"The Left"

[Power Raid]

I always like this argument. The banks that apparently do not like big government were all for being bailed out and walking away scot free from the disaster of the GFC that was caused to a large extent by them.

I think the big government v small government argument is again, too black and white. I want good government and that can be big or small.

a strange connection

one is about big or small government operations and the other relates to infrastructure (banks are infrastructure). why do banks not like big government given "banks" can make money with big government or small? Sure the business model changes but that comment simply doesn't make sense.

Rothschild made most of its money due to governments overspending. So even merchant banks cream it with big government.

 

[JimDocker]

Not such a strange connection. Private enterprise and those generally to the right talk about the benefits of small government and the market being the solution to everything..... until the shit hits the fan, then the old maxim about capitalizing profits and socializing losses comes into play.

The banks in the US that got away with murder did so because of a lack of regulation. We have far better regulation here, courtesy of APRA and that is one big reason why Australia's banking system remained strong during the GFC.

 

[JackOutback]

I agree with your sentiments in respect of appropriate legislation to prevent abuse, but the issue is to what degree. Too much and you stifle free enterprise, while too little and you reprise the old robber barons. An example of the latter in the US was the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, which let the US banks off the leash whereby they sliced and diced securities, permitted junk bonds and creative debt and generally played a particularly egregious form of financial musical chairs.

I think we're broadly in agreement, however in my opinion, the balance between providing incentives for free enterprise and a regulatory framework to protect the majority of citizens has long been out of whack. You can trace it back to the United States in '80s with Reganomics and the trickle down effect, follow it through the greed of the '90s and to the outright criminal behaviour in the 2000s that led to the global financial crisis. And it still boggles my mind that around the world, governments bailed out the culprits, failed to bring anyone to account, in many cases made them richer and have refused to heed any of the lessons that clearly should have been learnt. The pursuit of profit, individualism and the false narrative of exceptionalism have all become the bedrock principles of our economic system at the expense of the social contract and the common good.

As an aside, I find it interesting how many people simply suggest capitalism is the best possible system, so that we must somehow simply accept its flaws. A) No society has pure capitalism, every Western democracy has socialist principles underpinning it, like our police force and military, health system, education, roads etc. Capitalism works for the majority when it is kept in check, and we should never stop arguing about where the lines need to be drawn, because someone will always be pushing the boundaries. B) It's the best system we have now, that doesn't mean it's the best system. To me, it shows a lack of imagination to not consider how we can improve upon it (and given how many flaws the system has, how many 'losers' it produces, we should always be looking to improve upon it).

 

[deltablues]

I always like this argument. The banks that apparently do not like big government were all for being bailed out and walking away scot free from the disaster of the GFC that was caused to a large extent by them.

I think the big government v small government argument is again, too black and white. I want good government and that can be big or small.

We all want "'good" government and big/small is just shorthand to describe a very fundamental philosophical viewpoint of what government is and should be.

As a libertarian I firmly disagree with your bolded (altho I guess we can argue what "big" means). Excessive government guidance and regulations is a form of Statism which creates a captive mendicant breed of citizen dependent on the State's largesse - the State confers and grants rights to its citizens and the citizens end up being owned by the State.

This is totalitarianism and indeed is a form of fascism - the precise antithesis of the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudential view of being born free with inherent rights as free men (and free women/transgender/whatever).

For example, under Anglo-Saxon law the burden of proof is on the State to prove the citizen guilty. But under the European Napoleonic code law system (which has its roots in Roman law) it is the citizen who must prove his innocence, against the full weight and resources of the State. (Unfortunately the common law burden of proof is being eroded in the Anglosphere by mission-creep legislation - e.g. in tax law).

And to link all this to the thread's title - it is the Left who usually favors big government, because the Left believes that the answer to all ills is more government/more legislation/more regulation/more "training"/more counselling (with the attendant upwardly mobile bureaucratic empires to administer all of this - paid by the tax-payer, of course).

The Left has not learned from Mussolini, who used the word “totalitarian” to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. That is the mantra of the Left as well. And it is 100% fallacious. It never worked.

You want big government? Good luck with that.

 

[JackOutback]

I'm often struck by the disconnect between traditional 'right' thinkers who argue for small government while at the same time arguing for big military (not suggesting that applies to you, deltablues). The industrial military complex creates as much a risk of a totalitarian state, just without the 'humane' element.

 

[deltablues]

I think we're broadly in agreement, however in my opinion, the balance between providing incentives for free enterprise and a regulatory framework to protect the majority of citizens has long been out of whack. You can trace it back to the United States in '80s with Reganomics and the trickle down effect, follow it through the greed of the '90s and to the outright criminal behaviour in the 2000s that led to the global financial crisis. And it still boggles my mind that around the world, governments bailed out the culprits, failed to bring anyone to account, in many cases made them richer and have refused to heed any of the lessons that clearly should have been learnt. The pursuit of profit, individualism and the false narrative of exceptionalism have all become the bedrock principles of our economic system at the expense of the social contract and the common good.

