Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
When it comes to understanding the real economy and the struggles of ordinary Americans, Senator Bernie Sanders always seems to be ahead of the curve and fighting like hell for Congress to show leadership and be responsive.
Now he's doing it once again with his legislation to break up the Too Big To Fail financial institutions that pose a threat to our entire economy.
Sanders coined the phrase, "If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist," back when he voted against the initial Wall Street Bailout in October 2008. Now, none other than former Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker are parroting it, and a lot of other notables from across the political spectrum have come around to support busting up the banks too, as the Senator describes below.
The bill itself is a thing of beauty in its simplicity (and length! only two pages in this age of 1000-page behemoths!). It would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner 90 days to compile a list of commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies that he deems too big to fail, including "any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance." Within one year after the legislation becomes law, the Treasury Department would be required to break up those financial institutions.
I spoke with Senator Sanders about the bill, its potential, and the challenge of organizing to take on Wall Street. Here is what he had to say:
Q: Where do things stand right now with the legislation?
Sen. Sanders: We introduced it a couple of days ago. It's getting a lot of interest and support all over the country. On our website, we have a petition, and we have over 11,000 signatures on it already. There is some interest from some of my colleagues to push forward. And I think--what it does--maybe most importantly, what you are seeing all over the country right now are people from different perspectives who are coming out in support of the concept of breaking these guys up. I mean, you have people--from former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan himself, who more than anybody else led us to this deregulatory nightmare--beginning to rethink that. You have the government of the United Kingdom actually moving forward to start breaking up some of their large financial institutions. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.... And then just a few days ago John Reed--who did not write the story of the Russian Revolution, I suppose--he was the former CEO of Citigroup, and he apologized. He came forward and he apologized to the American people for his activities in helping to engineer the deregulation effort.....
So I think what you got is a number of things here. Number one, a year after the financial crisis and the bailout, three out of the four largest financial institutions that were too big to fail are now bigger than they were before. Which puts us in a position to see next time around an even larger bailout. I think the American people think that that is pretty crazy, and I think maybe we should learn a lesson from some of our good Republican presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, who went after these big monopolies and broke them up.... We cannot simply go back to where we were before the crisis--maybe even in a more dangerous position with these 'too big to fail' institutions even bigger than they were--we've gotta break them up.
Number two, which is not talked about terribly much--is that it's not only the question of taxpayer liability for another bailout, but it is the concentration of ownership in the industry, and what that means for consumers. So for example, you have the four largest banks in America--and that is Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup--now issue one out of every two mortgages.... They issue 2 out of every 3 credit cards. And, we get calls every single day, from people who have seen their interest rates double, despite paying their bills on time. So you have these large banks charging people 25, 30 percent interest rates which is just unconscionable. And I think the fact that you have four large banks issuing 2 out of 3 credit cards clearly contributes to those outrageously high rates. And then you have 4 out of every 10 bank deposits in the country being held by these four institutions. So above and beyond this issue of 'too big to fail' and the liability to taxpayers, is this concentration of ownership and what that means to consumers.
Third issue, not unrelated, is that our goal has got to be to get money from Wall Street into the productive economy--into small and medium-sized businesses--which unlike Wall Street are not gambling casinos but are actually producing real products and real services and creating real jobs. And I think you do that with more competition in financial services rather than what you have right now.
And maybe the last issue is that--you know, some of my colleagues talk about regulating Wall Street. I think the evidence is pretty clear that it is Wall Street that regulates the Congress. Over a 10-year period, Wall Street has put $5 billion into lobbying and campaign contributions. They were extremely effective in doing away with Glass-Steagall and moving toward deregulation. They had the leadership of both parties working for their interests. And I think when you leave an institution like Wall Street so powerful, with so much wealth, it is very hard to imagine that Congress can in fact stand up to them.
So I think those are the reasons why we've gotta proceed in terms of breaking them up.
Q: So how do you organize to take on Wall Street? Is this legislation a vehicle to do that?
Sen. Sanders: I think it is. Because it is simple. It has historical precedent in the sense that this is what Presidents Roosevelt and Taft did, early 1900s. So our job is to rally the American people to put pressure on Congress to do it. But, having said that, taking on Wall Street to say the least is not easy. These people are unbelievably powerful. But we've thrown down the gauntlet here, and we're trying our best to rally support at the grassroots and in Congress itself.
Q: So, you mentioned Volcker, Greenspan, Reich--do you anticipate them coming into the Senate for a hearing on this?
Sen. Sanders: We have got to figure out a venue.... We're going to work every angle that we can in order to bring proponents of this concept together--and there are many of them out there. And what's interesting, you're going to bring conservatives and progressives around on this issue. So our job is to figure out ways to do that, and to put pressure on the Congress to go forward on it.
Q: Are you concerned that if progressives and Democrats in Congress don't act on this--the right-wing will start tapping into this populist anger--
Sen. Sanders: I have thought from Day One that one of the problems that the Obama Administration has had across the board--from conservatives to progressives--is an unwillingness to take on Wall Street in a strong way. And I think there is a real possibility that you may see some of these guys from the South, or elsewhere in the country--conservative Republicans--who can start taking on Wall Street if the Democrats are not prepared to do so. And I think when you look at Wall Street money--believe me, it's not just coming into the Republican party, I think we know that.
Q: So is President Obama an ally or an obstacle when it comes to this kind of commonsense change?
Sen. Sanders: You know, I have a lot of respect and affection for the President, but I think on the issue of Wall Street he has not been a strong ally in attempting to hold these large financial institutions accountable, or moving them in a direction which would demand that they start investing in the productive economy. And that we do not return to where we were before the collapse.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Tell em what for, Bernie!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm
Tell em what for, Bernie!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm
Woohooo...afternoon coffee: engaged.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:56pm
Some dumb ass sold all his 401K and crowed about it, did you see that? Hahahahaha!
Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 5:07pm
He's telling it like it is so sign the petition, folks. Let Geithner and his fellow crooks know limits will be placed upon them.
Posted by sigman at 11/12/2009 @ 5:07pm
Not just breaking up commercial banks, but regulating investment banks: their reserves, their positions, their products. Call it Sarbanes-Oxley for bonds. Instead of bond issuers paying for bogus 'investment grade' ratings from commercial rating agencies, require investment banks to publicly disclose the assets backing these 'investment grade' bonds.
Glass-Steagall shielded regulated commercial banks from risky investment banking, but would have done nothing to shield the entire economy from defaults in the secondary market, like Lehman. If Lehman and Bear Stearns had been regulated, they could have been prevented from selling or buying junk, and required to hold higher reserves against lower quality debt.
Posted by samcrossett at 11/12/2009 @ 5:18pm
Thanks Senator Sanders, I just signed, its good to know there are still honorable people who represent us.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:42pm
Why wouldn't we want someone to stand up for us versus the crooks.My concern is the chorus of voices that will say "we agree but they are too powerful to take on". That is the make-up of the Senate isn't it,the Millionaires Club.Where is John Kerry or Jay Rockefeller? I suppose sipping a cognac with their pals from Goldman Sachs. This sounds almost too good to be true. Kind of like the states rights argument.Maybe a lot of people should sign on.
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 5:51pm
EVERYONE should sign on! Please.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
Some dumb ass sold all his 401K and crowed about it, did you see that? Hahahahaha! Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 5:07pm |
Sold *a* 401(k)...is reading comprehension hard to come by in Texas?
And the money that didn't evaporate into the Lehman bomb was used to short the same stocks from which you `happily' took it up the ass.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:23pm
The Droopster must have a bell on his computer that rings when articles get posted on the Nation. Then anything that pops into his head can get typed.
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 6:28pm
just signed the petition.
"Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist."
Catchy. Even bumper-sticker Republicans can like that one!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:39pm
who cares what a socialist like Sanders thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:48pm
Sanders is simply pursuing a socialist agenda. for him all banks are too big because they are not govt owned.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:49pm
Bernie Sanders is an elite soldier of Heaven sent to Earth by God to rescue the world from Republicans.
Posted by Milhaus at 11/12/2009 @ 6:55pm
who cares what a socialist like Sanders thinks? Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:48pm |
Anyone trying to get legislation passed in the Senate.
If you could win a seat there, someone might even listen to you.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 6:55pm
Now Santi you stated before that you were not for the bank bailout. Bernie voted against the bailout funds. Are you distancing yourself from him because he has a simple plan to help stop the strangulation of the American public?Do you approve of these big banks?Is it capitalism at all cost? I feel sorry for you with this stance,again you keep stretching this spiritual outlook you try to project. How about protecting the weak from the mighty does that ring a bell.
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
who cares what a socialist like Sanders thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:48pm
A lot of people. That's why he is a Congressman.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:15pm
Sanders is simply pursuing a socialist agenda. for him all banks are too big because they are not govt owned.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:49pm
You mean agreeing that there should be no industry so large that it holds the entire American and world economy in it's hands is socialist? I thought that was just promoting competition in a capitalist government. How can a little man ever compete with a company so large that it's failure can take down the entire world economy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:16pm
who cares what a socialist like Sanders thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:48pm
I do because I don't want to see my country end up as a Third World toilet. And that is just where we are headed and have been for 3 decades. Conservative frauds (aided by Dems) have turned this country over to Robber Barons and Brooks Brother douche- bags who see the U.S. and its citizens as wallets. Their sense of patriotism revolves around their end-of-year bonus and to hell with the rest of America.
