Democracy is dead: the rise of Post-Democracy

[arkirk]

It's the same thing. When you give "it" more power you give "them" more power.

This is the starting premise. "they" control "it".

That doesn't follow. If the banks control the financial regulators, giving the financial regulators more power will not necessarily give the banks more power. The empowered financial regulators could pass laws that lessen the power of banks, for example.

On the other hand, giving the financial regulators LESS power will ALWAYS give the banks MORE power.

And it should go without saying, but giving the banks LESS power will, by definition, lessen the power of banks.

Since giving more power to financial regulators could go either way, and giving them less power will just make things worse, the only rational course of action is to shift our focus away from the financial regulators and onto the banks themselves.

Is anyone here cognizant of the significance of the Bank of America's agreeing to pay a fine of over 17 BILLION DOLLARS to get the regulators off there backs in the matter of the sub-prime mortgage scandal. If that voluntary on their part, it is obvious they must feel they got a good deal paying a record fine for dirty dealing with the American public. This "biggest ever corporate fine" amounts to $56 for every man woman and child in America and is still nowhere near the wealth transferred to them by their crooked behavior. Would that indicate we needed stronger regulators or weaker ones? Dismal's argument is irrational. The regulators needed the power to make things right...break up these criminal organizations that masquerade as legitimate necessities of society. They collected instead a pittance in comparison to the damage done to our economy and more importantly, our people. BofA still holds the paper and defacto control of all the real estate involved in this rip off, and the fine is just one of the costs of "doing business," despite it being a record fine.

The problem is that government power in relationship to huge corporations needs to be increased by orders of magnitude and corporate control of government needs to be abolished. So do a number of these corporations. I frankly do not see a route to the resolution of the problem given that we are now a Corporatocracy. In other ages, it would be called fascism. Just look at our bloated military and security state and tell me we are not firmly in the grip of arbitrary uncaring people of wealth. I still vote, but honestly cannot give you the reason why I do so. I suppose it is just because of nostalgia.

 

[dismal]

Then the banks don't control the financial regulators. The initial premise is false.

I said "if." It was a hypothetical example. Assuming somebody is worried about large corporations and financial institutions hijacking the government, it is reasonable to conclude that lessening the power of the hijackers is the best course of action, rather than lessening the power of their hostage. Therefore, it is false that anybody concerned about the death of democracy should be in favor of smaller government.

Your hypothetical is internally inconsistent. You can't start with the premise that the banks control the regulators and proceed to make an argument based on an assumption that they don't.

 

[PyramidHead]

I said "if." It was a hypothetical example. Assuming somebody is worried about large corporations and financial institutions hijacking the government, it is reasonable to conclude that lessening the power of the hijackers is the best course of action, rather than lessening the power of their hostage. Therefore, it is false that anybody concerned about the death of democracy should be in favor of smaller government.

Your hypothetical is internally inconsistent. You can't start with the premise that the banks control the regulators and proceed to make an argument based on an assumption that they don't.

Where did I assume they don't? Do you not understand how hypotheticals work? Just substitute banks with whatever private entity you agree has undue control over government, and substitute financial regulators with whatever agency is unduly influenced by that entity. The point remains true in any case: since the premise is that X has too much power over Y, reducing the power of X is always a better place to start than reducing the power of Y.

 

[dismal]

Your hypothetical is internally inconsistent. You can't start with the premise that the banks control the regulators and proceed to make an argument based on an assumption that they don't.

Where did I assume they don't?

Here:

The empowered financial regulators could pass laws that lessen the power of banks, for example.

If the banks control the regulators, the regulators do not pass laws to lessen the power of the banks.

 

[PyramidHead]

Where did I assume they don't?

Here:

The empowered financial regulators could pass laws that lessen the power of banks, for example.

In context, that was an example of a possible outcome of increasing the power of the regulators to the point where they are no longer controlled by the banks.

If the banks control the regulators, the regulators do not pass laws to lessen the power of the banks.

Reality is not as black-and-white as that. Anyway, smaller government doesn't address the problem any better.

 

[Togo]

If the banks control the regulators, the regulators do not pass laws to lessen the power of the banks.

