skirtcafe.org

"ANYTHING is better than career politicians "

Don't be so sure!

Tell me, if you needed to have a brain tumor removed would you rather have A) an investment banker because they're really smart and will bring a business perspective to the proceedings, B) a kid straight out of med school because the whole health care system in this country is broken and we need a fresh perspective on every aspect of it or C) the very most experienced brain surgeon you could find and afford? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that!

And yet, when it comes to governing our city, our state or our country having experience doing that makes one suspect. When experience makes nearly everyone better at almost everything, why do we make an exception for politics? It doesn't compute!

If you really want to know why the things that need to be done don't get done in Washington, DC read It's Even Worse Than You Think. It's written by two veteran fellows of a conservative and a liberal think tank who have been friends since grad and are very well regarded policy wonks and political scientists. Supercapitalism by Robert Reich is also very instructive.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:If you really want to know why the things that need to be done don't get done in Washington, DC read It's Even Worse Than You Think. It's written by two veteran fellows of a conservative and a liberal think tank who have been friends since grad and are very well regarded policy wonks and political scientists. Supercapitalism by Robert Reich is also very instructive.

I've just read what might as well be the liner notes and while it looks like it might be an interesting read, my guess is that it's observing, and commenting on, a symptom and will miss the disease by a wide mark. If "the system" was as badly broken as everybody purports that it is, it would have been fixed by now; this is why I assert that "the system" is functioning perfectly, it's just not working for the overwhelming majority of the population. To wit, in spite of all rancour, smoke, and dull heat coming out of Washington, DC these days, the bills that pay attention to the system's beneficiaries always quietly pass without fanfare or even much debate that would stir up interest in the press. The "hyper-partisanism", in my view, is nothing but a smokescreen.

I'm somewhat familiar with Reich's work, but I feel that he, too, is missing the mark.

The trick here is to treat it as a "black box". You'll never get a clear picture of what goes on inside the box (either by design or accident); however you can observe what the box produces in response to certain stimuli by watching its outputs. The, "It doesn't matter how it gets done, it's what does get done." dictum.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:And sorry Tor, we do need a government and laws and enforcers of that law because in one realm or another we're all sheep living amongst wolves...

The second part is very true, but the first part isn't so clear.

1. How, if people are untrustworthy, can taking a subset of those untrustworthy people and giving them the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?
2. Government is a subset of the people with the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control everyone else.

Without a clear and cogent argument for the first or rebuttal of the second, that I haven't seen or succeeded in constructing, I am left without a basis on which to support governments as a good thing.

Indeed, politicians, according to polls, are among the lowest scum around that isn't being chased by the cops and thrown in gaol. To wit, we have the joke "Q: How do you tell if a politician is lying? A: His mouth is moving." Not proof of anything, but that joke doesn't exist about many professions, or at least not with any currency.

crfriend wrote:If "the system" was as badly broken as everybody purports that it is, it would have been fixed by now; this is why I assert that "the system" is functioning perfectly[.]

I have nothing more to add - except to note that this is exactly what New York City, and New York State, Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto, has said of the school system with reams of documentation to back his claim.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:"ANYTHING is better than career politicians "

Don't be so sure!

...

Well, I was intending to say: "ANYTHING is better than Hillary."

And far too much that I perceive as wrong with the US that I directly attribute to liberals, progressives, and/or Demo(n)crats.

Darryl wrote:

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:"ANYTHING is better than career politicians "

Don't be so sure!

...

Well, I was intending to say: "ANYTHING is better than Hillary."

And far too much that I perceive as wrong with the US that I directly attribute to liberals, progressives, and/or Demo(n)crats.

But this, I think, is what needs to be challenged.

To say that anything is better than HRC is to imply that she is somehow worse than anyone else, but that's a pretty strong, unequivocal, statement. For such statements to hold, it requires strong, unequivocal arguments.

More formally, you are saying that she represents a lower bound. This means that the majority of arguments you apply to her can't, for example, be applied to anyone else who is also up for comparison.

