What are we really arguing about? An experiment.

[Barack_America]

Could it be pragmatism?

Pragmatism (applicable definitions):

"In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal."

http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism_(non-technical_usage)

"a practical approach to problems and affairs"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatism


Thanks for participating! :hi:

[depakid]

1. The current financial policies aren't "pragmatic" and neither are some of the cases being pursued

(or NOT BEING PURSUED) by the Justice Department.

Which is why a lot of economists- or people who follow the courts have been critcal (or at times dismayed).

[Barack_America]

3. What would be considered "pragmatic"?

Certainly not nationalization of the banks.

:shrug:

[Raineyb]

4. Susidizing their bad assets with taxpayers dollars isn't pragmatic.

Unless you are the bank.

Regards

[Barack_America]

5. Then what is? How can you declare something to not be the most practical approach...

...unless you know what the most practical approach is?

Also, I intended the poll to include feelings about all of Obama's recently enacted policies, not just those with regard to the banking industry.

[Raineyb]

15. My beef is with his policies regarding the banking industry at this time.

First of all, there ought never be any such thing as "too big to fail." If it's too big to fail it's too big to exist. Time to start breaking up these behemoths we own them we can break them up. The people running these companies need to hit the street. Now. They ran it into the ground they cannot be trusted to run it now. I have no qualms whatsoever letting the hedge funds eat the losses on their bets on bets on bets. Is not acceptable to take yet more tax money and then giving it to the same schmucks who fucked it all up in the first place. The banks should be forced to renegotiate mortgages. That they will lose money on the deal is not of that much concern to me. And as they're asking for more tax payer dollars we should be making sure that it actually gets to taxpayers besides which companies on the dole ought to have no say in whether or not a plan is palatable to them. That comes with being on the dole. If we treat actual people this way it's damn sure good enough for the corporation. But while I'm looking for a job in a market where people are not hiring I am not remotely interested in my government subsidizing hedge funds to buy up these "toxic" assets. If these assets go up (and at this point I'm not convinced that this will happen) the subsidized people make money and if it doesn't they get to walk away and leave the taxpayers on the hook again. Why would we allow this to happen again. Any subsidizing that goes on should go to people on the bottom. Not the bottom feeders up top who are raping the economy.

Why are we making it easier for these rapacious assholes to continue with the same behavior that got us into this mess in the bloody first place?

Regards

[depakid]

6. Actually- as many eminent economists have stated

That is the pragmatic (and least expense) option- which will probably end up happening in any case down the line.

What's NOT pragmatic is to take the lion's share of the risk in a toxic asset program- and give the profits to hedge funds and private equity firms. But that's the sort deal one expects from the various ideologues that the administration has been hiring (or attempting to hire) at Treasury and the financial regulatory agencies and isory boards.

[Barack_America]

7. That is the most politically feasible option?

That is the option that would be most efficiently gotten through Congress? The option that would have the most public support?

I would argue that there are other factors other than "expense" in determining what is the most 'pragmatic' approach.

[depakid]

8. Even Republicans have been making statements in support of that over the past month

If the administration decided to go that direction, I few doubts that could be readily- and expeditiously accomplished.

Here's another thing that's not pragmatic- keeping everyone in the dark about what sorts of CDS' are being paid off and why. Are we covering naked bets? My guess, considering the sorts of folks who are running things, is probably so.

[Barack_America]

9. And that alone doesn't make you doubt it? (nationalization, that is)

Since when do we trust Republicans like Lindsey Graham over a Democratic administration in the WH?

ETA: Of course Republicans want Dems to nationalize the banks, they're praying for a way to effectively label Democrats as "socialist" and offer themselves as the real party of "Democracy".

[depakid]

10. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn from time to time

Look, if institutions are insolvent- and likely to remain that way, the pragmatic solution is to do precisely the sort of thing that's done almost every Friday night these days. But instead, the administration's policy seems to be to reward failure- and expect the same arrogant and incompetent executives to behave differently in the future.

Hate to say it, but I laughed out loud during the Face the Nation interview, when Obama said he told them (berated them?) to "show some restraint."

That's not how they operate.

[Barack_America]

2. Edited to say: "What the hell is pragmatism?"

Apparently saying, "What the hell is "pragmatism"?" isn't allowed.

Weird.

[pscot]

11. Let's make it a letter grade

At this point I'd give the Pres a C+. I like him personally, but his finance team essentially turns the running of the economy over to Goldman Sachs. His Justice department doesn't seem interested in going after the criminal conduct of the last regime, and most Bush State Attorneys are still on the job. Military spending is still increasing, including missile defense and many other bloated and pointless projects. Going back to the moon is just plain dumb.

We're ramping down (to some unspecified number)in Iraq, and ramping up in Afghanistan. We've heard nothing about rolling back the National Security State. I'll believe we're making progress there when gunboats quit shadowing the ferry from Clinton to Mukilteo and I no longer see eight cops standing around the ferry loading area, ostensibly looking for drugs or explosives.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not down on the President. These are just a few of the things that concern me. There are others, as well, but for the most part, I'm waiting and watching. We just don't know where the President if going on some of these issues, and it's still too early to expect much. He has his hands full with the economy, with staffing and with the dumbass Republicans and self-dealing Democrats. We'll know a lot more a year from now.

There are many positives; science and the environment, for example. Apart from the economics team, most of his appointments have been good. The stimulus package was what the Congress gave him, and Congressional Democrats are not exactly the brightest lights on tree. In that, they reflect the voters. This is longer than I intended it to be, so I'll stop.

[Barack_America]

12. That's reasonable.

Perhaps I am overly inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt.

I believe that the President is no fan of the banking industry and no fan of war. So when he compromises on those ideals I figure it has to be for a reason. At this point I'm willing to cut him the slack of assuming those reasons are good ones (as opposed to pure political expediency).

[LWolf]

13. Other:

I don't think it's "pragmatic" to bend over and take repeated assaults "for the team."

Pragmatic would be settling for some compromise, rather than expecting the nation to ride the pony to a leftist utopia this year.

Pragmatism is NOT embracing the dlc/centrist-center-right/3rd way/new dem/blue dog/corporatists while marginalizing and disenfranchising the left.

[Johnyawl]

14. Other -

I believe in a pragmatic approach to politics and I am mildly pleased with Obama thus far.

I'm with pscot (fellow Washingtonian :hi: ), I'd give Obama a c+ at this point.

I like him, he's a hell of an improvement over the last administration, and it's early, he's got a long ways to go, alot of problems to solve. It's way too early to start being harshly critical, but I will say that if he continues with this pragmatic approach, at the end of eight years we'll be comparing him to Clinton, not FDR. And while I like the Big Dog, I think what the country needs at this time is a bolder approach.