Chuck ([info]chuckdawg) wrote,
@ 2008-09-25 09:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:politics

Three Cheers for State Capitalism!
Ever since I found out that I (along with the rest of the American taxpayers) now own 80% of AIG, I've been thinking about what to do with all those foreclosures. I feel the most gracious thing to do is only select one foreclosed house to live in rent-free. I'll be calling AIG tomorrow to find out what their holdings are in the area. I hope someone's there to take my call.

Yes, the free market kills our economy again. I didn't believe the Bush/McCain administration couldn't fuck anything else up. It's good to know they keep reaching for that failure star. As Jon Stewart said recently, this is "the turd icing on the shit cake." Bush and his friends used their trickle-down theory and their belief in deregulation to take a huge dump all over the American real estate market, and now all of the sudden that whole crew are state capitalists and want to give these failing companies billions of dollars. It's true, there aren't any free-market economists in foxholes.

Let's examine the history of deregulation, shall we? It's the 1980s, and Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings & Loan Association has paid five senators $1.3M to deregulate savings and loans -- allegedly. Among these senators were an astronaut and a current presidental candidate. It turns out that $1.3M is exactly how much you have to pay for deregulation (including sales tax), so Mr. Keating got what he wanted. With no oversight of S&Ls, Keating and pretty much everyone else starts making risky investments with their customers' money. The result was that 21,000 mostly elderly investors lost their life savings -- $285M. That's right, Keating and his friends took money from grandmothers and lost it on the bond market. The fallout? Keating goes to jail, McCain and the other senators finish their terms (and get re-elected in some cases) and the American taxpayer pays out $2B.

Now we head to the 1990s, when energy was deregulated, probably because Enron gave $7M to government officials. With no oversight, companies like Enron began trading energy in markets, which drove the cost of energy up and made millions of dollars for traders. Enron began trading energy over the internet without having any real assets, and caused rolling blackouts in California, which directly led to the replacement of Gov. Gray Davis with Gov. Schwarzenegger. And I'm only scratching the surface of the shadiness here, there were many outright illegalities that might have been caught if someone was watching them. The fallout? Many people involved go to jail, Enron investors and employees lose everything, and one of the nation's top accounting firms goes under trying to hide all the shady dealing.

Now the housing market got deregulated, which led to sub-prime mortgages, which led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis when no one could actually pay their loans. All those loans were made into bonds, people foolishly bought those bonds, and the whole shitpile collapsed when people found out they were worthless. The fallout? Lots of people lost their homes, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Sterns, and Lehman Brothers are tanking, and now Bush wants the American taxpayer to shell out $700B. Man, it's almost like every time we deregulate some industry, people get greedy and crash the whole market, and then we have to pay the tab to make sure that the whole American economy doesn't fail.

I'm not against the state regulation of industry, especially given deregulation's track record these days. A truly free market might not bother me either, except that, like Marxism, it doesn't seem to work in practice. What bothers me is that we have Republican officials speaking on behalf of their corporate owners for free markets, and as soon as the corporations can't actually handle existing in a free market, they come crying to the Republicans demanding that they be let out of their financial obligations. I wish the government would bail me out when I spend too much money. But I guess they'd call that communism.

Next up: McCain wants to deregulate the health care industry!




(Post a new comment)


[info]hatfarm
2008-09-25 09:28 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I find it funny that the same administration which targeted making bankruptcy protection more difficult to achieve. I do agree with part of that legislation that it should be that people have to have credit counseling and that people shouldn't be able to just drop their debt after they've run it up unrealistically, but it seems to me that this is exactly the situation we find these companies in. Yet, this SAME administration is bending over backwards to help these companies out in a very similar situation.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]chuckdawg
2008-09-26 02:58 am UTC (link)
To be fair, the individuals who got the loans didn't give millions of dollars to the government. That's the difference between mandatory credit counseling and a total bail-out.

Ironically, now we're ALL giving billions of dollars to the government, and I doubt it'll buy us any influence at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kelglitter
2008-09-25 10:27 pm UTC (link)
I don't agree with bailing out Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae or AIG or Bear Stearns (or Goldman Sachs, but that was Warren Buffet who bailed them out), but I do have to say that you can't link deregulation of the housing market to people losing their homes. Those people have brains that can think and they should have known that they couldn't afford McMansions no matter what the mortgage people were saying.

When I bought my house in 2002 I had made $39 the year before and I was pre-qualified for any mortgage up to $107. The house I bought? Not quite $68. Now, maybe it's not fair to expect the American homeowners to be at least as smart as me, but I was only 23 at the time, so the majority of them should have had years of wisdom on me which they could apply to know that they were biting off more than they could chew. I knew that any house over $80 would have been too much and I suspected that I needed to stay under $70 - actually, at first I did have some trouble and it's a darn good thing I had a roommate for the first year.

Blaming politicians for people losing their homes (and really the market never got "deregulated," companies were just able/stupid enough to make loans they shouldn't/couldn't/knew better than to have made in years prior) is like blaming the insurance salesman for your decision to buy permanent life insurance. He thought he had the right thing for you. He didn't, you believed his arguments and didn't use your head. It just sounded so good - a policy you could borrow against if you needed money in the future... so good. But you can't afford it and your money is better off saved somewhere else rather than spent there. End of story. American consumers are dumb but we can't blame anybody but them (and perhaps the Republicans who are invested in convincing everyone that they're in the upper quintile of earners when in fact 4/5 of them, well, aren't).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]chuckdawg
2008-09-26 02:55 am UTC (link)
If banks weren't able to make sub-prime mortgages, they would have turned down a lot of the people who weren't able to pay traditional loans. If someone's giving away free money on the street corner, chances are a lot of people will take it.

And sure, some people were smart enough not to fall for it, but some weren't. Should we be paying for other people's financial mistakes? Probably not. But it's also the fault of the lending institutions that those loans even existed, and they existed because no one was watching them, and they saw easy money.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelglitter
2008-09-26 03:12 am UTC (link)
There are a lot of ways people can screw themselves. If it's not the mortgage man, it's the rent-to-own man or the payday loans place or the car salesman or the liquor-store owner or the drug dealer. Hell, in my family, nobody ever goes to the bookstores and blames them for selling such good books at such great deals. Everybody's got a brand of stupid they're liable to fall into and they should figure out how to steer clear.

Providers of such lux just want to make a buck and if others aren't smart enough to swing wide of said purveyors of stupidities that's not my fault and my tax dollars should have nothing to do with it. Nobody bails out the pharmacist who sold stuff under the counter and nobody bails out their customers. This should be no different. Most of the time I can't bring myself to feel bad for the consequences of addictions and consumerism is no different. That's why there's a consumer education requirement for graduating from high schools in Illinois.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]chuckdawg
2008-09-26 03:31 am UTC (link)
So the people selling these economy-ruining mortgages aren't at fault at all? To use your own example, do you feel that drug dealers shouldn't go to jail because people are dumb enough to buy drugs?

I know that there's no intrinsic limit on how greedy people are, but maybe there ought to be some kind of legal limit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kelglitter
2008-09-26 07:40 am UTC (link)
Uh, yeah, I think there should (A) be no laws against drugs and (B) be no fault for drug dealers. I think the war on drugs is a waste of my tax dollars.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]chuckdawg
2008-09-26 01:38 pm UTC (link)
OK, I didn't mean to change the subject to the War on Drugs, but my point was that it seems to me like blaming the victim all the time won't end well for our legal system.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]michtrebies
2008-09-26 04:58 pm UTC (link)
I love Capitalism, I think it is the best system in the world. I wish we could get it right.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…