Good for Sanders. I hope he sticks a union made pitch-fork up the ass of all these CEO's who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag if they weren't propped up by corporate institutions. I just love seeing these smug, air-of-entitlement, pampered whiners complain about government while they have their lips around the capitiol dome sucking tax-payer dollars out like a Hoover. Not only do the banks and insurance companies need to be broken up, these CEO's and executives belong in prison doing hard-time like any financial terrorist.
Posted by workinguy at 11/12/2009 @ 7:22pm
They've already started doing this in Europe. We're behind the curve and need to catch up - fast.
Posted by Buddy33 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:27pm
Now Santi you stated before that you were not for the bank bailout. Bernie voted against the bailout funds. Are you distancing yourself from him because he has a simple plan to help stop the strangulation of the American public?Do you approve of these big banks?Is it capitalism at all cost? I feel sorry for you with this stance,again you keep stretching this spiritual outlook you try to project. How about protecting the weak from the mighty does that ring a bell.
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
No, I distance myself from him because he's a socialist who would end private enterprise.
It has nothing to do with approving of big banks-which I don't
I don't approve of ENDING capitalism which is what Sanders would love to do.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:28pm
Sanders is simply pursuing a socialist agenda. for him all banks are too big because they are not govt owned.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:49pm
You mean agreeing that there should be no industry so large that it holds the entire American and world economy in it's hands is socialist? I thought that was just promoting competition in a capitalist government. How can a little man ever compete with a company so large that it's failure can take down the entire world economy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:16pm
Are you having reading comprehension difficulties?
I said I agree that many banks are too big.
But I said I disagree with Sanders because he wants to end all private enterprise and make the banks govt owned. He is just trying to do it incrementally.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:39pm
Santi-I think you are guessing about Bernie because you share similar thoughts on some of these issues. I think Bernie is against the crooks as you are . His angle is different and I think he cares about people as do you.At the root of it I think you are vmore than a paper capitalist.
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 7:48pm
But I said I disagree with Sanders because he wants to end all private enterprise and make the banks govt owned. He is just trying to do it incrementally.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:39pm
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or a memory problem? You said that AFTER I made my post not before. Maybe check the time on delivery before being condescending.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2009 @ 7:50pm
The Socialism of Bernie Sanders
His antipathy to free-market capitalism may run deeper than that of his peers, but it manifests itself in his campaign for a global mixed economy rather than, say, nationalizing this or that industry, which hasn't been part of socialist doctrine for many decades now.
What does it mean to be a socialist in America these days? Even in Europe -- where socialist, social democratic or Labor parties either govern now or have recently governed in virtually every nation, and where the welfare state remains far stronger than it is here -- socialism as a coherent ideology is hard to find. Parties of the center-left grope for ways to preserve the social compact at a time when globalization is eroding it everywhere.
On the Hill and on the stump, Sanders's calls for a sturdier compact are more impassioned and systemic than those of his progressive colleagues. His attacks on corporations and his defense of the working class -- and his sense of the inherent antagonism between the two -- are more explicit than those of all but the most militant left-liberals.
But Sanders's role in founding the Progressive Caucus displays the more important half of his political identity. Like Michael Harrington, Bernie Sanders is the kind of socialist who can build a larger, preponderantly non-socialist, left alliance -- of which he can then constitute the socialist wing. In America, that's as good as it gets for a socialist who lives in, and tries to better, the real world.
Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of The American Prospect and political editor of L.A. Weekly. He is a vice chair of Democratic Socialists of America.
http://www.yorkshire.forward.com/articles/9019/
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 8:00pm
Santi-It sounds like you respect the role he plays in our political system.He seems honest to me and I don't feel that in alarge number of either party. I disagree with some of Bernie's stances but honestly how many of our reps seem to put their constituents first now days.
Posted by whatozz at 11/12/2009 @ 8:16pm
Bernie Sanders is a National Treasure. I love the way he always looks just a bit disheveled and unkept. This guy has a raging intellect and a big heart. Very rare for a politician. Many areas of his constituency in Vermont are extremely conservative, and yet he consistently manages to win these districts with more than 80% of the vote.
The reason for this is that with Bernie, what you see and hear is what you get. Even though he is an admitted Socialist. People respect honesty. So rare a trait nowadays in politics.
I wish we had many more like him. If we did this Nation would be far better off.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 8:55pm
hey, larry...
how's that socialist water working out for you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 9:19pm
financial blogs, both leftish and rightish, are ALL approving of mr. sanders legislation.
larry you are an anachronism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 9:29pm
I don't approve of ENDING capitalism which is what Sanders would love to do.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 7:28pm
Capitalism appears nowhere in the Constitution. We are not in theory a Capiltalist country. Capitalism is by nature a rogue beast which requires strong regulation in order to benefit society as a whole. Unrestrained it only benefits the few and not the whole.
We see the results of unrestrained and unregulated Capitalism mirrored in our current economy and foreign policy. The beast is running amok, and our Republic suffers. The Cancer of Capitalism has metastasized and threatens it's host. And the people who promote this Cancer are Traitors and Criminals.
It is time to clean house.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 9:31pm
Capitalism appears nowhere in the Constitution. We are not in theory a Capiltalist country. Capitalism is by nature a rogue beast which requires strong regulation in order to benefit society as a whole. Unrestrained it only benefits the few and not the whole.
We see the results of unrestrained and unregulated Capitalism mirrored in our current economy and foreign policy. The beast is running amok, and our Republic suffers. The Cancer of Capitalism has metastasized and threatens it's host. And the people who promote this Cancer are Traitors and Criminals.
It is time to clean house.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 9:31pm
capitalism is the ONLY economic system possible with a republic founded on the ideal that property is the ultimate sign of liberty.
it is socialists like yourself who are the danger to the republic. Your ideology would mean the end of the constitutional republic.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 9:31pm
I don't think this is an attack on capitalism. The banking mafia's backdoor to the Fed is more like economic fascism.
Sanders correctly equates it with the monopoly-busting of TR and Taft.
Energy should be next. ConEd is nothing if not a monopoly.
If the Dems pulled some of this off, and there will be a hellacious fight if it even gets off the ground, I think you'd stand a chance to keep Bam another four.
This is powerful common ground stuff for regular folks from left to right.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:16pm
Us true conservatives know too-big = a variant of monopolies, which the founders recognized as un-American, capitalism-killers. No rugged individual can survive the implosion = illegal.
Posted by winyahn at 11/12/2009 @ 10:17pm
it is socialists like yourself who are the danger to the republic. Your ideology would mean the end of the constitutional republic.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
Larry, as usual you miss my point entirely. I have nothing against the idea of Capitalism. With regulation, restraint and control Capitalism can be a healthy and productive economic model. It is only when it is allowed to ravage the economic landscape that it becomes destructive.
I advocate a Socialist Democracy. In which Capitalism is kept on a short leash. Where the advantages of such an economic model are allowed to flourish, but where the disadvantages are severely curtailed. When you play with fire it is always wise to have in place the tools to keep the fire in check.
Is this such a difficult concept to understand? A well built hearth is constructed of brick and mortar. This prevents the fire from spreading and consuming the house that contains it's warmth.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 10:25pm
property is the ultimate sign of liberty.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
yeah, stolen property.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 10:36pm
As it is now this house is on FIRE! Because some idiot ignored the protection of the hearth and built a bonfire on the living room floor.
I'm attempting to use allegory. That is what what you do with children when they are yet unable to see..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 10:45pm
The Buddha teaches patience and acceptance. As a Bodhisattva I am expected to fail in these attempts. Which I do on a daily basis.
Thanks be for imperfection. Otherwise I might fear for my illusion of individuality! :)
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 11:02pm
thank you <a href="http://www.pandorajewelrycom.com/" target="_blank">Pandora jewel</a> <a href="http://www.pandorajewelrycom.com/" target="_blank">pandora jewelry</a> <a href="http://www.pandorajewelrycom.com/" target="_blank">pandora bead jewelry</a>
Posted by hotsalesshop at 11/12/2009 @ 11:04pm
[url=http://www.pandorajewelrycom.com/]Pandora jewel[/url] [url=http://www.pandorajewelrycom.com/]pandora jewelry[/url]
Posted by hotsalesshop at 11/12/2009 @ 11:06pm
Lenin said:
"A Capiltalist would sell the rope for his own hanging."
Interesting observation.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 11:12pm
How long will the American people sit back & watch these Wall Street hucksters as if each one is Henri Baurel doing the Stairway to Heaven number in An American in Paris?
Warning to OneVote. The Oscar Levant sequence in the concert hall will blow your mind.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/12/2009 @ 11:28pm
"Too big to fail" also mean "too powerful to break up."
This bill will probably end up as a watered down sham created for appearances sake.
They just got truckloads of cash with no questions asked and no strings attached...how far do you think this bill will go?
Posted by koroviev at 11/13/2009 @ 01:05am
to infinity and beyond!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2009 @ 01:19am
to infinity and beyond!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2009 @ 01:19am
Well, how can you have a decent oligarchy without oligarchs?
Posted by koroviev at 11/13/2009 @ 03:04am
What's the difference between a genuine conservative and a corporate welfare pimp?
Genuine conservatives are in favor of free enterprise - a competitive marketplace.
Corporate welfare pimps use 'free enterprise' as a fig leaf to defend monopolies, oligopolies, and profiteering. Even the talk-radio shill-ocracy are denouncing big banks - but, of course, if the corporate welfare pimp party were in power, they would make excuses for the profiteers, as they did for the past 8 years.