As an aside, I find it interesting how many people simply suggest capitalism is the best possible system, so that we must somehow simply accept its flaws. A) No society has pure capitalism, every Western democracy has socialist principles underpinning it, like our police force and military, health system, education, roads etc. Capitalism works for the majority when it is kept in check, and we should never stop arguing about where the lines need to be drawn, because someone will always be pushing the boundaries. B) It's the best system we have now, that doesn't mean it's the best system. To me, it shows a lack of imagination to not consider how we can improve upon it (and given how many flaws the system has, how many 'losers' it produces, we should always be looking to improve upon it).

I agree with your comments. Re the 2000's banking thing- the US government transferred the private debt to the tax-payer, stiffing many secured bond-holders in the process. But both sides of the political aisle are in thrall to the donors - Wall Street - so no surprises there.

Capitalism is not perfect by any means and, as you say, needs checks and balances - the trick is to strike a balance between the competing interests. If I knew what that balance was I would be sitting on my island in Bermuda (instead of in the Napa Valley CA having a red wine - which admittedly is not a bad situation - and looking at the rain).

 

[deltablues]

a strange connection

one is about big or small government operations and the other relates to infrastructure (banks are infrastructure). why do banks not like big government given "banks" can make money with big government or small? Sure the business model changes but that comment simply doesn't make sense.

Rothschild made most of its money due to governments overspending. So even merchant banks cream it with big government.

Hah. If you have had anything to do with government infrastructure projects and bids, you can guarantee that there will be a massive overspend/cost overrun. This includes the military. No accountability or ownership by these jokers.

 

[deltablues]

I'm often struck by the disconnect between traditional 'right' thinkers who argue for small government while at the same time arguing for big military (not suggesting that applies to you, deltablues). The industrial military complex creates as much a risk of a totalitarian state, just without the 'humane' element.

Re your bolded - Oh yes, absolutely. But that raises a whole bunch of issues probably not on topic for this thread.

 

[coerced]

The Left has not learned from Mussolini, who used the word “totalitarian” to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. That is the mantra of the Left as well. And it is 100% fallacious. It never worked.

You want big government? Good luck with that.

There are degrees, ultimately the Left wants to protect the people from the worst ravages of capitalism, and its roots are founded in the conditions of industrialising Europe of the 19th century - the world of Dickens etc. Some takes the form of completely abolishing capitalism, more milder strains simply advocate for a welfare state to complement capitalism.

I think most people aside from hardcore libertarians agree with some form of safety net, just as very few left wingers believe in abolishing capitalism, and again the debate is about the degrees in between. Very few people in real life are the 'weak men' either side represent them as, although such unrepresentative ideologues seemingly end up occupying positions of power, and the average-man comes round to defending such powerful people so as to not let the other tribe win the argument.

That said, pro-capitalist free market economics has been ascendent these past forty years, and this has resulted in a gradual grind down into Dickensian conditions for middle America and a lot of the developed world. But the Left sure have won some pointless tokenistic issues over identity that no average individual getting on with their day-to-day lives cares about! So kudos to the modern Left, losing the war while winning skirmishes.

 

[deltablues]

There are degrees, ultimately the Left wants to protect the people from the worst ravages of capitalism, and its roots are founded in the conditions of industrialising Europe of the 19th century - the world of Dickens etc. Some takes the form of completely abolishing capitalism, more milder strains simply advocate for a welfare state to complement capitalism.

I think most people aside from hardcore libertarians agree with some form of safety net, just as very few left wingers believe in abolishing capitalism, and again the debate is about the degrees in between. Very few people in real life are the 'weak men' either side represent them as, although such unrepresentative ideologues seemingly end up occupying positions of power, and the average-man comes round to defending such powerful people so as to not let the other tribe win the argument.

That said, pro-capitalist free market economics has been ascendent these past forty years, and this has resulted in a gradual grind down into Dickensian conditions for middle America and a lot of the developed world. But the Left sure have won some pointless tokenistic issues over identity that no average individual getting on with their day-to-day lives cares about! So kudos to the modern Left, losing the war while winning skirmishes.

Good post (if I may say so).

Re the bold, do not under-estimate the negative impact of uncontrolled/illegal TW immigration; and free trade agreements, fostered by the hard-core Chicago school of economics (which threw away Russia immediate post-collapse of the Soviet Union - I mean, Jeez, Chicago has a lot to answer for - extremist laissez-faire economics, and Obama ).

As an aside, the current Trump phenomenom is a backlash to all of this. A backlash against the US nomenklatura.

