Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech republic. I've heard things about this guy before and I like what I've heard. He's spot on about this economic thing in my opinion. Can we grant him US citizenship and coax him into running for president in 2012. If he's not interested maybe he's got a brother or a cousin that could run?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN259750420100925
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eh. I agree that the UN should stay out of economics, but I don't agree with the guys stances.
ReplyDeleteThe truth of the matter is that unfettered capitalism is bad. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws are needed. Too big to fail is problem not of money being given to corporations (bad), but of them being so large that they needed it in the first place. A healthy competitive market would not have players so big that their failure would crash the whole economic system.
Markets are manipulated, no amount of ideological arguments can change that practical reality. The question becomes how and who manipulates them. That is what I am concerned with. I would rather the citizens through government manipulate them for broad benefit, than the few/elite manipulate it for self-benefit.
Side note:
FDIC insurance is a government bailout and I want that to stick around. I may not have much in my bank, but I want to know that what I do have is covered from the bank's stupidity.
I don't hear Klaus calling for unfettered capitalism Kyle. In fact he seems to be speaking primarily against the UN or increased global governance of the financial systems while stating that things need to be left to the various nations to settle their own problems. Sovereign nations dealing with their own problems seems to be a revolutionary idea these days. Klaus states that this idea that the interventions that have been put in place are going to prevent the next crisis (and that's what Obama tells us) is bogus. I agree. Are you confident that the stimulus spending/bailouts/health care reform(remember, Obama tied health care in to the greater economic crisis) aren't going to hurt us in the long run? Are you confident that they will prevent a future crisis? I think that's what Klaus is saying.
ReplyDeleteAs for citizens manipulating the markets through government how do you explain the fact that a vast majority of Americans disapprove of the bailouts and the stimulus spending? Doesn't seem that the government is asking for the citizens' input on how they would like the markets to be manipulated. And the choice isn't as simplistic as you present it: government manipulating the market for broad benefit vs. the few/elite manipulating it for self-benefit. It seems to me that the individuals in government are as susceptible to corruption and greed as the individuals on Wall St. So let's not pretend that what government is doing is simply for our benefit and they've got out best interests at heart. Call me cynical but we're governed by a pretty corrupt bunch who seem to be looking out for their jobs which means they're looking out for the guys who are going to pay for their next campaign.
To be honest there are a large number of interconnected issues that you just brought up, far beyond what can be addressed in a single post, but I will do my best. I hope you caught that the first thing I said was that I agreed the UN should stay out of economics. On to the disagreeing part.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you're right he didn't say unfettered capitalism, that is more of a knee-jerk response on my part. I am in favor of regulation, and I find the notion that corporations regulate themselves to be absolutely silly and I am tired of hearing people call for letting business do what they want. This ties into my point about market manipulation, I prefer the government to corporate interests manipulating the markets.
Second, the interventions in place are not enough to stave off the next crisis--true. I see that as result of the Democrats not having enough backbone. Regulations are needed to break up institutions that are so big that they dominate the economy or a single market share so completely. Massive financial reform needs to take place, and it has only been half done. I do think that the new health care bill is a step in the right direction, but again, it falls far short of what I think it needs to be to address long term health and financial realities in this country. The Democrats have never pretended the legislation is perfect, the much aligned change it as we go sentiment is pragmatic. Believing it has to be done completely right the first time is wishful thinking, that is when you get nothing done, because nothing will be perfect at the first go around. Let me be clear, the idea that our health-care system was fine without it is what I think is bogus.
Stimulus spending was not large enough initially, and not enough was spent on infrastructure in my opinion. Deficit spending in economic downturns is simple economics. Bailouts were done by both parties equally, and I see them as an unfortunate necessity that was mishandled, what we need are steps to avoid needing to do them again, not just saying we won't do them. That is like someone claiming they won't file for bankruptcy again without changing any habits. They only declared bankruptcy because there was no other real choice.
Governments ask for input every election cycle, through votes, that is how representative government works. Also, popular favor is a moving, too easily manipulated, and incorrectly measured target for it to drive policy decisions. Elected leaders need to make the choices that they think are the best long-term decisions for the country, not what is popular. I am not in favor of mob rule. At least I can vote bums out, last chance I checked I didn't get to pick the ceo's of major international corporations. I don't get a vote there.
I am not as cynical as you apparently, if we cannot assume that politicians as a whole are trying in their own way to help the country we might as well pack in our whole form of government and throw our hands into the air. It simply doesn't work without politicians, and since the founding fathers, they have often been well connected people. I agree we need to address special interest funds, but that is campaign finance reform.
Finally, I know what Klaus is saying and I disagree. Interventions were and are necessary in my opinion. Stimulus spending and health-care reform are absolutely necessary for the long-term financial health of our country. Then again, so is not continuing Bush tax cuts, avoiding unnecessary wars, and scaling back programs. We need to aggressively address trade imbalances. We needed smarter spending, not less spending. I am sure we disagree on this, but that is fine.
Cheers
I haven't read the article yet, and don't have anything specific to say other than that just because a lot of Americans oppose the bail-outs, doesn't mean that's really what people want. I know that sounds weird, but I think (sadly) a lot of people really have no clue about anything, and while they may think the bail-outs are 'wrong', a lot of those very same people may be opposed to banks, for example, being able to use their investments for high risk investments and the like.
ReplyDeleteI honestly think that there is a large population out there that really doesn't know WHAT they actually want, because they really don't pay attention much to anything, and it takes quite a bit of being informed to really know how you feel about a lot of these issues. Also, I think, oftentimes reason is lost on a lot of people. They just object to something just because they don't understand it. I'm not trying to say with all of this that the bail-outs were necessarily right or wrong, or that the government handled this appropriately. I'm really just addressing the idea that just because people say one thing, that that's really how they feel. Although, stupid and paradox as 'the peoples' will may be at times, I guess it should still be paid attention to. Then again, we do live in a republic and not a pure democracy, so who knows.
More comments later.