For example, one such common argument against her is that she is a liar, but by the argument above, disregarding that she is actually the most truthful presidential candidates of the rest of the candidates.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... uth-o-met/
https://datavizblog.com/2016/07/24/poli ... bert-mann/

Now, I am not saying you use that argument, but if you did, you would be contradicting yourself.

My experience has been that the majority of such arguments, which frame HRC as "The worst" can be similarly challenged. Now, I am not saying that she always winds up on top, but, she is nowhere near the devil that people make her out to be. I have more to say about this, but I will leave it at that for the moment.

Also, we are all trying to be respectful, here. I urge you not to use inflammatory rhetoric like "demo(n)crat". All it does it turn people off, even if you think you are "just joking." I could make all kinds of quips about conservatives, which would "just be joking," too, but you likely wouldn't take too kindly to them either.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: To say your vote doesn't count shows a naivete about how our system actually works. Yes, money buys access if not influence, but at the end of the day, dollars don't vote, people do. Look at how far Bernie Sanders got on average donations of $29 per donor. When a candidate loses by a landslide, whether it is by electoral or popular vote, that's looked at as a repudiation of the ideas that candidate stood for. The bigger the gap in the popular vote, the bigger, the stronger the message from the people, the more attention is paid. So no matter whether you are voting with or against the majority in your state, whether your state goes one way or the other, your voice is taken into account in the corridors and cloakrooms of power. That's how a representative democracy works.

Yes! Thank you for this.

I would like to make a related point, especially in light of the recent events concerning FBI Director James Comey's actions, which I will use as a segue.

Now, I had written a fairly long missive about the electorate and its educational strengths, but the more I wrote it, the more potential it seemed to have to be inflammatory, and so I will leave it at this:

Please, please, please do your research. Even if you think you know what's correct, challenge it. If you hear someone say, "X is a problem", and it relates to this election, ask "why is X a problem?", and attempt to play devil's advocate. If you are correct, your position can only strengthen from there, so you really have nothing to lose, as painful as it might be to challenge a personally held belief.

An uninformed electorate is an easily controlled electorate. You need look no further than reactions to the silly tempest-in-a-teacup Comey debacle for that. This election is too important to base your decision on what you think you know.

I have two more point to make:

First, the MSM loves pushing two narratives:
1) that all elections are horse races
2) if a politician is elected, then this implies that the electorate was in favor of that politican's platform.

1 needs no comment. For 2, I need only mention that, a politician might be elected by omission. Specifically, if the politician is of party A, more voters in party A might be energized and galvanized than those in party B, which results in voters identifying with A being likelier to vote than those identifying with B, while those identifying with B might be likelier to stay home, or vote for 3rd party candidates, from voter apathy.

When voting, please consider how the media will interpret your vote, or lack thereof.

The second point is, don't be discouraged if you didn't get exactly what you wanted. Those in power want you to think your vote doesn't count, but it does. As Pdxfashionpioneer pointed out, the Democratic primaries shows us that we still do have a voice. Sander's near and unprecedented success, in spite of the naysayers, is evidence of this. Please, keep trying. Don't just vote for president. There are several senate seats up for grabs, as well as governorships. Make your voice heard.

Tor wrote:

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:And sorry Tor, we do need a government and laws and enforcers of that law because in one realm or another we're all sheep living amongst wolves...

The second part is very true, but the first part isn't so clear.

1. How, if people are untrustworthy, can taking a subset of those untrustworthy people and giving them the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control all the rest improve matters?
2. Government is a subset of the people with the power and perceived moral right to forcibly control everyone else.

Without a clear and cogent argument for the first or rebuttal of the second, that I haven't seen or succeeded in constructing, I am left without a basis on which to support governments as a good thing.

If I may butt in, what is the alternative to government? This is not a black and white issue.

How, for example, do you propose to mitigate the evils of the Gilded Age, wrought by utter lack of regulation?

