Banks too big to fail & Politicians too stupid to be re-elected

[Goldstein1984]

Since the Great Recession began, we've been subjected to a litany of news about financial institutions that took risks that put the entire economy in peril. Their schemes failed, and the result was a financial collapse that may yet prove to be another Great Depression.

Those we elect chose to protect the Many by bailing out the Few. The result? The stock markets and bonuses on Wall Street indicate that the Few are doing well, but the Many are not. Those who privatized their profits, and those who socialized their losses, continue to tell the Many that foreclosures, unemployment, real unemployment, and a growing gap between the wealth of the Few and the wealth of the Many, are how the system is supposed to work. "Protect the interests of the Few," they say, "And the Few will protect the interests of the Many." "This kind of thing can happen every five to seven years."

Never in history have the Few protected the interests of the Many. In fact, our business and political elite make a practice of dogmatically demonizing any leader, even those who are democratically elected, who espouse the evil socialist philosophy of making businesses accountable for the welfare of the Many upon whose labor and consumption they depend. Thus, Saudi Arabia is an ally, while Venezuela and Bolivia are disruptive influences in the eyes of multinational businesses and those politicians whose strings they pull.

Now I read and hear that the too-big-to-fail banks are taking huge risks in the international arena, convinced by recent history that the American people have no choice but to bail them out again if their schemes fail again.

I hope that I'm not putting too much faith in the American electorate when I say that any politician who believes that we'll tolerate another round of bailouts for these too-big-to-fail parasites is too stupid to be re-elected.

[AndyA]

1. We need to break up the "too big to fail" corporations. Period.

It's not good for America.

We need increased competition and more diversity in the marketplace; yet we're getting consolidation because the too big to fail corporations need to cut costs. Consolidation offers consumers less choice, removes competition that keeps prices down, and results in job loss since the new company doesn't need as many people doing the same job.

I don't understand why our elected representatives can't see that.

Sirius and XM become one. What happened? Programming changes resulted in less variety for customers, and the costs have gone up. (No more competition in the market.)

It's happened time and time again. Yet this consolidation is still allowed.

The bottom line is that the economy won't recover until we have jobs. And as long as jobs are being outsourced, where labor is cheaper, the American economy will stagnate.

The Cash For Clunkers program resulted in more new Toyota cars (a foreign company) being sold than any other make. Yet I heard over in Japan, where they're having a similar program, few American cars are eligible. WTF?

Since goods from China are of dubious quality and in many cases are unsafe, I think an inspection tax should be applied to everything imported from that country. We need to make sure there isn't plastic in pet food, lead in children's toys, poor construction that could allow small pieces to come off and choke a child. We need to even out the playing field.

I'm tired of tax cuts for businesses to offshore American jobs.

I'm tired of executive salaries and bonuses when the company has lost money. (Why keep an executive that hasn't been able to make a profit for the company? Who the hell wants them?)

America needs to wake the hell up. Our elected officials are not serving us, they are serving themselves and their corporate masters. It's time to send the ones who do packing, and get new ones in who will do what they're supposed to do.

[Goldstein1984]

3. One of two things will happen when you repeat something enough:

Either it's assumed to be true, or it's rejected as background noise. Regardless of merit.

What determines the difference? Whether or not the statement is in the interests of Power.

For example:

"I don't understand why our elected representatives can't see that."

"...goods from China are of dubious quality and in many cases are unsafe..."

Follow the money. Elected representatives are purchased and told what they see and don't see. For U.S. based multinational corporations to gain unfettered access to foreign economies we had to give foreign economies unfettered access to the U.S. economy. Never mind that those economies have consumer protection standards like those condemned in the U.S. early in the 20th Century.

For example, Chevron is currently battling accountability for past practices and opposition to future development in Ecuador by indigenous people. Part of their strategy is to sue the government of Ecuador for failing to enforce free trade treaty provisions.

