Even if one was to agree with you, you make a case against the government having more control over entities like GS at the same time. What you call excessive wealth already exists at GS as well as, in my opinion at least, the corruption in the government (which you and I blame on different things, but lets set that aside for the moment). So if GS already has the money, power and corrupted officials how would any real reform be passed? GS would simply use their wealth and power to ensure that while the reform might look and sound good it wouldn't fix anything that you listed. You are a smart man so I assume you don't expect a corrupted government to vote against their personal interests do you?
For proof I offer the latest financial reform bill that was passed by the house. Funny how the derivatives they talk about "regulating" have so many loopholes that it likely won't apply to most banks (end user exemption, foreign exchange exemption, balance sheet risk exemption, etc). Make no mistake, the people who wrote this bill are not stupid and they know full well the result of language in the legislation. Yet in front of the cameras they slap each other on the back and talk about how historic the vote was and how it will prevent the nonsense from the last few years from ever happening again. Most people don't understand the first thing about the bill or what it is trying (not) to regulate so if you like the people doing the backslapping you will probably approve of the bill if you don't you won't.
I bet most D's here approve of it and I bet most R's don't. This obviously isn't the "fix" you had in mind, so how is it reasonably accomplished?
There's a question you need to decide when faced with a corrupted democracy: are you better off with a more radical solution, throwing out the baby and the bathwater, or not?
First, when I ask that, it's not rhetorical as if there's only one answer. You can ask the question, even if practically there's not a thing you can do about it, and there isn't.
Second, when I say 'not' above, I mean bother whether the status quo is better than the alternative, or whether it's worth 'fixing' the problems, both of which are not getting rid of the system.
When you refer to GS having the power and money, you are not considering variables - the American people could force great changes tomorrow if they could get their act together and push them.
That theoretical power is derived from the vote; the sad fact is there's a long list of why it's little exercised.
Rather than a length discussion of my point, I'll just refer you to the many times in history when the 'fat cats' lost - even if they're too few. It happens (when there's a democracy). GS it too powerful, but can be beat.
You're absolutely right on the reform bill. From Matt Tiabbii's radio comments yesterday: It was written up as a good reform bill (something that wouldn't have happened with a Republican Congress IMO) - but Geitner removed key provisions that pretty much gutted it. But that's just another symptom of the problem we're discussing.
That's why I think you are going a bit too far in suggesting all Congress is corrupt and this was written from the start as a phony bill - there is a real battle and cynicism weakens the public side.
I agree about the public not being informed and concerned enough tabout this and that allowing the bill to get gutted.
On your last point, about D support and R opposition, I don't see the point you are making much there - yes, I support the inadequate but still positive bill, and many R's likelly oppose it. I'm not sure that has much relevance to the other issue we're discussing. I don't support it because of the D, I support it because it's better than not having it. I would agree too many dems are likely to support it because it's calle dthe reform bill, and not appreciate the issue of it being gutted.
Facebook
Twitter