What do you propose, to things like industrial pollution if not for something like the EPA, which, I must remind you, was established by Nixon, a Republican? Lack of regulation led to overuse of DDT. Without it, the Sanfancisco Bay would have vanished under the Reber plan. To me, history yields much precedent demonstrating that the private industry can't be trusted to regulate themselves. Yes, government is famously subject to corruption, but I don't know of any viable alternatives.

Who's going to police industry? Surely not the vastly uninformed electorate? Philanthropists?

Honestly, I think the debate between more and less government is misplaced. Power begets corruption, and corruption does whatever it can to stay in power. That's the problem, and I don't know if there is a panacea, but I do suspect that if we made education of the populace a much higher priority, than we do now, we might be able to at least solve part of the problem. Basically, you need an active/engaged populace, and realistically, I think the only way you can have that is if you have a powerful organization (or several) devoted to raising the level of education of the populace, because the people aren't going to do it themselves. Whether that organization is private or government is besides the point.

Also, as the media is largely responsible for educating the populace, I have lately been toying with the idea of holding the media up to official standards, which I know might rub people the wrong way, but my take on it is, doctors and lawyers need licenses, and can be disbarred for unethical behavior. Is it really that far out to consider having something similar for our media?

Tor wrote:Indeed, politicians, according to polls, are among the lowest scum around that isn't being chased by the cops and thrown in gaol.

And executives like the ones in charge of BP responsible for the lack of oversight that lead to the Deepwater Horizon spill, or those at Goldman Sachs are any better? As I said, I think this argument is misplaced. Government is really not the culprit. The issue really is twofold. First, both antisocial people (sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists) and the potential for having extreme amounts of power, whether through wealth or governance exist. Of course such people will almost be irresistibly attracted to such positions. Second, the majority of the rest of us are like Hobbits and not interested in the greater affairs of the world, and so, when bad people come along, and start taking from us, we usually don't even know how to fight back, or even know that we should.

Thank you Yonkas.

By no means did you butt in, this is an open forum.

You gave Tor a whole lot better response than I have been able to come up with.

I have a libertarian friend who was again regaling me with how horrible government is during that brief period when Somalia dominated the news. When she stopped to catch her breath I suggested that since she thought government was such a bad idea that she might want to move to a place that didn't have any, namely Somalia. Her husband shared most of her feelings but immediately saw my point, the only thing worse than inefficient or ineffective government is no government.

Tor,

To answer your question of why should we submit to government at all, go back to the 18th century philosophers who talked about the social contract. I agree to accept the constraints of government so the other guy will as well and we not only get protection from one another, we also get protection of the "commons." Those things we kind of take for granted because they're all around us, until they're not. Like flowing rivers, except there are a number in the Western US that are on the map, but do not really flow because farmers' water rights drain them dry. The migrating fish species are, I could not make this up, TRUCKED in tanker trucks from their breeding grounds to the Columbia. The theory is that by driving them along the river the route gets imprinted on them so they find their way back.

On top of these protections we have also found that being united as a nation has enabled us to accomplish things that no private individual would ever dare try, such as space exploration. It took a price is no object mentality to get us to the moon.

And again, in a democracy we don't surrender all control to our elected officials. They only have a job until the next election so they have a vested interest in representing the common will and not being too heavy handed.

So in answer to your question, "Why should you trust others to run your life?" You shouldn't, at least not entirely, and our representative form of government doesn't ask you to. Clearly, that's not as true in practice as in theory, but we're not under a dictatorship. Even with all of its abilities and the latitude it was granted, even the NSA doesn't have the personnel to listen in on all of our conversations and don't except when something piques their interest, like a CIA search warrant or the new boyfriend of a past love having a friend on staff. The latter clearly being an abuse of power, but look at what any curious soul at Facebook can figure out about you.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:[...]I agree to accept the constraints of government so the other guy will as well and we not only get protection from one another, we also get protection of the "commons."

Unfortunately, where it breaks is where I've changed the colour. The ones at the very top do not accept the constraints of government and instead subvert it for the vast mass of the population who has precisely no choice to submit or die.

