Bill Maher: Occupy should stop camping & start participating in the political process

[The Real]

I was thinking more in terms of there ability to strongly convince the average American to step away from the likes of Chase,BofA, Wells Fargo etc. If the average joe sees the flaws in the current setup but does not see a realistic alternative then they are likely to maintain a relationship with those who represent the status quo. That would entail focusing in on consumers having more options as it relates specifically to financial services.

Well, this is exactly the problem. When people talk, for example, about companies being too big to fail, they're right in one sense- most commodities (including services) are produced primarily by only 3 or 4 massive corporations per commodity, resulting in serious disasters with immense waves of impact should they go down. They should never have been allowed to grow to that size in the first place.

Furthermore, they function (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) in collusion, not actual competition. There is total transparency between them (and thus no "invisible hand" which, in theory, is the motivator of prices, etc, in a free market.) The result is a market that is anything but free, in which these corporations set prices rather than organically deriving them from real market fluctuation, and there is nothing competition can do to legitimately offer alternatives. In short, creating actual opportunity for small businesses, which amounts to freeing up the market again, cannot be done without limiting these corporations, which points to the contradiction inherent in a great deal of free market economics.

Unfortunately, most "free market" theory is not equipped to do this, nor are most prominent proponents of free markets able to speak in these terms, since it demands an honest paradigm shift, in which the most basic terms like "free" and "market" and "capitalism" would be overhauled.

 

[ogc163]

Well, this is exactly the problem. When people talk, for example, about companies being too big to fail, they're right in one sense- most commodities (including services) are produced primarily by only 3 or 4 massive corporations per commodity, resulting in serious disasters with immense waves of impact should they go down. They should never have been allowed to grow to that size in the first place.

Furthermore, they function (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) in collusion, not actual competition. There is total transparency between them (and thus no "invisible hand" which, in theory, is the motivator of prices, etc, in a free market.) The result is a market that is anything but free, in which these corporations set prices rather than organically deriving them from real market fluctuation, and there is nothing competition can do to legitimately offer alternatives. In short, creating actual opportunity for small businesses, which amounts to freeing up the market again, cannot be done without limiting these corporations, which points to the contradiction inherent in a great deal of free market economics.

Unfortunately, most "free market" theory is not equipped to do this, nor are most prominent proponents of free markets able to speak in these terms, since it demands an honest paradigm shift, in which the most basic terms like "free" and "market" and "capitalism" would be overhauled.

Large companies are not 'too big to fail" and the financial firms were not and are not too big to fail. The "Systemic Risk" argument that was presented to rationalize the bailing out of financial firms had very little theoretical substance and even less hard historical evidence to support it. When you look at the effects of Lehman Bros going down all the talk at the time was about cascading/Domino effect it would have on firms it did business with, yet there are no firms that went under as a result of Lehman going through the bankruptcy process. Even though I should add that Lehman counter-party exposure was significantly larger than Bear Stearns.

The financial crisis showed that when it comes to collusion the government act as enablers of collusion instead of referee's because of the aforementioned "System Risk". This leads to greater power in the hands of a few corporations in the name of stabilization. Which is why you unfortunately have economist on both sides of the political aisle who rationalize the actions of governments/ Big corporation partnerships, so to paint it as something specifically " free-market" is ridiculous and ignores commentary from economist who leaned to the left. Folks attempting to justify bailouts in the name of " not putting stress on our fragile safety net system" are no different than those who justify them on the grounds of "maintaining economic activity" a bailout is a bailout, moral grandstanding as to who gets bailed out aside.

 

[OsO]

Sirius question, WHY THE F*CK DO YA'LL CARE ABOUT POLITICS?!? - ProjectCOVO.com Global Forum

once again your reading comprehension has failed, though i guess that's to be expected at this point.

nothing i wrote in that thread contradicts anything ive stated in this thread. if anything it supports what ive been saying in this thread, and demonstrates how ive seen behind the veil of politics for some time now. and it also shows how ive been trying to teach egg-headed negroes how to get mentally and physically free from a system that has them almost completely enslaved.

im trying to explain to you how we can jump from A to Z without going through a middle man, because we dont NEED a middle man. for economic liberation all we need is to organize amongst ourselves. then after that you'll have the ability to buy all the political influence you want.

but anyone trying to go through politics to get to freedom is hustling backwards. in this system you get the money first, then you can move how you need to move.

the political system is a joke, and the jokes on us.

wake up

 

[OsO]

Honestly, the best way to probably affect big name corporations, is find a way to boycott them. If you can figure out an effective way to boycott some of America's overly paid corporations "who stole" your jobs than you might be able to implement change. I guess shouting chants all day is much more effective...

or lets take it a step further and develop local businesses that replace the products and services the corporations are providing. that way the greedy corporations still suffer, but we still have access to our essential goods and services, it's a win-win.