 

[coerced]

As an aside, the current Trump phenomenom is a backlash to all of this. A backlash against the US nomenklatura.

Agreed. The Trump phenomenon is the most interesting thing to happen in world politics for decades. Neither left nor right know how to defeat him, his eventual defeat will probably simply a result of people being unwilling to vote for someone so repulsive, rather than Clinton outwitting him or coming up with a more appealing platform.

Part of me thinks that electing Trump now would be good for America (and the world) because what is fomenting under him may lead to someone worse - an actual demagogue, not the celebrity caricature of one.

 

[deltablues]

Agreed. The Trump phenomenon is the most interesting thing to happen in world politics for decades. Neither left nor right know how to defeat him, his eventual defeat will probably simply a result of people being unwilling to vote for someone so repulsive, rather than Clinton outwitting him or coming up with a more appealing platform.

Part of me thinks that electing Trump now would be good for America (and the world) because what is fomenting under him may lead to someone worse - an actual demagogue, not the celebrity caricature of one.

When you say "defeat him" - I guess in a democracy [altho the USA is a Republic] that begs the question. I mean, Trump is getting bi-partisan support from those voters and citizens [I emphasize citizens] who feel they are becoming disenfranchised. He is winning those votes. That is democratic, right?

Trump is playing the media like a pro - and the MSM/Left pushback wins him more support. Trump is a media performer and still in the Sturm und Drang phase. I think that will change if he gets nominated. And it had better if he wants to win.

But for sure he will not get votes from the political establishment and its parasitic hangers-on (lobbyists, donors, pundits etc) who will themselves be disenfranchised if Trump becomes POTUS. This includes sections of his own party - the Republicans.

There are many vested interests at stake here and what is interesting on the GOP side is many of the masks dropping as Trump gets closer to being nominated the GOP candidate.

With Hillary and Trump you are reminded of the old joke - whoever wants to be a politician should automatically be disqualified from running. Especially Hillary. She epitomizes, morally and aesthetically, the Picture of Dorian Gray.

 

[Maggie5]

When you say "defeat him" - I guess in a democracy [altho the USA is a Republic] that begs the question. I mean, Trump is getting bi-partisan support from those voters and citizens [I emphasize citizens] who feel they are becoming disenfranchised. He is winning those votes. That is democratic, right?

Trump is playing the media like a pro - and the MSM/Left pushback wins him more support. Trump is a media performer and still in the Sturm und Drang phase. I think that will change if he gets nominated. And it had better if he wants to win.

But for sure he will not get votes from the political establishment and its parasitic hangers-on (lobbyists, donors, pundits etc) who will themselves be disenfranchised if Trump becomes POTUS. This includes sections of his own party - the Republicans.

There are many vested interests at stake here and what is interesting on the GOP side is many of the masks dropping as Trump gets closer to being nominated the GOP candidate.

With Hillary and Trump you are reminded of the old joke - whoever wants to be a politician should automatically be disqualified from running. Especially Hillary. She epitomizes, morally and aesthetically, the Picture of Dorian Gray.

Something tell me you don't like Hilary, is she too left?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Something tell me you don't like Hilary, is she too left?

That's all you gleaned from that post?

I'd say that post was every bit as scathing of Trump & American Realpolitik in general.

Enjoy reading deltablues, one of the few posters who actually KNOWS what their talking about...And how to articulate it....And Not a meme-byte in sight.

 

[JackOutback]

That's all you gleaned from that post?

I'd say that post was every bit as scathing of Trump & American Realpolitik in general.

Enjoy reading deltablues, one of the few posters who actually KNOWS what their talking about...And how to articulate it....And Not a meme-byte in sight.

I too have enjoyed reading his posts and discussing recent issues with him, but he hardly seems scathing of Trump, more so the establishment Republicans who oppose him. If anything, he praises Trump's performance while criticising his opponents.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I too have enjoyed reading his posts and discussing recent issues with him, but he hardly seems scathing of Trump, more so the establishment Republicans who oppose him. If anything, he praises Trump's performance while criticizing his opponents.

Certainty celebrates him sticking it to 'the system'....But who wouldn't?....It's become so brazenly corrupt.

No line-towing, number crunching moderate is going to rock that particular boat.....Especially when it'll become their future feather-bed.

Anyways....Over the whole left vs right paradigm.....It's a crock.

 

[Maggie5]

That's all you gleaned from that post?

I'd say that post was every bit as scathing of Trump & American Realpolitik in general.

Enjoy reading deltablues, one of the few posters who actually KNOWS what their talking about...And how to articulate it....And Not a meme-byte in sight.

No, it is a consistent theme. Anything else?

