddyGroom wrote:Bill O'Reilly wants the next administration to "really watch" the big oil companies and other big corporations, but not increase regulation, so "the folks" don't get hurt.

He's not running for any office, but what does "really watch" mean if it does not mean regulate?

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:Regarding the problems in the financial sector, I think government policy SHOULD change. Some people are calling for more regulation to prevent banks overextending themselves. Some are calling for government officials (!) to replace corporate risk analysts. One step that I support: a shift in national policy away from unfettered support of universal home ownership.

There are a number of federal programs that support home ownership: tax incentives, interest rate guarantees on mortgages, the creation of Freddie and Fannie (government programs designed to buy mortgages, so that banks would have the capital to re-lend the money), the FHA, the long-term support of low interest rate policy, and the continued push for more housing funds within Congressional committee. Perhaps this could be reconsidered?

We're de facto moving in that direction, but it doesn't do much to get us out of the current crisis, and it doesn't really address other sources of financial turmoil. At this point, what I'm worried about (what I always worry about) are what Rumsfeld called the unknown unknowns.

I disagree that we're moving away from this national policy. I have not heard any presidential candidate or major national figure question our government's support of home ownership. But, I hope you're right that people are recognizing the folly.

William Galston with some good advice for Obama:

Right now, regrettably, few Americans believe that you feel real passion about their economic plight and are willing to wage a tough fight on their behalf. It's your job to convince them otherwise, and you don't have much time to do it.

A message is a thought not only sent, but also received and understood. If your hearers aren't getting it, it's not a message. The essence of political speech is functional, not aesthetic. It is a tree judged by its fruit, and the fruit is persuasion. Right now you're not persuading the people you need to persuade, and nothing else matters.
...
Attacking McCain for employing lobbyists is a waste of precious time and resources; it plays on his turf and accepts his definition of the problem. Moreover, It diverts attention from the core issue - a Republican approach to the economy, shared by Bush and McCain, that shafts ordinary Americans and does nothing to help them deal with the challenges of global competition. So far, while the McCain campaign has gone for the jugular, you've gone for the capillaries.
...
This is not about you alone; it's a matter of political responsibility. Millions of Americans have invested their hopes and dreams in you, and you owe it to them to campaign effectively, which isn't happening right now. Yes, the McCain campaign is replete with exaggerations, evasions, and outright fabrications. It's your responsibility to defeat them, not complain about them. If this means listening to advice you don't want to hear, and getting out of the "comfort zone," so be it.

Three months ago, when you were riding high, the McCain campaign was flat on its back. But give McCain credit: when he was told that to win he had to change, he did. He focused, and he accepted a kind of discipline that he had previously resisted. Now it's your turn.

I agree that this economic crisis offers probably the last, best chance for Obama to seize control of the conversation and put the campaign back on favorable ground. He has an easy, digestible, positive message on the economy, which Galston characterizes as the following:

1) Infrastructure bank to rebuild the country and create a huge number of well paying, non-outsourceable jobs
2) Environmental innovation that also will create good jobs and help alleviate the energy crisis
3) Shift of tax burden away from low- and middle-income families back on those who have seen their rates cut so sharply under Bush
4) Major expansion of health coverage--which has the big political advantage of forcing McCain to explain/defend his health care proposal, not an easy task for many reasons

I'd add the message about re-regulating the financial markets. Regardless of Republican bleating about CLINTON DIDDIT, only one of these campaigns is closely tied to Phil Gramm and the unregulated Thunderdome he represents.

That said, I'll admit that this is the part of the election where I wish it was Bill Clinton running. He could seal the economic discontent sale as easily as he could an inebriated, overweight, insecure lady at closing time.

The problem with this pitch is that it inevitably entails a major intervention of the government into the economy. Never mind that we already have that, on the side of those who already are doing well; people have a conceptual barrier to it. (Thus we've got Palin talking about regulation and reform on one hand and, in the same breath, "getting government out of the way of the economy." She might or might not actually know that this is a brain-dead juxtaposition, but she surely knows it's an effective soundbite.) Obama's task is to convince the public that this intervention will really help *them*, and that just because government has been so terribly inept these last eight years doesn't mean that it always must be so.

Good stuff, Dajafi, from you and Galston. I hope Obama or one of his aides sees that column. Galston was an adviser to the Clinton admin. - hopefully that won't be grounds for them just ignoring him.

The infrastructure bank sounds like a promising idea in several ways.

dajafi wrote:I agree that this economic crisis offers probably the last, best chance for Obama to seize control of the conversation and put the campaign back on favorable ground. He has an easy, digestible, positive message on the economy, which Galston characterizes as the following:

1) Infrastructure bank to rebuild the country and create a huge number of well paying, non-outsourceable jobs
2) Environmental innovation that also will create good jobs and help alleviate the energy crisis
3) Shift of tax burden away from low- and middle-income families back on those who have seen their rates cut so sharply under Bush
4) Major expansion of health coverage--which has the big political advantage of forcing McCain to explain/defend his health care proposal, not an easy task for many reasons

Since I live debating policy, here's my thoughts:

1) I'm not sure what is being advocated here, beyond spending a lot of money to pay people to build things. I question whether a blanket "money for infrastructure, used to create non-outsourceable jobs" is fiscally prudent, or simply a populist plea for votes.
2) Envirnonmental innovation? Nobody's against that. :? Would you like the US government to decide the best technologies of the next 50 years (by throwing money at them, and making it a lobbying competition), or would you like the best technologies to succeed? Uniform tax cuts for all research technologies is something that I support, but giving research grants to labs/environmental technologies who can't necessarily get private funding by VC's doesnt seem like a worthwhile use of government funds.
3) Tax burden has been shifting... I don't suppose you care to reverse the trend!

