Sunday, Nov 15, 2009

The lost Decade is somthing to aim for

Daily KOS: How Republicans Killed Capitalism

Japan's lost decade is perhaps the best we can hope for, for the American Economy. An interesting view on the political ideology of the housing boom in America

Posted by the number cruncher @ 08:45 PM (935 views)
Add Comment
Report Article


1. tyrellcorporation said...

And here was I thinking Clinton started the whole ball rolling by relaxing lending criteria so people with no money or jobs could afford houses.

Sunday, November 15, 2009 09:44PM Report Comment

2. the number cruncher said...

Clinton was a million more times economically prudent that the Bushes and Reagan. He also paid off more public debt than any president in history. A legacy squandered on tax cuts for the rich and wars by George Bush.

Clinton did not start the ball rolling. But you are right, Clinton was in the pockets of the financial deregulators, just as Blair and Brown was and finished off the work of thatcher and Reagan.

Sunday, November 15, 2009 09:57PM Report Comment

3. mander said...

The Derivatives killed capitalism and they were approved by Clinton.

Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:25PM Report Comment

4. the number cruncher said...

Will that be the blue or red faction of the financial deregulation party?

Derivatives are but one part of the a ridiculous monetary expansion set on track by unfettered deregulation

Yes Clinton succumbed to the lobbying of wall street, but that does not invalidate the central thesis of the article

Monday, November 16, 2009 12:10AM Report Comment

5. drewster said...

Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagal act. That one action alone is responsible for much of the crisis.

I'm no fan of Bush's policies. The bubble inflated and burst on his watch, so he's still more responsible.

Monday, November 16, 2009 12:58AM Report Comment

6. dbc reed said...

Nice to read something where the deregulators are cast as the villains.Most Anglophone discussion blog -sites are infested with free market fundamentalists baying at the moon.It should be obvious that people with capital (and land) have a two way choice: either to invest productively or stick the money on deposit and sit things out for a while.If they take the second option working people who cannot sit things out eventually perish,so governments must try anything anti-inertia to get things moving again.This used to be the consensus but not lately.

Monday, November 16, 2009 07:55AM Report Comment

7. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.


8. doggett said...

tyrellcorporation said...

"And here was I thinking Clinton started the whole ball rolling by relaxing lending criteria so people with no money or jobs could afford houses."

Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes.

Monday, November 16, 2009 02:27PM Report Comment

9. kruador said...

Drewster, claiming that Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall is overstating the power of the President. Unlike here, the President of the USA cannot propose legislation and cannot strike down legislation. It must pass Congress. The Congress was majority Republican at the time, it chose to amend the US Code removing the provisions of Glass-Steagall.

All you can accuse Clinton of is not vetoing the amendments. However, the Congress can override a Presidential veto with sufficient votes. Wikipedia states that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act originally passed with more than enough votes than would be required to override a veto. Had he chosen to veto it - and there's no sign that he would have - it would likely have been a fruitless gesture. Remember that at this point Clinton had already been impeached. It appears, though, that he supported the Act - along with many congressional Democrats - and his administration had failed to prosecute a number of violations of Glass-Steagall already.

In many ways the President of the USA has less power than the UK Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is practically guaranteed that any piece of legislation his government proposes will pass (a three-line-whip basically requires an MP to vote the party line or be kicked out). He is unlikely to have to deal with any legislation from the back benches that he doesn't like (again, three-line-whip will generally cause it to be voted down). He has a number of unilateral acts he can perform through use of the Royal Prerogative (nominally the Queen's power but 'advised' by the PM).

Monday, November 16, 2009 06:02PM Report Comment

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Admin Password
Email Address

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies