Republican Brown wins Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat

[Professor S]

Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Republican Scott Brown has won Tuesday's special election for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy, CNN projects based on actual results.

Brown, a Massachusetts state senator, had 52 percent of the vote to 47 percent for state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic contender, with over 69 percent of precincts reporting in results from the National Election Pool, a consortium of media organizations including CNN. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy, a libertarian who is not related to the Kennedy political family of Massachusetts, had 1 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/19/massachusetts.senate/index.html?hpt=T1

Wow.
:WHOA:

[Dylflon]

Didn't he say he was going to vote against health care reform?

:(

[Bond]

Simply unbelievable.

This is all part of Romney's scheme to run in 2012 - the election actually looks very similar to Romney's 2002 gubernatorial win in the same state.

[TheGame]

Obama and the democratic party went too far to the right, and now have discouraged their voters. If they continue doing this, just expect more losses across the board. I personally am not shocked, and I wouldn't be suprised if we get a republican president in 2012 anymore..

[Gambit_X]

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On one hand, I feel betrayed by the people of Massachussetts because, as far as they're concerned, they already have a health care plan put in place by Ted Kennedy, so it makes sense that there were those who either stayed home or voted against Coakely simply because they had nothing to lose and everything to gain (a national health care plan would pull more federal tax dollars from their pockets for something they alreday have). On the other hand, the smugness of the democratic party's supermajority was dangerous to begin with, so when the blue dog dems started acting against their own party, that should have been a wake up call to everyone running for election that every seat would count, but instead many just ignored the whole business.

At any rate, I hope we didn't just waste the entire year focusing on health care only to have it pissed on by partisan politics at the end.

[Thespis721]

You know, I think that this is a great thing that Brown won. I'm from NY so I'm raised to hate Massachussetts, but I gotta say that they are some of the best Americans right there because they let the people running determine their vote instead of their party.

They didn't betray anyone. They had two choices. Brown who, while against healthcare and has some strong conservative values, seemed like a pretty decent politician and ran an excellent campaign. The other was Coakely who FLAT OUT SUCKED. Aside from the fact that she was a democrat, there was no reason that woman should have won. She acted like she was going to be handed the seat and did NOTHING to fight for her job. The people saw one guy who really wanted to be a senator and work hard and another person who was just being a seat filler, and they voted for their state.

No offense, but our government was built on the ideal of states individual opinion. You don't vote for a senator for one bill on a national scale, you vote for a senator to work hard to look out for your state.

[Gambit_X]

You'll get no argument from me there, friend. And, from what I've heard, Brown is actually a moderate republican who supports Massachussetts' universal healthcare, so I have hopes for the current administration approaching him to come up with a plan B. If we have to kill the two current bills, fine, but I would be sick to my stomach if we gave up on health care reform altogether. I work at the Mayo Clinic. I see and hear from the patients that can't pay their bills every day, and while I'm no expert, it's pretty clear something needs to be done.

[Bond]

Great picture:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/brownUS.jpg

I have a few more political observations that I will post later...

[Bond]

Obama and the democratic party went too far to the right, and now have discouraged their voters. If they continue doing this, just expect more losses across the board. I personally am not shocked, and I wouldn't be suprised if we get a republican president in 2012 anymore..
That may be part of the problem, but I think the broader problem is the divergence of opinions as to what Obama should be doing. Like you say, many feel as though he went too far right, but just as many (or around the same number) of Democrats think he went too far left. This is quite a dangerous position for a politician, as he has weakened support from his base, as well as from moderates, and increased resistance from the opposition party (ie. the tea party movement).

Senator Brown may very well be the revitalization of the liberal / moderate Republicans in the Northeast, but it's too early to tell. I hope it is, though.

[TheGame]

That may be part of the problem, but I think the broader problem is the divergence of opinions as to what Obama should be doing. Like you say, many feel as though he went too far right, but just as many (or around the same number) of Democrats think he went too far left. This is quite a dangerous position for a politician, as he has weakened support from his base, as well as from moderates, and increased resistance from the opposition party (ie. the tea party movement).