4) Healthcare... there's no easy answer here. I don't think either candidate wants to get into specifics, since any proposed policy which goes into more depth than a soundbite will have a few holes.

I am still struggling with this idea of more regulation for financial products. I have a hard time seeing how government people that would be on the front lines would know enough to regulate and not just get in the way. There are a lot of well meaning risk managers that didn't sit on their hands because they were blinded by money, they sat on their hands because they didn't know what the hell was happening or more properly, did not picture THIS happening - which sums up the way a lot of people felt. I don't see how government wouldn't have done the same thing. Or else they'd just put the brakes on anything innovative - and yes, that would save us from a once in a generation event like this, but it would also probably keep us from a lot of GOOD financial products that have made the world better like derivatives.

Also, while I'm at it and not posting snarky one liners... I really hate the liberal people who have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to finance (which is about 99% of the people in the world), talking about "huh, i guess socialism isn't so bad when it bails out the corporate fat cats"... blah blah blah.

Let's get something straight here: Too big to fail really does mean what it says... a failure of AIG would not have just hurt Wall Street, it would have seriously screwed up all Americans. Every one of us. People throw around Great Depression too much, but things could have gotten really really bad.

Further, the Wall Streeters ARE hurting, especially the ones at places like Lehman, AIG, Bear. They're losing their jobs. The government stepping in didn't prevent them from taking their medicine. The shareholders, some of whom may enabled that risktaking, and many others who were simply part of mutual/pension funds that held their stock and had no idea what was going on, also lost significant money. The bailouts are not really bailing out those firms. They're potentially bailing US out of a world of hurt.

Amen to that rant.

jeff2sf wrote:I am still struggling with this idea of more regulation for financial products. I have a hard time seeing how government people that would be on the front lines would know enough to regulate and not just get in the way. There are a lot of well meaning risk managers that didn't sit on their hands because they were blinded by money, they sat on their hands because they didn't know what the hell was happening or more properly, did not picture THIS happening - which sums up the way a lot of people felt. I don't see how government wouldn't have done the same thing. Or else they'd just put the brakes on anything innovative - and yes, that would save us from a once in a generation event like this, but it would also probably keep us from a lot of GOOD financial products that have made the world better like derivatives.

Also, while I'm at it and not posting snarky one liners... I really hate the liberal people who have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to finance (which is about 99% of the people in the world), talking about "huh, i guess socialism isn't so bad when it bails out the corporate fat cats"... blah blah blah.

Let's get something straight here: Too big to fail really does mean what it says... a failure of AIG would not have just hurt Wall Street, it would have seriously screwed up all Americans. Every one of us. People throw around Great Depression too much, but things could have gotten really really bad.

Further, the Wall Streeters ARE hurting, especially the ones at places like Lehman, AIG, Bear. They're losing their jobs. The government stepping in didn't prevent them from taking their medicine. The shareholders, some of whom may enabled that risktaking, and many others who were simply part of mutual/pension funds that held their stock and had no idea what was going on, also lost significant money. The bailouts are not really bailing out those firms. They're potentially bailing US out of a world of hurt.

Not to mention getting over an 11% interest return for the American taxpayer ain't a bad investment either.

dajafi wrote:William Galston with some good advice for Obama:

Right now, regrettably, few Americans believe that you feel real passion about their economic plight and are willing to wage a tough fight on their behalf. It's your job to convince them otherwise, and you don't have much time to do it.

A message is a thought not only sent, but also received and understood. If your hearers aren't getting it, it's not a message. The essence of political speech is functional, not aesthetic. It is a tree judged by its fruit, and the fruit is persuasion. Right now you're not persuading the people you need to persuade, and nothing else matters.
...
Attacking McCain for employing lobbyists is a waste of precious time and resources; it plays on his turf and accepts his definition of the problem. Moreover, It diverts attention from the core issue - a Republican approach to the economy, shared by Bush and McCain, that shafts ordinary Americans and does nothing to help them deal with the challenges of global competition. So far, while the McCain campaign has gone for the jugular, you've gone for the capillaries.
...
This is not about you alone; it's a matter of political responsibility. Millions of Americans have invested their hopes and dreams in you, and you owe it to them to campaign effectively, which isn't happening right now. Yes, the McCain campaign is replete with exaggerations, evasions, and outright fabrications. It's your responsibility to defeat them, not complain about them. If this means listening to advice you don't want to hear, and getting out of the "comfort zone," so be it.

Three months ago, when you were riding high, the McCain campaign was flat on its back. But give McCain credit: when he was told that to win he had to change, he did. He focused, and he accepted a kind of discipline that he had previously resisted. Now it's your turn.

- - - - - - -

That said, I'll admit that this is the part of the election where I wish it was Bill Clinton running. He could seal the economic discontent sale as easily as he could an inebriated, overweight, insecure lady at closing time.

I notice that Galston here hits on a couple of points in that recently linked article on what advice Bubba would give O.