It's a great concept to be sure, but it requires almost universal buy-in and we no longer have that; what we now have is two parallel systems, one for the extremely wealthy and one for "little people". If you believe you're in the former category recheck your surroundings.

On top of these protections we have also found that being united as a nation has enabled us to accomplish things that no private individual would ever dare try, such as space exploration. It took a price is no object mentality to get us to the moon.

Do not get me going on this one. As a nation we went from walking on the moon, to not being able (at the moment) to get our astronauts into low earth orbit. We failed to field an SST in the '60s (both the French/British and the Soviets beating us to the punch), and are leading the way in slowing air transportation down by building ever bigger and slower aircraft. Now, perhaps Space-X -- a private venture, by the way -- will solve the first issue soon (if they'll be allowed to by getting the Dragon capsule man-rated), but that depends heavily on external forces.

And again, in a democracy we don't surrender all control to our elected officials. They only have a job until the next election so they have a vested interest in representing the common will and not being too heavy handed.

That only works if there's a way to get real outsiders capable of independent thought and action in the running; if there's no way to do that the process is meaningless.

Clearly there is a way for real outsiders to run because this year they have done it!

And as fast as it looked like Sanders was not going to win the nomination the commentary shifted to what his long term effect would be. It amounted to he's lost the battle but he will win the war.

Similarly, the commentators are already talking about what Trump's long-term effect on the Republican Party will be. The consensus is that even if he wins, his long-term effect is going to be to harm the Republican Party as we currently know it.

Yes, the upper crust -- of which I am ANYTHING but a member -- plays by a different set of rules; always have, always will. Until they fall of their own excesses. Representative democracy is incredibly effective in accelerating that process. LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL RECORD CARL. Every time the fat cats have gotten so thoroughly out of control something has happened to rein them back in.

I believe it's happening now.

While we're respectfully disagreeing I'd like to remind you of your wager proposal. You said you would bet that the next President wouldn't do anything that would benefit the average individual. I'm interested in taking you up on it, but first I need to know how much time Hillary will have in her administration and how you define "doing something for the average person?" I can't agree to the criteria being overthrowing the entire current system within 6 months, which I sometimes think would have to happen to convince that ANTHING had been accomplished. So give me something reasonable as to progress and time to accomplish it. I'd say you have to give the next President 3 years. With our penchant for divided government the next President may need the first two just to dispense with an obstructionist Congress.

Then I propose that instead of $5 (in this day and age, really) the loser has to forego any further political discourse on this forum until a turn of events makes the winner look naïve.

Are you game?

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:[... A]s it looked like Sanders was not going to win the nomination the commentary shifted to what his long term effect would be. It amounted to he's lost the battle but he will win the war.

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.

Similarly, the commentators are already talking about what Trump's long-term effect on the Republican Party will be. The consensus is that even if he wins, his long-term effect is going to be to harm the Republican Party as we currently know it.

Indeed, that's probable; however the GOP has been in a free-fall since the rise of the T-Party reactionaries.

Every time the fat cats have gotten so thoroughly out of control something has happened to rein them back in.

The times, however, are rather different now than they were even a half-century ago. The last time this sort of "correction" happened was in the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, who despite being in the ranks of the elite class, did a whole lot of things that benefited the common man and shaped things for the next half-century. The meat-packing scandals resulted in the formation of what would ultimately become the USDA -- a boon for the citizenry and a bane for the fat-cats in the meat processing industry. His legacy of trust-busting, which benefited the common man and infuriated the children of the Robber Barons, held sway until into the 1980s when it was mostly torn down by the Reagan administration. The cherry on top of it was what became the National Park system.

I believe it's happening now.

It might be, but we're not going to know until well into 2017. Worse, if we don't analyse the long-term effects we may not recognise if a policy is a good one or a bad one. Something that looks good at first blush can have catastrophic effects over time, an example of which is "No Child Left Behind" which had the long-term effect of dumbing down an entire generation, which now needs to figure out on its own how to think properly and critically.

You said you would bet that the next President wouldn't do anything that would benefit the average individual. I'm interested in taking you up on it, but first I need to know how much time Hillary will have in her administration and how you define "doing something for the average person?"

I'll admit to some hyperbole in that, and it'll take months -- if not years -- for even initial effects to be seen; we're not going to get instant gratification in this.

Let's say that if in her first term (there may not be a second), if we see several of the following we'll have seen progress:

• A reversal of the tax code that currently has an effective levy on capital gains much less than on wage income so that working for a living is no longer penalised.
• Reinstatement of Glass-Stegall which separates "investment" banking from deposit banking.
• Re-instatement of anti-trust laws with teeth in them.
• Regulations with teeth in them about making sure that borrowers are credit-worthy so we don't get another repeat of 2008.
• Removal of the "too big to fail" notion when it comes to economic institutions.
• Legislation making sure that the FDIC is capable of insuring depositors for up to $250,000 (not a large sum at all in this day and age) for when unwise banks fail.
• Legislation which guarantees that there will be no more corporate bailouts on the backs of taxpayers.
• Repeal of the Patriot Act.

Shall we say four out of eight counts as success?

I can't agree to the criteria being overthrowing the entire current system within 6 months, which I sometimes think would have to happen to convince that AN[Y]THING had been accomplished.

October has already passed us by this year. Joking aside, six months is an impossible time-line, but I don't think that at the current rate of economic decline the middle class has four years left. We should know something at the end of two years, though, or at least have some clues.

I'll have to think about what constitutes progress for the middle class because some of your criteria don't wash.

For instance, bailing out Chrysler and GM in turn saved a lot of middle class jobs. As for lending standards and anti-trust, it's not so much the legislation as the enforcement. More to the point, the fiscal crisis wasn't caused by the people who got loans they didn't qualify for; it was caused by runaway financial engineering. In particular the Credit Default Swaps and Obligations.

Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is problematic, to say the least. The C-suite of the big banks will tell you that Glass-Steagall was repealed because it was unnecessary and out of date (they're wrong), that it was reinstituted in the Dodd-Frank Act (yes, but the devil's in the details) and in its current form it's too restrictive (debatable and again the devil's in the details and enforcement).

In my opinion, breaking up the banks that are too big to fail is a must, can be done through regulation and enforcement (I think) but it won't be easy or pretty.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:[... B]ailing out Chrysler and GM in turn saved a lot of middle class jobs.

Yes, those did, but does bailing out financial institutions that gamble unwisely in the face of too much risk make sense? I posit "No" because the guarantee of a taxpayer-financed bailout only encourages even more risky behaviour. Not to mention that none of the profits from said behaviour benefit the middle class or society as a whole one whit.

Chrysler, at least the first time 'round, paid it's bailout back. Do you think it will now? Do you think that GM will? (Or that either of them even can?)

As for lending standards and anti-trust, it's not so much the legislation as the enforcement. More to the point, the fiscal crisis wasn't caused by the people who got loans they didn't qualify for; it was caused by runaway financial engineering. In particular the Credit Default Swaps and Obligations.

This is true to a point. Honestly, the way that the laws are written now, and the sheer volume of them that get passed, means that nobody is capable of keeping up with them save for the lobbyists (with powerful vested interests) that propose them and shepherd them through to passage. These are precisely the things that I speak of when commenting on the stuff that passes quietly whilst the important stuff gets fought over.

Back in the '80s, before the panic in the late Reagan administration, I was already getting worried about what I then termed "go-go banking". It's caused at least two panics so far, including the implosion of '08 that severely damaged much of the world's economic ecosystem. This needs to be reined in.

The whole notion of "collateralised debt obligations" (amongst others) should have been investigated as a criminal matter the moment that the fraud was exposed. It wasn't. The perpetrators weren't just given a pass; they were rewarded for it in the form of a bailout paid by the tax monies from the wage-earning public.

Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is problematic, to say the least. The C-suite of the big banks will tell you that Glass-Steagall was repealed because it was unnecessary and out of date (they're wrong), that it was reinstituted in the Dodd-Frank Act (yes, but the devil's in the details) and in its current form it's too restrictive (debatable and again the devil's in the details and enforcement).

Dodd-Frank has since been gutted, so we're right back in 2005 again. One hallmark of this is that it points up that people don't learn, or lessons learnt are discarded when there are profits to be taken. Interestingly, Glass-Stegall was formally repealed during the tenure of William J. Clinton, and not a Republican as many may surmise. This was done very late in his second term, and may have been pay-off to try and get the attack-dogs off his back. A veto of Gramm-Leach-Bailey would have been fully warranted -- and it didn't happen.

Another point I'd like to add into the mix, at least from a philosophical point of view is that any bonus of more than say, (US)$ 50,000, paid in any one year would only be payable to the recipient's heirs, and subject to the longevity of the enterprise. This might foster some notion of stewardship instead of the current modus operandum of, "take the money and run".

In my opinion, breaking up the banks that are too big to fail is a must, can be done through regulation and enforcement (I think) but it won't be easy or pretty.

Isn't this interesting. Once some actual policy proposals come out of the bag we're likely closer than originally perceived.

Make no bones about it, none of this is going to be easy or pretty. Yet it needs doing to undo the problems unleashed in the past 35 years which created another Gilded Age (save that this one makes the efforts of the last one look amateurish). And it's not a panacea. It's not going to miraculously free up the wealth that's been sequestered at the top (that would involve asset-seizure, and that would take a violent armed revolution to make happen -- a non-starter); however, it would ease the pressure on general society as it would rebalance things somewhat going forward. At least there might be funds available for some of the desperately-needed infrastructure rebuilding that needs to happen. Or to perhaps join the rest of the civilised world in providing health care to society.

The last I knew, GM was meeting its obligations to the government. For us taxpayers to be made 100% whole the price of GM stock would have to rise to the point where it provided a return on our investment in the General. Businessweek's last assessment was, don't hold your breath. We won't take a bath, but we won't break even either.

As far as Chrysler goes, when it changed hands to Fiat, I would expect that the US got bought out and again at something that would take an unlikely alignment of the stars for it to be a good financial investment.

The real return is maintaining our manufacturing base and the jobs that go with it.

The financial bailout is along the same lines, just more outrageous. If all of the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, we would have had a financial crisis that would have made the Great Depression look like a warm-up. We probably bailed out one or two too many institutions but don't ask me which ones those were I haven't a clue and I'm speculating. The problem was, I'm sure the folks in the thick of it couldn't tell you which ones were the one or two too many and for sure that the ones allowed to go broke didn't really hurt the financial system worse than it should have been.

There are still criminal investigations underway so let's not forget what Yogi said, "It ain't over till it's over."

There were too many people allowed to collect too much money in bonuses.

You're also right about the current structure that it risks another collapse because Uncle Sugar stands ready to underwrite unwarranted risk. And too many people have too much upside incentive to take those risks and nowhere near the downside incentive to avoid them.

Your comments on mergers misses the point, Congress being in gridlock simply to thwart the Democrat in the White House amounts to ignoring the country's problems. With more money, the SEC could stop a lot more abuses. With more money, the IRS could collect a lot more takes and more than return the added expenditure (something like 4 to 1 by current estimates). It doesn't happen for nakedly ideological reasons.

In the meantime, it's the Department of Justice that oversees mergers and they're probably underfunded as well. Congress does not play a role so lobbyists have nothing to do with it. Accountants, attorneys, financiers all play their part, but not lobbyists.

As far as limiting the power of the 1% and their heirs go, the tax system works wonders. But again the Republicans hold a categorical position that any increase of any tax is bad.

Dodd-Frank has not died of a thousand cuts quite yet, but the bankers are doing their damnedest. However, because it's all in the rules making process, it can be reversed.

