[Tuttyd]

Just conceding a point to move along.



That's hardly an assumption I would have made. They're all hypocrites, I was merely pointing out their populist pretense. It's preached here at AMHD every day.

Fair enough, but don't you think that the 'ruling elites' are worth going after? I certainly didn't expect anyone to believe me when I raised the issue a number of times in the past.

'Ruling elites' could easily be considered a throwaway term, but when a 'right wing' academic makes similar claims... Well, don't you think they are of worthwhile significance?


Tut

[tomder55]

Codevilla is clear that he pins the intellectual origins of the 'ruling elite 'on the progressive movement dating back to Wilsonian times. So if it is a matter of both sides feeding the beast ;he would more than likely pin the blame on progressive liberal Democrats ,and non-conservative Repubis... RINOs who would like to continue the current Leviathan ,thus protecting their own status . I've read subsequent interviews of Codevilla ,and he definitely has some Tea Party sympathies .

[talaniman]

Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. That's why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.

I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, We were ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!

[tomder55]

Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. Thats why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.

I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, WE WAS ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!!!!

Clearly you are wrong. Tut will tell you that the ruling elites are not engaged in capitalism and the free market at all. More to the truth ;the relationship between the ruling elites and the economy is state managed rent seeking cronyism .I argue it more resembles national socialism ;but whatever it's called ,it isn't free market.

[talaniman]

Whatever name you call it, the main point is who controls it.

[speechlesstx]

Capitalism and the free markets is the domain of the ruling elites, and supply side economics is their favored tool of extractionism. They have decide NOT to trickle their success down, and they are defended by those that benefit from that choice, the lawmaker they have bought, not just here but around the world. Thats why the debt, deficit are but distractions from the real life solving of immediate problems that hold us back, unemployment and corporate welfare.

I have been railing against the ruling elite and the oligarchy they have created since day one of these threads, and will continue to argue the obvious, WE WAS ROBBED, and need to get the varmits that did it and put 'em in jail, and get our money back!!!!!

That was the point of my comment, you rail against it but support the progressives and their populist pretense who engage in it.

[talaniman]

I support allowing the demand to be put back into the economic equation through circulation while you think the nanny state makes people dependent. Taxing the one that stole is something I support, and ending corporate welfare. Unlike you who think that balancing a budget on the backs of woman, children, and old people, and the poor is okay.

The broken business model creates poor people who need assistance. Wall Street and the banks have long since weened themselves from the American economy for cheap third world nations and governments, after they sucked us dry.

Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.

[speechlesstx]

I support allowing the demand to be put back into the economic equation thru circulation while you think the nanny state makes people dependent. Taxing the one that stole is something I support, and ending corporate welfare. Unlike you who think that balancing a budget on the backs of woman, children, and old people, and the poor is okay.

The broken business model creates poor people who need assistance. Wall Street and the banks have long since weened themselves from the American economy for cheap third world nations and governments, after they sucked us dry.

Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.

Right on cue.

[paraclete]

Stop pretending you even know what progressives want because obviously you don't. You rather let people be beholden to the charity of the rich elite and the CHURCH.

I hear there are some very progressive people among the Republicans Tal, at the moment they appear to be advancing to the rear but that maybe a tactic to fool us all, no doubt a very progressive fillabuster will be unveiled and another year of unprogress will ensue

[tomder55]

Oh they are there . Just look at the over the top reaction by McCain and Lindsey Graham to the Rand Paul filibuster .

[Tuttyd]

clearly you are wrong. tut will tell you that the ruling elites are not engaged in capitalism and the free market at all. More to the truth ;the relationship between the ruling elites and the economy is state managed rent seeking cronyism .I argue it more resembles national socialism ;but whatever it's called ,it aint free market.

This is pretty much my view, but I would actually go a bit further.

Corporatism is another name for modern capitalism. Corporatism is nothing like free market capitalism. Capitalism and free markets are terms that have probably become redundant in this day and age.

Yes it is cronyism. Both parties have their corporate cronies to pander to. You can call it national socialism if you like but I think corporatist politics is more like a feudal system.