Senator Brown may very well be the revitalization of the liberal / moderate Republicans in the Northeast, but it's too early to tell. I hope it is, though.

I agree that there are a lot of people in general who thinks that he went too far to the left, but the majority of those are republicans. And the majority of people who think that he went to far to the right are democrats. As for independants it seems to be split. Sorry I don't have any polls to post yet, but I'll look them up when I have more time. (Heading to work)

I will say this though, it does seem that history is repeating itself. When the republicans are in the majority, there are a lot of liberal republicans who do things that demoralize their base and eventually cost them elections. When the Dems get in control there's a lot of conservative Democrats who do the same thing and cost them in the end.

How it costs them is.. you demoralize your base, and they don't show up to vote. They don't nessicarily have to vote for the other guy, they just don't want to vote for you.. While the minority can paint everything wrong in the world as the majority party's fault, it makes people in their base more passionate about showing up and voting.

This election was a mid term, so nobody expected the turn out to be as high as the presidential election.. but I'm willing to bet more Mccain supporters showed up then Obama ones.

[Professor S]

This was from Politico.com, and I thought it was an excellent assessment of what is going on with the Democrat leadership right now, and patronizing politicians in general (on both sides):

Do the Democrats 'get it', you ask?

It's a big tent party; some do and some don't.

Somebody very cruel once said that Hubert Humphrey is a man who is twenty years ahead of his time -- but that his time is 1948. That was a damning comment in 1972; it's an even more damning one today, but I'm afraid this describes the mindset of a great many good Democrats.

For these people -- earnest, passionate, often very smart and engaged and many of them good friends of mine -- the 1940s and 1950s model of progress still holds. The world is divided between three groups of people: a large mass of basically good but oppressed and poorly educated working people (and small farmers) who need guidance, enlightenment and protection; evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry; and honest, competent, well educated professionals whose job it is to steer society forward in the interests of the ignorant mass. Unfortunately the evil and greedy interests and their sly minions are good at befuddling and confusing the dumbass masses, using such retrograde themes as patriotism, religion and always and everywhere racism.

For Democrats with this mindset, the party has to balance the interests of the masses and the classes. That is, the masses are, regrettably, too stupid to know what is good for them. It is necessary for the enlightened professionals to steer a middle course between the unreflective populism of the masses and the self-destructive and shortsighted greed of the special interests. These Democrats interpret the populist revolt against the Obama administration (evil "teabaggers" and all) as a sign that the Democrats have steered too far toward the classes, creating a window of vulnerability for evil minion Republican demagogues to confuse the masses about who their real friends are. To hold this in check, the party needs to embrace more 'populist' economic rhetoric: crosses of gold, bankers foreclosing on widows, the whole William Jennings Bryan playbook. Card check, tax the rich, a hugely expensive jobs bill, regulate the hell out of business. This, they are deeply and utterly convinced, will foil the minions completely and let everyone know beyond any doubt who the real friends of the people are.

It is extremely difficult for people steeped in this mindset (as I was for many years) to wrap their heads around the core idea powering American politics in the last generation: a revolt by the 'dumbass masses' against this basic social map of the world. Huge chunks of the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy -- it is the liberal world view that they long to be freed of.

For many lower-middle and middle-middle class Americans, the upper-middle class has a basic strategy to protect its privilege and position: to define horrible social problems which require a privileged upper middle class professional establishment to manage. The fight over the role of government in America today is less ideological than class: the middle middle class and its allies think that the upper middle class and its allies use the state as a system to tax other people to defend the privileged class position of professionals, managers and civil servants. More and better funded university professors; more snooty lawyers with more power; more bureaucrats with life tenure and fat pensions; more money thrown down the rat holes of public schools dominated by self-seeking teacher unions.

To people coming from this (increasingly common) perspective, Democrats actually become much more offensive and patronizing when they embrace what they think of as populist economic rhetoric. When 'populist' Democrats try to respond to public dissatisfaction by offering their services as tribunes of the people out to crush evil monster corporations and vicious robber baron plutocrats with big new government programs, they unintentionally confirm popular suspicions that they are using public grievances to strengthen the class that many Americans think is their real enemy.