 

[Power Raid]

Not such a strange connection. Private enterprise and those generally to the right talk about the benefits of small government and the market being the solution to everything..... until the shit hits the fan, then the old maxim about capitalizing profits and socializing losses comes into play.

The banks in the US that got away with murder did so because of a lack of regulation. We have far better regulation here, courtesy of APRA and that is one big reason why Australia's banking system remained strong during the GFC.

again a strange connection as you are raising the issue of small government vs regulation which is very different.

Yes you are right re our APRA regulations and specifically our requirements of asset backing and liquidity ratios were big reasons our banks dodge the bullet whilst other global banks were hit hard. The reason why APRA exists is largely due to the fact that Keating understood the retail banks aren't businesses rather they were national infrastructure. As such to avoid the need for bailouts or face a run on the banks the government needed to ensure our banks had strong financial backing.

It is illogical to have government owned banks (big government) as it is illogical to have banks without sufficient financial backing. In our case and now strengthened around the world, regulation is the key. The cost though is a higher cost of borrowing, higher compliance cost and in some case no finance available. These issues will resolve in time as the market works its magic.

 

[Procrastinator35]

No, it is a consistent theme. Anything else?

Well, now that you mention it.

Who is that picture of in your avatar? And, why does she have a riding-crop in her mouth?

 

[Maggie5]

Well, now that you mention it.

Who is that picture of in your avatar? And, why does she have a riding-crop in her mouth?

The fab Gillian Trigg. It just might be a microphone but now that you come to mention it.

 

[deltablues]

The fab Gillian Trigg. It just might be a microphone but now that you come to mention it.

Gillian Trigg. Heh. Well, there you go.

The thing is, Maggie5, we share the same team but you seem to see things in black and white right across the board. But life is a mixture of shades of gray (nuances), and even color. You should try it some time instead of indulging in some facile sniping soundbites.

Re Hillary - here's some of what's known: Hillary is a well-proven liar and evidence destroyer - from Filegate, Travelgate, the hiding of the Rose Law firm billing records for corrupt Madison Guaranty Trust scam, her being fired from the Senate Select Committee on Watergate [when she was a junior lawyer in the Nixon era] by the chief counsel for concealing the Douglas opinion and writing a false legal brief - in fact the Chief Counsel would not give her a job recommendation and says she should have been disbarred for it - her destruction of the private meeting records in 1994 for HillaryCare when they were found out and violated the public meetings act, her scamming $100,000 in bribes from Refco with 100 percent winning cattle futures trades she never made but were assigned to her account and she took - because her husband was governor ... we can go on.

These are not some isolated incidents. This is the pattern of the highly corrupt Arkansas grifters known as the Clintons.

I judge Hillary as I would the ethics of a fellow lawyer (albeit I am now retired) - not from some partisan political viewpoint.

And I have not even mentioned the Clinton Foundation scam/Benghazi/the home brew server as Sec of State.

 

[Procrastinator35]

So Hillary is a failed, corrupt & disgraced former lawyer hey?

She sounds like a perfect fit for Washington....Pesky ethics.

 

[Maggie5]

Gillian Trigg. Heh. Well, there you go.

The thing is, Maggie5, we share the same team but you seem to see things in black and white right across the board. But life is a mixture of shades of gray (nuances), and even color. You should try it some time instead of indulging in some facile sniping soundbites.

Re Hillary - here's some of what's known: Hillary is a well-proven liar and evidence destroyer - from Filegate, Travelgate, the hiding of the Rose Law firm billing records for corrupt Madison Guaranty Trust scam, her being fired from the Senate Select Committee on Watergate [when she was a junior lawyer in the Nixon era] by the chief counsel for concealing the Douglas opinion and writing a false legal brief - in fact the Chief Counsel would not give her a job recommendation and says she should have been disbarred for it - her destruction of the private meeting records in 1994 for HillaryCare when they were found out and violated the public meetings act, her scamming $100,000 in bribes from Refco with 100 percent winning cattle futures trades she never made but were assigned to her account and she took - because her husband was governor ... we can go on.

These are not some isolated incidents. This is the pattern of the highly corrupt Arkansas grifters known as the Clintons.

I judge Hillary as I would the ethics of a fellow lawyer (albeit I am now retired) - not from some partisan political viewpoint.

And I have not even mentioned the Clinton Foundation scam/Benghazi/the home brew server as Sec of State.

I might have finished reading your lengthy post if you hadn't started of with your critique of me.
You don't know me or my views, I dare say your views are more set in concrete than mine! Stay safe on your perch.

 

[deltablues]

I might have finished reading your lengthy post if you hadn't started of with your critique of me.
You don't know me or my views, I dare say your views are more set in concrete than mine! Stay safe on your perch.

Awesome deflection.

 

[Maggie5]

Awesome deflection.

You have no idea. So much bullshit.