The real Bridge to Nowhere -- today's open thread
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The real Bridge to Nowhere -- today's open thread
The NYT's Bob Herbert does Philly:
Gov. Ed Rendell likes to tell a story that goes back to his days as mayor of Philadelphia.
As he recalled, the city had a long cold snap with about a month and a half of below-freezing temperatures. Then, abruptly, the mercury rose into the 60s, he said, “and 58 of our water mains broke, causing all sorts of havoc.”
The pipes were old. Some were ancient. “My water people told me that some had been laid in the 19th century,” said Mr. Rendell, “and they were laid shallow, without much protection. So with any radical changes in temperature, they were susceptible to breaking. We had a real emergency on our hands.”
Infrastructure, that least sexy of issues, is not just a significant interest of Ed Rendell’s; it’s more like a consuming passion.
Ed Rendell's "consuming passion" is for....bridges? Who knew? Seriously, the column is a hammer on the nail of the head of the problems we face in this country, and the solutions should be that simple. Our infrastructure needs fixing, and the repair work creates jobs in the short run and leads to a more efficient economy in the long run. It's a no-brainer, except that all debt-and-spending is now politically toxic, thanks to all the non-productive waste -- Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and a general lack of fiscal discipline -- of the George W. Bush years. We complain, with some justification, about all the money we owe to the Chinese, but we really should worry more about how the Chinese are cleaning our clock by investing in things like high-speed rail. Our inaction is likely increasing our debt, by the way, because of the high cost to the federal treasury of chronic unemployment; if you are not working, you are not paying taxes.
This shouldn't be hard, people. And yet it is.
Discuss whatever's on your mind.
Comments (163)
You have to be pretty stupid to still think the Iraq war was good!— sbdons1982- You hit all the lefty bulletpoints Will. Quote the NYT opinion page, check. Iraq war bad, check. Tax cuts "for the rich" bad, check. It's Bush's fault, check. The Chinese are so great, check. High speed rail will cure all our ills, check. Is there some program that just fills in the blanks for you. Need to write a liberal blog but don't have the time, yeah, there's an app for that.— billyo516
- Oh goodie, our foreign policy gets even more nonsensical. Now we're cozying up to brutal dictators to gain access to supply routes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703630404575053191068746182.html— RG
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Rendell likes bridges? Sure. Especially the ones managed by the Delaware River Port Authority. The governors of PA and NJ head the DRPA. The DRPA collects bridge tolls to fund maintenance of the bridges. However, the money has been diverted to other things--"economic development" projects like the Kimmel Center, National Constitution Center, Lincoln Financial Field, a soccer stadium complex on the Chester waterfront, and the National Museum of American Jewish History near Independence Hall, among others. And these don"t include the New Jersey projects. Corzine was not left out of this misappropriation of funds. So yes, boy does Rendell like bridges!— Falls Ed
- Oh yes, and let's just continue to stay tuned on the Iran situation. If the progressive elements there don't manage to overthrow the regime, then the smart money remains on the ayatollahs being the big winners in Iraq. Which even in 2002 should have appeared to be a likely endgame for any US invasion of Iraq to anyone who knows the difference between a Shi'ite and a Sunni. Which apparently our 43rd president did not.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Going into Iraq did not make the US less secure, on the contrary it pulled terrorists out of the weeds to be slaughtered by the 100's if not 1000s by the world's best fighting force." Ah yes, the old "we fought them there so we wouldn't have to fight them here" argument. And yet somehow I don't think that a smart and motivated terrorist who wants to kill American civilians on American soil is going to give up that goal just because 100,000 American soldiers suddenly appear in Iraq. Victory over an enemy state never yet ended any threat from non-state actors. Just ask John Wilkes Booth.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Oh boy. A special post for RG - yet more Tea Party/libertarian loons. --snip-- This month, the two main Ron Paul-related websites (“Campaign for Liberty” and “The Daily Paul”) both published eulogies for author Eustace Mullins, who recently died at the age of 86. The Daily Paul’s version: Eustace Mullins Passes On....Eustace Mullins, the man these Ron Paul followers are celebrating, was an associate of Holocaust denier Willis Carto and a notorious antisemite himself, who wrote a book (oddly enough, not mentioned in this tribute) titled “The Biological Jew,” containing statements such as: “Nazism is simply this — a proposal that the German people rid themselves of the parasitic Jews. The gentile host dared to protest against the continued presence of the parasite, and attempted to throw it off.” Mullins also claimed that Jews “drink the blood of innocent gentile children” in religious ceremonies, and was a guest on the white nationalist radio show “The Political Cesspool.” Campaign For Liberty, one of the main US sponsors of tea party protests, had a shorter tribute to Mullins posted at their blog: Today we morn [sic] the passage of Eustace Mullins.... "Eustace Mullins was a great autor [sic] and told the truth about the Federal Reseve [sic], the Constitution, Liberty and American History. A man who had a book burned in Europe, was fired from the Library fof [sic] Congress for ploitical [sic] reasons had to be on the right track. He will be missed...." --snip-- Yeah, I miss that anti-semitic conspiracy lunatic already.— Talking point sleuth
"I notice, Igglesfan, that you call Handnik's assertion about Bush and security as "laughable", but then say nothing else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 9/11 did happen on Georgie and Dickie's watch, right? Thought so." JLJ you need to decide - if Bush is responsible for everything that happened on his watch then when will you start to hold Obama responsible for everything that has happened in the last 13 months on his watch??? You can't have it both ways.— bird11- JLJ -- i didn't have room. 9/11 certainly happened on Bush's watch and he and Clinton share responsibility for it. Bush, however, took decisive action to make our country more secure -- attacking Afghanistan, implementing the DHS, numerous intelligence measures aimed at tracking terrorists by their conversations and $$$. AND by preventing any more attacks on American soil. Going into Iraq did not make the US less secure, on the contrary it pulled terrorists out of the weeds to be slaughtered by the 100's if not 1000s by the world's best fighting force. There IS however, an argument to be made that going into Iraq shifted focus from Bin Laden (who was, and seems to still be marginalized) and cost us boatloads of money that did not need to be spent at that time.— IggleFan68
"Lets break up Microsoft, Google, etc. Punishing success is always a good idea." . . . . . . . Microsoft is a perfect example of how free markets work toward cartelization. Its bundling of IE in the 90s was a brazen attempt to use its monopoly to suppress competition. It barely survived a court-ordered break-up under the Sherman act, that was overturned on appeal, but the findings of anti-trust violations were upheld.- "Government created cartelization is not based on consumer preference or form efficency" . . . . . . . . Umm, no, it's based on producer preference. I thought that was my point.
