Taibbi on Sandy

[jk]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

imo people who think about the financial system the way it is discussed on this site realize that, vis a vis wall st. and the banking system, it doesn't matter which candidate wins. so the decision for them gets down to social issues, supreme court appointments, and so on. i also think health care/obamacare is an issue some people care about. [fwiw, i think it's a step forward in broadening coverage, and also a step forward in accelerating the eventual cost crisis through its sweetheart deals with the insurers and big pharma.] i'll probably vote for gary johnson if he's on the ballot in my state, just to make a [very small] statement. my presidential vote won't matter anyway, since i don't live in a swing state.

[shiny!]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

imo people who think about the financial system the way it is discussed on this site realize that, vis a vis wall st. and the banking system, it doesn't matter which candidate wins. so the decision for them gets down to social issues, supreme court appointments, and so on.

+1. Yep. Yes sirree. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson (Libertarian) as well.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

Thank you once again for cutting to the chase. I agree with your conclusions.

And I don't totally disagree with Taibbi. He's clearly to the Left, but then I've never heard him claim total objectivity and bias-free opinion - unlike so many in the present "media".

Yeah. I don't think Taibbi hit the point with this piece either. He should stick to poking the FIRE. He's good at it.

I hate the media around election day.

If one were to read it and believe it, one would come to the conclusion that there were no objective truths about America's realist position in the world. You could believe that there is nothing definitively good for the nation as a nation. Somehow, we're all supposed to think that everything's relative, America operates in a vacuum, and there aren't competitors out there. So we compete with ourselves, blow up trivialities, and get really worked up about some candidate.

It's silly. But that's silly season for you.

[flintlock]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

Key phrase in this discussion is "legitimate function of govt" or at least a govt with an appropriate response to problems. I dont know many except the most extreme who dont want disaster relief on the list of legitimate functions. Its stuff like this below that most critics of big govt are really talking about.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/r...ch-ar-2333362/

[charliebrown]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

+1 on most of that. I'm voting Johnson. I don't know if i like the idea of taxing middleclass people who cannot afford insurance, and lowering my health care spending account limits. I now cannot cover my out of pocket costs with my flex spending account. whats up with that?

Im afraid the o-care will make more red-tape and even suck more money doing paper work and less doing real medicine.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

Key phrase in this discussion is "legitimate function of govt" or at least a govt with an appropriate response to problems. I dont know many except the most extreme who dont want disaster relief on the list of legitimate functions. Its stuff like this below that most critics of big govt are really talking about.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/r...ch-ar-2333362/

Yeah, but that's the type of writing that divides people unnecessarily. Just like Taibbi's piece.

So what? Do you really think any lefty liberal will think that a $70,000 fine is appropriate for a broken truck horn?

I'd doubt it.

But here's the problem with all of these articles:

Why doesn't it cite the offending regulation? Which agency regulates the truck horns? Is it federal, state or local? Why is the fine so high? What is the law that determines this?

The truth is that if they would just make a list of nonsensical regulations, I think people would rally to change them.

But a lot of times this stuff boils down to he-said, she-said nonsense with nobody citing the actual regulation (which should be written on the ticket).

Every time I write something like this I hear, "But there are so many regulations that are awful that they're impossible to list!"

Well fine. List the worst one then.

Until I see the regulation and the law that authorizes it and the citation that is ridiculous, it's just me taking some man or woman's word for it.

One time, I got a parking ticket from the future. I kid you not. I took a photo of it and drove to the courthouse before the ticket was supposed to have happened. They wiped the fine away. But I was left with evidence. So I wrote a letter to the editor that got published. I had evidence.

Why do these anti-regulation articles never provide evidence? It's not hard to scan things these days.

For instance, my state has a stupid regulation for restaurants that cites them when they have dirty dishes in a sink meant for handwashing during rush periods. It's Dept. of Health regulation 451.113. Obviously, the dishes have to go somewhere, and that's ridiculous. Well, now I've identified the offender and I know who to fight to change it.

But I'm sorry for my anger on the issue. In my former life, before my business, I ran a council for businessmen and women to interact with government leaders. We made sure there was a good mix of industries and sizes of businesses to try and get everyone's concerns heard. And the cast rotated. Every single one without exception complained about regulation. Three had specific complaints, cited the regulations, and we got them changed. One was about an irrigation pond on a farm, just like the article. One was about roofing. The other was about boiler inspection.

Nobody else could point to an unjust regulation specifically with good reason.

Sure, the insurance folks tried. But it was obvious what they were up to.

In fact, that's my whole issue with de-regulation.

I don't so much care about it with productive industry, as long as you're not giving your neighborhood cancer or putting melamine in milk and lead in toys.

But de-regulation of the finance and insurance industries has been an unmitigated disaster.

Rarely do partisans on either the left or the right side of the spectrum make the distinction between pointless and absurd fines for horns not working at smelting plants and letting bankers flood the market with toxic garbage worth nothing that's rated AAA by the dirty and more-corrupt-than-any-politician ratings agencies.

And so the left and the right reach this impasse.

So I'm going to solve the problem right now.

If you want a regulation to go away because it damages your business, learn what the regulation is. Cite it. Explain specifically whether it is federal state or local. And let the world know.

If it's really ridiculous, even lame internet pressure can change it, since regulations don't go through congress. At least we'll know.

And the chamber of commerce, if it was worth its weight in salt, would start an online database of offending regulations.

I guarantee that the ridiculous ones would get bipartisan support for repeal.

Now, at the same time, we can separate regulations in the real world from regulations in the MIT/quant theoretical world of banking where there is no real product. Obviously we need some rules on imagination. Especially imagination with limitless capital and power.