 

[OsO]

The financial crisis showed that when it comes to collusion the government act as enablers of collusion instead of referee's because of the aforementioned "System Risk". This leads to greater power in the hands of a few corporations in the name of stabilization.

do you really think the government acted so irresponsibly because of a potential "system risk," or because a lot of them were getting a righteous piece of that trillion dollar bail out?

there's a huge ethical difference between the two

 

[Serious]

or lets take it a step further and develop local businesses that replace the products and services the corporations are providing. that way the greedy corporations still suffer, but we still have access to our essential goods and services, it's a win-win.

This was my original idea, but it's easier said than done, due the complexity of the issue. A lot of small business depend on the works of "greedy corporate" entities to keep the cost of production low.

You try cutting corners around Big Business:

Like I said, it can be done, if OWS was properly organized......

 

[Economics]

Sounds like industrial orgnanization issues most posters in here are talking about. Here are two decent books that might help those that would like to understand more about I/O. The Economics of Industrial Organization by William G. Shepherd. The Structure of American Industry by James Brock. I think the Shepherd book is a little dated but the technicals are there or that could be the Brock book since its a case study on different industries. Either way they are books that help breakdown I/O in a more clear case.

 

[The Real]

Large companies are not 'too big to fail" and the financial firms were not and are not too big to fail.

This is a generalization that I would argue does not hold true across history. There are many times in the last 500 years or so where size has proven itself to lead to both a TBTF and TITF situation. Even without that, though, theoretically, such an absolute statement would defy logic.

The "Systemic Risk" argument that was presented to rationalize the bailing out of financial firms had very little theoretical substance and even less hard historical evidence to support it.

I'm not sure which arguments you're referring to specifically here, but I would argue that the historical evidence abounds. As for the theoreticals- logically, it makes perfect sense, if one accepts that a market as a system is no different from any other physical system in the cosmos. They're all subject to certain rules.

When you look at the effects of Lehman Bros going down all the talk at the time was about cascading/Domino effect it would have on firms it did business with, yet there are no firms that went under as a result of Lehman going through the bankruptcy process. Even though I should add that Lehman counter-party exposure was significantly larger than Bear Stearns.

You're right about their exposure, but I would argue that the specifics made it very difficult for a real impact to be judged, especially considering the speed at which bankruptcy, buyout, etc, happened, and that Lehman was functionally crippled for quite a while before they declared. Furthermore, in an area where the top 3 firms were still standing, even theoretically, if it had happened differently, the damage could have been absorbed, but in a manner that only entrenched the other 3, and that doesn't even get into the government's tainted response with regard to the situation. Even if you don't buy this point at all, though, what you cite wouldn't be an advantage particular to the 3-4 corporation scenario that is the status quo for almost every commodity/service.

The financial crisis showed that when it comes to collusion the government act as enablers of collusion instead of referee's because of the aforementioned "System Risk". This leads to greater power in the hands of a few corporations in the name of stabilization. Which is why you unfortunately have economist on both sides of the political aisle who rationalize the actions of governments/ Big corporation partnerships, so to paint it as something specifically " free-market" is ridiculous and ignores commentary from economist who leaned to the left.

I absolutely agree with you here, so don't get me wrong. Government collusion is a major part of what keeps the market this way (I implied this in my previous paragraph above, too.) I think where we would disagree is on the nature of government intrusion. For me, it's partly the result of misguided attempts at centralization, but much more directly the result of corporate lobbying that has all but turned the government into an essential part of the corporatist feedback loop. Functionally, the government as it currently exists and corporations are both anti-market forces.

I would argue that many of the issues free marketers trace to the government can be traced from the government right back to the largest corporations. A very similar argument can be made for unions, which began adopting corporate modes of organization, management, and function in the 80s and have now essentially become government-sanctioned corporations of sorts.

 

[ogc163]

This is a generalization that I would argue does not hold true across history. There are many times in the last 500 years or so where size has proven itself to lead to both a TBTF and TITF situation. Even without that, though, theoretically, such an absolute statement would defy logic.



I'm not sure which arguments you're referring to specifically here, but I would argue that the historical evidence abounds. As for the theoreticals- logically, it makes perfect sense, if one accepts that a market as a system is no different from any other physical system in the cosmos. They're all subject to certain rules.



You're right about their exposure, but I would argue that the specifics made it very difficult for a real impact to be judged, especially considering the speed at which bankruptcy, buyout, etc, happened, and that Lehman was functionally crippled for quite a while before they declared. Furthermore, in an area where the top 3 firms were still standing, even theoretically, if it had happened differently, the damage could have been absorbed, but in a manner that only entrenched the other 3, and that doesn't even get into the government's tainted response with regard to the situation. Even if you don't buy this point at all, though, what you cite wouldn't be an advantage particular to the 3-4 corporation scenario that is the status quo for almost every commodity/service.



