Thus spake Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI):
Financial regulatory reform, the thinking goes, provides Democrats an issue where the politics finally align with the Left’s policy preferences. Republicans, they believe, can be walked into a convenient political trap by opposing what Democrats call “Wall Street reform.” President Obama has mastered the art of bank populism, premised on class warfare, by tapping into powerful emotions of envy, anger, and fear.
From an ideological perspective, big government can combine with big business to advance a more progressivist society. For self-described “progressives,” the agenda is straightforward: expand government; co-opt big business; direct the capital markets from Washington to pursue “social justice.” Think Fannie and Freddie by much higher orders of magnitude.
Quick interruption here to note that this type of corporatism is one of the building blocks of the fascist state, and for someone like Edward Bellamy, was a necessary middle step between capitalism and socialism (redefined as “Nationalism”) — which would occur after the government-as-corporation nationalized the whole of industry.
Not that I’m raising the specter of liberal fascism or soft socialism, mind you. Doing so would mark me as a fringe zealot deserving of scorn. No, I’m simply describing how a guy who wrote about the US being transformed into a socialist Utopia saw the move happening — and allowing you all to draw your own maps.
You’re welcome.
Ryan:
Over the past decade, the thinking has been much less clear for conservatives. Being “pro-market” has been fundamentally confused with “pro-business.” Conservatives who came to Congress to defend and promote free enterprise have often been led to believe that pathway lies in bolstering established firms as they navigate the maze of government regulations and taxes. These instincts are correct, but the implementation is often flawed. All too often, the results of these efforts have been to exacerbate crony capitalism – erecting barriers to entry against potential competitors to firms that are currently on top.
For their part, companies seeking such protection have a right to pursue their narrow self-interest; but when these actions involve reducing open competition and transparency for short term gain, they do so to the detriment of the very free enterprise system that made their success possible.
Republicans, who profess their zeal for democratic capitalism as the greatest source of human flourishing, all too often have aided the “kings of industry” in pulling the drawbridge up after they’ve taken the castle. Conservatives must recover the fundamentals of what is needed to defend the free enterprise system. We can begin by rejecting the current financial regulatory overhaul moving through Congress, and by offering alternatives that apply the essential principles that form a true free enterprise system.
The financial regulatory overhaul is not reform. Its fundamental architecture expands and centralizes power in Washington, doubling down on the root causes of the 2008 crisis. It is based on a vision that government can foresee future crises and avert them, despite the fact that an army of regulators never saw the most recent crisis coming.
The complex array of new councils, agencies, and bureaucracies creates endless channels for crony capitalists to penetrate. A financial system that once thrived on entrepreneurial risk and low barriers to entry for investment will now deny admittance to everyone except those sophisticated enough, connected enough, and flush enough with campaign contributions to do business with government and pay the price of entry.
[…]
There is no shortage of innovative alternatives to the heavy-handed government approach making its way through Congress – alternatives that make the distinction between “pro-market” and “pro-business.” Although a bold departure from the status quo, a proposal put forth by Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff calls for banks to stick to their fundamental purpose of financial intermediation rather than taking on the excessive risks with no strings attached that have lead to taxpayer-funded bailouts. Real reform must decouple America’s economic well-being from the fate of a select few financial firms.
Another approach, one that works within the current financial framework, has been offered by Oliver Hart of Harvard University and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago. Their proposal addresses the “too-big-to-fail” question through the use of a market-based trigger that tells firms when to beef up capital. This approach is aimed to better balance “the need to curb reckless risk-taking…while making sure not to unduly constrain economic activity, investment and growth.”
Failure to reform the system poses clear risks, but the frenzied push to score a legislative victory prior to the November midterms with a deeply flawed bill poses greater risk. A good-faith reform effort should not continue indefinitely, but the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, for example, has been essentially cast aside by the very same Congress that tasked the commission to investigate the crisis and issue its report later this year. The Democratic leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have opted to rush a bill into law, putting ideological goals and campaign strategy ahead of underlying catalysts for real reform.
The federal government has a critical role in helping ensure financial markets are fair and transparent, and holding accountable those that violate the rules. Reform should aim to restore the principles that have made credit available to American families and entrepreneurs and our capital markets the envy of the world: freedom to participate, an unbreakable link between performance and reward, continued attachment to risk, and a sense of responsibility that ensures those who seek to reap the gains also bear the full risks of losses.
For millions of American families, the real pain from the past financial crisis can still be felt. The financial services sector needs reform – yet the overhaul before Congress exacerbates the worst aspects of today’s system. Washington is attempting to solve every problem with greater government control, and higher spending, taxes, and record levels of debt – breathing new life into crony capitalism across our economy.
Sure. But you say all that like it’s a bad thing.
After all, creating a permanent underclass dependent on the government is the objective, especially if what you are after is power as determined by those who you’ve made dependent upon you.
Progressivism is like the battering husband. And we all best go make it a tasty sammich and bring it a beer before it’s forced to show us some more of that tough love…
Like a lone voice of sanity crying out in the great wilderness of socialism, Paul Ryan always offers up thoughtful criticism and explanations of pending legislation that effects business and the economy in general. And more importantly perhaps, not only doesn’t shy away from doing so nor allow himself to be bullied or shouted down into silence, but offers solutions of his own.