The war on upper middle class privilege is the cause today that for better or worse embodies the spirit of American populism. Some Democrats get this; most don't and, probably, sadly, won't.

[manasecret]

Seems kind of silly to me. I don't think government can exist without being patronizing to some people. If the masses (including you and me) don't want anyone telling them what to do, that I think taken to the extreme would be anarchy. The fact is, despite what the masses may think it wants, they/we all do want some form of control, which means someone in power telling people what to do.

But maybe I'm not getting it. Care to elaborate, with examples perhaps?

[Professor S]

Seems kind of silly to me. I don't think government can exist without being patronizing to some people. If the masses (including you and me) don't want anyone telling them what to do, that I think taken to the extreme would be anarchy. The fact is, despite what the masses may think it wants, they/we all do want some form of control, which means someone in power telling people what to do.

But maybe I'm not getting it. Care to elaborate, with examples perhaps?

I didn't that article the same way you did. I don't feel the author is advocating anarchy by any means. I think he was talking about populist arguments in today's day and age, and how the dems are aiming their barbs at an old audience and thats not fitting with today's far more well educated and informed society who have created their own boogeymen and don't need a political party to create them. As Seth Godin says when speaking about social networking technology "No one cares about you, they care about them." This can be translated culturally to massive shifts in how people view politics and governance.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N52OIcwynws&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N52OIcwynws&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Also, anarchy is an unworkable system because inevitably power will recentralize through force, but also keep in mind all government is inherently oppressive. Any law that is passed oppresses all that fall under it. Now many times these laws are necessary to maintain an individual's freedom, such as laws against violent behevior, theft, fraud, etc because those crimes are example of one individual oppressing another. It think we can all agree that it is right for a government to oppress those that would oppress others.

But laws and government can easily grow, often with good intentions, to inhibit one's personal liberty. There cannot be individual liberty without individual responsibility. When a government or organization takes responsibility for an individual, it then controls that individual because he or she is now dependent on it.

In the end, it's a balancing act to decide to what level we wish to be controlled, and I think that is the heart of the debate that is taking place right now.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~ Thomas Paine

[manasecret]

I didn't that article the same way you did. I don't feel the author is advocating anarchy by any means. I think he was talking about populist arguments in today's day and age, and how the dems are aiming their barbs at an old audience and thats not fitting with today's far more well educated and informed society who have created their own boogeymen and don't need a political party to create them. As Seth Godin says when speaking about social networking technology "No one cares about you, they care about them." This can be translated culturally to massive shifts in how people view politics and governance.

Ok I see where I misunderstood his point.

First, to be clear, I didn't mean that the article was advocating anarchy. I meant that by saying "the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy," he in turn seems to be saying that -- taken to the extreme of "no one telling me what to do" -- the masses desire anarchy. He's not advocating it, but saying that the masses want it. But what I was saying (and you pretty much reiterated with the bit about anarchy) -- despite what the masses may think they want, they actually do want some form of government -- and therefore they want some patronizing person or persons at the top telling us what to do or not to do, or as you said oppressing us in some form. So my point was, I see little reason to pander to the desires of the masses that they don't really want despite what they think.

But anyway, I see that I didn't read his point right. And I think my misunderstanding comes down to this quote:

It is extremely difficult for people steeped in this mindset (as I was for many years) to wrap their heads around the core idea powering American politics in the last generation: a revolt by the 'dumbass masses' against this basic social map of the world. Huge chunks of the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy -- it is the liberal world view that they long to be freed of.The part in bold being the key part that I missed. Obviously by his quotes, he means the once uneducated masses are for more educated now, but are still treated as the uneducated, dumbass masses by leaders. So basically our leaders are still operating on the old way of leading the dumbass masses, while the masses have moved on to self-autonomy. The leaders haven't caught on to the open-internet, open-software, open-design, open-ideal that has cropped up with the internet age, the idea behind Wikipedia and Firefox and Linux and Apache and Arduino (open-hardware platform) and on and on where the masses together are more powerful than any one chosen individual or group of individuals.