- Will, mark it down, I agree with you and Obama on nuke plants. We should build 80 of them not 2 but it's a step in the right direction.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Bush deserves the bashing. He set this country back a decade in education, economy, and national security. We have ten years of lamenting how bad this country is, and that's only if Republicans will allow liberal laws to pass. If the corporate-lovers have their way, massive profits will replace society's progress." WHAT??? OMG, there are so many things wrong with this statement it's unimaginable that it was actually made by an American -- you ARE American, correct Handnik?? Let's start: Bush set the country back in education: WRONG. No Child Left Behind is holding schools to a much stricter standard than ever before -- it's just that teacher's unions don't LIKE it. Since I consider teacher's unions a thug-like organization that holds my kids' education hostage to negotiate their ridiculous salary and benefits packages, whatever they're against, I'm for. Bush destroyed the economy: Not quite -- he did pass the tax cuts which saved us from a recession 2000 when the .com bubble burst, but he also did not veto enough spending bills which he should have done. Remember, Congress controls spending. Bush also should have recognized the housing market bubble much earlier and pressed congress to take action before it burst. Bush destroyed our countries national security: Laughable. "Massive profits will replace societies progress": WHAT?? What does THAT mean? Is our government in charge of "society's progress"?? That sounds like a VERY communistic statement. Move to China. See how you like "society's progress" there...— IggleFan68
Concern for the sovereignty of the American people is a secret wish to punish success? Besides, I’m much more worried about the power of Lockheed and Exxon than Google and Microsoft.— Hamlet- Comment removed.
- One Post with Dick Cheney now this with George Bush.....very disturbing since Obama and that genius Biden could have their own Comedy show that has so much material it could run every night.— Manny Trillo
- Here's more evidence that regulation, via the recourse rule and Basel, helped cause the global crisis. http://causesofthecrisis.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-grecian-panic.html— RG
- "It's the responsibility of democratic government (that means you and me) to see to it that no company or cartel ever becomes more powerful than us." Lets break up Microsoft, Google, etc. Punishing success is always a good idea.— RG
- "Government created cartelization is not based on consumer preference" As far as I'm concerned, all cartelization is government created, whether by action or inaction. It's the responsibility of democratic government (that means you and me) to see to it that no company or cartel ever becomes more powerful than us. I consider it a national security issue.— Hamlet
- "Good point. Because people that consume bad meat that hasn't been tested properly (because doing so would reduce corporate profit), obviously, prefer that bad meat" I dunno, you'd have to ask the kids who eat the school lunches that the gov provides.— RG
- ---}}} Government created cartelization is not based on consumer preference or form efficency, {{{--- Good point. Because people that consume bad meat that hasn't been tested properly (because doing so would reduce corporate profit), obviously, prefer that bad meat - in particular because not testing meet improves a company's "form efficiency"— Talking point sleuth
- "Cartelization, remember?' Government created cartelization is not based on consumer preference or form efficency, but rather special favors.— RG
- "So weaker firms have to be subsidized or given special favor to compete?" . . . . Of course not, so long as you don't mind the market being shrunk to a few players, which I've already said is a natural consequence of free trade. Cartelization, remember? And cartelization ultimately leads to....
- ---}}} No one, though, was willing to build thousands of miles of track {{{--- Just as no one would have invested the money to(or loaned the money to ) upgrade the private roads that existed to the level that enabled modern highway travel.— Talking point sleuth
- Just as no one was willing to invest the necessary resources to build our extensive highway system based purely on a "free-market" profit motivation. It would not have happened without "redistributive" tax policies which payed for highway development. A mixture of "socialism" if you will, with private industry. Had the government not played a role in highway development, the nation's economy would not have reached its level of preeminence. The same goes for the railroads. I have traveled in countries which lack public road systems, and they are horrible to get around in. The private roads in those countries are great - but they exist in very limited areas - only those that would prove profitable in a relatively short term. No private company would have invested the resources necessary, for example, to build roads along the West Coast or over the Rockies. It just wouldn't have happened.— Talking point sleuth
- "The only way to guarantee level competition that gives everyone an equal opportunity to compete at any given point in time, is to legislate it." So weaker firms have to be subsidized or given special favor to compete? I guess this justifies the auto bailouts. I always thought the stornger firms should win out, and not be punished for success. Especially when that success is determined by how they fare in a voluntary market. Heck, if you want to ensureequal comp, just mandate that an equal amount of people have to buy Honda, GM, Toyota, etc.— RG
- "Ummm, the market is no longer free when regulators tilt it to favor a certain group." . . . . . . . A free market will always end up favoring a few over many. Those few will always be able to rig the rules of the game in their favor, and some will ultimately end up being too big to fail. The only way to guarantee level competition that gives everyone an equal opportunity to compete at any given point in time, is to legislate it. Seriously, there's no such thing as a free market. Markets will always seek out stabilization whether it's by regulation or by monopolization. It's a natural law.
