home

Bush's Unstated Conclusions and Irrelevant Remarks

At the end of the economic summit, President Bush said:

Those of you who have followed my career know that I'm a free market person — until you're told that if you don't take decisive measures then it's conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depressions.

The conclusion -- that a cause-and-effect relationship existed between his free market philosophy and the present fear of an Extra-Great Depression -- went unspoken and presumably unrecognized. [more ...]

What Bush means by this is a puzzle:

One of the key achievements was to establish certain principles and take certain actions for adapting our financial systems to the realities of the 21st century. Part of the regulatory structures that are in place were 20th century regulatory structures. And obviously, you know, the financial industry went way beyond them. And the question is, how do we establish good regulatory structure without destroying the incentive to innovate, without destroying the marketplace.

The evolving regulatory structures in place between the last Great Depression and the looming Extra-Great Depression actually worked reasonably well. Innovation thrived; the marketplace functioned. It was the more recent dismantling of regulation in the name of promoting the sacred forces of the free market that made the current crisis possible. The financial industry went "way beyond" the regulatory structure because there wasn't one. The government provided no effective check against lending, investment and marketing practices that ranged from unacceptably risky to fraudulent.

Whether the 21st Century Bush is able to reconcile his identity as a free market person and his newly gained appreciation of "a good regulatory structure" is utterly irrelevant. 65 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes and change remain in Bush's term as of this writing. (Click link to check the up-to-the-second countdown.)

< A Word On State | Saturday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    of course Bush 'believes' in free market (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    it's what allowed him to sell the shares of stock in his own company after learning the company wouldn't be allowed to split, knowing full well that the company was about to go bankrupt...

    it also allowed for his administration to provide for no-bid contracts....oh wait..

    no-bid! (none / 0) (#9)
    by JamesTX on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:55:28 AM EST
    It's all in the meaning of free. For dubya, the free market means that corporations are free to purchase the government, seize the treasury, privatize the assets, and socialize the costs. Any threat to those sacred freedoms is socialism.

    Parent
    Regulate the rating agencies (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:56:19 PM EST
    It was the rating agencies giving false AAA+ ratings to toxic securities that was the 1st step in generating the meltdown.

    our president is, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:10:17 AM EST
    and has always been, a very stupid, venal man. this is demonstrably so, based on his historical record, well pre-dating his two terms in the white house. he's never held any kind of job that he got solely on his own merit, and those jobs he's held, he's managed to leave the organization the worse for his wear, consistently.

    any maroon able to regurgitate facts from a book can get an MBA. frankly, the same goes for pretty much any college degree or professional license. they're no guarantors of creative thinking or strong analytical ability, two sets of skills painfully absent from pres. bush's resume'.

    most people actually watching during the 2000 election campaign realized this, including the MSM. but gosh, he was a fun guy to have a beer with! what followed, after the debacle of his first election, was no surprise. that he was re-elected was. that he's now become irrelevant (he has been for some time now) was to be expected, given his essential vacuuity.

    come next jan., they'll take him home, to be hung in the hallway closet, with the overcoats and umbrellas.

    in the meantime, his minions are still able to create all kinds of burrowed-in problems for the next administration, they need to keep an eagle eye on him until the inauguration.

    It is a rationalization for their utter (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:25:01 AM EST
    failure.  Nothing more.

    There is nothing in the shift into "21st Century" that changed any of the basic rules such as that selling worthless paper thousands of times over is ultimately going to end in a collapse.  Except maybe that in recent years there were more suckers and people willing to overlook the fact that they were promising real money for nothing.

    ha ha. great catch. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Compound F on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:00:36 PM EST
    god, I can't wait for these guys to leave office.

    in the classical world (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    the king emperor chief czar etc was the person who allowed a market to be held. He would kill dishonest vendors or get overthrown himself--weights measures coinage quality all assured by the king...merkets were never free or meant to a free for all

    Belief in Santa Claus is more rational (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:26:31 PM EST
    than belief in the idea that free markets are always best.

    Parent
    Like Dalton above (none / 0) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM EST
    the truly stunning thing is that anyone would have the ridiculous notion that greed was somehow self-regulating after the turn of the century.

    Bush's idea of innovation is to allow quick buck hustlers a free rein.

    But he was (none / 0) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:13:55 AM EST
    never elected. The evidence is clear now that Republicans stole 2000, and even if the victory could be declared legit it was one of those narrow situations where he lost the popular vote and had no mandate. We got Bush, like we have gotten so many other things in the last few decades, primarily because of apathy in the electorate. Everybody knew who and what w was. This was not the result of a lot of people changing their minds as much as it was the result of an awakening. The deep political apathy which developed over the last few decades was the perfect environment for an extremist nutjob to emerge, and he did. The one good thing about the w phenomenon is that Americans have come out of their stupor enough to realize that they are, in fact, at the wheel. If they let go, then the car will crash. I think before Bush was allowed to play out his childish fantasies at our expense, Americans had actually slipped into an unconscious assumption that governing was not their responsibility and that someone was watching the controls. Now they know someone is watching the controls, but that someone is not their friend.

    I agree entirely, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JamesTX on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    and I have felt some amount of guilt over the fact that I simply refused to even listen to him during his term. I also ignored him during the time he was the gov of my state, which I deeply resented. I would switch channels, throw away newspapers and magazines bearing his image, and avoid any mainstream media presentation to which he was a party or the subject. I did follow the coverage of him provided on progressive blogs only. In that sense, there was a sense of loss of participation and a sense that my behavior was a bit childish. Nonetheless, he as a person is so repulsive to me that I just couldn't even pretend to process any of the crap that came out of his mouth. I couldn't seriously attend to any forum where his words were interpreted as meaningful or relevant communication. I hated Reagan, but I could listen to him, because he could at least construct meaningful sentences and he had a natural personality. He was wrong, but he was a complete and competent human. w is a baboon who really does not speak, but just signs conservative rhetoric, and he does so with a disgusting expressive style characteristic of that seen in juvenile delinquent adolescents (probably because he was one). Also, since I am a (real) Texan, his poorly counseled attempts to capitalize on (an obviously fake) Texan persona was insulting (in the way African Americans are insulted by outsiders attempting to mimic their culture, language and styles of speech).

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:20:30 AM EST
    There never were any regulatory structures in place, or even contempleted, even imagined, that could have controlled the nearly incomprehensible securitization of securitizations that has played a big role in the current mess.

    I suspect that's what Bush was referring to, since Paulson, Bernanke et al know this very well and are trying to figure out how to do just that. It's a simple enough concept that I expect Bush himself actually does understand it.

    One of the reasons we need a very vigilant regulatory apparatus is that, like with Credit Default Swaps and the like, there are whiz kids in the back rooms of these financial institutions who figure out ever more bizarre loopholes in whatever regulatory structures exist and create new financial instruments to take advantage of them.

    Where there are great gobs of money floating around looking for a place to invest, as there have been from China and India, you can count on somebody figuring out a way to capture them and profit from them.

    It's not a static business, it constantly evolves and innovates.

    Sorry to have to agree with Bush, but he's actually right that a chunk of our problems, though by no means the whole thing, is that regulatory concepts of the 20th century, even those he and his buddies dismantled so gleefully, are not and would not have been able to control these 21st century innovations.

    not quite true. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    the SEC made a conscious decision to not expend regulatory resources over those depository entities (under their purview) engaged in the origination, vivisection and dispersal of the securities that are largely responsible for the current economic crisis.

    while it may be true, to some extent, that a technical modernization of the agency would help in their oversight capacity, to assert that they had no authority to regulate any of this is just not true. were i a harsher judge, i would call it what the nuns used to: a lie.

    it doesn't surprise me that pres. bush would make this claim, it does that thinking people buy into it. dr. krugman had a couple of columns on just this very issue, not too long ago, where he essentially exploded the myth that "the SEC was powerless" to put the brakes on any of this.

    Parent

    a lot of the problems can be dated back to (none / 0) (#19)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    the 1980's...

    check out the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980 and the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act in 82...

    both set up so creditors could make more money than they were making before, and both quite relevant to the situation we are in...
    they were both DEREGULATION acts...deregulation indeed...

    Parent

    Didn't say they had no authoriy (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    So please don't set up any more straw men here.

    I said they don't know how.  As far as I know, which id admittedly fairly primitive, they still don't really know how.  Please feel free to set me straight if I'm wrong on that, but kindly don't put words in my mouth that I never said. :-)

    Parent

    That is a great post by Greenwald (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:17:48 PM EST
    Digby also posted yesterday a diary that caught Brennan hedging on the use of the Army Field Manual.  

    Check out the Campaign to Ban Torture .  There is no question in my mind that Obama can and should fill important National Security positions with real anti-torture people.  

    Wow (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    that is not where that was supposed to go...

    Parent