I think we're getting too caught up in semantics. The problem is not that the banks exert illuminati-style control over the regulators, but that they can use their greater power to make the regulator ineffective and hamper reform. Banks don't want to be broken up, don't want to have firewalls between consumer business and capital markets business, and don't want to stop engaging in risky practices that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill for. And because of the power disparity, the banks are getting what they want.

This is why pyramidhead and so many others are suggesting that the regulator be given more power, to help them force reforms on the banks, and put them back into something approaching a free-market model. Dismal is arguing for less power to the government/regulator, apparently on ideological grounds. This appears, on the face of it, to be utterly insane, which may explain why he's focused on discussing the semantics of the proposal, rather than its merits.

Of course, if there is a good reason to give more power to banks, maybe we could hear what it is?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Who was it that famously said "People usually get the government they deserve"?

 

[TV and credit cards]

If the banks control the regulators, the regulators do not pass laws to lessen the power of the banks.

I think we're getting too caught up in semantics. The problem is not that the banks exert illuminati-style control over the regulators, but that they can use their greater power to make the regulator ineffective and hamper reform. Banks don't want to be broken up, don't want to have firewalls between consumer business and capital markets business, and don't want to stop engaging in risky practices that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill for. And because of the power disparity, the banks are getting what they want.

This is why pyramidhead and so many others are suggesting that the regulator be given more power, to help them force reforms on the banks, and put them back into something approaching a free-market model. Dismal is arguing for less power to the government/regulator, apparently on ideological grounds. This appears, on the face of it, to be utterly insane, which may explain why he's focused on discussing the semantics of the proposal, rather than its merits.

Of course, if there is a good reason to give more power to banks, maybe we could hear what it is?

Regulators who are not looking at a future working in the banking industry as there is a blurred line between the It and the Them. This line must first be made clear.

The formal structures of democracy remain intact. People still vote. Political parties vie with each other in elections, and circulate in and out of government. Yet these acts of apparent choice have had their meaning hollowed out. The real decisions are taken elsewhere. We have become squatters in the ruins of the great democratic societies of the past.

Cronyism is less a problem than an institution in the US, where decision-makers relentlessly circulate between Wall Street, K Street, and the Senate and Congress.

 

[dismal]

If the banks control the regulators, the regulators do not pass laws to lessen the power of the banks.

I think we're getting too caught up in semantics. The problem is not that the banks exert illuminati-style control over the regulators, but that they can use their greater power to make the regulator ineffective and hamper reform. Banks don't want to be broken up, don't want to have firewalls between consumer business and capital markets business, and don't want to stop engaging in risky practices that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill for. And because of the power disparity, the banks are getting what they want.

This is why pyramidhead and so many others are suggesting that the regulator be given more power, to help them force reforms on the banks, and put them back into something approaching a free-market model. Dismal is arguing for less power to the government/regulator, apparently on ideological grounds. This appears, on the face of it, to be utterly insane, which may explain why he's focused on discussing the semantics of the proposal, rather than its merits.

Of course, if there is a good reason to give more power to banks, maybe we could hear what it is?

It's not semantics at all. There is a clear inconsistency in the argument and the premise. The inconsistency is easy to resolve. If you think the regulators have some ability to control the banks then you don't *actually* believe the banks control the regulators. The inconsistency is resolved by being honest about what one believes...

 

[Axulus]

This year, we've seen multiple billion dollar fines levied against many financial institutions.

Every single one of the top 10 financial institution settlements in U.S. history has occurred within the last three years

If these financial institutions control the government, they're doing it wrong.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank-settlements/

 

[untermensche]

This year, we've seen multiple billion dollar fines levied against many financial institutions.

Every single one of the top 10 financial institution settlements in U.S. history has occurred within the last three years

If these financial institutions control the government, they're doing it wrong.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank-settlements/

Yes billion dollar settlements are common with huge corporations.

They are a scummy lot.

 

[Axulus]

This year, we've seen multiple billion dollar fines levied against many financial institutions.

Every single one of the top 10 financial institution settlements in U.S. history has occurred within the last three years

If these financial institutions control the government, they're doing it wrong.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank-settlements/

Yes billion dollar settlements are common with huge corporations.

They are a scummy lot.

