Comments on: Privatized Profits & Socialized Risk

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:22:43 +0000

This is a beautiful photograph. That’s all it is, but it’s nothing less than that. Bob Rubin, very much in the flesh, looking us in the eye almost inadvertently. Hillary Rodham Clinton seeking the fixer’s counsel in a candid moment—look at how pretty she is! The beautiful ear and ronantic neckline! So sweet!

“To the mating calls of…lawyers in love…”

By: Ken Ballweg

Ken Ballweg — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:29:36 +0000

Pete – I seriously have to question the notion that the folks who “cooked this mess” even considered a safety net. I think, like any Ponzi scheme they wanted to get in early, get fat, and get out with enough take to bank the next big thing.

Finance, like all other fields, has the usual bell curve of innovators being the sharp end of the point, and the wanna-be imitators fattening the middle, and, inevitably, bleeding the scam dry along with all the marks.

Never underestimate the evil genius of the real big guns of the business of moving money to make money. One of their sharpest moves has always been to spend just the right amount on really good spin artists who are able to convince the marks and wanna-b’s that regulation will keep them from getting as rich as the big boys, then stepping aside and letting the long tail lobby congress against the “death tax” for example.

By: Pete Wolf

Pete Wolf — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:18:11 +0000

K.M. – Yes, the bailouts would be impossible in an unregulated economy. But the excesses which lead to the situation in which said institutions needed a bailout wouldn’t be magically prevented by an unregulated economy.

The only thing that prevents such excess is appropriate regulation of financial markets, so yes, deregulation is at fault.

You might want to claim that somehow the excesses wouldn’t have been so great if the financial wizards who cooked up this mess thought there wasn’t a government safety net for them. I think there might be something to this, but I still don’t think that that situation would be preferable to the one in which regulations prevented such ‘innovation’.

By: John Kelly

John Kelly — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:37:54 +0000

oops – sorry about the excessive italics…

By: John Kelly

John Kelly — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:37:15 +0000

Actually K.M., I expect it’s more that a guardian element (government) started acting too much like a commercial element – trading money for influence with those who had a surplus. That created consequences antithetical to governments guardian role – destructive effects on the economy. Now, many think that a relatively free and elected government like ours is bound to be crap at regulating the economy due to available access to corrupt said government in the person of it’s little human elements. Of course there are other, worse effects when totalitarian governments regulate their economies. But I see part of the governments role is to guard the part of the economy that touches the little guy. Not to provide handouts, but to prevent a completely unregulated economy that eventually leads to excesses like slavery and serfdom and unthinking destruction of resources among other ills. The government should be keeping the playing field level. That’s all. But that’s where the interpretation happens isn’t it?

By: K. M.

K. M. — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:00:40 +0000

So it is a “reverse-Robin Hood” system? Robin Hood was fiction. This is reality. Every time someone has tried to institute a Robin Hood system, the result has been a “reverse-Robin Hood” system. Does that reflect on the character of those who tried to institute Robin Hood systems or on the Robin Hood system itself? When a few individuals have the power to enact regulations for the “public good” by the force of law, is it any surprise who the “public” being served is?
Do not blame the consequences of government interference on deregulation. The sort of government bailouts that we see today would not be possible in an unregulated economy.