Try it, you'll like it ...
Life cereal: Mikey likes it! - YouTube
LOL ... I agree those demonstrate recklessness, collusion and fraud, but I disagree that they have much to do with a free market.
Given the effective lack of regulation (it's there, but not used) in general, and the derivatives market which is completely unregulated in particular, and the number of "self-regulation by honor" (LIBOR, private MF Global auditors, private Peregrine Auditors), it's pretty free. Add to this that Zerohedge estimates the return on fraud to be(iirc) 5:1 (5$ generated by fraud = 1$ fine/settlement without admission of guilt), it's free from fraud oversight and profits handsomely from its fraud.
In the Libor scandal, in particular, it seems that multiple governments were involved and one of the principals pointed at the Fed's involvement as well.
UK possibly ... do you mean Mr. Geithner's little "London, uh, there
may be a problem" letter ? Don't forget, the Fed is an unregulated
private institution. How can we even accurately assess what it's doing or if it can do better, whether to keep or can it without transparency ?
Smaller government would seem to be a part of the solution. Remove the ability for any one individual or organization to control the market.
It may, or smaller govt. may just leave us where we are now. It's not that I don't agree that our legislators are "bought" (campaign funding, lobbyists). It's that vis a vis Wall St., the govt is operating essentially as small or non-existant governance.
And why is that so wrong? Consider that when a big company can be adversely affected overnight, very bad things often result. Big corporations simply tend to fade away when market forces are allowed to take their toll. Big companies tend to be inefficient in a number of ways.
They can be inefficient, but small business - especially start-ups - are more inefficient (thus they are largely responsible for job growth). Some fade away, but many diversify and remarkably strong and influential. My concern is that we have a government large enough - or more accurately strong enough - to fight back against large concerns that are - efficient or inefficient - too strong. I'm not against business or Capitalism at all ! But too-strong big business can have the same outcome as crony capitalism (mill towns, mine towns, etc. of the 19th and 20th c.)
And size does matter - consider Monsanto. They have been able to drive small farms out of business by bringing charges - small concerns get bankrupted before they get to court. Ie, there is no defense against a huge legal war chest even if you're innocent. (And yes, Monsanto has connections from the FDA, to the Supreme Court, to Congress, to Romney, and Obama.)
If you're big enough, you can buy govt, or just roll over it.
Have I mentioned that character matters? Conduct business with people and corporations you deem worthy of your business.
I agree ! We buy our food from small growers and privately owned groceries (3 in all), and have always shopped whenever possible at small businesses. It's a little more expensive sometimes, but cheaper in the long run (we support our community and decent people ...)
More importantly, is it government's job to protect everyone from everything? At the moment we seem to have a nanny state which is prone to all manner of unproductive activities.
I think we need a big re-set, to be honest. I don't think they should protect us from everything, but some things are so huge they effect us whether or not we have any interaction with them. So, for example, on the Raw Milk issue - like GMOs, label them. That should be enough. (One of our grocers had to scramble after the crack-down on an Amish concern). Otoh, I would prefer that we maintain govt. food inspection (its moving to each processor doing their own inspection, which has the potential for serious problems). Where govt. does have the oversite,
fund it adequately for the job.
I heard this morning that John Corzine and MF Global will not face charges ... even though they've admitted to dipping into customer accounts illegally.
How does that work ... when they lose $700 million, or $1.6 Billion, or $7.2 Billion ... a staggering loss? At best, it would seem they were criminally negligent ... at worst, they engaged in outright fraud.
It's outrageous, and it gets worse.
JP Morgan Chase happened to have about that much money appear in a London account at the time of MFG's collapse. JPM was MFGs main line of overnight credit at that time. It seems that MFG "hypothecated" customer funds as assets against the line of credit; JPM balked on the line of credit, and retained or clawed the hypothecated assets. As JPM has a huge amount of outstanding derivatives, they could have been protecting themselves - or maybe just gaming the system.
But unfortunately, no-one seems to care. And where were the MFG regulators (private) ? The regulators (private) at Peregrine weren't even authenticating the deposits that Peregrine was reporting !
That's another situation I can't reconcile as anything other than crony capitalism ... Democrat Jon Corzine, ex-governor and ex-senator from New Jersey redeems get-out-of-jail free card.
Basically, they all got out of jail free - every last player - and took home a bonus to boot. If you haven't seen the movie "Inside Job", I would recommend it. (I made our kids watch it for homeschool.)
That's OK. The basis of her theory is that acting in one's self-interest is largely coincident with society's interest as well. It's not a perfect theory, LOL, but our modern version of crony capitalism has accomplished quite a number of amazing things.
What concerns me is the (often invisible) cost to human lives - and the dim value it puts on human life. If we all have selfishness as a mantra, we risk trust, and by extension love. One can't trust if there's at the center of ethics the notion we're likely being gamed, because it's okay to game others - and every system involving more than one human being must rely to some extent on trust.
I'm all in favor of morality, Thekla. I just don't happen to believe that morality can be legislated. People find morality through various paths.
It can't be legislated (except possibly negatively), but there is a central role in human development for the usefulness of standards. We won't all reach them, but the standards themselves, as expectations, guide to some extent our ability to behave morally, or to willingly mold our behavior to some standard. Objectivism can't be objective because it's standard of measurement is personal.
No argument. I'm no fan of the Fed, either.
I respect Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders for their efforts. An 'odd couple', but a good example of what could happen if people across the spectrum could find common ground on some issues. I saw an interview with Mark Meckler - and I think he has it spot on. We need to stop arguing over superficial labels and come together to do the work that needs to be done !
(Maybe I just like him because I have no party and can't even figure out whether I'm conservative or liberal
)
Sometimes, it is necessary to stand. I'm coming to a conclusion that every generation of Americans has found it necessary to stand. It's what Americans do.
This for sure is one of those times. People on the left and the right and in the middle are ticked, because we all know something is deeply wrong. We need to stop looking to our politicians for answers - because they're supposed to work
for the people of this country !