- Actually, RG's right on one historical point: Privately built and operated turnpikes were the usual roads one saw in seventeenth and eighteenth century England as well as in the early United States. Some of the earlier and shorter railroads also were built with substantial amounts of private capital, though with state governments and sometimes the national government providing the necessary enabling legislation and a good deal of the money (under the banner of Congressman Henry Clay's "American System"). No one, though, was willing to build thousands of miles of track to the west on the principle of "if you build it, they will come" unless the Feds sweetened the pot. Hence the rather tremendouse grants of land to the transcontinental railroads.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- The point is, RG, had the land not been ceded to the railroads, the railroads would not have been built. I never said that there was nothing problematic about how the government came to "acquire" the land. Once again, your binary thinking surfaces. Just because I support some aspects of government doesn't mean that I support anything and everything any government has ever done during throughout history. The on-topic point was whether or not private industry would build sufficient infrastructure without the existence of government.— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- Between 1850 and 1870, over 129 million acres -- seven percent of the continental United States -- had been ceded to 80 railroad companies --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "I guess government support (you know, like land grants)," Oh, the government can now just "grant" land? The Native Americans should have read up on eminent domain.— RG
- ---}}} The railroads were originally funded by private industry. {{{--- Wow! I guess government support (you know, like land grants), had nothing to due with the building of railroads.— Talking point sleuth
- The fact that you can completely disregard that the 800 billion dollar "Stimulus" opted for political payoffs instead of infrastructure projetcs (what it was sold as) is further proof positive that your hopeless partisanship makes you a crappy writer.— tjm333126
- "And this proprietary knowledge then becomes a barrier to entry for anyone who comes after" If a company can meet consumer dmeand more efficently than others, I hardly see that as a problem that needs government interference.— RG
- ---}}} And there's a history of private roads throughout the world. {{{--- LOL! Just curious, RG - have you ever actually been in a country that has a sizable percentage of private roads?— Talking point sleuth
- "Companies come up with new processes, technologies, and designs that are meant to reduce price, add value, etc." And this proprietary knowledge then becomes a barrier to entry for anyone who comes after - unless they sell out to the big guy (monopolization) or join forces to share that knowledge (cartelization). You'll notice that the government played no role in the scenario we've just spun out.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "but the truth of the matter is that large-scale infrastructure projects are never undertaken by private ventures," The railroads were originally funded by private industry. And there's a history of private roads throughout the world.— RG
- "It was that even when markets remain free of regulation, they do not remain perfectly competitive." Of course not, nor should we want it that way. Comapnies come up with new processes, technologies, and designs that are meant to reduce price, add value, etc.— RG
- RG, I don't think that montani's point was about what happens when government regulation does rear its head. It was that even when markets remain free of regulation, they do not remain perfectly competitive. Myself, I would quibble with the use of the term "free market" for that very reason. There may somewhere be an unregulated market in which the biggest players write their own rules for their own benefit, but the act of doing so makes it a free market no longer. A truly free market cannot exist in the real world.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- RG - "The idea that a handful of lawmakers have the knowledge to determine what is best for a diverse population of 300 mil is fairly silly." So you would argue that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were, in your words, Fairly silly? There was no popular referendum, no meddling by lobbyists, just a bunch of old white guys who did what they thought was best for the (new) nation as a whole. Frankly, the state of the infrastructure in this country is hideous - and nothing is being done about it for two reasons. 1) Corporations do not have the incentive to improve it, since what's the benefit? 2) The partisan bullheadedness at the federal level has prevented purely helpful bills from being passed without becoming a pork-barrel fest, with millions upon millions tossed away on pet projects and unrelated items. The free market doesn't work, nor does socialism. The blend of the two, with public vetting of the performance of their representative government to ensure their altruistic actions, is the only viable solution. I realize that to some that may sound like "can't we all just get along" but the truth of the matter is that large-scale infrastructure projects are never undertaken by private ventures, and public investment is such projects has been rife with unnecessary acrimony for too long. If a bill is good for the people of a given area, it should be voted for - and then the concerned senator from the other locale can present his own bill to fund development in his area. Between the overarching concern for profits on the private side, and the quagmire of competition in government between so-called "democrats" and "republicans" - neither of which really mean anything anymore - our national infrastructure has been degraded to a point where individuals quality of life is being affected. Is this really the best we can do???— citylumberjack
- "Only an idiot thinks free markets remain in a perpetually "competitive" state where nobody can get an edge on anyone else." Ummm, the market is no longer free when regulators tilt it to favor a certain group.— RG
- "Are you saying that federal regulations can lead to cartelization in certain industries, which reduces competition?" . . . . . . I'm saying that corporations will always prefer the predictability of government regulation over the unpredictability of being sued. It's far easier to lobby a lawmaker who needs fundraising help than a juror who's just doing his civic duty. Free markets will always favor a trend towards cartelization, for that matter. Only an idiot thinks free markets remain in a perpetually "competitive" state where nobody can get an edge on anyone else.
