Today, I would like to say a few words about the stupidity of the statement by former President Ronald Reagan that "government is the problem, not the solution." If the United States was ruled by a king or a dictator, that might be the case that government is the problem. But, when you have a democracy, and people freely elect their representatives and their president, what does that statement mean? It is nonsense, that is what it is. It sounds clever, but it is kind of stupidity that brought us the financial crisis in 1998 and the bigger one of 2007-08.
In light of the recent financial crisis, I think that the characterization that "government is the problem" should be taken on. By stripping away the laws and protections that grew out of The Great Depression the federal government made the financial crisis of 2007-08 a reality. The lack on controls over the abuses of the financial system can be directly tied to the billions of dollars lost in the markets and the housing market bubble too.
Stripping away the controls and weakening those left to enforce the few laws left makes it appear that government can not do the job of protecting the investor, whether an individual or an institution, properly. This is the nonsense that goes for deep thinking today. The sad part is that few new controls will likely be put in place as the influence of the few on Wall Street with the few that run the country is disproportionate with the overall economic good for the country. In other words, so a very few can get really rich, many many more Americans will lose what they have in the way of wealth. Does this make any sense? We sacrifice millions of families and their financial security so a few wealthy people on Wall Street can become even wealthier.
The number of people responsible for this mess is under a thousand, yet the number of people effected by the financial crisis is in the millions. And, yet, the game goes on. Unfortunately, not enough people understand what is going on or what went on to bring the economy to this point of near financial collapse. Yes, the bailout worked and was necessary. It was most necessary for ordinary people, not just the wealthy running Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, etc, etc.
Where is the level playing field?
Stay tuned.
Posts
5 comments:
Fact of life, Fred. There is no. such. thing. as a level playing field.
Where is the level playing field? It got lost in the Zeitgeist!
Last night on 60 Minutes they did a piece on the two men who are going after Bernie Madoff's money. They showed the space that used to be Madoff's office, and there on a credenza was a 4 ft. sculpture of a screw - slightly bent. The title of the piece: The Soft Screw.
That pretty much sums up the spirit of the times and the attitude we live with.
This period we're living in reminds me of the histories I've read of Medieval times, where the Lord of the Manor owned everything within the walls -- up to and including his right to sleep with all new brides before their husbands were allowed to do so. I read that it was this particular excess on the part of the Lords that provided the impetus for revolt and rebellion.
So, the question remains: How long will we allow ourselves to be so badly used [screwd] before we do something about it?
Level Playing Field? Pretty much Out The Window, wouldn't you say?
Summer
Summer says the level playing field is out the window, and Lou says it doesn't exist. Well, the jury is out. What does the rest of you say?
We seem to be in an era of "misinformation". Politics now seems to thrive on giving out inaccurate information. This now permeates our society from the top on down. This was extremely evident prior to the Bush election (ala Karl Rove). Just look at the conflicts erupting on health care...no one seems to know the real facts of health care.
Glen Beck had a group discussion on the tube over the weekend. While I agree with some of the views presented, I see how Beck is a great manipulator. (and yes, people are getting mad at our government). One woman, in particular, was very upset with the government and their communist leanings (?)....and she went on to say how the current government is indoctrinating our children ( I don't agree) and then she was upset because the current government was going to reduce funding for education. WAIT A MINUTE. You want the government out of education...BUT.. you still want the government to provide current funding for tuition. (I'm not even sure if that is true, but this women is talking out of both sides of her mouth)
Oh, there is a level playing field, it just depends on which field you're standing on. If you are on the wall street side I'm sure that all around you are pretty much playing with a green ball. If you come from the other side of the tracks, so to speak, then the field may be muddy.
I must say that if you say that the government isn't responsible for the results of wall street because the rich are getting richer by their own actions and by no other way then I may tend not to agree with you. I believe the non political rich get richer with the help of those in government that either reap a reward of their own from their actions while intergrating with these private citizens.
Going back to Nixon and moving forward through both parties, I believe you will find where the rules and controls of finance of wall street were changed for the rich. The rules were there. Government had a hand in it all the way. Maybe not in the idea of what to change but by allowing it to take place.
You vote for someone that you THINK will do what they say during their campaigning but you get fooled after they get in office.
Yes there are playing fields and yes they are level, if you're from that particular side of the tracks.
Post a Comment