I’m saying that no amount of financial regulation can forever eliminate economic downturns. You are saying that we are on the cliff of an economic abyss because we haven’t yet rounded up the bankers and put them in prisons.
There is a slight difference between the two points; and I would say that your view is not within the mainstream.
So, back to my question: when is this economic catastrophe supposed to happen, roughly speaking?
Roughly speaking, sometime in the next 50 years.
Well, fuck it. I’m buying gold.
You might want to stock up on bottle caps, water and ammo as well…
(I would say food too, but you can always find some iguana-on-a-stick, seemingly)
-XT
There is this:
If you do not think the wealthy get different treatment with the law than the rest of us you are not paying attention.
I don’t know much about the specifics, but it sounds to me as if the SEC didn’t feel they had sufficient evidence to guarantee a conviction (in which they would have gotten perhaps even more penalties out of the accused), so instead they settled for what amounted to a plea bargain.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
If you do not think the wealthy get different treatment with the law than the rest of us you are not paying attention.
[/QUOTE]
I think the wealthy don’t necessarily get better treatment than the rest of us, just that they can afford to hire the finest legal professionals in the country…so, if you want to go after them you have to ensure that you have all your ducks in a row and all the T’s crossed and I’s dotted. And that this makes it easier for the rich to get away with things that someone like you or I would find much more serious. But there are limits, and the types of stuff DD was talking about…well, at a minimum we would have seen similar slaps on similar wrists if there was evidence of illegal activity.
Here’s the thing, from my perspective. I spent the last several years hearing all about illegal this and illegal that on this board. To me, it’s become almost a cry of ‘Wolf!’. I’m HIGHLY skeptical when someone plays the ‘they are doing illegal things’ card at this point. I find it incredibly hard to take serious unless I see real evidence that real legal proceedings are happening. You might take it as an article of faith that the rich just get away with everything, regardless, and that politicians can do whatever they please, breaking laws whenever they want and they will get away with it…but I don’t. I realize that these things do happen…but not across the board in all cases every time. I have no doubt that some illegal or at least hinky shenanigans were going on before and throughout the melt down. What I don’t believe is that if there is real, solid proof and evidence, and that nothing, absolutely nothing is or was done. I just don’t believe it. It’s not an article of faith with me that everything is filled with corruption, that the rich or the politicians can do anything they want any time they want it, and that regardless of evidence they can just walk away, Scott Free. YMMV…obviously DD’s does.
-XT
What do you want him to do, make a legal case against them? Dick named names, he explained what they did, and there are a LOT of people who agree with Dick. “Rolling Stone” had an EXCELLENT article on the bank theft (i.e., banks robbing the rest of us) by Matt Taibbi recently. Very compelling. An SEC investigator who was actually trying to make a case against Fuld was chased off the task by his boss’s boss’s boss. Cause that’s the kinda reach the bankers have.
Case in point: the recent budget deal. The tenor I got from the comments I read on this issue was this: “The President should’ve stood his ground against the demands from the other side of the aisle and let the government shut down. If he’d told the truth [as they see it] often enough and loudly enough about how the Republicans are to blame, he would’ve been believed, and the Republicans would’ve backed down.”
See, I can’t help but be a little skeptical about such confidence that that’s how it would’ve played out.
Or maybe they’re saying “we don’t care if the Republicans would’ve backed down or not; he shouldn’t have made any deals because what they want is objectively bad for the country and the economy in particular, and allowing such things to get anywhere close to enacted is bad for us all.” Fine, and I know what conservatives would say to that, but I wonder (as I wondered in the thread in the OP) how many liberal voters in general actually think so too to the extent the Kos commenters seem to think it (no matter what they’re “actually” saying)?
Because they (seem to) HATE him about now. Which, considering the approval ratings I’ve seen quoted occasionally (even on that very blog), doesn’t seem to match up with the general population, IIRC.
I dunno, maybe I’m going back to the question I asked in the OP: if I were to read the commenters of a partisan blog, how likely is it that they actually reflect the general voting population of their side of the aisle? I guess that question and my OP’s are connected…
Adding that I think I finally figured out what was bothering me.
I absolutely sympathize with arguments that Obama should be making his case to the American people more forcefully, and that he hasn’t fought hard enough for key issues that his constituency cares about. That is absolutely a discussion worth having, and I think a strong case could be made for that.