No, such settlements are extremely rare. It is very rare that a huge corporation is guilty of malfeasance on that kind of scale.

However, if they are in control of the government, than it wouldn't be too difficult to make those settlements much smaller or go away all together.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yes billion dollar settlements are common with huge corporations.

They are a scummy lot.

No, such settlements are extremely rare. It is very rare that a huge corporation is guilty of malfeasance on that kind of scale.

However, if they are in control of the government, than it wouldn't be too difficult to make those settlements much smaller or go away all together.

or they could pay the settlements, which in the grand scheme of things really isn't all that much, and get well meaning people to go on the internet, or to the corner store, or to the barber shop and say things like

"However, if they are in control of the government, than it wouldn't be too difficult to make those settlements much smaller or go away all together"

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist.

 

[untermensche]

Yes billion dollar settlements are common with huge corporations.

They are a scummy lot.

No, such settlements are extremely rare. It is very rare that a huge corporation is guilty of malfeasance on that kind of scale.

However, if they are in control of the government, than it wouldn't be too difficult to make those settlements much smaller or go away all together.

They are not rare at all.

These kinds of settlements occur all the time. A huge culprit are the drug manufacturers, they are constantly being hit with huge fines for their malfeasance.

As said, corporations are a scummy lot.

 

[bleubird]

I had a conversation with a man that is in management of one of the large native corps here.He told me that if you could sit in on a board meeting of say BP,you would find they only care if they have the cash to cover a fuck-up.
As far as to the OP.
We are moving ever closer to fascism.Corporations and government working against the best interest of the whole.
Look at the militarization of the police.

The ghost of Smedely Butler should haunting us.

 

[Perspicuo]

Smaller in which dimension?

and why is it always smaller government? Why is it never, smaller transnationnal mega corporations? Especially since they are the ones giving governments their marching orders.

Only a strong government can oppose the self-servicing mega-corporations (notice I say "the", meaning the ones who are unethical, exploitative, unethical, which I do not know every mega corporation is). The US government is now big but weak, and I don't think merely making it "smaller" is going to make it stronger. On the contrary. The question is not between big and small, but between weak and strong, either catering to the capital or serving and representing the citizenry. A problem we see the world over, even in nominally Communistic China.

Forget "globalization". Under our noses our governments have been taken over by private interests. I understand production and employment come from companies who produce and employ, and therefore certain considerations should be afforded them, but I believe we're seeing the dawn of the dictatorship of the mega-corporation, if we do not check it. Our corporations are NOT worker co-operatives, they are the private fiefs of inordinately wealthy overlords.

 

[Perspicuo]

Note on "inordinately wealthy", which I mention in my post above:

 

[PyramidHead]

I think we're getting too caught up in semantics. The problem is not that the banks exert illuminati-style control over the regulators, but that they can use their greater power to make the regulator ineffective and hamper reform. Banks don't want to be broken up, don't want to have firewalls between consumer business and capital markets business, and don't want to stop engaging in risky practices that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill for. And because of the power disparity, the banks are getting what they want.

This is why pyramidhead and so many others are suggesting that the regulator be given more power, to help them force reforms on the banks, and put them back into something approaching a free-market model. Dismal is arguing for less power to the government/regulator, apparently on ideological grounds. This appears, on the face of it, to be utterly insane, which may explain why he's focused on discussing the semantics of the proposal, rather than its merits.

Of course, if there is a good reason to give more power to banks, maybe we could hear what it is?

It's not semantics at all. There is a clear inconsistency in the argument and the premise. The inconsistency is easy to resolve. If you think the regulators have some ability to control the banks then you don't *actually* believe the banks control the regulators. The inconsistency is resolved by being honest about what one believes...

I never said banks have total control over the regulators in my example, and they certainly don't in reality. The point was that if anybody needs to be made "smaller" in that situation, it's not the government but the banks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes billion dollar settlements are common with huge corporations.

They are a scummy lot.

No, such settlements are extremely rare. It is very rare that a huge corporation is guilty of malfeasance on that kind of scale.

However, if they are in control of the government, than it wouldn't be too difficult to make those settlements much smaller or go away all together.

I think you mean instead of trials and jail time, there are financial settlements.