- "And one that I'd rather see answered by a regulator, not the maker of the drug." Or individuals. Why should someone live with chronic pain if a drug could help them?— RG
- "Does it make sense to ban the drug completely, even if it benefits the overwhelming portion of the population?" Complex question. And one that I'd rather see answered by a regulator, not the maker of the drug.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "It's a bit different, though, when you're harmed by a drug or other product that claims to help you." Did you follow the recommended dosage? Was it an siolated incident? Does it make sense to ban the drug completely, even if it benefits the overwhelming portion of the population?— RG
- "My preferred tact would be to enforce contract law and handle disputes in civil court." Any restrictions or stipulations about the way in which contracts are arrived at in the first place?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Ah, something on which many of the antagonists here can agree. When it comes to recreational drugs, I reckon there aren't too many asymmetries of information to deal with. People know they're harmful; people choose to do them anyway. It's a bit different, though, when you're harmed by a drug or other product that claims to help you.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Is there any such thing as under-regulation?' My preferred tact would be to enforce contract law and handle disputes in civil court.— RG
- "Glad to hear you say that. Being a proponent of the aforementioned liberal position, I agree 100%." Speaking of this, Mexico's crackdown (overregulation) on the trade has led to skyrocketing violence and corruption.— RG
- Still obsessed with me, eh Idiot?— Talking point sleuth
- "Why don't you just ask him directly if he thinks there is any such thing as under-regulation?" OK, legatus, I'll take you up on that. RG: Is there any such thing as under-regulation?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Are you saying that federal regulations can lead to cartelization in certain industries, which reduces competition?" It's been known to happen - but personally, I certainly wouldn't try to say that any time a cartel forms, it's because the government made it so. I'll quote Adam Smith if you're willing (because even a liberal can quote Adam Smith for his own purposes): "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Whatever the going 'liberal position' might be on drug reform or anything else, you'll never hear me, personally, argue that over-regulation is not just as dangerous as under-regulation." Glad to hear you say that. Being a proponent of the aforementioned liberal position, I agree 100%. "The point I'm arguing with RG is whether there is any such thing as under-regulation. I say yes; his answer appears to be no." Since I interpreted your viewpoint re "under/over regulation" incorrectly, maybe you are doing the same with RG. Why don't you just ask him directly if he thinks there is any such thing as under-regulation?— legatus
- "yet with so much information of various levels of "truthiness" floating around, whom shall we trust?" We'll have to make up our own minds absed on our unique situations. The government cannot possess the requisite knowledge (nor IMO the benevolence) to make these choices for others. It can simply enforce the agreed upon rules, not constatly write new ones.— RG
- ---}}} Fraud played almost no role in the crisis. {{{--- The more complex the vehicles, the more difficult it is to investigate fraud. New cases enforcement cases dropped - both because of resources not keeping up with demand and also because the Bush administration installed anti-regulation hacks: 2006 --snip-- The SEC as a whole lost 155 employees last year -- including 43 in the enforcement unit -- compared with fiscal 2005. A total of 3,696 people worked at the agency in 2006, with 1,189 in the enforcement division. The agency is reviewing its staffing levels and plans to restore some of the unfilled positions, officials said. In recent years, the SEC has faced criticism for failing to uncover widespread accounting fraud at such companies as Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. as well as trading abuses at mutual funds. Those scandals prompted Congress to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the agency's coffers. But more recent financial difficulties, including construction overruns on its new headquarters near Union Station, led to a budget shortfall last year and a hiring freeze that only recently has been lifted, officials said....Duke University law professor James D. Cox, who is no relation to the SEC leader, said: "You get what you pay for. It's been clear in the history of the SEC that as the budget goes, so goes enforcement." -snip-- BTW - reducing the ability of the SEC to do it's job also happened during Clinton's administration, because while it was better than Bush's, it also followed the anti-regulation mantra.— Talking point sleuth
- ANOTHER reason to vote Sarah Palin for President: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds if she thinks Sarah Palin will be President and if she would move to Canada: "Well, the short answer is no. I will not be emigrating. I will be visiting as often as I can." BUH BYE HILLARY. Ha Ha Ha, you could have been President if it weren't for the continual bimbo eruptions of your "husband" billy DURING THE PRIMARY season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!— WriteWinger
- "Corporations would prefer direct government oversight that can be "controlled" in exchange for any immunity from such "private" enforcement of the law." Good point, montani - and yet judges can be bribed too. I guess at the end of the day, we all keep running into the problem that there are enough bad lots out there who'll cheat you if they can, and we all favor different arrangements to try to lessen the damage. We can still argue, of course, the merits of the various arrangements.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Corporations would prefer direct government oversight that can be "controlled" in exchange for any immunity from such "private" enforcement of the law." Are you saying that federal regulations can lead to cartelization in certain industries, which reduces competition?— RG
- JWAD- to answer your question- No- no one reads TPS's long winded, absurd, repetitive posts. He is just here as the "Class Tool"- we need somoene to give virtual wedgies to....— Manny Trillo
- "The large companies did not want to test their meat. They didn't want to offer cheaper products with a higher risk - because it would bring lower profit. THEY ACTIVELY FOUGHT AGAINST CONDITIONS THAT WOULD create that competitive scenario." I'm shocked that large companies would petition the government for special favors to limit competitiors. Shocked I say.— RG
- "They do, but with the expansion of the internet, these asymmetries are shrinking, not growing." A fair point; yet with so much information of various levels of "truthiness" floating around, whom shall we trust? (I've found myself asking this question, for instance, in my not-very-much-younger days when trying to book a place in a European youth hostel. And if I pick wrong and get scammed, it's unlikely that I'll be able to stay in Scotland or Spain or wherever to exercise sanctions via a lawsuit.)— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} you'll never hear me, personally, argue that over-regulation is not just as dangerous as under-regulation. {{{--- Nor me. Over-regulation is problematic. But RG's argument is that regulation, by definition, is disastrous, whereas there no dangers inherent in under-regulation. A binary mindset that undermines the good that government can achieve.— Talking point sleuth
- "Nothing worng with that." . . . . . Of course not. Judges and juries have been setting regulatory standards for business since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Corporations would prefer direct government oversight that can be "controlled" in exchange for any immunity from such "private" enforcement of the law.
- You are confusing the Bush administration with one that favors regulation, RG. The judge ruled that increased testing was entirely legal - and the Bush administration - which was IDEOLOGICALLY OPPOSED to regulation, argued against the judge's ruling. They did so at the behest of the large companies - which DIDN'T WANT TO INCREASE THEIR TESTING BECAUSE IT WOULD COST MONEY - NO MATTER THAT IT WOULD INCREASE PUBLIC FOOD SAFETY. Get it, RG? The large companies did not want to test their meat. They didn't want to offer cheaper products with a higher risk - because it would bring lower profit. THEY ACTIVELY FOUGHT AGAINST CONDITIONS THAT WOULD create that competitive scenario. The companies themselves actively fought against creating a more competitive marketplace. Unbelievable. You are using this case to argue that companies seek to increase the quality control of their products because they think it is a better long-term business plan. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Legatus: Whatever the going "liberal position" might be on drug reform or anything else, you'll never hear me, personally, argue that over-regulation is not just as dangerous as under-regulation. The point I'm arguing with RG is whether there is any such thing as under-regulation. I say yes; his answer appears to be no.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Would you agree or disagree that in any society that features market relations (meaning any but the very simplest), asymmetries of information and of market power develop and are taken advantage of?" They do, but with the expansion of the internet, these asymmetries are shrinking, not growing.— RG
- "Not to mention the threat of a class action law suit or two." Nothing worng with that.— RG
- "Are you seriously arguing that the use of complex investment vehicles didn't increase during the course of the Bush administration - and at a rate much faster than the minimal budget increases they made to the SECs budget?" Who cares if the use of these vehicles increased? They weren't illegal nor were they new. Fraud played almost no role in the crisis. In fact, regulation, specifically the recourse rule, and Basel I and II may have. "But under the recourse rule, “well-capitalized” American commercial banks were required to spend 80 percent more capital on commercial loans, 80 percent more capital on corporate bonds, and 60 percent more capital on individual mortgages than they had to spend on asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed bonds, as long as these bonds were rated AA or AAA or were issued by a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), such as Fannie or Freddie." http://www.aei.org/docLib/01-2010-Regulation-g.pdf— RG
- "In simpler terms, competition, not regulation, drives quality and innovation." . . . . . Not to mention the threat of a class action law suit or two.
