Display:
Are you saying patronage and cronyism in Wall Street and the revolving door to the Treasury are not at its maximum possible extent already?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 19th, 2009 at 03:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup, it is my contention that direct control by the likes of the previous administration would be a significantly worse state of affairs than what we've seen.
by MarekNYC on Thu Feb 19th, 2009 at 01:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For all intents and purposes, they were the same. Wall Street wrote policy, both via the administration and via Schumer's committee.

But, there is a concept of alternance too, though it's debateable whether it functions in the US, eg Paulson for Geithner/Summers, whether we've really seen change in the US. Same observation in the UK.

Note, I'm not limiting my analysis to the US. There are democracies in the west which are markedly less dysfunctional than the US system of "governance". And Jérôme's observation of the French, largely nationalised banking system applies, whether left or right were running the show.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Thu Feb 19th, 2009 at 02:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For all intents and purposes, they were the same. Wall Street wrote policy, both via the administration and via Schumer's committee.

True, but that's not what I'm talking about here. What you are referring to is the financial industry's ability to push it's own class/corporate interests. What I'm worried about is a full on patronage and cronyism system a la Italy's old Christian Democratic machine, but even worse.

by MarekNYC on Thu Feb 19th, 2009 at 02:06:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Understood.

But, I am also recognizing the cronyism and corruption at the heart of US capital markets, which anyone who's worked on an IPO and seen what it takes to get in at strike price, to name but one example, will tell you.

If there wasn't inherent cronyism in the present system in the US, it would fall down. In fact, part of what is happening now if that cronies no longer trust each other.

The present solution to this crisis of confidence is to flood the market so as to get those people trusting one another again. But, another solution would be to remove the cronies.

This, for me, is the longhand for when economists like Duncan Black decry the fact we are counting on the same people who got us into the mess to get us out, the fact that the same cadre of people run US capital markets and continue their revolving door into and out of government. One need only look at the people Geithner brought in with him, their lobbying and Wall Street background, to see what I mean.

When banks are nationalised and your democratic institutions aren't hopelessly corrupted (the two are related) then there is a process to remove the cronies. Such a process does not obtain in the US or the UK, to be sure, but financial market reform is but one of many reforms which should be on the table.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Thu Feb 19th, 2009 at 02:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only path I can see for the USA that would not increase the systemic political problem is to close the banks that are insolvent in such a way as to inflict maximum damage on those culpable, vigorously investigate and prosecute all fraud and pass campaign reform based on generous federal funding of all federal races.  The present crew is doing all they can to minimize the damage to those who caused the problem and appear not to care about consequences to the rest of society except as they impact the bank holding companies and their buddies.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Feb 19th, 2009 at 06:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series