Political corporatism is far more insidious and far more invasive than free market capitalism. If Tal replaced "free market capitalism" with "political corporatism" then he makes some very good points.

I have elaborated on a definition of political corporatism in the past. I won't go into that again unless requested.

Tut

[tomder55]

Some more on the unintended consequences of the horrible Dodd-Frank Law...

The Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to end "too big to fail" banking. But the costly red tape it's dumping on the industry is only causing more consolidation and concentration.

A new report by the FDIC shows community banks, already struggling from the weak economy, are having a hard time wading through the tsunami of new financial rules.

In fact, the regulatory burden has halted the growth of these smaller banks in their tracks. No new community bank charters have been granted since 2011 due in large part to Dodd-Frank.

And the FDIC says the "full impact" from the law won't be known for several years. That's because the worst is yet to come.

FDIC Report: Dodd-Frank's Costly Rules Are Killing Community Banks - Investors.com

The law has spawned a cottage industry — dubbed Dodd-Frank Inc. — just to cope with all the new rules.

The regulatory onslaught is a boon only for lawyers and government workers.

Implementing Dodd-Frank required 2,850 additional federal employees just in its first two years — at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion.

To sum it up... our attempts to impose further regulation on the financial sector are leading to even more consolidation and concentration in banking ,leading to larger financial institutions that will be deemed "too big to fail" . Bigger banks are in a better position to absorb the costs of regulatory compliance compared to their smaller competitors, which is why they don't object to their imposition and sometimes even embrace or even advocate them .

[speechlesstx]

That's exactly right.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

To sum it up... our attempts to impose further regulation on the financial sector are leading to even more consolidation and concentration in banking ,leading to larger financial institutions that will be deemed "too big to fail"

I don't know. If the banks KNEW that they'd be broken up IF they consolidated, they WOULDN'T consolidate.

We need to start running THEM, instead of them running US.

Excon

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

I dunno. If the banks KNEW that they'd be broken up IF they consolidated, they WOULDN'T consolidate.

We need to start running THEM, instead of them running US.

excon

That's fine with me . That would be structural reform( like returning Glass- Steagall)... not regulate the small ones out of business.

[talaniman]

that's fine with me . That would be structural reform( like returning Glass- Steagall) ... not regulate the small ones out of business.

I fully agree with Glass-Steagall, but regulating small banks out of business I would have to investigate further because I think the big banks are the enemy of the small banks more than any regulation, correct me if I am wrong.

[tomder55]

The big banks would not be buying up the small ones if the owners of the small ones weren't putting the banks up for sale. The FDIC report suggests that owners of small banks are increasingly burdened by regulation and cannot afford compliance. The report said that the big banks can hire the extra regulatory staff ;and even outside consultants to interpret all the new laws. The small one's can't .

[talaniman]

Not that I disagree but a link to that report would be helpful to me, but I have these reports I have been studying.

U.S. GAO - Financial Institutions: Causes and Consequences of Recent Failures of Community Banks

http://www.heterodoxnews.com/htnf/htn71/10466211.pdf

They both deal with the real processes of bank management up to and through out the financial down turn.

[tomder55]

Sure... here is the key paragraph from Apendix B of the report (to save you a lot of reading )

Interview participants were asked several questions to determine what drives regulatory compliance costs at their institution and, specifically, which rules, regulations, and supervisory practices had the greatest effect on their operations. Most interview participants stated that no one regulation or practice had a significant effect on their institution. Instead, most stated that the strain on their organization came from the cumulative effects of all the regulatory requirements that have built up over time. To support this statement, many of the interview participants indicated that they have increased staff over the past ten years to support the enhanced responsibility associated with regulatory compliance. In addition, at least one-half of the interview participants noted that because of the cumulative effects of regulations on their institution, the amount of time each employee, not just those focused solely on compliance, spent completing duties associated with regulatory compliance had increased over the past 5 years

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reso...t/cbi-full.pdf

[paraclete]

Well what do you want to know? Regulation is a growth industry. You can't have laws without growth in compliance costs