Now, regulation of banking and regulation of car washes are not mutually exclusive.

One can take the position that car washes should be less regulated and banks should be more regulated.

We don't need a left/right divide for this.

We don't need a president for this.

We need effective local lobbying, journalism, and citizen support/criticism.

But until we get reports that are not so lazy as to neglect to cite regulations, agencies, and geographic levels of government, and until we can get reporters that see the difference between companies with tangible products and companies with intangible products, we're doomed to have this lame and common argument about the value or lack-thereof of regulation.

Why argue?

I think we can agree.

It just takes more than a sentence to explain one's position this way.

[lektrode]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

Yeah, but that's the type of writing that divides people unnecessarily. Just like Taibbi's piece.

We need effective local lobbying, journalism, and citizen support/criticism.

But until we get reports that are not so lazy as to neglect to cite regulations, agencies, and geographic levels of government, and until we can get reporters that see the difference between companies with tangible products and companies with intangible products, we're doomed to have this lame and common argument about the value or lack-thereof of regulation.

Why argue?

I think we can agree.

It just takes more than a sentence to explain one's position this way.

+1
nice to see you dc!

[flintlock]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

So what? Do you really think any lefty liberal will think that a $70,000 fine is appropriate for a broken truck horn?

Well obviously someone does, or it wouldn't exist. I usually avoid the left/right arguments, but I dont like the trend of labelling any push back to an overbearing government as "tea bagginging" or " libertarian" . Liberals used to be the ones pushing back. Now I'm not so sure they are willing to ever risk critcizing authority as long as they can be co-opted into the system. They seem to be saying "Give me a govt job, govt funding, welfare, whatever Im looking for, and you can run amok with your control freak govt". Especially when they are sticking it to someone else. Taibbi has a history of taking the easy cheap shot against any critcism of big govt. Its popular and trendy with young people. Exactly what you'd expect to find in A magazine geared towards younger people. ( which I subscribe to btw! ��)

[Raz]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

Well obviously someone does, or it wouldn't exist. I usually avoid the left/right arguments, but I dont like the trend of labelling any push back to an overbearing government as "tea bagginging" or " libertarian" . Liberals used to be the ones pushing back. Now I'm not so sure they are willing to ever risk critcizing authority as long as they can be co-opted into the system. They seem to be saying "Give me a govt job, govt funding, welfare, whatever Im looking for, and you can run amok with your control freak govt". Especially when they are sticking it to someone else. Taibbi has a history of taking the easy cheap shot against any critcism of big govt. Its popular and trendy with young people. Exactly what you'd expect to find in A magazine geared towards younger people. ( which I subscribe to btw!)

+1.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

+1.

I can generally agree. I suppose I should distill my point down to this:
If talking about the size of government doesn't work, then talk about specifics.
Talk about where specifically government is ineffectual and overbearing.

Young people are used to information being available on the internet.
Vague statements that lack specificity will not win them over any more.
The mantra can't be "Big government is bad." That dog won't hunt.
The mantra has to be "These specific regulations are insane. Join with me to get rid of them."

I think you will find the latter approach better far more appealing to youth, and to the left in general.

The problem is that when you just make the argument that "regulations are bad" or "big government is bad" nobody knows if you're actually practical and mean well, or if you're paid by a bank to change the rules to sell more toxic sludge and kill the economy.

I tend to take the approach that productive industry is probably over regulated, and unproductive (FIRE) industry is under regulated.

I want bigger government to keep finance in check. I want a bigger, more professional, longer serving, more powerful SEC, CFTC, and related agencies.

I don't want bigger government to put productive business under.

I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this approach, or why the left and the right can't seem to have it.

But until we actually get in the weeds and talk about specifics, we'll keep having vague arguments about "big government" that change nobody's mind.

[Raz]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

I can generally agree. I suppose I should distill my point down to this:
If talking about the size of government doesn't work, then talk about specifics.
Talk about where specifically government is ineffectual and overbearing.

Young people are used to information being available on the internet.
Vague statements that lack specificity will not win them over any more.
The mantra can't be "Big government is bad." That dog won't hunt.
The mantra has to be "These specific regulations are insane. Join with me to get rid of them."

I think you will find the latter approach better far more appealing to youth, and to the left in general.

The problem is that when you just make the argument that "regulations are bad" or "big government is bad" nobody knows if you're actually practical and mean well, or if you're paid by a bank to change the rules to sell more toxic sludge and kill the economy.

I tend to take the approach that productive industry is probably over regulated, and unproductive (FIRE) industry is under regulated.

I want bigger government to keep finance in check. I want a bigger, more professional, longer serving, more powerful SEC, CFTC, and related agencies.

I don't want bigger government to put productive business under.

I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this approach, or why the left and the right can't seem to have it.

But until we actually get in the weeds and talk about specifics, we'll keep having vague arguments about "big government" that change nobody's mind.

I can agree with this.

"I'm not quite sure what's wrong with this approach, or why the left and the right can't seem to have it."

There's nothing wrong with this approach, but the RepubliCrats are being paid to not take it.
We need Three Parties, not two. And somehow the "money problem" in the current political system must be changed or we'll never get either.

[flintlock]

Re: Taibbi on Sandy

Political power is bought and paid for in the US, period. How some people find this acceptable is beyond me. It used to be one of the few things that set us apart. There was always the voice of the people to hold the powerful in check to some degree. Now the people are mere pawns to be manipulated, quite willingly it seems.

As for specifics on what is wrong with big govt. I think its the sheer number of intrusive, meddlesome regulations that make this difficult to present effectively in less than 1000 pages! Of course like with anything, some see the world in an over-simplified manner, so they rail against "big govt" as if everything they do is wrong. Same way some see "big business" as doing no good.