[Toots]

2. American people will tolerate whatever they are told to tolerate

The people are actually more stupid than the persons they elect, it would appear. Look at Mass for example. Republicans got us into this fix so elect more Republicans just so they can laugh at how distressed Democrats get about it..

[Goldstein1984]

5. I would love to write that I disagree that "The people are...

...actually more stupid than the persons they elect..."

But I'm a person of science, and I have to admit that I do believe that Americans are, on average, far for ignorant about certain things than one would predict. At least where science is concerned, we've been called "scientific hillbillies and backwoodsmen." If what I see where science is concerned is also true across disciplines, then you are correct. In fact, I think that scientific literacy is a great metaphor for the general literacy of the electorate: a minority is making well-informed decisions, while the majority is making ill-informed and emotional decisions.

I think MA was a bit more complicated, though. I do believe that there were a bunch of willfully ignorant voters playing into Republican hands. I also believe that the failures of Democrats in Congress, and the lack of follow-through on campaign promises by the Obama Administration, caused a lot of Progressive voters to withhold their votes. It wasn't apathy and a lack of action, it was an aggressive act designed to send a message. Both dynamics were in play, I think.

During the past week or so, since the SOTU Address, Obama has adopted a more aggressive and progressive approach. I like to think that this change is in response to MA, as well as to the constructive and loyal dissent (mislabeled as "Obama hating") he has been experiencing.

[WVRICK13]

4. The Bottom Line

is the banks should not be allowed to give bonuses with tax money. If they claim they are using other funds then make them pay back the TARP since they obviously didn't need it. Or put it to a test, could they have given the bonuses without the TARP funds? If yes, then give back TARP, if no then they can't give the bonus. It shocks me that our citizens have not taken to the streets in outrage. It says a lot about a country that allows government assistance so some can buy yachts and Lear Jets while they set the standard for food stamps at a level you have to literally be starving to get them. When I was in defense contracting I got so tired of hearing co-workers gripe about welfare when the hardest decision they made financially was to pick the color of their new Lexus, BMW or other high dollar car. Non-profits have to fight to get government grants to help society but military contractors have billions fall into their laps with little or no oversight. One project the company I worked for operated was maintaining 2 websites for the government for an absurd sum of money (think millions, can't tell you how much due to company agreements).

[Goldstein1984]

6. I believe that there are some great politicians

Sanders, Kucinich and Grayson, for example.

But I also believe that the majority of politicians, like my own from Alaska, are too beholding to Wall Street. And the simple-minded political dogma and platforms of both parties are intellectually offensive, although the Republican dogma is far more offensive for being far more simple-minded.

The bottom line was drawn by Thomas Jefferson, who believed that tyranny results when people fear their government, and that liberty demands that the government fears the people. Right now, we have a government that I believe has been captured by corporate interests (Sound bite: Government cares about Wall Street, not Main Street).

That will change when the Many listen to and act on Jefferson's advice.

One massive non-consumption strike would create fear. Massive civil disobedience would create more. Fear would create change.

[MindandSoul]

7. So let's break up the "too big to fail" banks, and send the "too stupid to lead"

. . . .politicians to pasture!

What's the problem???

[Goldstein1984]

8. Good question: "What's the problem???"

The problem is, in large part, that the too-stupid-to-lead are fairly well distributed in the two parties of a two-party system. If we listen to the advice of the party adherents, our only choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils. Voting outside the party, or withholding a vote from both too-stupid-to-lead candidates, only "makes things worse."

I would argue that the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and any political philosophy advocating evil, even the lesser evil, rather than change is impoverished and polluted, unworthy of adherence.

Since the electorate is primarily valued as a pool of votes to politicians, and a pool of consumers to the business interests that control most of them, I think a massive consumer revolt linked to production interruptions and civil disobedience is the only peaceful solution. We have to create the fear in government (now a plutocracy) that Jefferson argued was essential to the liberty of the citizens.

I'm not expecting anything that decisive from an electorate, and especially not from the non-electorate, anytime in the near future. But I can dream.

[MindandSoul]

9. Good points!