Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patb
Participant[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.
between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.
Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.
Participant[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.
between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.
Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.
Participant[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.
between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.
Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.
Participant[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.
between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.
Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.
Participant[quote=davelj]Trying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
[/quote]All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.
between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.
Reagan sold these ideas, and it became part of GOP doctrine.
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pat: Fairly high level of discontent, and largely due to (IMHO): Government policies, especially annexation of land (and these policies are enforced by extremely corrupt local officials who are far away from Beijing), as well as the perception that, while are many are getting rich in China, far more are not. The disparities are striking, especially when you travel outside of the cities.
It does have the feel of a Potemkin Village. This is going to sound terrible, but China is a filthy country. For all of the talk of China “seeing the light” regarding pollution controls and climate change, its largely untrue. China is pursuing a policy of explosive growth, regardless of the cost. They need to maintain certain growth targets in order to keep social peace, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens when they run out of road. Which they will.[/quote]
when were you out in the hills?
i know the water pollution is awful and the air pollution makes most of the air unbreathable.
the trick is what’s the issue?
are they ad because the environment is bad or because they don’t have cars and crap?
Are they mad because they don’t have wives or
the rich guys have 3?Are they going to start shooting rich people or go to war on russia?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pat: Fairly high level of discontent, and largely due to (IMHO): Government policies, especially annexation of land (and these policies are enforced by extremely corrupt local officials who are far away from Beijing), as well as the perception that, while are many are getting rich in China, far more are not. The disparities are striking, especially when you travel outside of the cities.
It does have the feel of a Potemkin Village. This is going to sound terrible, but China is a filthy country. For all of the talk of China “seeing the light” regarding pollution controls and climate change, its largely untrue. China is pursuing a policy of explosive growth, regardless of the cost. They need to maintain certain growth targets in order to keep social peace, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens when they run out of road. Which they will.[/quote]
when were you out in the hills?
i know the water pollution is awful and the air pollution makes most of the air unbreathable.
the trick is what’s the issue?
are they ad because the environment is bad or because they don’t have cars and crap?
Are they mad because they don’t have wives or
the rich guys have 3?Are they going to start shooting rich people or go to war on russia?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pat: Fairly high level of discontent, and largely due to (IMHO): Government policies, especially annexation of land (and these policies are enforced by extremely corrupt local officials who are far away from Beijing), as well as the perception that, while are many are getting rich in China, far more are not. The disparities are striking, especially when you travel outside of the cities.
It does have the feel of a Potemkin Village. This is going to sound terrible, but China is a filthy country. For all of the talk of China “seeing the light” regarding pollution controls and climate change, its largely untrue. China is pursuing a policy of explosive growth, regardless of the cost. They need to maintain certain growth targets in order to keep social peace, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens when they run out of road. Which they will.[/quote]
when were you out in the hills?
i know the water pollution is awful and the air pollution makes most of the air unbreathable.
the trick is what’s the issue?
are they ad because the environment is bad or because they don’t have cars and crap?
Are they mad because they don’t have wives or
the rich guys have 3?Are they going to start shooting rich people or go to war on russia?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pat: Fairly high level of discontent, and largely due to (IMHO): Government policies, especially annexation of land (and these policies are enforced by extremely corrupt local officials who are far away from Beijing), as well as the perception that, while are many are getting rich in China, far more are not. The disparities are striking, especially when you travel outside of the cities.
It does have the feel of a Potemkin Village. This is going to sound terrible, but China is a filthy country. For all of the talk of China “seeing the light” regarding pollution controls and climate change, its largely untrue. China is pursuing a policy of explosive growth, regardless of the cost. They need to maintain certain growth targets in order to keep social peace, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens when they run out of road. Which they will.[/quote]
when were you out in the hills?
i know the water pollution is awful and the air pollution makes most of the air unbreathable.
the trick is what’s the issue?
are they ad because the environment is bad or because they don’t have cars and crap?
Are they mad because they don’t have wives or
the rich guys have 3?Are they going to start shooting rich people or go to war on russia?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pat: Fairly high level of discontent, and largely due to (IMHO): Government policies, especially annexation of land (and these policies are enforced by extremely corrupt local officials who are far away from Beijing), as well as the perception that, while are many are getting rich in China, far more are not. The disparities are striking, especially when you travel outside of the cities.
It does have the feel of a Potemkin Village. This is going to sound terrible, but China is a filthy country. For all of the talk of China “seeing the light” regarding pollution controls and climate change, its largely untrue. China is pursuing a policy of explosive growth, regardless of the cost. They need to maintain certain growth targets in order to keep social peace, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens when they run out of road. Which they will.[/quote]
when were you out in the hills?
i know the water pollution is awful and the air pollution makes most of the air unbreathable.
the trick is what’s the issue?
are they ad because the environment is bad or because they don’t have cars and crap?
Are they mad because they don’t have wives or
the rich guys have 3?Are they going to start shooting rich people or go to war on russia?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
China is one of the countries I don’t do business in (Russia is another) and for a variety of reasons, the main one being that they don’t pay their bills. Another significant reason is that China is actually getting more dangerous than people realize and the government has less control than people think. You leave the shiny new cities and get out into the countryside and the vibe completely changes and not in a good way.Most westerners don’t leave the cities, however, and thus don’t see this.[/quote]
what is the vibe in the countryside?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
China is one of the countries I don’t do business in (Russia is another) and for a variety of reasons, the main one being that they don’t pay their bills. Another significant reason is that China is actually getting more dangerous than people realize and the government has less control than people think. You leave the shiny new cities and get out into the countryside and the vibe completely changes and not in a good way.Most westerners don’t leave the cities, however, and thus don’t see this.[/quote]
what is the vibe in the countryside?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
China is one of the countries I don’t do business in (Russia is another) and for a variety of reasons, the main one being that they don’t pay their bills. Another significant reason is that China is actually getting more dangerous than people realize and the government has less control than people think. You leave the shiny new cities and get out into the countryside and the vibe completely changes and not in a good way.Most westerners don’t leave the cities, however, and thus don’t see this.[/quote]
what is the vibe in the countryside?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
China is one of the countries I don’t do business in (Russia is another) and for a variety of reasons, the main one being that they don’t pay their bills. Another significant reason is that China is actually getting more dangerous than people realize and the government has less control than people think. You leave the shiny new cities and get out into the countryside and the vibe completely changes and not in a good way.Most westerners don’t leave the cities, however, and thus don’t see this.[/quote]
what is the vibe in the countryside?
-
AuthorPosts
