Obama: Wall Street Will Play Less Dominant Role

Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce "some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common," President Barack Obama says.

source

Make of that what you will, but to me, this doesn't sound like good news. This isn't intended as an obama bashing thread. I just ran across the article and decided to share it. I would like to hear what others here have to say on the subject.


TA

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce "some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common," President Barack Obama says.

source

Make of that what you will, but to me, this doesn't sound like good news. This isn't intended as an obama bashing thread. I just ran across the article and decided to share it. I would like to hear what others here have to say on the subject.


TA

Not bashing. It sure looks like strict government control is comming to a free market enterprise near you. To much Government,not enough time!!!

reply to post by daddyroo45

It sure looks like strict government control is comming to a free market enterprise near you. To much Government,not enough time!!!

Couldn't agree more. This is getting surreal. I always get bashed for promoting less government control on the free market but, what the heck, this is getting out of hand. Atlas will Shrug if things continue like this.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


I'm afraid it's quite the opposite. In fact Wall Street and the Big Banks have taken over; who do you think Obama and Bush have been bailing-out. The kids or shall I say...morons coming-out of Ivy League Universities and going to work on Wall Street or go into government...and then back again into Wall Street are those interfering in the market and bailing-out their buddies.

No...the people being turned out of places like Harvard, Princeton, Yale and University of Chicago and the like are all corporatist, fascists, neo-socialists...and anti-capitalists. It's a sad state of affairs, in this country.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Gateway]

That would be a good thing, in my mind. In actuality, wall street, by way of lobbyists for big pharma, big banking, big agro, and big oil, largely ARE our government, as they control to a strong degree, what congress decides to do through lobbyists who pay millions to congressmen to ram their legislations through, point of example the medicare expansion act of 05, etc.

However, this statement by Obama is nothing more than hyperbole and more lies that he spews to pacify the masses while at the same time doing the complete opposite. The banks are still reaping the largest rewards of the bailouts, and they are the ones that massively lobbied for them, with obama, mccain, and many others getting millions from lobbyists to encourage them to support these bills, which have given billions to the bankers who, incidentally, are the ones who pushed us into this, through....lets hear it...lobbying for deregulation!

The fact of the matter is that true democracy rests upon two things, first being the education of the voting body (massively failed there) and secondly each persons vote being worth the same as every others (completely destroyed through our system of lobbying and media control). Massive control and manipulation of the government by corporation, which as any fool can see is what we have, is called fascism. Obama stated he would end war, but he is escalating it in afghanistan, obama stated he would reinstate and protect the constitution, but he ratified the continuation of the patriot act which greatly limits and destroys our constitutional rights, and he may state now that he will get wall street out of washington, but again this is BS as while one side of his mouth decries the sovereignty of the people, the other side of his mouth will continue to kowtow to his corporate sponsors, those who got him into office in the first place.

reply to post by Gateway


I agree the bailouts should never have been allowed to happen, but that's an example of the regulations to which i'm opposed. In a free market, those who received the bailouts would've been allowed to fail, but the government stepped in to prevent this.

Wall Street itself and big companies are themselves governments, and they're capable in projecting their power through lobbying party.

They chant the free market capitalism jargon not because they care about the public, they're predatory just like most of other elites and they're not gonna let you prosper on your own term.

[edit on Mon, 4 May 09 by Jazzyguy]

Exactly, Obama is claiming he's stepping up his "control" over Wall Street, this control is at the behest of the last few players left standing, probably among them Goldman Sacs...by claiming that he's trying to put the reigns-in on "Wall Street" by setting-up new regulations he's in fact limiting any competition the last few players have. He's in fact helping out the bigger guys on Wall Street. Don't be fooled...regulations has always meant = regulating competition.

The rules/regulations Obama...er...Goldman Sacs is telling Obama he should pass are designed to bend the rules of the game towards those that are already politically connected.

reply to post by Gateway

are designed to bend the rules of the game towards those that are already politically connected.

Right on, Gateway. It's the aristocracy of pull. Regulations such as these are designed to limit the ability of those without friends in high places to produce, so that those with friends of that sort can take over and run the show. Favors are going to become more valuable than gold.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


What cracks me up is the Republicans pushing for this: because they want to help their buddies on Wall Street, and wouldn't know capitalism if capitalism walked up to them and punched them in the face.


The Democrats are pushing this: because they don't like capitalism to begin with and prefer a few powerful corporations or fascism where their socialist policies will be therefore easier to be pushed on the rest of us. Because the fewer the corporations the easier it is to control the players or the market.

Truly pathetic how things have gotten...

when Bush family gave all money and power to big corporations, people cried for someone to save them and take back the control.

Now Obama is doing that and everybody cries he's communist.

NWO really brainwashed you pretty good.

Before you start fearing you'll end up in some kind of fascist communist state like i've been living in 80's and listening to NWO media crap;
pick up your economy books, (try with Smith - founder of the idea of free market first) and see that capitalism has many forms where goverment control of the "wild" market is preferred. it is still market in the state, not otherwise i hope...

and for those screaming socialist - name one bad thing from someone being socialist - caring about others, progress of state as union of people

you say that nordic countries with their big social rights are communist or you don't know crap about difference between socialism and communism?