Posted by samcrossett at 11/13/2009 @ 04:50am
capitalism is the ONLY economic system possible with a republic founded on the ideal that property is the ultimate sign of liberty. "----Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
Of course, when it was founded.... the term "property" also included people, didn't it?
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 07:41am
A question.
All these "too big to fail" entities started out small. Everything starts out small. Bill Gates started in his garage.
They grow when other people invest in them. They see potential, promise, security, a good return and they want to be a part of it.
Not just Americans, but foreign investors too.
How long do you allow this to happen before government steps in and says, "No, no more investors. This company has grown as far as we're going to let it."
Okay. But what effect will that mandate, that imperial decree, have upon the investments of people already IN the firm?
Why would anybody invest in a firm, business, bank, or fund that has a set, finite point of growth? An expiration date?
Seems to me that Sander's bill would have a chilling effect on the American economy. Investors, both American and foreign, would simply invest overseas into firms that have no "governor" on their potential for growth.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/13/2009 @ 07:54am
A question.
All these "too big to fail" entities started out small. Everything starts out small. Bill Gates started in his garage.
They grow when other people invest in them. They see potential, promise, security, a good return and they want to be a part of it.
Not just Americans, but foreign investors too.
How long do you allow this to happen before government steps in and says, "No, no more investors. This company has grown as far as we're going to let it."
Okay. But what effect will that mandate, that imperial decree, have upon the investments of people already IN the firm?
Why would anybody invest in a firm, business, bank, or fund that has a set, finite point of growth? An expiration date?
Seems to me that Sander's bill would have a chilling effect on the American economy. Investors, both American and foreign, would simply invest overseas into firms that have no "governor" on their potential for growth.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/13/2009 @ 07:54am
This passage says it all....
"And maybe the last issue is that--you know, some of my colleagues talk about regulating Wall Street. I think the evidence is pretty clear that it is Wall Street that regulates the Congress. Over a 10-year period, Wall Street has put $5 billion into lobbying and campaign contributions. They were extremely effective in doing away with Glass-Steagall and moving toward deregulation. They had the leadership of both parties working for their interests. And I think when you leave an institution like Wall Street so powerful, with so much wealth, it is very hard to imagine that Congress can in fact stand up to them."
Well said Bernie!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 08:12am
"Sen. Sanders: You know, I have a lot of respect and affection for the President, but I think on the issue of Wall Street he has not been a strong ally in attempting to hold these large financial institutions accountable, or moving them in a direction which would demand that they start investing in the productive economy. And that we do not return to where we were before the collapse."
Amen to that. Just take a look at Obama's appointments and it is pretty clear of what his position is with wallstreet and the banking industry. He may talk tough about them but in fact has enabled them to screw us over even more by placing people from the very industries they are supposed to regulate in charge. Come on Obama, you weren't elected to keep the status quo in power!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 08:17am
property is the ultimate sign of liberty. "----Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
Of course, when it was founded.... the term "property" also included people, didn't it?
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 07:41am
So, what did the man say? ....give me property and stuff, or give me death?!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:16am
antisocialist-According to Jesus it is getting rid of your property or placing no importance on it that sets you free.One can quite easily become a slave to property.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2009 @ 10:30am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:16am
Taken literally and "strict Constructionalist" as Larry likes...
isn't he saying that if a person in this country doesn't own property they are "not truly free"???
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 10:51am
Amen to that. Just take a look at Obama's appointments and it is pretty clear of what his position is with wallstreet and the banking industry. He may talk tough about them but in fact has enabled them to screw us over even more by placing people from the very industries they are supposed to regulate in charge. Come on Obama, you weren't elected to keep the status quo in power!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 08:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
Having worked on Wall St. for 35 years after leaving the military, I saw first hand, most often as a fly on the wall, the corrupting power of Wall St.'s derivative gambling binge which is the real cause of the financial collapse. I think Sanders plan is the first sensible approach to dealing with Wall St. greed since FDR's restrictions and regulations. Certainly it is better than anything the Obama administration is doing.
But it Sanders does not go far enough. The crooks running the derivative casinos that were/are too big to fail need to be investigated and prosecuted where necessary. You might want to read this interesting piece in the Village Voice a few weeks ago:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-10-27 /news/we-ve-bailed-out-the-banks-when-do-we-go- after-the-crooks-behind-our-financial-collapse/
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 11:03am
Liberals have never understood the concept of the linkage between property and liberty or what property even means (despite the clear statements of the Founders and people like John Locke)
<Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: "every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." He continues: "The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property."
Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it.
Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution: "whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.">
http://tinyurl.com/yatw57o
Locke's Two Treatises of Government
http://tinyurl.com/ykw36ug
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 11:09am
Why would anybody invest in a firm, business, bank, or fund that has a set, finite point of growth? An expiration date?
Seems to me that Sander's bill would have a chilling effect on the American economy. Investors, both American and foreign, would simply invest overseas into firms that have no "governor" on their potential for growth.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/13/2009 @ 07:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
You make an assumption that is not factual. The assumption that the remaining Wall St. investment banks that are too big to fail are American in any useful since of the word "American". You also make the mistake of comparing "investment banks" to corporations. They are hardly the same. The fact is that the "too big to fail" concept is the root of the recent TARP crime which passed the moral hazard debts of these "too big to fail" Wall St. casinos on to the taxpayer. In short, we are paying for their failed gambling debts. And now the concept of "too big to fail" is being is continuing to be used by the Obama administration and the FED to formulate a new economic system in America more akin to classical corporatism than the "socialism" it is being labeled by the loony right. That is, the government is not taking over business, but rather the banks are taking over the government. Go, Bernie!
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 11:12am
YES! I just signed the petition.
I would be interested to find out how much influence "The Family"...the hyper-conservative so-called xian prayer partners who have infiltrated every branch of the government...have had to do with the mess we're in. (Read Jeff Sharlett's book, if you haven't already. It's not an easy read, but it IS an eye-opener.)
Posted by sk8eycat at 11/13/2009 @ 11:18am
>>>give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner 90 days to compile a list of commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies that he deems too big to fail, including "any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance." Within one year after the legislation becomes law, the Treasury Department would be required to break up those financial institutions. <<<
This clearly should be looked at, but it is not only "size" that is the problem, IT IS THE LACK OF APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION of these institutions and their practices.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/13/2009 @ 11:25am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 11:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
Interesting that you should depend upon quotes from John Locke to defend the Wall St. mega-casinos as the single most misguided ideologue of the Enlightenment in Britain, that our Founders most opposed in forming our great country, was Locke. The very words in the Declaration of Independence - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were explicitly placed there to confront Locke's extreme ideas about property. Ideas of his which became the basis of the Confederacy's defense of slavery. Is a property class important to preserving liberty. Of course. Does this mean that all property should be venerated and protected. Of course not. Property is not mentioned in the first law of the land - the Preamble to the Constitution, which sets out the purpose of America and the new American government. Purposes at great odds with Locke's philosophical misadventures. Try studying Hamilton's and Franklin's critiques of Locke to better understand why America was founded and the role for property as seen by our actual Founders and not a British popinjay. The Wall St. banks are not too big to break up.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 11:31am
How do you make your leap of logic on my defense of property as essential to liberty to be conflated with support of Wall Street? Every post I make about conservativism, and individual freedom, you state that I'm actually defending Wall Street. That at the very least makes you a dishonest debater.
Your comments attempting to string Locke and property to slavery merely reveals you don't have the slightest clue what Locke said.
YOUR FIRST PROPERTY IS YOURSELF
YOUR SECOND PROPERTY IS THE LABOR OF YOUR HANDS (WAGES)
THAT LEADS TO PROPERTY OF LANDS AND BUSINESSES.
That is what Locke and many of the founders stated.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
John Adams 1787
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
James Madison, March 27, 1792
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 11:55am
Great proposal by Senator Sanders. Let's just do it already!
Posted by nkurland at 11/13/2009 @ 12:08pm
antisocialist-Jesus must have been a liberal because He did not understand the link between property and liberty.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2009 @ 12:10pm
Interestingly, Larry probably would NOT cite the SECOND Inaugural of Jefferson....where Jefferson argues for "taxing the rich" via tariffs-
" The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens,
it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States?"
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:18pm
How do you make your leap of logic on my defense of property as essential to liberty to be conflated with support of Wall Street? Every post I make about conservativism, and individual freedom, you state that I'm actually defending Wall Street. That at the very least makes you a dishonest debater.
Your comments attempting to string Locke and property to slavery merely reveals you don't have the slightest clue what Locke said.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 11:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
My leap of logic comes from never seeing in any of your comments any criticism of Wall St., run-away free trade plans, or fatuous economic schemes other than your proclamations that you are a "liberatarian" what ever that is.
The rest of your posting at this time is your usual sophistry of taking quotes out of context to try and prove your point of the moment. I and others here have asked you many times before to explain context to show us that you actually understand the lives & the lifework of the people you quote.
