Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

roachboy, no offense, it's all blurring together

can you summarize?

 

hmm...I don't know if I fully agree with the premise of this article.
Frankly, I believe and I think most Americans truly believe in capitalism and the power of business.

And they don't mind and see the strengths unfettered Laissez Faire philosophy for corporations and small business.
We certainly aren't socialists or communists.

BUT they don't want it at the cost of themselves or their fellow citizens or their local area and the nation at large.
Health, Stability, a certain fairness and consideration...

They don't mind people making a buck, but not at all costs or through neglect.

So they will agree with no regulations, until business prove that they need oversight.
And unfortunately, in the early part of last decade...they proved it...and then some.
Through their own "irrational exuberance" they led the nation and the world off the cliff.

They saw the reality and the impact...No, they FELT the reality and the impact.

This is like someone arguing that you aren't going to get to someplace faster unless you speed it up.
And this is true...to a certain point.
There does come a time when the speed is unsafe...
And if your driver isn't truly paying attention either...it becomes more unsafe.

The damage from a crash is often not isolated, but it's collateral.
And even if it's isolated, do you want the loss of life, vehicle and any other impact to where it crashed???

So unfortunately, we have speed limits...and we now have even more laws for paying attention to the road.
In business, this end up being regulation.

Yes, it's a pain in the ass...it's annoying, it costs man-hours, it slows down business...
but like a speed limit it is necessary for the safety of the driver and the environ.

Like the person either respectful or not...that gets into their car drunk, potentially endangering themselves and others,
Business when they get into a frenzy, don't pay attention or even ignore the potential impact for short-term gain and convenience.

I agree some regulations like EPA ones on refineries are overkill and have overly stagnated the ability to build new ones,
but I also don't see for the most part it "stopping" business...it slows it down, yes.
Like anything, there is a balance...we need to find that not doing too much...not doing too little.

And like a speed limit...if we can prove that the speed can increase, but safety is taken into account, then people won't mind the pace.
Like a bullet train...or a plane.
But Wall Street proved they weren't ready for that speed...and crashed.

Little kids need to play in their sandboxes nicely...

 

There have been a variety of people for some time saying that conservatives are in a bubble.

And I'd have to agree...with some of the statements of their observations that come out of their mouths.

Now I've got both conservative and liberal values, Libertarian and Progressive...middle of the road all the way.
Practical and pragmatic, I note what the situation deserves...Ideals are a goal, not a replacement.
Facts, trends and reality mean something to me.

It's like saying that the car that swerves in front of me is something to be avoided,
but there's no conspiracy that it's doing it on purpose
nor do I think I should just move straight on with no adjustment just because I'm right.

I agree with many conservative values...but you can't just say I WANT IT and reality alters to it.

If you want people to think your ideas are realistic, then you need to start with the real not the ideal.

And BTW...if you think I'm wrong...one of the GOP's rising stars are saying exactly the same thing...
Bobby Jindal - End "dumbed-down" conservatism

 

This is what is somewhat infuriating to me regarding Americans specifically and people generally (much of it goes on here in Canada too).

It's this cognitive dissonance people have regarding markets and society. They believe on one hand that free markets are ideal, while on the other hand they want social justice. They say laissez-faire should be the goal, but that human rights and equal opportunity should not be violated or demeaned.

The problem with this is that these two things are essentially at odds. For starters, there is no such thing as a free market, nor is there such a phenomenon as laissez-faire. There is a reason for that, and it's because of the political will of the people. For over a century now, people have fought and resisted this idea that capitalism should reign. So today we have what we call mixed markets. If you want to go find an example of a free market, you won't find one.

When people say they believe in free enterprise and hope for free markets, I think it's understood (if you are pragmatic) that this means "the freest possible market within the parameters of civil society." There is no single means to achieve this. There are countless ways, which is what you find when you look at the makeup of virtually every economy within nations people would call free. Some say America is the freest nation on earth. Many disagree. It really depends on what you mean by freedom, and what kind of stuff freedom affords one and one's family.

The inverse is true for those socialist idealists, who think it would be grand if there were no need for private property and if capital belonged equally among the producers in society. Both extremes of the spectrum—the truly free market and the communistic utopia—are unachievable if not incredibly unstable.

I don't think most people fool themselves into thinking no regulations are ideal. There have been many regulations in industry in place for decades, and it was the political will of the people that put them there.

Problems happen at both ends: 1) too much regulation, and 2) rampant deregulation.