Does that sound right?

If it does, do you think that's why the Dems are losing control?

[Professor S]

Does that sound right?

If it does, do you think that's why the Dems are losing control?

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. ~ Ayn Rand

[manasecret]

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Then I agree, political leaders on both sides aren't embracing the open-ideal or at least understanding its power over society right now and trying to implement some of it. I hope they do because I see the power everyday of the new socialism (http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism). I know the Obama administration at least made some feigns at opening up the government, though I'm guessing he hasn't succeeded much at that. But I digress.

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time. Even educated people can not possibly be educated about everything, which means they can be swayed by misinformation just as much as the uneducated masses. See the vaccines cause autism (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/) "debate" for a perfect example of what misinformation can do. So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

[Professor S]

So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

[TheGame]

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

Are monopolies the only place where a line should be drawn?

If a company/bank/etc grows to the point where they can destroy the country's economy if they fail.. then they need to be regulated a lot stronger imo. "Too big to fail" shouldn't exist, since it's a threat to our way of life and national security. If a company starts crossing that line, I feel that it's the government's job to protect the masses from them.

Much like a monopoly.

Though it's a very complicated situation.. The best thing to do imo is to prevent things like this from happening, because once they get too big.. it's a situation of being damned if you do something, and damned if you don't. You act on them when they're too big, and it may inspire them to take more risks knowing the government will just save them anyway.. you don't act and there's a financial meltdown. So really the only thing you can do is take steps to prevent AIGs from happening.

As for the whole politic's opinion in that article that was posted, both sides are guilty of that. This is why the Republicans lost power, and why the democrats seem to be losing it now. It's a new era.

[Professor S]

Speaking of populist attacks on business and their consequences...

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks sank, extending the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s biggest three-day tumble since March, as financial shares slumped on President Barack Obama’s plan to rein in banks and results at Google Inc. disappointed investors.

Bank of America Corp. led the S&P 500 Financials Index to a 3.3 percent drop as uncertainty over Ben S. Bernanke’s confirmation for another term as head of the Federal Reserve also weighed on lenders. Google sank 4.3 percent after fourth- quarter sales growth missed the most optimistic of analysts’ estimates. U.S. Steel Corp. fell as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said China’s move to slow its economy will hurt metal producers.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 1.8 percent to 1,096.8 at 3:31 p.m. in New York, erasing its gain for 2010. The gauge has slid 4.7 percent over the past three days as China moved to slow lending and Obama made his proposal. The Dow sank 170.65 points, or 1.6 percent, to 10,219.23 and is down 4.7 percent over the past three days. The VIX, a measure of volatility, jumped 24 percent to 27.67, the highest since November.

“Bernanke is viewed by markets around the world as a positive for the U.S. economy and the uncertainty about his reconfirmation is accelerating today’s sell-off,” said Michael Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion as chairman of Holland & Co. in New York. “Tag that onto the concerns over China’s economy and Washington’s offensive against the banks.”

The S&P 500 is down 4.5 percent since Alcoa Inc. started the fourth-quarter earnings season on Jan. 11 with lower-than- estimated profit. Analyst forecast earnings grew 73 percent in the October-December period following a record nine quarter slump.

Banks Slump

Morgan Stanley lost 4.5 percent to $28.2, Bank of America fell 2.7 percent to $15.06 and Goldman Sachs declined 3.2 percent to $155.69. The S&P 500 Financials Index has slipped 6 percent over the past two days, its biggest decline since September.

Obama yesterday called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce risk- taking and prevent another financial crisis. The proposals, to be added to an overhaul of regulations being considered by Congress, would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds.

Meredith Whitney, the banking analyst who forecast Citigroup Inc.’s dividend cut in 2008, said Obama’s plan will probably be approved and may “dramatically” reduce trading profits.