Stop watching cable news and pick up books for a change

reply to post by Dinamo

Stop watching cable news and pick up books for a change

Why don't you pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged? It might just answer a few of your questions.


TA

I dont think its a good thing at all, the more government we have in the private sector and controlling our flow of money the worse its going to get.....

P.S. How bout you name one Socialist country that its actually working and working well in?

Originally posted by Dinamo

Stop watching cable news and pick up books for a change

I would recommend AdamSmith's Wealth Of Nations

"In civilized society he [man] stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
(quote from Wealth Of Nations)

While we're recommending books, I will suggest anything by Joseph Schumpeter, but "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" is perhaps one of his most significant works, to begin with and follow it up with some Francis Fukuyama, specifically "The End of History."

It lays out a little bit of a picture of a world where democracy is usurped by economic liberalism, and ultimately strangled to death by it. The result is a society where democratic representation of the population is nothing more than a sham used to maintain social order dominated by the economic elites...

Well, anyway, from reading those books, as well as many others, at least that was my conclusion.

And it applies here because, as has been previously stated, people are throwing up warning signs about how awful and unAmerican it would be if the government started to regulate business, how against the free market it would be, how communist, the same old alarmist whining...and as usual, it is ignored that our current economic system, because of the lack of regulation and oversight, as well as the prominence that it has in the larger, overall social/political system, is not a free market, not capitalistic, but is corporatist, and is equally unAmerican. Basically, the fact of the matter is that there has been a concerted effort by right-wing economists to push economic liberalism as the most essential freedom and to push political freedom and democracy to the sidelines in contemporary democratic theory, and for the most part, they have succeeded...and it irks me like nothing else....

In my opinion, right now, there is a greater need to get Wall Street out of Washington, even if it takes putting Washington into Wall Street a little bit.

OH, i love it....to show the dangers of socialism some guy recommends a fiction novel...thats great.

As to the question of any socialist countries where socialism seems to be doing fine....Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, many of western european countries have forms of socialist democracies, and many of them have higher quality of life and standard of living than the US. ALL of them have better education, healthcare, life expectancy and infant mortality rates, and most of them get a lot more from their work and are more productive per hour than we are as well.

Now its true that most of our people believe that greed is the best motivator, as posted in "wealth of nations", but i would posit it that this is because none of us has ever lived in a system or seen a system that is different, and therefore we assume ours is best. And it seems normal to us since we are raised in a society where accumulation is the main marker of a successful life, and greed is upheld as the highest of virtues. Unfortunately, in such a society, those at the time keep reaching for and attaining new heights of ambition and greed, and that includes trying to wrest control of government in order to maintain their acquisitions in perpetuity.

What people dont realize is that humanities greatest potential, its CREATIVITY, is born not in greed, but in introspection, freedom, and peaceful sparetime. In such things did einstein come up with most of his great works, in such ways were the beautiful architecture of the rennaissance created, in such things did Michealangelo and davinci flourish. The discovery of DNA was made by a scientist while under the influence of '___', not by the stock market.

While almost all systems we know today are based in greed, this was not the rule throughout history. There have been societies, tribes, and groups who did not believe in possession historically, and often they attained high levels of personal development and spirituality, wisdom and understanding. These however have all been supplanted in our society by self interest, so we have a position where our heros and leaders while having much of money and greed, have little if any of wisdom, spirit, or understanding.

It is truly a blind person who can look at guns and bombs, at tanks and fighter jets, at the massive scandal and corruption, and the corporate control that we have today, and say to himself "wow, what a wonderful system greed has engendered, look at all the development it has garnered us". It got us a disobeyed order from a russian general away from complete nuclear annihilation in 1982.

In any sane world, as advances reduced the amount of work necessary to build a house, or grow a sheaf of wheat, the prices of both wheat and houses would go down for everyone. But in our world of monopolistic oligarchy, as technology becomes better and better, instead of services becoming cheaper the corporations price fix so that everybodies prices keep going up together. Only someone not being honest to themselves can look at the above two paragraphs and say "greed is the best motivator for humankind". It is foolish to posit that there are no people out there who go out of their way for love of their fellow man....lawyers who work pro bono, and doctors who do the same. Yes, there may be exponentially more who work for gain....but i would suggest that perhaps this is because that is what the system we are in stresses from the day we are born, and just as a person born in saudi arabia has no true choice but to be muslim, perhaps it takes a special person to grow out of the indoctrination of greed pressed on us by our parents and our society...and perhaps that is the real "original sin" that we inherit from our parents.

reply to post by pexx421

OH, i love it....to show the dangers of socialism some guy recommends a fiction novel...thats great.

Or if you prefer, anything by Ayn Rand, not just her fictional works.


TA

Back to the point:

What's being implemented is not Socialism. What it is, is the Democrat's version of the "good ol' boy network." It's the "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" system. This system is detrimental to society no matter which side of the aisle initiates it. Make no mistake, this is not Socialism.


TA