The 99% Declaration
- Thread starter Integral
- Start date
No. The main problems were deregulation and recklessness on the part of banks and Wall St. Not monetary policy. Monetary policy was an enabler, not a cause, of the problem. The government debt was also an enabler, not a cause, of the problem.
In essence, no part of the government caused the problem to happen. What the government did was allow the conditions under which they should have expected a financial crisis, and then did nothing to prevent it.
So the protesters are correct in who they are blaming.
Bribed public officials gave Wall St everything it wanted. Wall St took that and caused the crisis.
Can anyone from a country with public campaign financing or familiar with public campaign financing answer this question:
I am honestly unconvinced of the efficiency of PCF in eliminating or significantly reducing the influence of money in politics.
luiz said:
I am honestly unconvinced of the efficiency of PCF in eliminating or significantly reducing the influence of money in politics.
I suppose the FTC or whatever could ban political ads within a certain timeframe of an election? I guess that would be the only way to stop it...or find a way to make it $$$ worthwhile for station owners to not run them.
The laundry list of demands is pretty stupid (not the time to be brandying about EPA stuff), but that doesn't mean they aren't right to be angry. The campaign financing is a HUGE problem that runs into virtually every other political problem we have....and that isn't a Republican problem....almost everybody (including unions) has blood on their hands there.
The laundry list of demands is pretty stupid (not the time to be brandying about EPA stuff), but that doesn't mean they aren't right to be angry. The campaign financing is a HUGE problem that runs into virtually every other political problem we have....and that isn't a Republican problem....almost everybody (including unions) has blood on their hands there.
Not everything the Tea Party criticizes in unjustified, but they often mistake cause and effect in the case of government action and economic conditions, and their proposed solutions are almost definitely wrong.
In general they are a distraction from the actual problems and their necessary solutions.
I don't know if I'm qualified to answer this, because Germany runs a mixed system (with donations making up 15% of the average party's funding), and I don't know the exact regulations in the case of media, but does it really matter?
In my opinion, buying or influencing a newspaper or TV stations is not the same as essentially bribing single politicians. The former still requires you to sway the majority of the electorate, the latter can make your intended policy pass by manipulating only one person, if it's the right one. On the matter of making the media endorse one candidate, what does it gain this candidate except that he will be put in office? The problem with direct financing is that it often makes the candidate dependent on the donator beyond the scope of public politics.
(To elaborate a little on the actual case of Germany: newspapers endorse candidates or parties more or less obviously all the time, so I don't see a problem with that unless one interest group takes control of all of them, which likely violates cartel laws. Even then, we have public radio and TV stations that are required to treat all parties in an equal manner).
I am sorry, but wouldnt experts and people mass criticise it if it would happening? Wouldnt be needed divine power to unite wall street in such acts? I also somewhat miss how any regulation than anti-monopoly shall improve economy.
In contrast, the unbeliveable debts and unwillingness of goverments to reforms and continuing printing of dollars were visible for public in years and hadnt any common sense.
But you could ban poltical ads within a certain timeframe from the elections even without changing how financing is done. How would public financing actually help in this regard?
There is a big debate about campaign finance reform in Brazil too, and some people (including good honest people) believe public financing is a panacea that would solve much of our problems (namely, that many if not most Brazilian politicians are in the pockets of big construction companies that donate hundreds of millions of dollars to their campaigns). I am so far unimpressed by their argument (especially because the party pushing the most for public financing is the Workers' Party, the most corrupt of them all and the one that receives the most donations from construction companies).
There is no easy answer here. Democracy comes with a lot of problems, and while we should always strive to make it better, there is no silver bullet.
Well, on theory donating to a campaign is not the same as bribing either. My point is that it appears to be relatively easy to mimic the effects of direct private donations to political campaigns via third parties.
A corporation may make it known to the candidate that is funding a specific NGO or pressure group which in turns is buying adds for the candidate (or endorsing his positions, or attacking his opponents, etc). The candidate might therefore feel that he has a "debt" to the corporation, and do the corporation favors in order to assure their continued support in future elections. It would be business as usual.
I am not convinced that public financing would break or severely diminish the influence of money on electoral politics. I am not entirely familiar with German politics, but from what I know money and corporations do have quite a bit of an influence (not saying Germany is particularly corrupt, just that it too has not solved this issue).
You're right, there isn't a silver bullet.
I would hope that public finance would reduce the sheer amount of money it takes to run a competitive campaign...not only is media advertising very expensive, but so is print, office space, staffers, research, etc. The costs for campaigns are SKYROCKETING, and not just for congress. Schoolboard seats near where I taught in Louisiana ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that's for cheap media markets. I was a consultant for a state rep position in quasi rural Indiana, and both sides combined to spend over a million dollars. For a state rep race!
When elections that expensive, politicians, including good, honest ones, must spend a disporportionate amount of their time and energy hustling for money, and can't inact policies that would jeopardize access to that money. I've personally spoken to three members of congress about this (2 conservative Dems, and one Republican), and all three agreed this was the biggest problem in their work. If you need 2 million bucks every other year, raising money is all you do. Ideally, public money (or VERY strong regulations), can cap those costs somewhat.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Protesting is considered a form of advertising, isn't it? Instead of relying on money to purchase a spot on commercial breaks, some people use other means to get their message across (blogging, internet, and etc.). Pretty much sums up what I think this whole OWS is all about.
I don't deny that (former chancellor Schröder now has an "advising position" for Gazprom, for example, while in office he agreed to the Russo-German Baltic Sea gas pipeline). But we're not at US level, where a campaign's chances are decided by your available money alone.