Is this how he planned to address the economy after the Mass. Senate upset? By attacking financial institutions in a recession? Is this going to create jobs? Is this going to spur lending and investment?

I simply disagree with Pres. Obama... My 401K plan has hired a hitman. :lol:

[Acebot44]

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time.

Good hunch.

Check this shit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html) out.

[The Germanator]

Good hunch.

Check this shit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html) out.

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.

[Professor S]

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.

Honestly, corporate entities and other special interest groups regardless of political alignment never stopped financing campaigns. The McCain/Feingold legislation only required that they set up subsidiary organizations to then funnel funds to candidates and "non-affiliated" ad campaigns. George Soros has been doing this for years.

All this ruling does is put it out in the open so you know whose money is going where, instead of the money coming from "Concerned Citizens for _________."

EDIT: Here is little more of the court's ruling, without Huffington's decidedly biased quoting:

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

So in the end, corporations/unions/organizations and other special interests may be required to add disclosure to their speech regarding campaign finance, but it is unconstitutional to prohibit that speech (1st Amendment). If you actually believe in the Constitution (Justice Steven's never really has), there isn't any basis to keep large orgs from financing and campaigning for candidates.

[TheGame]

I guess the bright side to this, is that the democrats have grown a backbone now. They've been coming out a lot stronger now.. But we'll see.

[Jason1]

I heard this guy used to be a nude model.

[Professor S]

I heard this guy used to be a nude model.

LOL! Did you hear that from Olberman, or when Jon Stewart mocked Olberman?

And here is the proof:

http://bostonist.com/attachments/rickbang/scott-brown.JPG

And his hot daughter...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/gospelsoundcheck/Alya_Brown_American_Idol_season5.jpg

[The Germanator]

And you can see his future wife give a bottle of suntan lotion a hand job in this video.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QLvwc3W_KwM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QLvwc3W_KwM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yee-ha.

[Professor S]

I love how some leftists in the media are feigning "outrage" at stuff like this, while they all love Pres. Clinton who got blown in the oval office. You can cut the agenda-driven politics, self-righteousness and hypocrisy with a knife.

[The Germanator]

I love how some leftists in the media are feigning "outrage" at stuff like this, while they all love Pres. Clinton who got blown in the oval office. You can cut the agenda-driven politics, self-righteousness and hypocrisy with a knife.

I completely I agree. I mean, I find this stuff funny, but nothing about it says that Mr. Brown shouldn't be a senator. Much the same as it didn't reflect on the political skills of President Clinton.

Some friends and I were talking about this in the bar a few weeks ago. For anyone born in this day and age, is there anyone without something slightly embarrassing about them on the internet? I mean, how soon is it that we'll have a sex tape President and it won't really matter? I could see it happening in my lifetime. I mean, to an extent I don't care, but I still think John Edwards is a douchebag for what he did even though that doesn't necessarily relate directly to politics.

[Professor S]

I completely I agree. I mean, I find this stuff funny, but nothing about it says that Mr. Brown shouldn't be a senator. Much the same as it didn't reflect on the political skills of President Clinton.

Some friends and I were talking about this in the bar a few weeks ago. For anyone born in this day and age, is there anyone without something slightly embarrassing about them on the internet? I mean, how soon is it that we'll have a sex tape President and it won't really matter? I could see it happening in my lifetime. I mean, to an extent I don't care, but I still think John Edwards is a douchebag for what he did even though that doesn't necessarily relate directly to politics.

Good point about the age of the internet and politics. All skeletons will be public knowledge eventually. I smoked pot in college. If I wanted to run for office one day, I'd hate for that to be the reason I lost an election, but then again Pres. Obama already broke that glass ceiling by admitting he even did cocaine.

We are quickly becoming a very permissive society, for good and ill.

[manasecret]

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

I feel like you're going on tangents here, which is fine, but I'm a little slow and I'm not following your main point that followed mine, which I think has something to do with the "shepherding leaders" taking too much control/power. Care to elaborate?