I absolutely agree with you here, so don't get me wrong. Government collusion is a major part of what keeps the market this way (I implied this in my previous paragraph above, too.) I think where we would disagree is on the nature of government intrusion. For me, it's partly the result of misguided attempts at centralization, but much more directly the result of corporate lobbying that has all but turned the government into an essential part of the corporatist feedback loop. Functionally, the government as it currently exists and corporations are both anti-market forces.

I was referring specifically to the arguments put forth by Bernanke, Paulson,Geithner and others about the Systemic Risk that was supposedly at play. I should add that there were several investors who stated after the fact that they would have been interested in the firms but that they were worried about price discovery more-so than liquidity, the government actors played little to no attention to the pricing mechanism factor. There were mechanism's that did not require taxpayer money that could have been used and were actually presented, but were dismissed. Such as the creation of a bad bank/good bank paradigm similar to what the Swede's did in the early 90's that was dismissed by Geithner as "gimmicky".

The effect of bailouts on the other market participants who are still afloat is that there is the notion of moral hazard, in which the size of the firms leads to the banks knowing that in times of crisis they will be eventually bailed out in some capacity. This then leads to riskier positions and less emphasis on reigning in exposure.

The issue with blaming lobbying (which I will admit is an important aspect) is that the protectionism as it relates to the financial industry predates the lobbying boom that came about near the end of the Carter administration. The use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation during the 30's that was supposed to last two years but lasted two decades and helped prop up mismanaged banks during that time is one example,another is the bailing out of Franklin National Bank of New York in 74'. As much as I distrust government I think many actors involved are sincere in their attempts to "stabilize" the system, but stabilization is not the same as finding a solution. The interventions bought the government more time but it also continues to make their problems larger.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

The Tea Party began as a grassroots movement but quickly became co-opted.

IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, BROTHER!

The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

An Astroturf campaign is a fake grassroots movement: it purports to be a spontaneous uprising of concerned citizens, but in reality it is founded and funded by elite interests. Some Astroturf campaigns have no grassroots component at all. Others catalyse and direct real mobilisations. The Tea Party belongs in the second category. It is mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting. We now have powerful evidence that the movement was established and has been guided with the help of money from billionaires and big business.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Lol @ OWS hiding behind the "all politicians are corrupt" logic to not get involved with politics, and then claiming their dialogue will help influence the political process

Theyre entitled, lazy, and disorganized w/their only saving grace being that they captured the nation's frustration...

But just cause some burnout says "hey man our foreign policy is fukked up" doesnt mean he should be trusted w/the responsibility or has demonstrated the capability of fixing our foreign policy

They need to get up off their asses and get organized. Get the fukk out of the parks and get to work on effecting real change. Honestly the American govt system is not bad. If they could manage to get candidates in who are free from ties to corporate $$$$ that would be an accomplishment worthy of being called a "revolution".

 

[john goodman]

Lol @ OWS hiding behind the "all politicians are corrupt" logic to not get involved with politics, and then claiming their dialogue will help influence the political process

Theyre entitled, lazy, and disorganized w/their only saving grace being that they captured the nation's frustration...

But just cause some burnout says "hey man our foreign policy is fukked up" doesnt mean he should be trusted w/the responsibility or has demonstrated the capability of fixing our foreign policy

They need to get up off their asses and get organized. Get the fukk out of the parks and get to work on effecting real change. Honestly the American govt system is not bad. If they could manage to get candidates in who are free from ties to corporate $$$$ that would be an accomplishment worthy of being called a "revolution".

i agree

that's why i think they should specifically target campaign finance reform. if they ignored all other issues and focused on that they might actually get somewhere. if they could make campaign finance reform a big part of the national discussion during this election they will have accomplished something HUGE.

as of now they're useless, not changing shyt.

 

[Broke Wave]

Lol @ OWS hiding behind the "all politicians are corrupt" logic to not get involved with politics, and then claiming their dialogue will help influence the political process

Theyre entitled, lazy, and disorganized w/their only saving grace being that they captured the nation's frustration...

But just cause some burnout says "hey man our foreign policy is fukked up" doesnt mean he should be trusted w/the responsibility or has demonstrated the capability of fixing our foreign policy

They need to get up off their asses and get organized. Get the fukk out of the parks and get to work on effecting real change. Honestly the American govt system is not bad. If they could manage to get candidates in who are free from ties to corporate $$$$ that would be an accomplishment worthy of being called a "revolution".

You are the worst poster ever. You should have stayed on sohh. Keep watching CNN and repeating the "conventional" talking points you fukking clown.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

You are the worst poster ever. You should have stayed on sohh. Keep watching CNN and repeating the "conventional" talking points you fukking clown.

Personal attacks instead of addressing what you disagree with....

 

[Broke Wave]

Personal attacks instead of addressing what you disagree with....

I try and address every post I don't agree with in a rational and sensible manner... except yours. You are a condescending prick who fashions himself as an expert in everything. I really hope you don't make posting here a habit.