So I agree that there are numerous ways left to exert influence, but the whole mechanism that you don't even have a chance without big business money, which is definitely the case in the US, would be prevented.
Hmmm. Sorry, but I think we are having a language barrier problem as much as anything else. But I'll try to make it as clear as I can.
First, monetary policy simply isn't understood among the general public. The public usually does not know what the government is doing, and almost never knows why it is doing it. And that was particularly true while Greenspan was in office, because he deliberately obscured what he was doing from anyone who wasn't a monetary policy expert. Including Congress, well, to be fair, specifically Congress, and the president.
When the American public has an opinion on monetary policy, they are usually wrong, and they are only following the lead of a politician who is wrong, either out of pure ignorance of the subject, or for political reasons.
So Ron Paul leads with this anti-fractional reserve banking crap. And many people follow that, because they are utterly ignorant. And many people rant about the coming hyperinflation, because of Quantitative Easing, but there's no inflation in sight. So much of that is ignorance, but much of it is also political demagoguery.
Some want a monetary policy that helps them politically, while hurting opponents politically. And misinform the public to try to bring that about. They rely on the fact that the public really has no understanding of the issues to get away with it. That is what Rick Perry was doing when he threatened Bernanke's life.
Anti-monopoly regulation helps in many ways. 1) Smaller companies are easier to both regulate from the outside, and manage from the inside. So they just do not present the risks to others that very large companies do. 2) More competition between companies usually has a beneficial effect on the markets themselves, as well as the behavior of each company. 3) Smaller companies cannot influence the government in their favor as easily. 4) Smaller companies can be allowed to fail and go out of business without harm to the economy as a whole.
Even the federal deficit situation is something the public does not understand. Because they do not have independent factual knowledge and information regarding it. What they know is what the politicians tell them. And the politicians are either lying, or just can't tell the difference between the truth and their own propaganda.
So the voters get told that Reagan ran deficits to win the Cold War. It's complete crap. But the public believes it, because they've been told it 1000s of times. The voters get told that Bush ran deficits because the economy needed it after the tech bubble crash and 9/11. It's complete crap. But they believe it for the same reason. And now they are told that Obama's deficits are what is destroying the country, and there's no reason for them. And that's complete crap as well.
But the public, with no actual understanding of the issues, just believes the propaganda.
I agree that deficits are results of political compromises rather than real numbers and that politicians interpretating deficit differently when they are in power and when they are in opossition. But normal people understand that making debts mean interest rates and paying more money...do you agree? For me who dont care about ron paul or american economy it seems as most visible fail. And from it coming other things like who guarantees that debts and who holds money...and if these holders dont using it for own purposes...
And about inflation...when we will see hyperinflation it will be already late. We see how people dont trust currency and trying buy enough gold, artworks or properties...of course its also partly hysteria, but its true that its more educuated people than rednecks.
Anti-monopoly regulations are fine. But what you described is more anti-corporations than anti-monopoly. I dont know how to reach it but if we would cripple succesfull companies, which companies will be small enough? When we will theoretically destroy corporations, bigger companies will be blamed for same, wouldnt they?
Bribing politicians seem to me subject for criminal law rather then anything else. I shall understand belief that big companies bribe politicians but this shall be done by anyone who holds relatively small money.
And about inflation...when we will see hyperinflation it will be already late. We see how people dont trust currency and trying buy enough gold, artworks or properties...of course its also partly hysteria, but its true that its more educuated people than rednecks.
Anti-monopoly regulations are fine. But what you described is more anti-corporations than anti-monopoly. I dont know how to reach it but if we would cripple succesfull companies, which companies will be small enough? When we will theoretically destroy corporations, bigger companies will be blamed for same, wouldnt they?
Bribing politicians seem to me subject for criminal law rather then anything else. I shall understand belief that big companies bribe politicians but this shall be done by anyone who holds relatively small money.
Debt has not really resulted in higher real interest rates for most Americans though. So you have 2 factors, 1 is that it isn't obvious from watching the real world that the connection is there. And the second is that the American public knows very little about economics at all. So what seems obvious to you is not a part of the American experience.
Hyperinflation does not come out of nowhere. It has to be a policy which is causing it. And that policy has to continue to cause it. It is not a concern unless it is deliberate policy. So the public fears just have no basis.
I am not anti-corporation. But I do believe that corporations have to be held to rules which benefit everyone in the economy. If the rules don't benefit the population as a whole, then there's no excuse for allowing it.
There are specific "hard bribes" and less obvious forms of bribery that are not actually illegal. The latter type is overwhelming in American politics.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
No need to make fun.
I was serious. The campaign financing issue is relatively undefended. Sure, there are conservative ideologues who will defend money=speech. But that's nothing compared to taking on Insurance and Pharma industries (Medicare-for-all), or taking on the investment banks. Those guys can drown out votes with money.
Like MacArthur's island-hopping strategy, you have to take relatively undefended territory before you can even think of reaching the big prizes.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
And we have an even bigger problem with Congress. A challenger needs a lot more money than an incumbent. Incumbents can use the franking privilege to send mass mailings to their constituents. Officially it's to keep them informed, but of course you're going to put forth your reasoning for why you voted a certain way. Incumbents can also create news at will, and unless they do something idiotic, the free publicity benefits them. Then you add in their ability to build a war chest in election cycles where there is little or no opposition.
It makes things very difficult to get decent people in the House and Senate.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Don't forget the really well defended territory in tertiary theatres.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
When the first article on the election of delegates, I had half a mind to mount a campaign.
