I think there was a Star Trek episode that once solved this problem. How much better our lives would all be, if we simply got our pitchforks (or like Star Trek used a machine that vaporized the people), and killed the top 5% of the greedy moneygrubbers on the planet and redistributed their money evenly to all. We could do it on Halloween night, every 5 years: 1st 5%, then 4.5%, then 4% and so on. Every 5 years the greedy vanish and the money gets redistributed to everyone. And nobody, not nobody, in the top 5% can get a waiver or pay a “stand-in” to take his place. If you have that greedy, avaricious gene in your makeup, you will exploit the rest of the population, and true to your nature, rise to the top. Once you do, poof! If we simply agreed to cull the herd in that manner, every five years, within 100 years we’d live in a virtual paradise. We’d weed out the elites, the princes, the royalty, the blue bloods, the massive trusts and hoarded resources. Wars would end, corporate takeovers would end, “too big to fail banks and their huge interest payments would vanish, absurd CEO bonuses disappear. Trade would be simple, local, and beneficial to all because you’d only trade with those you knew and lived with. Of course I’m not really suggesting we do this, I’m just thinking outside of the box, and talking about Star Trek. Besides, if the elite can “think outside the box” and decide on lists of elites for the Greenbriar underground nuke shelters (a scenario in which 6 billion-plus die and few thousand self-selected elites live); if the elites can discuss monetary policy to protect their 5% while the other 95% can “eat cake” and live lives of economic servitude, and if the elites can discuss eugenics as a “trickle-down” option, perhaps a bit of “trickle-up” eugenics might be good for society. Not “Society,” I mean society. The place where you and I live.

I mean, somebody remind me again why we need these self-appointed Lords of the G20, anyway, and what exactly they have to do with Democracy? Aren’t they merely the high lords of the New-World-Order Elites, the “Shadow Government” by which the capitalists and multi-national corporations rule? What exactly, do they contribute to us, the 95% who are not them? Who are they, why are they in charge, and under what form of government do we now live? When did we, the 95%, agree to this? Why do their decisions get handed down as law, and (the Patriot Act notwithstanding) under what set of rules am I living, that I, a US citizen, am required to lick their boots for a living? If it is not fascism (government by, of and for the corporations), then please define it, because I’d like to know. It seems to me to incorporate an element of economic feudalism to it, or Villeinage, where captive serfs send their “bail out” tax dollars to the lords of capitalism, and keep the dregs to feed the wife and kiddies. Amuse yourself by drawing the parallels in reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism (admittedly a weak source)

But to be naive and innocent towards you politicians is detrimental to your safety, your civil rights and your wallet.

And it’s really not so much about the specific people. I said Obama is disappointment, but I believe he is honest (for a politician) and is doing everything he can. The trouble is the whole political system is now so big, so incredibly huge, and effectively run by special interest groups and entrenched bureaucratic structures, that he, as a single guy, however powerful, can change only so much. The DoD is still run by military/industrial/congressional complex, the foreign policy by neocons, the Treasury is still under heavy influence of Wall Street, health policy is dominated by Big Pharma, Fed is basically a Big Bank Cartel and energy policy still takes marching orders from Big Oil.

And each time you threaten to clamp down on the power of this or that special interest group, they threaten, they fearmonger, they water down the bills, they do everything they can to thwart it – cap and trade effectively crippled and watered down to worthlessness, real health care reform gagged and maimed (giving the medical industrial complex even more power instead the other way around), DoD budget increased instead of massive cuts and so on. Hopefully Barney Frank will push through the Fed audit, but even now there are efforts byt Republican Senators to water it down (the Big Banks and Fed bureaucracy has a lot of clout and lot of bought-off economists on their side).

So my whole point is – even if you’re willing to give your favorite politicians the benefit of the doubt (as Boris writes), you cannot expect them to change much. The really honest people in politics are far and between, always were, always will be, unless the American public starts to read their Jefferson again and understand that the key to government effectiveness, transparency, accountability and to breaking the power of lobbyists is a decentralization of power.

I think I prefer to remain naive rather than adopt cynicism as a permanent worldview.

The report must place the blame squarely on people who were not responsible, and also leave out many key facts so that it is utterly useless. later, the drafters of the report will repudiate their findings citing political pressure, forcing another commission to be convened…that is, if anyone still cares.

It looks like things are ‘back to normal’ because bankers are getting some bonuses and a couple of them are making money on the volatility, but this is high-risk profits, the bonuses they are grabbing are out of the treasury till, and unless they can get back to building real businesses, they are just eating their own.

We’re only in the second inning.

There is much discussion of prudential regulation. The other part of the story is change in prudent monetary policy.

Bernanke testifying before Congress on asset bubbles said that it is MORE PRUDENT not to intervene in asset bubbles unless they affect output and prices.
Here are the direct quotes and source.

“…little or no evidence ..that the central bank is better able than the market to identify speculative bubbles and that it can successfully ” deflate” such bubbles without harming the broader economy.”…the
MORE PRUDENT response is to respond only as the outlook for output and inflation merits. Such a limited approach should also mitigate potential moral hazard problems that might arise were a central bank to, in effect take responsibility for the appropriateness of asset prices.”

S. Hrg. 109-596 The Economic Outlook Hearing of The Joint Economic Committee of Congress, April 27, 2006.

I am sure this would signify a much needed boost to the competitiveness of the smaller local banks.

Nice post. Could you say more about how “getting the most” might be accomplished?

Let’s brainstorm people….