But I get the sense from many of the comments that they think that (to take the budget deal as a single example of many) if Obama had only insulted the Republicans to the press at every opportunity, repeating over and over why he and other Democrats are The Good Guys, and not even tried to engage with the Republicans at all, that everything would’ve turned out fine - that the shutdown wouldn’t have undone any public goodwill (or that it wouldn’t have mattered “for the greater good” or what have you) and that the Republicans would’ve caved without getting anything they wanted because the public would be blaming them mostly or exclusively.
Maybe that’s not what they’re saying, but I got that impression, and while it MIGHT have ended up that way, there’s a certain confidence to it that I just don’t share. That’s the problem I have with a lot of partisan blogs of any stripe: they seem to think that the political landscape is less complex than (I, at least, think) it is.
I think that’s why I started this thread in the first place: to ask, is it really that simple? Could just being forceful in the public message (however you want to interpret “forceful”) and not compromising really all you need to do to get everything you want?
Am I making sense here? It’s late, so I’m not sure. 
It sure works for the Republicans. And there’s no point in compromising with the Republicans unless they are willing to compromise too, and they haven’t been willing to do so for years. It’s not “compromise” when one side just constantly gives into the demands of the other for no return.
Fine, but my point (and main musing) was that I’m still not sure that doing all of that necessarily means that the Democrats will get everything they want. As for it working for the Republicans, well, given their vast differences in voter bases, beliefs, rhetorical tactics, media “friends”, and backers, is it really such a foregone conclusion to say Democrats could do exactly the same things and have equal success?
I mean, at the very least, assuming what you say above is true, surely a tactic that works when just one side is doing it becomes at least a little less effective when BOTH sides are?
Okay, now I know I’m losing coherency. Off to bed.
I should add that it might be a politically smart path to rally the base and to get their message out to independent/undecided voters. I’m just not sure you can say with a huge degree of confidence that it will, in the short term, actually get them what they want.
Well doing as Obama and the Dems have BEEN doing has sure as all hell ensured that the REPUBLICANS get all they want, and that is NOT why I voted for Obama. If I’d wanted THAT, I could have simply voted for McCain.
Yes. Even if the only result is a complete deadlock, that’s still better than what actually is happening. Getting nothing is better than getting worse than nothing.
And at any rate, I really really doubt that the Republicans will ever change their policy of total intransigence as long as it continues to get them what they want. Why would they? If the Democrats actually want the Republicans to ever compromise, then they need to stop simply handing over whatever the Republicans demand for nothing.
I have said in the past, and I will repeat - I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that the Democrats have bee too nice. They need to do what so many Dopers want them to to.
Obama and the Dems need to go into attack mode.
Every ad should be negative. Every speech should be dedicated to excoriating the evils of Republicans. No compromises - it’s whatever Obama says, or nothing. Dig your heels in, and make sure you make it clear that you will never give in to those evil, nasty Republicans.
Everything that’s wrong with the country is 100% the fault of the GOP. The GOP is evil, their motives are bad, they hate everyone, and the only chance the country has to survive is to drive them out forever.
Carthago delenda est. Make sure you end every speech with that.
Regards,
Shodan
[..]
You wanted names of two or three people who I thought should have been charged over the financial meltdown. I gave you the names of three people, one of whom was actually charged, and two other guys who undoubtedly would have faced charges had the government not decided to give everybody involved a pass when it came to criminal proceedings. Can I ask you, do you think that there wasn’t any criminality going on in the financial community during the 2000s bubble?
The Democrats pooched that screw that when they did not come out and meet those Tea Partiers during the Healthcare townhall debates and Washington DC protests.
Those crowds of 100,000 or more that we recently saw in Wisconsin, which the media went out of their way to avoid covering? That many liberals should have shown up to challenge the Tea Party.
Obama got weak in the knees because his base got weak in the knees first.
Conservatives don’t act so bold when they’re up against an equal opposition that simply will not back down any more than they will.
See post #67.
Regards,
Shodan
Way to selectively edit my statements. Is this how you intend to debate the subject?
I stated that your point, that failure to arrest bankers is an absolute guarantee of financial meltdown, is a fringe opinion. I stand by that. Your debating tactics only seem to reinforce that your arguments are not to be seriously considered.
I’m saying there will be financial good times and bad, but your point that we are letting bankers get away with murder has no direct bearing on the issue. Arresting “all” bankers, as you initially suggested, or just a lot of them as you later stated, has no effect on the fundamental fact of life that there is a business cycle.
I note that I’ve asked you several times when to expect the next financial crisis, and I don’t see that you’ve responded.