A balance needs to be achieved. It's a work in progress always, as things change year to year. Regulations can be messy, but they are necessary, especially when things go wrong and much of the problem can be traced back to lax regulatory environments such as those in the American financial system currently.

Bottom line: Going slower, being less profitable, etc., is better than people getting walloped while those to blame get off scot-free if not after profiting from it!

Systemwide stability should be the goal, as it is stability that weathers the bad times and ensures the good times don't get out of hand.

All that said, the GOP cling to this ideal of Reaganomics, particularly this idea that deregulation is necessary for a successful economy. There are too many examples of how and why this isn't true.

And then to think that they're only looking at the big picture and not the details. They oversimplify.

And then there are taxes.

 

Well, Baraka_Guru while they may seem at odds, they aren't, if done correctly.
The analogy of a car, train or plane works again here...

You can go at relatively greater speeds...as long as you're wise enough to make sure your eyes are on the road.
You look ahead
And are prepared at all times to brake or adjust according to situations or obstacles.

A good business will do this.
But there are many who are neglectful or speed unsafely for short term gain...getting to their goals sooner.

This is why we end up with rules of the road, registrations, traffic signals and signs and cops monitoring us.
Same with trains, same with planes.

Problem is...again, there are many who are greedy or unaware...and they continue to be unsafe even despite these.
Now do we want to have TOO MANY laws??
No, because that would slow it down so traffic doesn't flow and aren't free flowing enough to allow the flexibility to drive various places.

So, as I said before...there is a balance.
We took away too much oversight...business zoomed ahead...they showed they couldn't drive at a safe speed.
So now, we need to put those restrictions back.

It's like any rule we give teens...you want the freedom, show you can handle the responsibility.

Question is this...
Are we good parents that we will disipline and control our kids after they mess up??
Or are we just going to let them keep on screwing up?

The GOP currently has been taking the route of the parent that doesn't want to control their kids...for the convenience of not watching them.
The Dems have been often in the past over-controlling parents...so the kid can't explore...but recently, they've shown some discretion.

There is a balance to everything.
I voted for the person who showed balance...and not for the one that said let them reign free.
With that in mind...what would you do???

 

rogue49

This is basically what I'm saying. A "free market" is at odds with society in market actors taking whatever freedom they want to achieve whatever end they want. Society doesn't like this, and so restrictions are placed.

The end result is much like you say. Despite whatever businesses might groan about regulation, it is often sensible regulation that keeps things robust.

Take the Canadian financial system. Its regulatory environment is enough to make the average American squirm, and yet what were Canada's Big Five banks doing in 2008 and 2009 whilst most of the world was reeling from America's meltdown?

They were making record profits.

In Canada, you will often hear us complaining about red tape. It's quite the pastime to complain about bureaucracy here, and sure there is quite a bit compared to the U.S. However, there are benefits. First, realize that the federal government (and provincial governments often as well) usually have reasons for changing regulations. One example of this is the recent change made by the Conservative government in the housing market (yes, conservatives do apply regulations).

There are concerns that the market is overheating, and there has been talk about a bubble, so the government tightened up requirements for mortgages. The maximum amortization period for a government-insured mortgage was reduced to 25 years from 30. This basically makes it more difficult for first-time buyers to get into the market, because it forces them to pay more per month. Government-insured mortgages are for those who don't meet the minimum down payment required. To get a longer period of 30 years, you need at least 20% or more as a down payment.

Also, to qualify for a mortgage, Canadians now may only spend a maximum of 39% of gross household income on home expenses, and a maximum of 44% on housing expenses and all other debt. This further restricts those who can buy.

Government-insured mortgages were capped at $1 million.

A down payment of at least 20% is required on mortgages of over $1 million.

Basically, these changes were in response to dangerously high household debt among Canadians, and they took effect in July. Why did these changes occur? Well, as I said, there were concerns of an overheated market, plus household debt among Canadians was high. But do you know what else? Some of Canada's big banks called for this. If you don't already know, Canada's banking system is pretty concentrated, so if a few "big banks" call for something, it's kind of a big deal.

But don't you find it interesting that big banks call for more regulations? It's because they wanted the housing industry to stabilize and they wanted it to happen through the financial system.

And you know what? It's kind of working. Housing prices are coming down, not crashing down. Well so far. There are still concerns about household debt, but that's a factor that is difficult to control. Much of that has to do with the global economy, not decisions about mortgage rules tinkered together by the federal government and banks.

Regardless, what are mortgage regulations like in the U.S. compared to Canada? Before 2008 vs. now? Any differences?