FYI, Locke was the pet philosopher of The Earl of Shaftsbury, who created the Whig Party in England and then invited the free trade oligarchy led by William of Orange to take over England in 1688. It was William who first began to oppress the 13 colonies. Shaftsbury (once called the biggest whoremaster (i.e., pimp) in England at the time) and Locke developed a system where the organizing principle of human realationships was not truth but a "social contract". Locke went so far as to say truth was "unknowable" and he rejected the idea of a "human soul". His insistence on "life, liberty and property" is in direct opposition to the viewpoints of all those great Americans whom you quoted out of context.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 12:20pm
An Alternative to Capitalism
The following link, takes you to a "utopian" article, entitled "Home of the Brave?" which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
Posted by John_Steinsvold at 11/13/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 12:20pm
Nope, you still don't have a clue. History works against you which is perhaps why your handle is "don't know"
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:50pm
Senator Sanders is to be congratulated on his legislation and petition. I appreciate the opportunity to sign the petition.
Posted by pjcasey at 11/13/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 12:20pm
Nope, you still don't have a clue. History works against you which is perhaps why your handle is "don't know"
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There is much I don't know, my friend, (that is why I come to these blogs - to learn from those who have something to teach) but what I do know is that Locke's chief work for his pimp lord & master Shaftsbury while serving on the Trade and Plantations and Secretary to the Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas was to institute the laws that BEGAN official slavery in the Carolinas in opposition to the anti-slavery colony (at that time) of Georgia.
I also know that the Founders took more of their ideas not from what we might call the right wing of the Enlightenment (Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire) than from what we might call the left wing of the Enlightenment (Liebnitz and especially Vattel).
For the most part the founders were progressive and there is not doubt in my mind that most of them would sign Bernie Sander's petition if they were around today.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 1:12pm
especially Vattel).
For the most part the founders were progressive and there is not doubt in my mind that most of them would sign Bernie Sander's petition if they were around today.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 1:12pm
You are truly a hopeless case of being anti-liberty.
I pity you because you neither understand freedom (despite serving in the military), nor do you care to preserve it.
That makes you just as dangerous as chaoszen to the continuation of our constitutional republic.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 1:15pm
For the most part the founders were progressive and there is not doubt in my mind that most of them would sign Bernie Sander's petition if they were around today.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 1:12pm
True. I would even hazard a guess that if they were around today, most of them would be on the verge of revolution..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/13/2009 @ 1:19pm
You are truly a hopeless case of being anti-liberty.
I pity you because you neither understand freedom (despite serving in the military), nor do you care to preserve it.
That makes you just as dangerous as chaoszen to the continuation of our constitutional republic.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Now, antisocialist, you are showing your "libertarian" flaws to us all. Like most self-described "libertarians" you rail that you are for liberty and freedom but in the same breadth defend the very mechanisms that will take our liberty and freedom away - i.e., unrestrained free trade, a weak and ineffectual federal government, and a veneration of "property rights above natural human rights. My ideas (from our Founders) are only dangerous to oligarchy and tyranny.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 1:24pm
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 11:55am
This part of the quote is critical to understanding the rest of it. These huge monopolies cause injury. That is obvious. And a "wise and frugal government" has the responsibility to restrain men from injuring one another. And the only way for government to accomplish that is through regulation.
In a 1788 letter to James Madison, Jefferson wrote: "...it is better to abolish monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any."
Posted by chaoszen at 11/13/2009 @ 1:43pm
who cares what a socialist like Sanders thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 6:48pm
So, you LIKE the idea of having companies that, if they fail, can tank our entire economy?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:08pm
antisocialist-It is you who does not understand freedom.You do not allow people to have the freedom to disagree with you because you have declared yourself to be the ultimate authority when it comes to all subjects.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2009 @ 2:15pm
Seems to me that Sander's bill would have a chilling effect on the American economy. Investors, both American and foreign, would simply invest overseas into firms that have no "governor" on their potential for growth.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/13/2009 @ 07:54am
So, you'd say that the break-up of Ma Bell back in the early 80's was a bad thing? It created several different companies, all of which continued to grow into our modern day AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc., etc.
Who knows what breaking up monolithic businesses will do in the future?
No business should be large enough to wreck our entire economy (and therefore, the world's economy, too). Monolithic businesses are anti-American, because they encourage Corporate well-being over America's well being. I would expect all you "America firsters" to agree with that.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
No business should be large enough to wreck our entire economy (and therefore, the world's economy, too). Monolithic businesses are anti-American, because they encourage Corporate well-being over America's well being. I would expect all you "America firsters" to agree with that.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I hope you convince them Stephen_Carver1, but the bigger problem is convincing the Obama administration that this is true.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 3:34pm
P.S. it is truly fascinating seeing all these rightists (from libertarian to troll) siding with the Obama administration on protecting "too big to fail" firms on Wall St. Fascinating! If they were truly small-government conservatives and/or opposed to Obama in general, then they would be lining up to sign the petition. If they truly wanted to repair our economy from the ravages these past years by Wall St. pirates, they would have written the petition.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 3:57pm
Agreed.
Obama has shown himself to be a friend of big business.
However, I believe he has also shown himself to understand the deeper issues of this recession: that excessive, unregulated capitalism, combined with reckless gambling by those huge banks, combined with risky financial schemes (housing and finance derivatives, etc.), all combined to create a "perfect storm" of financial ruin.
To help set up the conditions to limit it from happening again (which the Republicans evidently don't care about), we as a country, need to do things like making sure no single business is "too big to fail" and will need taxpayer dollars to continue to operate. Again, it seems to me these so called conservatives (in name only) would be all for something like this, but instead of saying something like, "Bernie Sanders has a really good idea," they all instead state that he's a socialist who wants to see all the banks taken over by the government. It's just fear speaking again...I have found that conservatives are, by and large, fearful people about the future.
Personally, I am an optimist.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 4:42pm
Personally, I am an optimist.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 4:51pm
Yea, I'd like to ask the rightys what they are afraid of? Wouldn't get an answer, but since I started to write here one of my first questions was what are you guys afraid of, really what?
Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 5:01pm
what are you guys afraid of, really what?
Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Their answer would be: A red behind every tree and a Muslim behind every rock and liberal behind every law.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 5:27pm
Yea, I'd like to ask the rightys what they are afraid of? Wouldn't get an answer, but since I started to write here one of my first questions was what are you guys afraid of, really what?
Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 5:01pm
The only thing I fear is a nation that abandons it's ideals set forth in the constitution and the declaration of independence. Which has been the course of the Democratic party since FDR, but especially since the 70's. At least FDR believed in defending the nation.
So I fear that if the Dems continue in power, my children and grandchildren will not know the liberty that I grew up in.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 5:30pm
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you don't hear the message clearly of that statement... you need to have a new brain installed. One that has the ability to associate thoughts... even basic ones. There is no democracy or capitalism possible when the choices are limited by a few who hold all the power. When they fall... we all fall and it's our responsibility to hold the world "as we know it" together. Time to reinvent the world we have been co-creators in manifesting. It's got too many obvious holes where the power of the majority is leaking badly and those who empower themselves with this process are too ready to "capitalize" on it. Who are you who speak for the continuation of this form of elitist capitalism? I suggest you take some time to think before you answer... to yourself.
Posted by Gustav at 11/13/2009 @ 5:44pm
There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 4:51pm
Damn straight! (or bi..or maybe gay) but mostly straight! ;)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:25pm
Can we see a system that allows small, community oriented businesses to make it and still allow for free enterprise to fulfill it's profit driven goals? Can we see a government freed of its duty to serve the source of its financial supporters, political-career-builders? Can we be responsible and involved in the distribution of power in our society? Are we evolved enough to allow ethics to be a required aspect of making decisions that affect the community? Some run off with the profit making machine and need guidance to evaluate the consequences. There are ways to shift the money to profitable areas where there is no damage inflicted unnecessarily and even benefits other smaller enterprises to keep the economy flowing. It just requires allowing change. Courage to make it happen. Options. There aren't enough options right now because the status quo in place will not allow them.
Posted by Gustav at 11/13/2009 @ 6:27pm
So I fear that if the Dems continue in power, my children and grandchildren will not know the liberty that I grew up in.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 5:30pm
Larry, I asked this in the other thread to: please specify those liberties that you have experienced that you believe your children and grandchildren won't.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:30pm
Larry, I asked this in the other thread to: please specify those liberties that you have experienced that you believe your children and grandchildren won't.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:30pm
I just wrote a list out on the Hannity thread. Some were already gone when I was young.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 6:32pm
I just wrote a list out on the Hannity thread. Some were already gone when I was young.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 6:32pm
Too bad your list wasn't made up of any actual liberties.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:49pm
I just wrote a list out on the Hannity thread. Some were already gone when I was young.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 6:32pm
Too bad your list wasn't made up of any actual liberties.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 6:49pm
The fact that you don't recognize all of those things as liberties is both frightening and not surprising.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 8:02pm
antisocialist-Your list looked more like a desperate attempt to come up with something.It was just the usual partisan truth stretch that we get from both sides.You see it when they do it,but not when you do it.Personally,I have more freedom now than when we were younger.Back then long hairs and Harley riders got hassled more and I was put in jail for a minor weed bust.I haven't been hassled in years and had two cops drive me home from bars in two different states when they saw me staggering along the road walking home back in the nineties.I still have long hair,long beard, and wear biker gear,but don't get stopped every time I pull out of my driveway like when we were younger.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2009 @ 9:00pm
Hey guys, let's go easy on antisocialist (whom some of you seem to know as Larry). I just looked at his self-described list of liberties denied on the other blog (Hannity) and I think the guy is loosing it. He may be having a break down. From reading his previous blogging over some time now, I know he is capable of a more intelligent (although equally wrong) list. Poor guy has been caught to many times in sophistry (not to mention ignorance). He is basically an honest guy, I think, but when confronted with truth, he has become terrible conflicted. Give him time and he might just change his tune and his handle to anticonservative. I have hope for him.
