Time to Hang the Speculators?

[eagle1462010]

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limited the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

Actually, dblack, I had completely forgotten what the OP was.
Let me take another shot at this.

If corporations exercise control over the economy via government how will shrinking Dr. Frankenstein (government) reduce the (corporate) power of his monster?

I thought the OP was about hanging speculators...............

The Size of the Gov't isn't the issue on that topic. It is the effectiveness of it's laws.

A simple law, or small law that is effective would be a much better law than a large law written with thousands of pages that is Not Effective..............

The Obama and Dem plan to stop what happened in 2008 was the Dodd Frank law, CREATING MORE GOV'T to stop what happened. Yet the Bubbles have grown again, even larger than in 2008................So more Gov't didn't really fix the problem did it?

Because the problem was a law that was passed in the past. Graham Leahy which allowed Shadow Trading without SEC oversight. Which in turn allowed limits on Commodity Trading................

The simple solution would be to repeal this, and take it back to a time that the markets didn't explode due to VAST unregulated SHADOW TRADING..............Which was part of the Glass Steagall Act.................

So, more Gov't didn't change a thing.

 

[georgephillip]

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

Actually, dblack, I had completely forgotten what the OP was.
Let me take another shot at this.

If corporations exercise control over the economy via government how will shrinking Dr. Frankenstein (government) reduce the (corporate) power of his monster?

I thought the OP was about hanging speculators...............

The Size of the Gov't isn't the issue on that topic. It is the effectiveness of it's laws.

A simple law, or small law that is effective would be a much better law than a large law written with thousands of pages that is Not Effective..............

The Obama and Dem plan to stop what happened in 2008 was the Dodd Frank law, CREATING MORE GOV'T to stop what happened. Yet the Bubbles have grown again, even larger than in 2008................So more Gov't didn't really fix the problem did it?

Because the problem was a law that was passed in the past. Graham Leahy which allowed Shadow Trading without SEC oversight. Which in turn allowed limits on Commodity Trading................

The simple solution would be to repeal this, and take it back to a time that the markets didn't explode due to VAST unregulated SHADOW TRADING..............Which was part of the Glass Steagall Act.................

So, more Gov't didn't change a thing.

Did the repeal of Glass-Steagall increase or decrease the size of government?

"The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone"

Repeal of Glass-Steagall: Not a cause, but a multiplier - The Washington Post

 

[eagle1462010]

Actually, dblack, I had completely forgotten what the OP was.
Let me take another shot at this.

If corporations exercise control over the economy via government how will shrinking Dr. Frankenstein (government) reduce the (corporate) power of his monster?

I thought the OP was about hanging speculators...............

The Size of the Gov't isn't the issue on that topic. It is the effectiveness of it's laws.

A simple law, or small law that is effective would be a much better law than a large law written with thousands of pages that is Not Effective..............

The Obama and Dem plan to stop what happened in 2008 was the Dodd Frank law, CREATING MORE GOV'T to stop what happened. Yet the Bubbles have grown again, even larger than in 2008................So more Gov't didn't really fix the problem did it?

Because the problem was a law that was passed in the past. Graham Leahy which allowed Shadow Trading without SEC oversight. Which in turn allowed limits on Commodity Trading................

The simple solution would be to repeal this, and take it back to a time that the markets didn't explode due to VAST unregulated SHADOW TRADING..............Which was part of the Glass Steagall Act.................

So, more Gov't didn't change a thing.

Did the repeal of Glass-Steagall increase or decrease the size of government?

"The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone"

Repeal of Glass-Steagall: Not a cause, but a multiplier - The Washington Post

A decrease in regulation, or a Gov't that failed to do it's job caused it. Part of the job of the Gov't by the Constitution is regulation of Commerce............ Allowing the bubble machine is a FAILURE OF GOV'T, and this not the issue of the FREE MARKET...............

Your comparisons are straw arguments.............The Free Markets, aka regular businesses and Corps who are attached to the markets and Gov't are being hurt by larger regulations and Gov't Interference.......

The Usury CREATE NOTHING OF REAL VALUE............No products, no commodities,............They feed like a group of sharks in bloody water, and are BY NO MEANS representative of the Free Market Principles that we are talking about.

 

[eagle1462010]

One more thing, the Gov't FAILED again when it didn't SEIZE THEIR ASSETS and let them go under..................

If they made STUPID BETS then let them FALL as all others do when they FAIL AT BUSINESS.

Not only didn't the Gov't do this, they allowed them to give themselves U.S. CURRENCY to prop themselves up.............At a tune of 16.2 TRILLION at the discount window of the Federal Reserve.

Gov'ts STUPIDITY, and TIES TO THESE CURRENCY MACHINES, allows them to continue their BS. The Gov't is COMPLICIT IN THE CRIME................They NO LONGER SERVE US.............They are CORP. WHORE'S................

And that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the Free Market...........

 

[dblack]

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limited the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

Actually, dblack, I had completely forgotten what the OP was.
Let me take another shot at this.

If corporations exercise control over the economy via government how will shrinking Dr. Frankenstein (government) reduce the (corporate) power of his monster?

I don't see any inherent problem with the economic power wielded by corporations. As long as it's gained legitimately, via voluntary transactions with customers and collaborators, I think it's fine for people and corporations to grow as wealthy and powerful as they can manage.

The problems come when they gain or preserve their economic success via legislative manipulation rather than by winning over customers. It's when corporations 'partner' with government, and utilize the coercive power of the state to ensure their fortunes that a line is crossed. Today, with the revolving-door lobbyist circuit, and a regulatory state that affords 'regulatory capture' as the default, that line has all but evaporated. That's the core of the problem in my view - not excessive concentration of wealth (although excessive concentration of wealth is often a direct result of state economic collusion).

 

[georgephillip]

One more thing, the Gov't FAILED again when it didn't SEIZE THEIR ASSETS and let them go under..................

If they made STUPID BETS then let them FALL as all others do when they FAIL AT BUSINESS.

Not only didn't the Gov't do this, they allowed them to give themselves U.S. CURRENCY to prop themselves up.............At a tune of 16.2 TRILLION at the discount window of the Federal Reserve.

Gov'ts STUPIDITY, and TIES TO THESE CURRENCY MACHINES, allows them to continue their BS. The Gov't is COMPLICIT IN THE CRIME................They NO LONGER SERVE US.............They are CORP. WHORE'S................

And that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the Free Market...........

When the phrase "Free Market" first came into existence hundreds of years ago, at the time capitalism was beginning to replace feudalism as the dominant economic model, "Free" meant a "Market" that was free of undue rentier (what we would call FIRE sector today) influence.


The Chicago Boys? Free Market Theology » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"The classical economists saw rent and interest as a carry-over from Europe’s feudal conquest of the land and the privatization of money and finance into an institutionally based debt and monopoly overhead. The classical economists sought to tax away such “unearned income,” to regulate natural monopolies or shift them into the public domain."

IMHO, today Wall Street functions as Main Street's feudal lord with the US government playing the obliging monarch. This hasn't changed since the first private fortunes came into existence, I suspect.

The solution is to reinvent government in such a way that it is immune to the influence of private wealth. Either by building an un-breachible wall between private wealth and government or by using government to tax private wealth into extinction