That's difference the Presidential election makes; getting someone at the top willing to back the bureaucrats who are trying to ensure the finished product protects the people rather than perpetuate our current system of "government of the people, by the millionaires, for the billionaires."

And here you thought I was some clueless naif ...

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:The real return is maintaining our manufacturing base and the jobs that go with it.

I'll go along with that. The average auto worker pays more in tax than Donald Trump and possibly more than Warren Buffet.

If all of the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, we would have had a financial crisis that would have made the Great Depression look like a warm-up.

I think in this we saw the very last shreds of legislation and regulation that were put in force in the early 1930s arrest the slide before the entire house of cards fell, and the fat-cats are still trying to get those repealed. Next time 'round, and there will be a next time, the only question is when, we may not even have those and the thing will fail, and fail spectacularly. The trick is to isolate it to one or two big failures where the gambling has gotten "over-exuberant" and everybody else will have been more reasonable in their choices. "Too big to fail" is an overt invitation to failure.

We probably bailed out one or two too many institutions but don't ask me which ones those were I haven't a clue and I'm speculating.

One was too many. The argument of preserving manufacturing jobs is valid as those positions provide value for the overall economy. Bailling out the gamblers who defrauded the entire world only rewards them for not just "bad behaviour" but heinously egregious bad behaviour, much of which was almost certainly criminal -- and those bailouts didn't help the economy one whit save to further enrich the folks who engineered it.

There are still criminal investigations underway so let's not forget what Yogi said, "It ain't over till it's over."

Indeed. We shall see what, if anything, happens.

There were too many people allowed to collect too much money in bonuses.

It's not that bonuses are bad per se, it's that excessive ones encourage shady and dangerous behaviour, hence my notion of making them payable only to heirs, after the death of the individual they were intended for, and subject to the viability of the corporate entity at the time of issuance to said heir. The intent is to promote stewardship of things and to discourage the sorts of behaviour that led up the the '08 debacle and things like Enron before it. However, that's social engineering on a grand scale which absolutely would not be permitted.

Your comments on mergers misses the point, Congress being in gridlock simply to thwart the Democrat in the White House amounts to ignoring the country's problems.

With respect, I highly suspect that's an oversimplification of the matter; gridlock in this case is what it's made to look like, and the (non-) funding of the regulatory agencies is entirely by design.

With more money, the SEC could stop a lot more abuses. With more money, the IRS could collect a lot more takes and more than return the added expenditure (something like 4 to 1 by current estimates).

The question on the former is, "Would it?", and an observation on the latter is that fully-funding the tax-evasion arm of the IRS would do little more than provoke wide(r)-scale hassling of the little guy whilst the billionaires get a pass.

It doesn't happen for nakedly ideological reasons.

Is it ideology or is it greed? Has greed become an ideology?

In the meantime, it's the Department of Justice that oversees mergers and they're probably underfunded as well. Congress does not play a role so lobbyists have nothing to do with it. Accountants, attorneys, financiers all play their part, but not lobbyists.

Yes, but recall that regulations are enabled by legislation, and by the influencing of legislation regulations can be taken off the table entirely long before the regulators even come into being. Regulations don't spring into existence on their own; they are instantiated to implement legislation.

As far as limiting the power of the 1% and their heirs go, the tax system works wonders. But again the Republicans hold a categorical position that any increase of any tax is bad.

It used to, but now no longer does. Intergenerational wealth is pretty much passed down at the billionare level at 100%; true, there still exists an inheritance tax, but it's limited to something like $500,000 or a million dollars then kicks in. The trick that's used at that level are tools like trust funds that nobody in the bottom tiers has effective access to. And, if Republicans are so opposed to raising taxes, why did the effective tax burden on the middle class increase sharply in the 1980s whereas it dropped substantially on the very wealthy? The argument that Republicans are entirely anti-tax seems somewhat specious given observed behaviour.

That's difference the Presidential election makes; getting someone at the top willing to back the bureaucrats who are trying to ensure the finished product protects the people rather than perpetuate our current system of "government of the people, by the millionaires, for the billionaires."

However, if all the candidates are where they are because of the amount of money required to get on a ballot do you suppose that there is going to be an actual choice of getting anything useful done? I rather doubt that Donald Trump is going to turn into a Theodore Roosevelt if "elected", and certainly Hillary Clinton isn't if she is.

And here you thought I was some clueless naif ...

I never said that.

Let me try to respond to your response in order.

Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Crash the financial system and you crash the whole economy. It's the ripple effect that policy-makers look at when deciding whether or not to bail-out a company or industry. To paraphrase a former Chrysler executive, when you talk about 10 million autos, to take a round number that's in the neighborhood of what the domestic industry was producing, you're also talking about 15 million tons of finished steel, 60 million tires, billions of fasteners, billions of other assorted piece parts, and the largest consumer of microchips. In short, the industrial base of the country.

Similarly, we didn't bail out the banks to save the bankers; we did it to save the economy.

One of things that will come out of the criminal investigations is that the real scandal lays in what is legal that shouldn't be!

Be all that as it may, I said, we need to address the issue of too big to fail head on. I also submit that the Democrats are much more likely to do that than the Republicans. Exhibit A is Elizabeth Warren. Exhibit B is Bernie Sanders. I put him as B because until the primary season he wasn't a Democrat and during that season a lot of Democrats voted for him. Presidents ignore such voting blocs at their own peril.

The real hazard in the banking industry wasn't so much the size of the executive bonuses it was that the pre-Dodd-Frank structure eliminated the downside risks. That was addressed in the legislation and is getting watered down in the regulation-writing process. If the Republicans win the White House and retain their majorities in the House & Senate, the rules they will have written will eviscerate the law. If the Democrats win, there is at least the chance they won't especially since, as the CNN commentators have pointed out, Sen. Warren has been an important surrogate for Hillary. Hmmm ...

Build a robust firewall between commercial and investment banking land REQUIRE clawbacks when things go South, make it easy for shareholders, such as institutional investors, to sue the companies if they don't claw those bonuses back and you'll have a whole new ballgame.

As to the interest of the SEC and the IRS in enforcing the law, again it starts at the top, but basically, it's that old story of people want to do the jobs they signed up to do. And in fact, the folks at the top of the financial heap are more likely to be audited than the average citizen. Unfortunately, those are relative terms. Basically a full percent vs. a fraction thereof.

As to my statement as to where the gridlock is coming from, again, listen to what Mitch McConnell has said and look at what It's Worse Than You Think has to say.

The anti-trust laws haven't changed much; it's the rules and enforcement philosophy that's changed. And again, that start's at the top.

I would respond to your statement about the Inheritance Tax, but I'm afraid it's incoherent. Inheritance Tax doesn't apply at all to estates of less than I think $3.5 million. And yes, trust funds do a great job of sheltering big chunks of it. But Progressives and liberals are more likely to take a jaundiced look at those rules than Billionaires.

Frankly we need to get tax rates, adjusted for inflation, back to where they were in the 50's or 60's. To do it we, as a nation, have to accept that Keynesian economics describe the real world a whole lot more accurately than Ayn Rand's.

No I don't think that if elected Donald Trump will turn into anything other than what he is: an egotistical, narcissistic bully who only cares about himself and doesn't have any grasp of the nation's problems.

To be fair, Hillary probably won't change a great deal either. However, one thing that people who know her say about her is that she LISTENS, intently, to gain understanding of the problem that is being laid in front of her. She has had a lifelong commitment to kids, i.e. the future. And she's a policy wonk; she is truly interested in the details and in laws and policies that will actually solve people's problems. So will she kick the banks to the curb once she's in office? I doubt it, but I also doubt she'll let them run her around by the nose. She's got a lot of Hollywood money behind her so she won't be solely beholden to Wall Street. She will also be beholden to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for getting her into office. And the biggest thing she'll want once she's elected is to get reelected. And like I have been saying all along: Dollars don't vote, people do.