In other words, when challenged to “put up or shut up”, he chooses the former…
This kind of guy is who the Rethugs! need more of in their cadre.
They only beat us because they love us. We need this correction.
The sooner us untermenschen knuckle under to Our Betters, the better life will be.
For Them anyway.
This all makes me sick to my stomach.
Need a laugh to pick you up? Check out this picture.
When communism comes to power, they round up the business leaders and take them out to be shot. When fascism comes to power, they round up the business leaders and take them out to lunch–where they are told to get with the program or be shot.
And no, I have no fear of any business leaders being shot, at least not by our government. Outraged proggs, though…who can say?
Oh, soupy. You were at DU, and they were talking about Malkin.
The cognitive dissonance is really getting out of hand, my friend. Seek counseling.
How many names have you used soupy, and how many more do you plan on using?
Holy molé! That was bad-ass conservatism in conspicuous mode. Me likey.
How about some plain old crony cronyism, courtesy of Dave Weigel of the Washington Post? Mr. Weigel:
sdferr – Since when did stonewalling by a dishonest party become a reason for the press to lose interest in a story?
Jeff forgets to mention that Ryan would have voted against Democratic legislation even if it included the proposals by Kotlikoff and Hart and Zingales. But the real significance of Jeff’s post lies in what it says about the current state of the weeny universe. Where conservatives like Jeff used to be phony tough guys sneering at liberal wimpiness, now Jeff’s posing himself as a phony victim of wife-beating progressives. Maybe all this gender bending means that Jeff’s rethinking his position on gay marriage.
You are well and truly an imbecile, and an embarrassment to academe everywhere. You are a fat disgusting greasy racist fucker, truly the face of the bigoted Left. Fuck you, caricature.
Jeff forgets to mention that Ryan would have voted against Democratic legislation even if it included the proposals by Kotlikoff and Hart and Zingales.
Care to offer any proof of this abject asspull, caricature? Or do you enjoy lying?
Project much, Ric? You and your kind are a disgrace.
Ric, meet TrollHammer.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=199462
Okay, this cracked me up. The comments about caricature are priceless.
You can be a huge pussy and still beat your wife, Ric. is there some reason that you think hitting women is manly? And is there an explanation as to why even a fourth-tier college professor doesn’t know the difference between a statement of fact – progressives are pussies – and an analogy?
Very much a slob (shirt never fully buttoned or tucked in, always looks like he just got a quicky). Very opinionated and one-sided. Leads discussions that are always off topic, talks a lot about religion in ways that aren’t really relevant to the theories being taught. Kinda lame, but easy. Very biased, expects more of people with stronger opinions
A disgrace to the University, I handed in the exact assignment twice and got two different grades
Where to begin…ok, this guy is a total ideologue for one. Some people say that he encourages critical thinking, but this is false. He encourages HIS thinking with an iron fist. He tries to build a cult of personality around himself. He also says um and uh after every other word. Not a very good speaker. He looks very unprofessional as well
Very presumptuous, impossible to satisfy in most of his assignments unless you kiss his ass, very condescending, has a strong predisposition against people from the alleged ‘bible belt’ due to his upbringing, not half as open-minded as he would claim. Far too pretentious to teach gen eds.
Very presumptuous, impossible to satisfy in most of his assignments unless you kiss his ass, very condescending, has a strong predisposition against people from the alleged ‘bible belt’ due to his upbringing, not half as open-minded as he would claim. Far too pretentious to teach gen eds.
He has an absolute contempt for people on the right and it shows in everything he teaches. Conservatives beware taking his classes. It may not affect your grade, but it’ll be an uphill battle choosing paper topincs and being heard in class. He has the tendency to either ignore or talk over you when you begin to make a conservative position clear
His lectures are hard to understand, he gives too much reading, he has his picks in the class, and he’s a smart ass when it comes to explaining what you lack in the class. He’s way to eccentric to be a professor, he needs to be a mad scientist.
He is probably the worst teacher I have had at Morehead. He is hard to understand, and unless you are a master at BS you will fail him. Gives too much reading, needs a life outside of his classes.
He is crazy, and more than a little strange. But for the most part he is a very helpful professor, if you can stand his idiosyncrasies.
Can be really strange and sometimes his lectures don’t make sense to anyone but him. If he doesn’t lapse into talking about his frat boy days of partying, his classes are okay.
But um I ah am ummm more ah um edu ah cated um then ah um um um you ah ahhh people um. Um yes ah ah um um ah yesah ah um.
It is truly amazing that the caricature is employed as a professor. Shocking.
I’m pretty big.
And I failed.
I guess it’s because illegal aliens only do jobs that Americans won’t do (for less than minimum wage)! My problem is that I have a crazy ex-wife and a child, and they refuse to live in a hornets nest, where there are so many people in a two bedroom house that the rent comes out to $20 per month per person.
Damn them!
Save me, O anointed saints of the government(pun intended)!
Ahhhhhh the classic But Buuuuussssshhhhh maneuver. Fuck off you lying psychotic twat.
Meya-RD-bdam-pfar-soa-bloopy-soupy – You seem more agitated and mendoucheous than normal. Your meds would likely help.