darkdog, I know you love capitalism and free economy. That's great, and you're loving what is natural, we are born and made to barter and trade for survival. This generates competition to produce the best products and services. this is to our advantage to be competitive although it has its dark side which is corruption, of which, when runs unmonitored, can result in very bad things happening when obscene greed is what generated the lending boom that they knew all along could not be sustained for long and yet despite this, they kept selling the loans on the open markets unchecked.
It was greed and corruption that crumbled the all mighty Wall Street and the government, both Democrats and Republicans agreed to mind their own business and not interfere and started repealing bit by bit of the Glass Steagall act. The Glass Steagall Act, aka government regulation, is what kept the economy secure for 45 years. Practically the year after the first repeal of the Glass Steagall act, Wall Street got greedy and the first financial crisis hits. The next repeal leading to less government regulation led to another hard hit on the economy, anyone remember Savings and Loans Crisis?
When Wall Street got deregulated, there was no one around keeping an eye on their activities and holding them accountable. It's like letting wild dogs loose. Wall Streeters are type-A personalities who love having money and power and control. They want more and more which means having so much control that consumers buy their products. Monsanto is a perfect example of that. Meanwhile, banks got greedy selling loans on the open market, hence the easy lending years. But when the banks they borrowed the money from came a-calling for their dues, the smaller banks panicked and in a very underhanded way, endeavoured to foreclose America. They did this by claims of not receiving payments to illegally adjusting the interest rates making monthly mortgage payments go up forcing people to foreclose. bankers just wanted to sell those houses fast and get their money to pay the big banks. it was an utter mess.
It is neither a leftist nor rightist issue to demand the government holds Wall Street accountable for ripping off America and violating the laws. It's a people's issue. Wall Street doesn't care if you're Democrat or Republican, they care about getting your money even if that means fucking you over.
Wall Street convinced the government deregulation would be better for the economy, but the truth is, the economy was stable for 45 years when it was regulated. History speaks for itself.
Trade and competition is healthy and normal and vital and it's very good for the economy. Corruption and greed running rampant unmonitored and unchecked is not.
The people have the right to demand the government to fire Wall Street advisers who were among the responsible parties for the 2008 collapse.
It's not a leftist thing to demand Wall Street get a leash so they don't run roughshod over America and leave a trail behind them of devastated people, who are both Democrats and Republicans.
This is what OWS about and I'm pissed off that the media is focusing on bad behaviour of some of the protestors and I'm pissed off at those protestors for being so stupid and destroying the message of the cause they claim to uphold.
Let me make several points. Some of your post covers things I've already addressed, so forgive me if some of this sounds familiar.
1. It seems absurd now, but most people couldn't see the crash coming. There were a handful that predicted it, but bubbles continue as long as it's not commonly accepted that the assets aren't worth much.
2. Regulation is good and necessary, but it's a matter of good regulation vs. bad regulation. I'm thinking that the mere complexity of the laws and regulations makes them counterproductive. I think they should be relatively few, relatively simple, and strictly and evenly enforced. That way, everyone including lenders, regulators, and the general public can understand the rules of the game with relative ease.
3. Wall Street was never deregulated. Finance is about the most heavily regulated industry out there. You're acting as if it's unregulated because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. It's so heavily regulated that banks have to get regulator approval to make everyday business decisions. It's also false that regulations decreased under Bush. Regulatory spending across the board increased by 62%.
4. You've talked before about the success of Canada's regulations. Canada got rid of their version of Glass-Steagall years before the US. Their regulators allowed banks to buy the same securities. There were other factors at play.
5. The bankers should be prosecuted when it can be proven they broke the law, but at the same time, they shouldn't be prosecuted if lawlessness can't be proven even if what they did is wrong. With so many laws and loopholes on the books to be exploited, there are too many ways they can legally act unethically. It's the law of unintended consequences. Here's some reading:
Why no Wall St. bigwig has been prosecuted - Business - US business - msnbc.com
6. Whatever Wall Street fraud did occur, the crisis happened because of a mortgage boom limited to just a few markets resulting from a variety of factors, including Fed interest rates, local housing policies (namely land use restrictions), and government policies pushing for lower lending standards.
7. I agree with the movement on the unholy union of big business and big government. Where we disagree is the solution. They want to crack down on big business, but that involves making the government even more powerful. I think that will only make things worse. The more powerful government is, the more it will attract rent seekers looking for favorable treatment. They'll pass some law to crack down on some problem, but carve out exceptions for their donors. The more complex the rules and arbitrary the power, the more they can do this and the harder it is for the public to follow what's happening. Regulatory reform and tax reform are what's needed to break up the unholy union, but politicians don't like giving up their tools of influence.
8. I call it a mainly leftist movement not because of the desire to punish lawlessness among financiers, but because of all the leftist sentiment. It's filled with anti-capitalism messages, anti-business rhetoric, and complaining about the inequality of wealth. The idea that this is a leftist gathering is not controversial.
They don't like cameras much.