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 9:43pm
Following the thread of the interview and the conversation that follows, I am back on my feet when I was about to throw the towel. Thank you Katrina for being in the right place at the right time. This is an idea whose time has come. Senator Sanders is well in these times. He is clearer and braver than anybody else in government and if he gets the support he deserves, he may well be the catalyst to reform an economic system based on an unethical premise.=: Profit at the expense of moral behavior and with complete disregard for humanity and the most basic aspects that merit an individual to be considered "human". Profiteers who cause suffering and unjustified loss for their own enrichment are criminals like anyone who does the same by other means like breaking and entering, mugging old ladies in a dark alley to steal their purse. The unnatural drive of the profit making machine set in motion by an unchecked, faceless, corporate entity that refuses to consider any notion that interferes with its ability to increase its returns allows no consideration for its consequences on the environment and its effects non humanity (unless they are shareholders). It does not respect the human aspect and eventually self destroys, killing the hand that fed it and everything around it. No remorse. To recognize this as an integral part of good business is madness. To not regulate its lust for profit and accelerate the self destructive process... suicide.
Posted by Gustav at 11/13/2009 @ 11:38pm
Wow Santi to Canti,Yeah it sure gets tiring hearing it's the end of the world as we know it.Let's help our community banks get money flowing to local small businesses.Enough of you're small enough to let fail. Let's get America moving again.How many Obama voters are unemployed? Seems like a major problem to me . How many Wall Streeters are getting bonuses? Think the ratio is a little skewed.Money is money but satisfied voters win elections. Obama and his advisors had better get their ears to the ground.
Posted by whatozz at 11/13/2009 @ 11:39pm
"Seems to me that Sander's bill would have a chilling effect on the American economy. Investors, both American and foreign, would simply invest overseas into firms that have no "governor" on their potential for growth.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/13/2009 @ 07:54am | ignore this person | warn this person "
Except that these are all business that would've gone under except for government intervention. The issue is not that a firm can't be too big but rather that if a firm requires government intervention because its going into free fall would be too catastrophic, that such intervention should take the form of breaking them up.
Don't Know Your historical illiteracy is appalling. The idea of placing Locke and Voltaire in the same bracket as Hobbes shows that. The thrust of Locke's Second Treatise on Government was to establish that government had intrinsic limitations on what it could do based on a theory that its legitimacy derived from the consent of the governed. Hobbes argued that government's function was the exercise of undisputed, paramount power.
Posted by brunowe at 11/14/2009 @ 01:50am
Give me Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader and I can take back America from the so-called Democrats and the Party of no.
Posted by LarryB at 11/14/2009 @ 09:21am
.I still have long hair,long beard, and wear biker gear,but don't get stopped every time I pull out of my driveway like when we were younger.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2009 @ 9:00pm
Same here. Although I did shave the ZZ Top Beard a few years back. I was starting to scare little children. I still have cops stop me occasionaly when I'm wearing colors and riding my chopper, but they treat me more like an anachronism than a threat. They check out my bike and point out a few things that may or may not be exactly legal and then send me on my way. Back in the day things would have been much different.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2009 @ 09:25am
You make an assumption that is not factual. The assumption that the remaining Wall St. investment banks that are too big to fail are American in any useful since of the word "American".
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 11:12am
If what you are saying is true, then Sanders is the one making the assumption, not me. For he presumes to pass legisilation regulating entities you are here stating as not "American".
If we can regulate them, then they are American.
"So, you'd say that the break-up of Ma Bell back in the early 80's was a bad thing?"
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
Ma Bell was a telecommunications company that was allowed by the government to operate as monopoly. The investment firms we are discussing here are not telecommunications companies. They are not the same business model. For example, many European interests were invested in AIG. How many foreign countries do you suppose invested in Ma Bell?
Sander's bill is the equivalent of the scene in "Misery" when she breaks the guy's ankles with a slegehammer.
Instead of figuring out legislation and oversight (like renewing Glass-Steagall, etc.), Sander's fix is to tie American banks legs to the bed posts, swing the sledgehammer, and make sure they never achieve anything but lilliputian status.
Meanwhile, investment firms not located on Wall Street and not subject to that regulation will grow as they wish. Expand as their coffers fill with investor money.
Admittedly, investors will have to chose between the benefits of smaller "mom and pop" investment banks here in America...or mega-entities overseas with more and more purchasing power and influence. Sander's bill could relegate us to punk-ass status compared to these unregulated giants.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 10:08am
You make an assumption that is not factual. The assumption that the remaining Wall St. investment banks that are too big to fail are American in any useful since of the word "American".
Posted by dont_know at 11/13/2009 @ 11:12am
If what you are saying is true, then Sanders is the one making the assumption, not me. For he presumes to pass legisilation regulating entities you are here stating as not "American".
If we can regulate them, then they are American.
"So, you'd say that the break-up of Ma Bell back in the early 80's was a bad thing?"
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
Ma Bell was a telecommunications company that was allowed by the government to operate as monopoly. The investment firms we are discussing here are not telecommunications companies. They are not the same business model. For example, many European interests were invested in AIG. How many foreign countries do you suppose invested in Ma Bell?
Sander's bill is the equivalent of the scene in "Misery" when she breaks the guy's ankles with a slegehammer.
Instead of figuring out legislation and oversight (like renewing Glass-Steagall, etc.), Sander's fix is to tie American banks legs to the bed posts, swing the sledgehammer, and make sure they never achieve anything but lilliputian status.
Meanwhile, investment firms not located on Wall Street and not subject to that regulation will grow as they wish. Expand as their coffers fill with investor money.
Admittedly, investors will have to chose between the benefits of smaller "mom and pop" investment banks here in America...or mega-entities overseas with more and more purchasing power and influence. Sander's bill could relegate us to punk-ass status compared to these unregulated giants.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 10:08am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 10:08am
Just one of those posts was clearly enough. And just what is "punk-ass status"? Or for that matter "lilliputian status". Believe me I enjoy creative narrative more than most... But really..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2009 @ 10:40am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 10:08am |
Sorry, the "everybody's doing it" defense doesn't work any better in this context than in gradeschool.
Your assertion breaks down in the face of the actions of EU regulators to break up behemoths like ING.
http://tinyurl.com/yk732nc
<On Monday, the Dutch financial conglomerate ING Group became the first bank to be ordered broken up by regulators as the price for a taxpayer bailout of 10 billion euros ($14.9 billion). Under pressure from the European Commission, the bank announced plans to accelerate the sale of its insurance operations and its Internet banking business in the United States to refocus on its European customer base. ING nearly collapsed last fall under a mountain of troubled American mortgage assets.>
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 10:49am
Just one of those posts was clearly enough. And just what is "punk-ass status"? Or for that matter "lilliputian status". Believe me I enjoy creative narrative more than most... But really..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2009 @ 10:40am
This particular server I'm using posts things in twos. Not sure why. It is a statewide phenomenon on this server.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 11:21am
Just one of those posts was clearly enough. And just what is "punk-ass status"? Or for that matter "lilliputian status". Believe me I enjoy creative narrative more than most... But really..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/14/2009 @ 10:40am
This particular server I'm using posts things in twos. Not sure why. It is a statewide phenomenon on this server.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 11:21am
This particular server I'm using posts things in twos. Not sure why. It is a statewide phenomenon on this server. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 11:21am |
One copy for you, one copy for Carnivore....
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carnivore.htm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 12:09pm
How tragic. All this attention on how the "economy" will be best served. How wonderfully sophisticated, this understanding of the problems facing us. If we fix the small print we can keep things as they are and make it work. Who cares about the real issue that Big Business has proven to be detrimental to our quality of life, our environment or caring for the detrimental effects on "other" cultures and the ability of the small business enterprise to grow (or even get started). The suppression of innovative ideas that cater to the development of progressive ways to improve transportation, energy sources that don't deteriorate the environment in which we live and regress the aggressive military power to control energy sources which increase the paranoia of enemies and terrorism from a created antagonism from those who see themselves as invaded and occupied. A flight with the view of an eagle would expand a bit our self absorbed, ignorant perception of the tragedy this unrestrained profit making machine has caused. Let a profit margin be utilized to support small enterprises instead of suppressing them. Stop greed from dictating the limits of our individual rights and ability to grow parallel to the "economic" growth of Big Business... Now. Or... stay small and disempowered. What a dilemma...
Posted by Gustav at 11/14/2009 @ 1:18pm
No kidding Gustav,our recent history with the help of big business leaves us with a double digit unemployment rate,double digit uninsured rate,and continuing foreclosures.Meanwhile the stock market keeps marching upward,Wall Street has resumed its bonus parade,and our Big Banks control an ever increasing share of the marketplace.Have no worries though the top 10% pay 75% of our taxes.Only $113,000 gets you in that top 10.How about this for perspective,Wall Street bonuses will "average"$650,000 per employee.Which party of suited people in Washington are going to get it.That is the real question.
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 2:00pm
why is the left always so obsessed with what other people earn in business?
Yet, I never see posts by the left wailing about the earnings of professional athletes, movie and tv stars, or people in the music business?
Hypocrite seems to be the word that comes to mind
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 4:47pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 4:47pm |
"why is the left always so obsessed with what other people earn in business?"
Not what they 'earn', but HOW.
"Yet, I never see posts by the left wailing about the earnings of professional athletes, movie and tv stars, or people in the music business?"
I slammed Mel Gibson for his 'Passion' making about the same as Borat some time back. Does that count?
And most of the people you mentioned pay the taxes on their outrageous incomes without complaint and still donate time and money to charity.
"Hypocrite seems to be the word that comes to mind"
Each and every time we read your posts claiming to be against bailouts, but for banksters.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 5:15pm
Not what they 'earn', but HOW.
"Yet, I never see posts by the left wailing about the earnings of professional athletes, movie and tv stars, or people in the music business?"
I slammed Mel Gibson for his 'Passion' making about the same as Borat some time back. Does that count?
And most of the people you mentioned pay the taxes on their outrageous incomes without complaint and still donate time and money to charity.
"Hypocrite seems to be the word that comes to mind"
Each and every time we read your posts claiming to be against bailouts, but for banksters.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 5:15pm
Why is it up to you to determine what is appropriate in how someone earns their income or how much they make?
That is totalitarian - period
Data shows that the wealthy give a great deal.
I've yet to write one word in favor of bank executives. I've been writing consistently on the subject of the obsession by the left with what others make-for me that means regardless of where they earn the money. Unless it is a criminal venture. And you cannot redefine that to mean what you personally view as criminal.
Every time you post another response to me, you reveal more and more about your totalitarian views. You want to limit success within a very narrow framework that is acceptable to you personally. Whereas I want all people to succeed at whatever they desire to do that is within acceptability of the law.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:40pm
Since you are the epitome of a narrow framework look at how the perspective was stated.You are correct it is time to quit responding to you .Honestly,you are not worth it ,you are a windbag that comes out of a narrow alley.Unfortunately you back narrow ideological viewpoints so often that it is necessary.I guess that the opportunity to respond to each other is the ultimate truth.Athletes,movie stars,entertainers such as your pal Rush are part of a fantasy world that is a sidelight of society.I personally don't hold them to the standards of the professionals that run our society.They are being paid to play sports or characters that are not them. Are they over paid,absolutely. Your section 152 work isn't for the movie industry is it? It sounds like something the movie bosses would like.
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 6:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:40pm |
"Why is it up to you to determine what is appropriate in how someone earns their income or how much they make?"
You're right...I'll start selling your possessions on E-Bay shortly...try not to intimidate my 'customers' when they show up at your house.
So you're perfectly okay with huge bonus pools being granted to people who obviously failed to demonstrate anything resembling merit using taxpayer dollars?
"Data shows that the wealthy give a great deal."
As do I...I wouldn't get so many requests from non-profit agencies in my mail if I didn't.
"I've yet to write one word in favor of bank executives. I've been writing consistently on the subject of the obsession by the left with what others make-for me that means regardless of where they earn the money."
But most of us aren't against people making what my family calls "pots of money" (insert John Thain toilet joke here)...it's when they do so with pump'n'dump schemes, insider trading, or fraud that I get ornery.
"Unless it is a criminal venture. And you cannot redefine that to mean what you personally view as criminal."
We'll see what the encore to the Pecora commission digs up on the backscratching between the bond rating agencies and the purveyors of fine sausage known as MBS as well as fraud in the mortgage generation companies like CountryWide.
"Every time you post another response to me, you reveal more and more about your totalitarian views."
Hahaha...go lick some boots.
"You want to limit success within a very narrow framework that is acceptable to you personally."
If by, 'narrow framework', you mean the law.
"Whereas I want all people to succeed at whatever they desire to do that is within acceptability of the law."
That high horse doesn't suit you.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 9:22pm
The thrust of Locke's Second Treatise on Government was to establish that government had intrinsic limitations on what it could do based on a theory that its legitimacy derived from the consent of the governed. Hobbes argued that government's function was the exercise of undisputed, paramount power.
Posted by brunowe at 11/14/2009 @ 01:50am
I lumped Locke with the earlier Hobbes as both being progenitors of modern rightist thinking as Locke (in his Second Treatise on Government you site) declared that human relationships were not organized by truth but by power, i.e., his famous "social contract". This idea of power rather than good guiding society is a direct continuation of Hobbes idea in his Leviathan that a central authority was needed to oppose its will in a society organized as each against all. The coercion needed for the social contract is no different. From Hobbes, Locke or their ideological descendants, the answer is the same: tyranny. Now some, most recently the neocon Michael Barone, have tried to place Locke in the Liberal tradition rather than the Conservative tradition. In truth, both sides can claim Locke. If conservatism is the rule by the iron fist, then, at times, liberalism has been the iron fist inside a velvet glove. As for Voltaire views being what we would now call conservative, just read Candide where he mocks belief in life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Posted by dont_know at 11/14/2009 @ 11:03pm
Actually, Candide mocks European violence and Liebniz's optimism. Your take is way off.
Further, the idea the coercion needed for a social contract is no different from a Hobbesian sovereign is ludicrous. Locke defended the idea that a tyrannical government can be overthrown. Locke's idea of man in a state of nature was decidedly less critical than Hobbes's. This is what allowed him to advance the social contract argument. This argument holds that people delegate powers to government to serve their ends and protect their rights.
What exactly is a government guided by "truth"? I suspect it's an ill-thought out concept on your part.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 12:09am
Instead of figuring out legislation and oversight (like renewing Glass-Steagall, etc.), Sander's fix is to tie American banks legs to the bed posts, swing the sledgehammer, and make sure they never achieve anything but lilliputian status.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 10:08am
Oh please, let's just cut the bullshit altogether. By separating commercial from investment banking, reinstating Glass- Steagall would effectively break up the banks.
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Oh please, let's just cut the bullshit altogether. By separating commercial from investment banking, reinstating Glass- Steagall would effectively break up the banks.
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
And return them to the state in which they existed prior to 1999.
I can live with that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 1:16pm
Oh please, let's just cut the bullshit altogether. By separating commercial from investment banking, reinstating Glass- Steagall would effectively break up the banks.
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
And return them to the state in which they existed prior to 1999.
I can live with that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/14/2009 @ 10:08am Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Yes, there's never any "in between" with conservatives...their lives a ruled by polar opposites devoid of nuance which requires consideration and listening.
Us ...them.
Gulliver (shitigroup)!
Or 'lilliputian' (banks that only return a solid 10% without destroying the world economy).
Consider this question Citizen...why should Ken Lewis be allowed to (essentially, if not actually, it depends on the derivative in question) gamble with money derived (pun) from 40:1 leverage of YOUR assets?
Can you see no value in keeping your checking deposits separate from his stack of chips?!
Did banks not make healthy ROI well before we peeled back Glass-Steagall and sent these no-talent assclowns to the races?
Methinks your protests of harmful diminishment make Himalayas of a pitcher's mound.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 1:18pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/15/2009 @ 1:16pm
I have to think that if the Democratic party were willing to reinstate Glass-Steagall, they'd be considering a whole host of other reforms to go along with it, such as repeal of Garn- St. Germain, reformation of the tax code and expansion of governmental lending and credit.
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 1:44pm
Your section 152 work isn't for the movie industry is it? It sounds like something the movie bosses would like.
Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 6:44pm
I don't know anyone in Hollywood. I stay away from Los Angeles.
Here is the Sect 162 summary
http://tinyurl.com/yetn2w7
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 1:44pm |
They helped get variable rate products 'legalized' in the first place...what makes you think they'd 'swear off crack', at this late date?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/15/2009 @ 2:29pm
I don't. I think that if the party was willing to reinstate Glass- Steagall, they'd be proposing a different set of reforms altogether.
Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 4:22pm
Give me Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader and I can take back America from the so-called Democrats and the Party of no. Posted by LarryB at 11/14/2009 @ 09:21am
You can count me on that! What a tragedy that we buy into the self-defeatist paradigm of propaganda, deceit, outright criminal acts of Big Business with the obvious blessing of the elected government (which amounts to nothing less that aiding and abiding crime against the working people) and with a complete distortion of reality become willing victims of their abuses... when there are honest, dedicated, brilliant minds with sense of moral and ethical conduct who are not afraid to expose the excuses for the fraud committed and who are marginalized by the unscrupulous media mongols to ensure the public does not take them seriously! They have denounced what we are coming to know painfully, suffering the consequences of the brutal robbery of the uninformed and misinformed public. Information is power and maybe this forms of communication and of sharing facts (factual or distorted but available as options to choose and decide which ring as true... by association and common sense) may be the catalyst to some small seed of a "closer to the real facts" perception of reality rather than the twisted news we have been bombarded with by the main stream media. The right to educated choices is true democracy... not the imposed limited choice of two, almost undistinguished ones. The choices that Big Business controls by the millions poured into bending their support.
Posted by Gustav at 11/15/2009 @ 9:07pm
Liebniz's optimism was progressive. Voltaire's mocking was reactionary. And as for Locke, Franklin specifically insisted and Jefferson agreed at the time to word the famous phrase as "live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a slap at Locke. Furthermore, the spirit of the Constitution and having a nation of laws is in direct opposition to Locke's social contract. Our Revolution and America itself is build on the optimistic ideas of Liebniz and the natural laws (truth) as they can be applied to a legal system from Vattel (the unknown Founder) along with a few ideas from Montesquieu and Rousseau I will take your advice and think more about this; you might want to do the same. I notice that since the Revolution those who have labored to see Locke as a source of the Revolution, rather than a scourge, almost always reduce the Revolution to just being a bunch of white men who objected to have a parliament thousands of miles away determining their laws. This liberal (and now conservative) reductionism is paralleled by the historical falsehood that the Founders agonized over separation from England. The truth is that the progressive, not liberal, Idea of America as a separate entity, a nation of a new type, was discussed for many, many decades before 1776 and the discussion centered as much around ideas as it did on the specific oppressive laws that came from London after the 1688 take over of England by Locke's friends.
Posted by dont_know at 11/15/2009 @ 11:26pm
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 12:09am
Also, the revolution that Locke defended was a revolution of the new property class (oligarchy) against nation states. Our American revolution was launched to oppose the very oligarchy Locke helped install in England and over the 13 colonies. Liberals have used Locke's defense of revolution as a sign that he was in some fashion a "democratic" revolutionary. And to do so they compare his social contract with our American way. This again is reductionism along side sophistry. Conservatives on the other hand, in my view, probably take delight in Locke's views that women and the poor had a lessor rationality than men especially men of property. In Locke's system the coercive power of wealth always rules the social contract. In America the struggle against rule by wealth continues' believe me, I live in Bloomberg's New York. If you want to read criticisms of Locke by his contemporaries, I suggest you look at the works of Mary Astell the 17th, early 18th century feminist philosopher. Bottom line, in my humble opinion, she would sign Bernie Sanders petition, Locke would not.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 12:14am
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 12:09am
My position is that the Founders were for the most part "Progressive" and not simply "Liberal" and certainly not "Conservative" (and hardly Christian, either - but that is another debate). About as close Franklin came to Locke's ideas was his belief that a just government must be build upon immutable political and economic principles. (as opposed to the fatuous positions of Jefferson who seemed to know nothing about economics and sounded, then, more like today's conservative Club for Growth which advocates limited government, lower taxes, less government spending, free trade & unrestricted economic speculation). If alive today, I believe that Franklin and the Federalists would enthusiastically sign Sander's petition, oppose escalation in Afghanistan and be for HC reform, probably for single payer -- and be appalled at Wall St. bailouts. Some historians have speculated that had Jefferson lived, he would have joined the Confederacy. Today, the ideas of Locke, as well as those of Jefferson and others, give comfort to the anti-government ideas of both Wall St. and the loony-tune right. To Jefferson's great credit goes his work on the Declaration of Independence. Too bad he didn't understand you need a strong government under law for a people to remain sovereign & not end up ruled by a wealthy oligarchy (Wall St.). The progressive ideas of Franklin and the Federalists are the foundation of the only truly progressive nation in the world, our America. But only, as Franklin (whose ideas came from Vattel not Locke) warned us, if we keep it. Sign Sander's petition now. Help break up banks that are too big to fail. Otherwise you risk continuing to live in a social contract with Wall St. instead of a democratic republic.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 01:26am
"Liebniz's optimism was progressive. Voltaire's mocking was reactionary. "
Liebniz's optimism was metaphysical, and devoid of a political dimension. To argue that Voltaire was a reactionary is to ignore his campaigns against what he saw as the pernicious effects of religion and his campaigns for civil liberties.
"Our Revolution and America itself is build on the optimistic ideas of Liebniz and the natural laws (truth) as they can be applied to a legal system from Vattel"
Except that Liebniz's argument wasn't political. The "best of all possible worlds" argument was based on the idea that a perfect God wouldn't create something sub-optimal.
"This liberal (and now conservative) reductionism is paralleled by the historical falsehood that the Founders agonized over separation from England."
They did. The approach to armed resistance and independence was an evolutionary process going back to the Stamp Act. Pauline Maier outlines this process in From Resistance to Revolution.
"as it did on the specific oppressive laws that came from London after the 1688 take over of England by Locke's friends."
Actually, the Whig theory of history the Founders followed considered that to be a positive development. It was the corruption that took place in the following century that they saw as oppressive. You also overlook the fact that Locke's concept of property also included life and liberty.
"Furthermore, the spirit of the Constitution and having a nation of laws is in direct opposition to Locke's social contract. "
No, that was the social contract. The idea being that the government is subject to certain innate restrictions and if it goes beyond that, it loses its legitimacy.
Posted by brunowe at 11/16/2009 @ 04:15am
"Jefferson who seemed to know nothing about economics and sounded, then, more like today's conservative Club for Growth which advocates limited government, lower taxes, less government spending, free trade & unrestricted economic speculation"
Jefferson's ideal was a population of yeoman farmers. At the time, Hamilton saw the federal government as being an engine of industrial growth and Jefferson was opposed to that as well as to the Bank of the United States.
"Also, the revolution that Locke defended was a revolution of the new property class (oligarchy) against nation states. Our American revolution was launched to oppose the very oligarchy Locke helped install in England and over the 13 colonies."
There was nothing internationalist about Locke. There is nothing in his writing indicating an opposition to the idea of nation states. Locke was long dead when England began the measures of imperial consolidation that started with the Stamp Act.
"My position is that the Founders were for the most part "Progressive" and not simply "Liberal" and certainly not "Conservative"
Except there was nothing in the Founders policies that would parallel the ideas of economic justice that marked Progressivism. The Senate ended up being selected by the state legislatures and the President by an electoral college, both anti-democratic measures.
"In Locke's system the coercive power of wealth always rules the social contract. "
The Founders had nothing against wealth. Indeed, it wasn't until the Jackson period that property qualifications for suffrage started being removed.
Posted by brunowe at 11/16/2009 @ 04:29am
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 01:26am | Posted by brunowe at 11/16/2009 @ 04:29am |
A fascinating discussion gentlemen, I am much obliged to have shared these rivulets of wisdom.
I agree that Franklin would have signed Bernie's petition...Madison would not have...Jefferson is a toss-up (he might have been bright enough to see that the Big 5 banks are running rough-shod over his yeoman).
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 07:08am
There is sound reason why Franklin spent little time in the US after the Revolution. He just didn't fit in with many of the founders ideals for our new nation. He preferred the "culture" of Paris (romfl)
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 09:07am
There was nothing internationalist about Locke. There is nothing in his writing indicating an opposition to the idea of nation states. Locke was long dead when England began the measures of imperial consolidation that started with the Stamp Act.
Posted by brunowe at 11/16/2009 @ 04:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
Do you not consider the systematic looting of the colonies before the Stamp Act by William III's new Bank of England, his voiding of the colonies laws in opposition to England's Navigation Acts, and his establishment (with Locke's help) of more centralized control over the colonies with his Boards of Commissioners for Trade and Plantations (which established slavery in the Carolinas) as "measures of imperial consolidation"? And do you not consider Locke's support for Parliamentary (i.e., oligarchical) control of the government (under both the Cromwell dictatorship and William III) as opposition to the idea of a nation state? Certainly his contemporaries did. Or are you one of those who believe that England has a democratic system rather than an oligarchical one. Do you believe that a parliament is in any way comparable to our separate but equal branches of government. Certainly, you could argue, and many do, that financial interests control our Congress just as much as they do the Parliament in England. And they do (just look at the continuation of TARP from Bush to Obama) but the difference is that there are mechanisms for struggling against control by Wall St. in America whereas there is precious little for the Brits to use in their legal system against control by their financial oligarchs. If our founding fathers had received their ideas from Locke, then America should have a parliament, don't you think.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:03am
I would prefer the United Socialist States of America over the United Corporations of America. Socialists at least pretend to hold the common good as the highest principle of governance. Corporatists hold privatization of all wealth in a few hands and virtual slavery for everyone else as the highest principle of, not governance, but rather, ruling.
Money has replaced the sword as the tool of enslavement. Let the revolution be at hand.
Posted by DonionFoops at 11/16/2009 @ 1:28pm
We see the results of unrestrained and unregulated Capitalism mirrored in our current economy and foreign policy. The beast is running amok, and our Republic suffers. The Cancer of Capitalism has metastasized and threatens it's host. And the people who promote this Cancer are Traitors and Criminals.
It is time to clean house.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 9:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What you and most people today call "Capitalism" is in fact the Anglo-Dutch free trade system. And it is and always has been running amok. Profitable enterprise and free trade are not the same thing, but because of the obfuscations of free traders from both the right and the left, many people confuse the two. The right hails enterprise while actually supporting free trade, and the left, while denouncing the cancer of free trade, lumps small business in with big business. We on the left need to stop echoing the God that Failed (Marx) and differentiate between enterprise that helps build a nation and provides jobs and free trade that only loots nations and destroys jobs.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 4:35pm
"nd do you not consider Locke's support for Parliamentary (i.e., oligarchical) control of the government (under both the Cromwell dictatorship and William III) as opposition to the idea of a nation state?"
Of course not. Favoring a system with a limited suffrage isn't antithetical to a nation-state. Further, the United States had a similarly oligarchical system in the beginning. Neither the Senate nor the Presidency were directly selected by the people and property qualifications remained in place until the Jackson era.
Incidentally, one of the defining elements of the Cromwell dictatorship was the forcible disbanding of the Rump Parliament, so it can hardly be an example of parliamentary control.
Also, centralizing control of British colonies in Britain isn't antithetical to the idea of the nation-state either. Not to mention the fact that Locke had nothing to do with the promulgation of the Navigation Acts, which were aimed at Dutch shipping interests.
"If our founding fathers had received their ideas from Locke, then America should have a parliament, don't you think."
No, because he wasn't the only source. They received ideas from Locke, Montesquieu (federalism, separation of powers) and were part of a continuum of 18th century English radical thought.
Posted by brunowe at 11/16/2009 @ 5:26pm
brunowe, you continue to fail to see the exceptional difference the government formed by our Founders over the system proposed and worked for by Locke & his hencemen. Yes, Cromwell disbanded Parliament, but even then Locke remained in his position and worked diligently for a return of Parliament and the coup to place William in power in London. And there has not been one time since William came to power that Parliament has not met. And you do not understand oligarchy at all. The fact that neither the Senate nor the Presidency were directly selected and that property qualifications remained in place till Jackson does in no way mean that early America was ruled by an oligarchy. We had no multinational corporations (i.e., no East India Companies) manipulating our Congress or Presidents (at that time). We had no central bank focused on monetarism, rather we had a National Bank organized by Hamilton that extended credit to entrepreneurs. (That First National Bank was abolished by Jackson - whom you seem to admire -- in the service of the European banks) And more fundamentally, we fought a second war against the European oligarchy. Also, your history of the Navigation Acts is way off. People in the colonies suffered and people in the col0nies were outraged by William III, perhaps not as much as they were later against George I through III but that is only because the George's ruled differently than William. And you say nothing about Locke's directly organizing official slavery in the Carolinas. Slavery existed before then but in an ad hoc fashion. After Locke is was law.
Posted by dont_know at 11/17/2009 @ 01:21am
And are you one of those who believes that most of the Founders were for slavery because they did not abolish it in the Constitution? I have read that libel many times of late. If it were true, then I would have to agree with you that Locke's ideas influenced the Revolution. True many did own slaves including Washington. But he and many of the others who did agonized over slavery. Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others). Even Jefferson thought that one of the reason for Revolution was to abolish slavery which he felt was imposed upon the colonies. And the person who imposed that slavery was none other than John Locke.
Posted by dont_know at 11/17/2009 @ 01:28am
The ideas of the Revolution which you ascribe to Locke actually come from Emmerich de Vattel's concept of natural law which is in opposition to slavery and racism among other things. Vattel believed that a sovereign nation-state is the best institution, to understand and perform the duties which the state owes to its citizens. This is the central idea behind Federalism and is the basis of our Constitution. England under William and the Georges was not a sovereign nation state but an oligarchy controlled through Parliament by the British East and West India Companies just as Holland was controlled by the Dutch East India Company. In essence, England after William was ruled by multi-national corporations. Sovereignty was divided between the monarch and the companies and banks operating through Parliament. This system was largely put in place by Locke. This system of oligarchy replaced the nation state created by Henry VII. Our Founders created a a new nation state while England remained in oligarchy controlled by sovereign financial interests. Our new nation state, America, was and is based on the people being sovereign. If Locke has been the progenitor of our nation then Wall St. would be sovereign. Under law, in England, even today, there is little recourse for the people to oppose their banks and financial class. In America we do have recourse for opposing rule by the investment banks, including this new petition from Bernie Sanders.
Posted by dont_know at 11/17/2009 @ 01:45am
"Yes, Cromwell disbanded Parliament, but even then Locke remained in his position and worked diligently for a return of Parliament"
Actually Locke was still doing his medical studies when Oliver Cromwell died. He hadn't yet attached himself to Shaftesbury so he could hardly have done what you said he did.
"And you do not understand oligarchy at all. The fact that neither the Senate nor the Presidency were directly selected and that property qualifications remained in place till Jackson does in no way mean that early America was ruled by an oligarchy."
Actually you don't understand oligarchy. The lack of a landed aristocracy resulted in an America that was more democratic than Britain but that was an accident of history, not a "progressive" design of the Founding Fathers.
"We had no central bank focused on monetarism, rather we had a National Bank organized by Hamilton that extended credit to entrepreneurs. (That First National Bank was abolished by Jackson - whom you seem to admire -- in the service of the European banks)"
Jackson did not oppose the Bank of the United States in the service of European bankers. He opposed it because he felt it to be a source of political corruption and harmful speculation.
The Bank of England wasn't focused on monetarism; it simply had a more limited mandate as the credit and currency system in Britain were more evolved. Again, the differences weren't a function of the Founders being more progressive but of the circumstances of a new nation. Further, the government remained the largest depositor in the U.S. Bank.
Posted by brunowe at 11/17/2009 @ 05:55am
It is your take on the Navigation Acts that is way off. They were instituted in the 1650s as an anti-Dutch measure and were a proximate cause of the three Anglo-Dutch wars. Locke had nothing to do with them or with the Sugar Acts that started with the Molasses Act of 1733 (long after William III had died).
Your take on slavery is off too. Locke was not one of the proprietors of the Carolinas and the scheme he devised never took hold. Likewise, the institution of slavery became law in Virginia through a process independent of what was happening in the Carolinas. To put the emplacement of slavery in the Americas on Locke underestimates the economic factors and overestimates the power he had.
Further, to argue that the American Revolution had any intrinsic opposition to slavery is flat out wrong. Colonial opposition opposed British economic policies starting with the Stamp Act. Indeed, the only reference to slavery in the Declaration of Independence was the phrase "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us", which referred to the British freeing slaves as an anti-insurrection measure.
There wasn't anything like an abolition movement in the South and it isn't even close to libel to point out that the Southern Founders had no problem at all with slavery. Further, there were no abolitionist societies outside of Pennsylvania before the Revolution.
Posted by brunowe at 11/17/2009 @ 07:24am
"England under William and the Georges was not a sovereign nation state but an oligarchy controlled through Parliament by the British East and West India Companies"
That is pure conspiratorial nonsense. The British Indian companies existed by government charter and, in fact, the government imposed reforms and increased governmental control on the East India Company in 1773.
"This system was largely put in place by Locke. "
There is absolutely nothing in Locke's writings that supports rule by government-chartered trading companies. There is nothing in the political changes of the Glorious Revolution that did that.
"Under law, in England, even today, there is little recourse for the people to oppose their banks and financial class. "
That is also incorrect, the Bank of England had been nationalized in 1946.
Posted by brunowe at 11/17/2009 @ 07:35am
There is so much above that I disagree with (and some I agree with) that it is difficult to know where to start. So I won't but I would like to know your viewpoints on the difference between Shaftsbury's and Locke's Carolinas (with slavery) and Ogelthorpe's Georgia (without slavery). From everything I have read above, you seem to be one of those who believe that slavery was an inevitable result of "capitalism" rather than a planned project (by Locke & his masters). I also think you should look more closely at Locke's career during the Cromwell years and how Locke helped bring back Parliament. As to oligarchy, again you seem to be one of those who sees this as a generic term rather than and organized movement among the elite. You may dismiss this as conspiracy theory but we call it history. The Oligarchy (with a capital) was first ORGANIZED among the bankers of Venice who funded the Protestant Revolution, formulated most of the wars of the late Renaissance, moved their usury operations to Holland and then moved to England under William III with the help of Locke. The organized Oligarchy is against the nation state and for global rule by themselves. I am sure that you are aware that the transfer of ideas, wealth and property among the leaders of this organized Oligarchy over a period of about 500 years is CONTINUOUS. The road from Sarpi to Hobbes to Locke (and his successors all the way to Wall St. and the modern defenders of free trade) reveals the conspiracy of an organized Oligarchy. If this blog is still existing after your next answer, I will reply in more detail. Blogs are great for debate but there is no room here for a lot of detail but you have done more than most and I thank you for it. Much to think about and comment on. Later
Posted by dont_know at 11/17/2009 @ 5:00pm
First, thanks to you to. This has been engaging.
Georgia did permit slavery starting in 1749, so Georgia was only a "free" colony for about 16 years. http://tinyurl.com/y9ejz4b
Locke spent the Cromwell years ensconced in academia, getting his Bachelors and Masters at Christ Church College, Oxford. As to his proposed constitution for the Carolinas, the colonists did not implement it. I defy you to find any one in South Carolina colonial history who actually took the title of Palatine or chamberlain.
"The Oligarchy (with a capital) was first ORGANIZED among the bankers of Venice who funded the Protestant Revolution, formulated most of the wars of the late Renaissance, moved their usury operations to Holland and then moved to England under William III with the help of Locke. The organized Oligarchy is against the nation state and for global rule by themselves."
That is pure conspiracy theory. The Italian Wars were a function of Habsburg-Valois/Bourbon rivalry over Italy while the rise of Dutch economic power was due to factors specific to Holland, not to Venetian migration.
Posted by brunowe at 11/17/2009 @ 6:54pm
Thank you so much. You can not imagine how much you have contributed to by studies. As to migration from Venice to Holland, all you have to do is trace the banking wealth transfers from Venice to Holland via Germany and who financed the wars from the Hundred Years War to the assault on the first full realized nation-state of Henry VII. Wasn't the Venetian Contarini network and such Venetian banks as the Bardi's financing the Protestant Reformation (even Calvin came from a Venetian family, the Cauin)? Wasn't it the Venician Francesco Zorzi who had persuaded Henry that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was null and void so that Henry could marry Ann Boleyn, the daughter of a Venetian Party supporter.? Was not Cromwell financed by Venitian families and merchants in their orbit living in Holland? And who financed Locke in his early years? Again thank y0u for you input. I deeply appreciate this.
Posted by dont_know at 11/18/2009 @ 8:46pm