As for the banks, do you not think the banks that were too big to fail should be regulated so that they're not too big to fail, and regulated so that they can't take enormous risky investments that cause the whole economy to implode because of it? It seems like the overall message to the huge banks from the recession and the bailouts is that it's okay for them to make very risky investments, because the government will back them up in the end. It seems to me that message needs to change.

[Professor S]

I feel like you're going on tangents here, which is fine, but I'm a little slow and I'm not following your main point that followed mine, which I think has something to do with the "shepherding leaders" taking too much control/power. Care to elaborate?

I don't think leadership necessrily requires seizing control. My examples given where showing how confusing leadership and control can create oppression, and that relates directly to points I made in earlier posts. To me, it's all interrelated.

As for the banks, do you not think the banks that were too big to fail should be regulated so that they're not too big to fail, and regulated so that they can't take enormous risky investments that cause the whole economy to implode because of it?

I never criticized regulation, I criticized verbally attacking the industry as a whole like a child would attack another on a school bus. Pres. Obama's speech regarding regulation wasn't about pragmatic realities of business and their potential pitfalls; it was about creating an enemy and punishing that enemy. On numerous occassions he has intoned "Fat Cats" to describe bankers. The regulations/taxes themselves are supposed to have loans paid back, but they tax all financial institutions, even those that paid back the loan with interest and those that never took money in the first place. The worst part was that he criticized the entire industry for becoming profitable again, and that was the whole point of the bailout in the first place. It's populist nonsense.

To top it off, other organizations who took massive bailouts will have to pay nothing, and it's very curious that it is the same businesses that the government now partially owns or runs, which takes me back to the point about the corrupting power of centralized control.

If this regulation/tax had been proposed with an even keel, I don't think the markets would have reacted the way that they did and politization needed never take place. Charles Krauthammer made the point that if this tax was levied to pay back what is currently owed, AND to save in the event of a future calamity so there is a large reserve of cash available for a bail-out with no or limited borrowing needed, then reason would have reigned and this would have been seen as a smart regulation.

Instead, he called them poop-heads and decided to take their lunch money. The truth is, Pres. Obama looks like a man looking for a fight with private industry (he even said as much), instead of a President wanting to work with them for future success and stability, and that is a huge character flaw and as the article points out, a tactic that may come to bite him in the ass come election time.

It seems like the overall message to the huge banks from the recession and the bailouts is that it's okay for them to make very risky investments, because the government will back them up in the end. It seems to me that message needs to change.

Keep in mind, regulations also helped create risk that made the eventual fall take place. Google the history of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). Basically, in the 90's this Carter era act was expanded to encourage lending to lower income customers, and preferential treatment was given to lenders who gave out loans to this risky group, and this created many of the risky loan products that are now vilified today (like sub-prime mortgages, etc.). The nature of the market took over selling these unnatural products.

These risky loans where packaged and sold as high-risk but high-profit investments, demand grew as returns poured in and before you knew it no one was noticing these loans were coming due and no one could pay for them (as much a fault of the homeowner as the lender). There is plenty of blame to go around, but remember, it was government intervention that started this economic snowball rolling. Poor risk management by financial institutions was just the last phase of this disaster.

Personally, I think the best way to regulate and keep this happening ever again would be to limit the re-sale of mortgages as equities. Either declare that the originator of a loan must keep it for the life of the loan, or mandate a 5-10 year time span of ownership before that loan can then be re-sold. That way originators will have to be accountable for the loan product they sell. Will this eliminate the origination industry? Maybe. Will it mean a whole lot of people won't be able to get approved for loans to buy homes (because they can't afford them in the first place)? Certainly. In my opinion that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[TheGame]

Keep in mind, regulations also helped create risk that made the eventual fall take place. Google the history of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). Basically, in the 90's this Carter era act was expanded to encourage lending to lower income customers, and preferential treatment was given to lenders who gave out loans to this risky group, and this created many of the risky loan products that are now vilified today (like sub-prime mortgages, etc.). The nature of the market took over selling these unnatural products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I think deregulation caused a much bigger problem much faster.