dagblog - Comments for "Stuff I Want to Learn: Is Privatizing Social Security a Good Idea?"

Thanks for all the comments,

Orlando — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:03:12 +0000

In reply to Stuff I Want to Learn: Is Privatizing Social Security a Good Idea?

Thanks for all the comments, guys! I am only online once a day now, so I couldn't jump in. But I mostly wanted to listen and learn anyway!!!

This explanation presumes

Contrarian — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:02:24 +0000

In reply to You are correct.

This explanation presumes that back in '02, for example, Republicans received more campaign contributions from financial service industries. I'm not sure of an easy way to prove/disprove this assertion, so I don't know if it's true or not. I expect it to be true, but that's not worth much.

I don't know if that's true, but I'd expect it to be. My point was that I don't believe that they would, for example bankroll someone challenging an incumbent because he wanted privatization. I think that they give generously to whoever will be in power in order to get a better deal than they would otherwise. Barney Frank won't tank regulatory reform altogether. He's a liberal after all and has a role to play. Trying to kill the thing altogether is the role of the conservatives. Frank can take little nibbles off of it. He can say that he has concerns that haven't been addressed. He can say something is DOA because moderates wouldn't support it and therefore it's a waste of time to fight for it. (WTF- you're there to fight for it. It's your job.)

His nibbles are still worth many thousands of times what the banks give to his campaign .

You are correct.

Nebton — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:32:48 +0000

In reply to I believe you're thinking of

You are correct.

I believe you're thinking of

Contrarian — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:23:21 +0000

In reply to First of all, I'm taking at

I believe you're thinking of Bernie Sanders.

First of all, I'm taking at

Nebton — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:13:56 +0000

In reply to It's possible. I'm not sure

First of all, I'm taking at face value your claim that the campaign contributions from financial service industries favor the Democrats, mainly because it's not too much of a stretch, because as you say:

For one thing, the party with the most politicians likely to win (aka incumbents) gets more money. (DEMs) Leaders of committees get more money. (DEMs)

On the other hand, what am I supposed to make of it when Barney Frank nixes an Obama policy to reign in the banks? Are those giant contributions affecting him? That is a good return on a banks investment.

Can you give me more information on this? It somewhat surprises me, as I thought Barney Frank, who is literally a Socialist (with a capital S - the only one in the Senate, despite what certain ideologues might claim), would be above it.

It's possible. I'm not sure

Contrarian — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:39:06 +0000

In reply to Ah, but if the GOP gets this

It's possible. I'm not sure why it would be likely.

Look, I think that the Financial Services Modernization Act ended up screwing normal folks, benefiting the banks, and partially caused the current financial crisis. I may be wrong. I don't really know much of anything about economics (just what I read in magazines) and some of the business school people I know disagree. On the other hand, they're all pro-market pro-deregulation taxcutting ideologues, and I don't trust them. Moreover really smart (Nobel prize winning) economists whom I do trust disagree with them.

So, let's operate on the assumption that the repeal of Glass–Steagall was a giant giveaway to the banks. It was passed by a congress with GOP majorities in both houses (albeit signed by Clinton) and created a "financial services" industry that was super lucrative. So, why have campaign contributions not favored the GOP?

My thinking is that the banks give based on who they think will give them the best return on their contribution, not necessarily who thinks most like them. For one thing, the party with the most politicians likely to win (aka incumbents) gets more money. (DEMs) Leaders of committees get more money. (DEMs)

I also get the impression that (bless their tiny hearts) many of the pro-business pols are (like the friends I mentioned) true believers. I mean, the LDS needn't bribe Romney to oppose marriage equality. You don't have to twist these folks arms.

On the other hand, what am I supposed to make of it when Barney Frank nixes an Obama policy to reign in the banks? Are those giant contributions affecting him? That is a good return on a banks investment.

I think the phrase

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:48:46 +0000

In reply to I hereby propose that Milton

I think the phrase "conspiracy of stupidity" is the one I want.

His name alone should've made

Nebton — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:56:47 +0000

In reply to I hereby propose that Milton

His name alone should've made it obvious.

I hereby propose that Milton

William K. Wolfrum — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:55:06 +0000

In reply to I don't mean to propose this

I hereby propose that Milton Friedman and his economic theories were conspiracy theories.

I don't mean to propose this

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:56:41 +0000

In reply to there are conspiracy theories

I don't mean to propose this as an actual conspiracy theory. I don't think most Republicans in Congress at the moment think coherently enough to formulate such a plan. The key to understanding this incarnation of the GOP is getting your head around their double-think and what I'll call their half-think (where they grasp one thing about a policy but not its incredibly obvious and natural corollary).

There was enormous enthusiasm for privatization among conservatives (and Wall Street types!) because that much new cash entering the market would pump up stock prices (which is translated as "being good for the economy"). But the notion that driving up stock prices this way was a bubble, and obviously unsustainable, seemed impossible for the advocates of privatization to imagine. In this case "believing in te free market" means "using government funds to distort the market in ways that benefit financiers." And no, I will admit, they did not see or refused to permit themselves to see that the market would ever go down.

But certainly, the results of privatization I mentioned, which would have been absolutely inevitable, would have been blamed on the Dems by the opportunistic GOP, and the sorry part is a lot of the Republicans, especially the House Republicans would actually believe it.