- Fair enough, RG; but I'll try and go one step farther to establish the need for some amount of regulatory oversight. Would you agree or disagree that in any society that features market relations (meaning any but the very simplest), asymmetries of information and of market power develop and are taken advantage of? If so, what, if anything, would you say should be done about it?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} ...cherry picking those things that China does well and holding them up as examples of how gov't control is the right way to do things, you can't have it both ways. {{{--- I did no such thing, pj. RG implied that public sector spending in China would have a negative effect, and I pointed out how that is counter-factual given China's economic growth during a period of increased public sector spending. I would never, ever, advocate for the oppressive government of China. Never have. Never will. You are simply red-baiting.— Talking point sleuth
- "Throughout history, RG, where there's a marketplace, there's a court to settle disputes as they arise, thus preserving the trust that the marketplace needs in order to operate." Am I arguing against a court system to resolve disputes? If I recall, McDonald's increased their safety requirments due to a civil suit.— RG
- Throughout history, RG, where there's a marketplace, there's a court to settle disputes as they arise, thus preserving the trust that the marketplace needs in order to operate. Where trust is in short supply, markets do not thrive - and the biggest players in today's economy have done much to show us that we cannot trust them.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use THE SAME TEST GOVERNMENT RELIES ON...." You really can't read. Keystone wanted to expand the test to more than the required amount. It wanted to go above and beyond the gov requirements. This would have raised the cost of its product, but Keystone thought that its customers would be willing to pay for the peceived value. Competitors would either have to keep up or sell less rigourosuly tested beef, but at a cheaper price. The market would have determined if Keystone's strategy was right, but instead the government stepped in.— RG
- "You have to take a shot at Bush." . . . . . . . Actually Will referred to the "Bush years", and everybody knows the bad stuff was all Clinton's fault anyway. Michael Lind said so last month in Salon.
- ---}}} CDS' have been around since the 90's and the CMO's since much longer than that. These aren't new products. {{{--- Good grief. Are you seriously arguing that the use of complex investment vehicles didn't increase during the course of the Bush administration - and at a rate much faster than the minimal budget increases they made to the SECs budget?— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Other companies feared that they'd need to raise the inspection bar due to competition and not regulation. {{{--- LOL! --snip-- U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use THE SAME TEST GOVERNMENT RELIES ON.... --snip-- The other companies didn't want to do the testing because doing so would reduce their profitablity. In other words, RG, they wanted to maintain a situation where they weren't protecting food safety, because they were choosing short term profits over food safety.— Talking point sleuth
- "and ever since then these transactions have needed oversight to ensure that no party could take unfair advantage of another." Really? Throughout history there's been a vast bureacracy regulating certain industries?— RG
- "Three hundred people got murdered in Philadelphia last year, but that's not exactly a good reason for abolishing the PPD." Isn't a central tenet of the liberal position concerning the decriminalization of illicit drugs that it will bring about a decrease in the crimne rate...including murders? Isn't that simply another way of saying that many murders are cause by over-regulation?— legatus
- "Do you doubt that with increasingly complex financial vehicles regulation didn't increase accordingly?" Which vehicles are you speaking of? CDS' have been around since the 90's and the CMO's since much longer than that. These aren't new products.— RG
- "Excellent point. I guess we could say they did a heck of a job." More fun. After any regualtion fails, simply blame it on the "hacks" that were appointed without a shred of evidence. Please, do tell, what was so hackish about Donaldson or Cox?— RG
- As for the argument about "they didn't do their due diligence," the point I'm going to bring up is akin to one we've argued before. A private individual trusts the professionals to do a better job with his money than he would do ourselves because he knows that, no matter how much checking he does on them, they know more than he does. That's also why, as I've said before, it's so difficult to know that you're getting a good deal on your health policy. That's also why we trust the supermarket, and McDonald's, and the school cafeteria, and the farmers upstream from them, to bring us food that won't sicken us. Ever since recorded history began, people have exchanged the fruits of their specialized labor for the fruits of someone else's, and ever since then these transactions have needed oversight to ensure that no party could take unfair advantage of another. Ultimately, RG, the only refutation your overall worldview needs is the simple reminder that no man is an island.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} their budget went up, but they were still underesourced. {{{--- ---}}} Do you doubt that, RG? Do you doubt that with increasingly complex financial vehicles regulation didn't increase accordingly? The Bush administration increased SEC funding at a small percentage even during as the sub-prime crises ramped up. That means that even as the budget increased marginally, the number of auditors went down respective to the number of cases that needed investigation. In 2002 --snip-- one investment house alone, Merrill Lynch, has more professionals in its legal and compliance departments than the commission's entire enforcement staff. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- You are right that the infrastucture is in disrepair and needs to be addressed, but you just can't help yourself. You have to take a shot at Bush. You are one of the many many reasons (mostly all liberal bloggers and columnists) that bipartisanship will never work. You continue to build the divide. Let's work in the present and move on. Let's get that infrastructure fixed. Stop taking shots. We have had a new president for over a year now. Get over it.— frankfj
- "Erm, there IS such a thing as not having enough money to go a good job of something." So we'll just tax or deficit spend until we get the "right" amount of regulation. Problem solved!— RG
- My calendar is just fine, but thanks for your concern. As for the left's habit if cherry picking those things that China does well and holding them up as examples of how gov't control is the right way to do things, you can't have it both ways. China's able to accomplish these economic wonders because they do not operate under a free system. The government mandates it and it happens. Totalitarianism makes it possible. You can't praise the result and ignore the means used to achieve it! If that is what you want for the US just say so. Stop hiding behind nuance.— pjsz1261
- "You read an article like that, and then you conclude that as an overriding principle, companies will self-regulate food safety because they are concerned about public image? " Your comprehension is terrible. Other companies feared that they'd need to raise the inspection bar due to competition and not regulation. In simpler terms, competition, not regulation, drives quality and innovation.— RG
- "Further, by appointing hacks to the regulatory agencies, the Bush administration diminished the entire process of implementing penalties." Excellent point. I guess we could say they did a heck of a job.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} Yes, because being murdered is the same thing as giving your money over-voluntarily-to someone without performing the proper due dilligence. {{{--- ---}}} RG makes a good point there, Billy Ray. See, if you get shot walking down any given street, you VOLUNTARILY chose to walk down that street at that particular time. You could have chosen a different street or a different time.— Talking point sleuth
- "Agents became increasingly unable to effectively investigate because they were increasingly under-resourced." This one's a doozy. Their budget went up, but they were still underesourced.— RG
- "Actually, the beauty of this argument is that when presented with empirical evidence of the failure of government and regulation, your solution is to throw more money at it." Erm, there IS such a thing as not having enough money to go a good job of something. Business people know this. That's why they go to banks to get loans.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Wow! I guess you missed this part of the article you linked, RG. --snip-- larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too. --snip-- LOL! You read an article like that, and then you conclude that as an overriding principle, companies will self-regulate food safety because they are concerned about public image? Hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- "Wrong, the budget went up almost every year." Your source?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "the beauty of this argument is that, since it has no empirical content, it can't be conclusively confirmed or refuted." Actually, the beauty of this argument is that when presented with empirical evidence of the failure of government and regulation, your solution is to throw more money at it. "Gee, if we give regulators more money to protect us from the evil snakeoil salesman that i bought the last batch off of, maybe I won't buy it this time around."— RG
- ---}}} Wrong, the budget went up almost every year. {{{--- ---}}} LOL! Budgets went up at a MUCH slower rate than the number and complexity of the issues that needed regulation. Agents became increasingly unable to effectively investigate because they were increasingly under-resourced. Further, by appointing hacks to the regulatory agencies, the Bush administration diminished the entire process of implementing penalties.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} the beauty of this argument is that, since it has no empirical content, it can't be conclusively confirmed or refuted. {{{--- Exactly, Billy Ray. To some extent, I agree with the Austrian thinking - in that I agree that other economists rely far to much on mathematical modeling to assess human behavior. Modern economists are trying to mix psychology to economics - but the criticism stands. But as you point out, the Austrians go way overboard - and their logic uses circular thinking that ensures a self-fulfilling conclusion. Whenever anything it today's world supports their theories (e.g., whenever government spending has a problem) they can use that as proof that government spending is categorically evil). But if anything in the real world runs counter to the basic principles of their theory (i.e., thinking that government spending is inherently bad) they can just say "but, but, it wasn't REALLY a "free-market" (as they say to explain why so many economies have grown rapidly even with rapidly growing public sector spending, or when companies deliberately market toxic products to make a quick buck).— Talking point sleuth
- "Three hundred people got murdered in Philadelphia last year, but that's not exactly a good reason for abolishing the PPD." Yes, because being murdered is the same thing as giving your money over-voluntarily-to someone without performing the proper due dilligence.— RG
- Oh, and complaints about Madoff went back to 1992, so trying to blame Bush for that is really stretching it, but keep playing that worn out card.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Outcomes can always be suboptimal, but the associations would be voluntary instead of compulsory." You're right: I would feel so much better knowing that my associatons via the marketplace with food producers, health care providers, clothing manufacturers, landlords, sellers of electricity and natural gas, and other items essential to life were voluntary and not compulsory.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "and its access to resources for policing the securities markets during the Bush years was, how shall I say this, somewhat lessened." Wrong, the budget went up almost every year. And why would they need more resources for a case where they were already tipped off to?— RG
- "And how awesome were the regulators at the SEC to be tipped off about Madoff but still fail to put together the pieces?" Three hundred people got murdered in Philadelphia last year, but that's not exactly a good reason for abolishing the PPD. On the contrary, it's an argument for improving their access to crime-fighting resources. Same with the SEC -- and its access to resources for policing the securities markets during the Bush years was, how shall I say this, somewhat lessened.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "And when you're talking to an adherent of Austrian economics, his working assumption is that the outcomes would indeed be awesome." Hardly. Outcomes can always be suboptimal, but the associations would be voluntary instead of compulsory. Austrians also beleive in the decentralized knowledge of markets compared to the centralized plannign of governments. The idea that a handful of lawmakers have the knowledge to determine what is best for a diverse population of 300 mil is fairly silly.— RG
- "Also, those 58 water main breaks back during the Rendell mayorship was GWB's fault as well." . . . . . Ask Manny if he checked his calendar that day.
- Actually, TPS, one of the tenets of Austrian economics (which seems to be RG's preferred school of thought) is that, since hardly a single market anywhere in today's world is totally free of government regulation, we don't empirically know how such a market would function or how totally AWESOME its outcomes would be. (And when you're talking to an adherent of Austrian economics, his working assumption is that the outcomes would indeed be awesome.) As you've seen on this and other threads, the beauty of this argument is that, since it has no empirical content, it can't be conclusively confirmed or refuted.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- More USDA zaniness. Back in 2007, a company wanted to go above and beyond in testing for mad cow. The USDA said no. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4846051.html— RG
- "And that Mao guy sure got things done, didn't he?" . . . . . LOL, Manny, you'd better help pj out with his calendar.
- And how awesome were the regulators at the SEC to be tipped off about Madoff but still fail to put together the pieces?— RG
- Also, those 58 water main breaks back during the Rendell mayorship was GWB's fault as well. Aging infrastructure is an exclusively Republican-caused problem. Brilliant inference, Bunch.— Castle
- Market competition regulates better than the government could **** That is FUNNY! How did that work out with banks or corporations?— sbdons1982
- Here's an awesome recap of the USDA's spectacular failures. Thank goodness they are out there protecting us. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-10-meat-wagon-cargill-salmonella/— RG
- "Oh, so they are forcing you to buy it? Interesting." Well, come to that I guess there are three possible choices. 1) Starve. 2) Go off the grid and grow my own food. 3) Exchange the fruits of my non-agricultural labor for food, thus trusting the people whose business it is to sell food, as well as the people whose business it is to regulate those people.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} Yes, its very complicated to understand that after negative publicity, Mcdonalds decided to act on its own accord to improve the quality of its food. {{{--- ---}}} There are myriad examples where companies failed to make improvements to defective products without having been forced to do so by government regulations. Seriously, RG - that anyone could look at the meat industry, in particular, and doubt that government regulation plays a positive, albeit imperfect, role just boggles the mind.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} Interesting. And with government regs, people never get sick now, right? And the gov kids lunch program is serving top notch meat, right? {{{--- ---}}} This is the other part of what you're dealing with, Billy Ray. RG believes in Shangri-La. That's why he takes it as a given that any problem with government related conditions PROVES that without government, all roads would be paved in gold. That there are problems with public education proves that we'd be better off if hundreds of millions of Americans (who can't afford private education) didn't have access to education. That there are problems with food safety proves that we'd be better off without government entities that regulate food safety (because businesses would forgo huge short-term profits as they realize realize the long-term drawbacks of harming their customers). LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "He takes one example, in a very complicated situation where it's impossible to measure the impact of market regulation on McDonald's policies" Yes, its very complicated to understand that after negative publicity, Mcdonalds decided to act on its own accord to improve the quality of its food. Meanwhile, a monopoly without competition, has continued to serve lower quality food to kids.— RG
- "Do I really have to reintroduce you to the situation in this country before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act?" I believe his point is that now, even with food regulations (which of course affect the private & public sector equally) in place, Mickey D's has safer beef than that supplied to schools by the gov't. He attributes this superiority to market forces.— legatus
- ---}}} Market competition regulates better than the government could." {{{--- ---}}} That's what you're dealing with, Billy Ray. He takes one example, in a very complicated situation where it's impossible to measure the impact of market regulation on McDonald's policies - and from that dismisses the reality that throughout history, without government regulation, people marketed toxic products to make a quick buck.— Talking point sleuth
- "There were and are people who, in the absence of adequate consumer information and/or government regulation, will stuff a sausage skin with rat offal and sell it to you for a dollar." Oh, so they are forcing you to buy it? Interesting. And with government regs, people never get sick now, right? And the gov kids lunch program is serving top notch meat, right?— RG
- "I am proud to introduce to you the next President of the United States, Bernie Madoff!" If the choice is between someone who knows finance like Bernie Madoff or those unfortnates who were scammed by Madoff, I'll take Bernie.— legatus
- ---}}} TPS shows his true colors. CHINA has it right. {{{--- ---}}} Please point out where, in any way, I defended China's oppressive policies. Never have and never will. I'd prefer there be far more pressure put on China re: civil rights violations than any American administration has been willing to do. But don't let bogus red-baiting get in the way of making a legitimate point, pj.— Talking point sleuth
- "McDonalds beef is safer and of higher quality then that of the FDA that is sold to schools for kids lunch programs. Market competition regulates better than the government could." Do I really have to reintroduce you to the situation in this country before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act? There were and are people who, in the absence of adequate consumer information and/or government regulation, will stuff a sausage skin with rat offal and sell it to you for a dollar. Personally, I'd sooner pay a bit more tax to get a government seal of approval on the food and medicine I buy.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to introduce to you the next President of the United States, Bernie Madoff!" Well Social Security is becoming a Ponzi scheme.— RG
- Bush3: I'm willing to bet that the most expensive things your guy ever did in office were his two nation-building projects and the prescription drug plan. All three passed Congress well before the '06 elections. Next, please.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "We need someone who understands finance to be President!" Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to introduce to you the next President of the United States, Bernie Madoff!— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "See, that's why we don't need government to regulate product safety. LOL!" McDonalds beef is safer and of higher quality then that of the FDA that is sold to schools for kids lunch programs. Market competition regulates better than the government could.— RG
- TPS shows his true colors. CHINA has it right. An oppressive regime that indefinitely imprisons its own citizens if they dare to dissent. But their high speed rail projects are so darn cool! And that Mao guy sure got things done, didn't he?— pjsz1261
- RG really said that? Sleuth, I ought to pay you a commission on the big-time sale I'm about to make. You see, I have a bridge (a brand-spanking new one, too) to sell to some *wise investor* out there, and I think you may just have found one for me.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Poor motorists. For decades, people who didn't use the roads paid in taxes to have the roads built." Maybe locally, but the federal highway trust fund was funded by gas taxes if I remember correctly. And now those gas taxes fund mass transit, which is little used outside a few metro areas.— RG
- You can't separate out parties. Both Bush and Obama are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars overseas in meaningless wars - the real bridges to nowhere. Neither of those two guys ever saw a budget they couldn't wreck. Romney was the choice last election but too many Republicans were bigoted and would not elect a mormon. We need someone who understands finance to be President!— sbdons1982
- What I fail to understand is that the Dems have controlled the Congress since 2007, and got the White house in 2008, and up until January, had a supermajority, yet, Bush is blamed for the big spending. The dems were also not able to get healthcare passed, yet we are told it is the Republicans fault. The Repubs could not stop anything, yet they are blamed, and not I see that the Dems want to do away with the 60 vote cloture rule. It was ok while they had the votes, but now they are one vote shy, and are wanting to change the rules. Amazing! Will, you better get ready to be a member of the minority party with your minority leaders Pelosi and Shumer. The American public is waking up.— Bush3
- Oh, and btw, RG - in the meantime, hundreds of millions of Chinese have and will benefit from the drastically improved standard of living.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Wait and watch for their bubble to pop. {{{--- ---}}} Could happen, RG. Depends on their policies. Just like in this country, if the politicians wanted to bite the bullet, they could restrict entitlements to reduce our debt.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} because private investors want to get their money back in three or five years, {{{--- ---}}} You missed it, Billy Ray, RG has explained in the past that real businesses are only interested in long-term outcomes. That's what keeps them from marketing dangerous products to make a quick buck. See, that's why we don't need government to regulate product safety. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- automobile users pay an average of 2.3 cents per mile in user fees, including fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, while they actually impose 6.5 cents per mile in road service costs. Who pays the difference? It's picked up by general taxes and property assessments. ....Although motorist user fees (fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees) fund most highway expenses, funding for local roads (the roads pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates mainly from general taxes. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "As opposed to all that "sustainable growth" they had prior to increasing their public sector spending. LOL!" Wait and watch for their bubble to pop.— RG
- You know, RG, back in the early days of this country governments weren't afraid to subsidize massive infrastructure projects like, say, the Erie Canal or the transcontinental railroads, that had no prospect of immediately paying for themselves but would be of tremendous social benefit in the long run. The fact is, private investors don't do things like that, no matter how useful they might be to society in general, because private investors want to get their money back in three or five years, not in thirty or fifty years. And private investors also don't care how many other businesses might spring up in the shadow of the massive infrastructure projects in which they could invest (but don't) because they want to see to their own dividends, not the good of the peripheral stakeholders. Face it, friend: there are good, useful, and profitable things that the private sector simply will not do, and the fact that the private sector will not do them does not automatically make them bad, useless, or unprofitable. To deny the public sector a role in society's overall economic development is as simplistic and ultimately self-defeating as is the opposite Marxist extreme of planned government control of everything.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} So now motorists are subsidizing other projects. ---}}} {{{--- Poor motorists. For decades, people who didn't use the roads paid in taxes to have the roads built. Maybe motorists can seek "protected class" status?— Talking point sleuth
- "I just checked my calender- it's 2010- February- and Barack Hussein Obama is the president......" . . . . . How did that happen?
- ---}}} Their growth is currently dependant on gov spending and/or cheap credit, its unsustainable. ---}}} {{{--- As opposed to all that "sustainable growth" they had prior to increasing their public sector spending. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Bush deserves the bashing. He set this country back a decade in education, economy, and national security. We have ten years of lamenting how bad this country is, and that's only if Republicans will allow liberal laws to pass. If the corporate-lovers have their way, massive profits will replace society's progress.— HandNik
- "LOL, nobody wanted the interstate highway system either, unless it was heavily subsidized. Oh, but that's socialism." Now it kind of is, with estimates showing that only 60% of revenues from fuel taxes going back to the roads. So now motorists are subsidizing other projects.— RG
- "Good point, RG. Because, clearly, the rapid growth in public sector spending in China, certainly overall and even in terms of % of GDP, had clearly restricted the growth of its economy. LOL!" Thansk for proving my point. Their growth is currently dependant on gov spending and/or cheap credit, its unsustainable.— RG
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} So China will be stuck with a bunch of rails that no one really wants unless they are heavily subsidized. {{{--- ---}}} Good point, RG. Because, clearly, the rapid growth in public sector spending in China, certainly overall and even in terms of % of GDP, had clearly restricted the growth of its economy. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- I'm glad Obama's doing the nuclear plants -- it is infrastructure that will reduce pollution from greenhouse gases, a much greater risk than the nuclear safety issues.— will
- "So China will be stuck with a bunch of rails that no one really wants unless they are heavily subsidized." . . . . . . LOL, nobody wanted the interstate highway system either, unless it was heavily subsidized. Oh, but that's socialism.
- Thank God the Health care give away didn't pass...— palmyra21
- I just checked my calender- it's 2010- February- and Barack Hussein Obama is the president.......Bunch where have you been? in TPS's basement?— Manny Trillo
- The Colts are blaming George Bush also- for their Super Bowl loss.— Manny Trillo
- Wilbur- do you mean infrastructure like this?--Obama will announce on Tuesday an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern Co build two reactors, a move that the administration hopes will invigorate the nuclear power industry after nearly three decades in which no new plants have been built. I didn't think you did either. (HTML deleted)— WriteWinger
- I got it now: Kennedy, Murtha, L A U T E N B U R G !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!— WriteWinger
- either this guy is mentally ill, or he is like that kid that we all knew who would make snow balls, and then try to convince others to throw them— Tom813
- So China will be stuck with a bunch of rails that no one really wants unless they are heavily subsidized. Brilliant. "It's a no-brainer, except that all debt-and-spending is now politically toxic, thanks to all the non-productive waste" Or the massive unfunded entitlement programs set to suck up 80% of the budget in the near future.— RG
- Sounds like you've got it all figured out. All our problems are due to Bush's presidency, tax cuts for the rich, and the war in Iraq. What's there to discuss?— Mark Schecklgruber
- NOTE: DEMOCRATS have controlled Congress for the past FOUR YEARS. But thanks to Obama, this is one change he will be able to take credit for.— WriteWinger
Republican debt, spending, and lack of fiscal discipline is bad. Apparently though, Democrat debt, spending, and lack of fiscal discipline is good because Will neglects to mention what's been going on the last year or so. I know, your shocked, right?— jmc- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts