Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Sadness of Conservatism (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2172)

Bloggingheads 10-01-2008 08:25 PM

The Sadness of Conservatism
 

rgajria 10-01-2008 09:12 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Cool! Peter and Jonah are back.

schumacher 10-01-2008 09:29 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Obama Is Going To Win.


Love From The Uk Xxx

I Love You All At Bloggingheads

popeyethesailorman 10-01-2008 09:50 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Pretty interesting discussion. 24 minutes in and I haven't heard Peter actually answer any of Jonah's arguments. He seems more keen to argue against arguments that he asserts "conservatives always make". Bottom line seems to be that Peter is on the side of centralizing power ("put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket", as Mark Twain said) and Jonah wants to leave people alone to fight it out, trusting that none of them will be able to achieve the kind of dominance that can be handed whole, via political means, to the government. As I said, pretty interesting.

NYC_Consultant 10-01-2008 09:53 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Bob Please help! Jonah must be stopped. We must have standards!

His arguments are patently insane. For the love of god, its time to take a stronger regulatory hand in the Bloggingheads schedule.

popeyethesailorman 10-01-2008 09:53 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I think you're right. Obama is going to win. Any idea what that is going to mean for the county? Think Obama has any idea? I console myself with the thought that he actually does not. That he has probably thought no further than the overwhelming and difficult task of what it take to get there.

popeyethesailorman 10-01-2008 09:55 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
How to I qualify for being one of the "little guys" that liberal principles justify standing up for? That sounds pretty good for me. I'll be for government intervention in the economy if I can be on that side of the line.

Exeus99 10-01-2008 10:13 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC_Consultant
His arguments are patently insane.

Do you happen to have a link handy, to save some time, or do you mean all of Mr. Goldberg's arguments? Where does one file for an insanity patent, I wonder--there must be a number of government departments that have sufficient expertise...

themightypuck 10-01-2008 10:49 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I doubt there are anywhere near 54 floors of the welfare state in the USA. My sense living here is that you are pretty much on your own.

BeachFrontView 10-01-2008 10:51 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I agree conservatism is in a sad state right now. I think for them to form a new republican party after Obama is president for 8 years they need to distant themselves from the crazy jesus freaks and become more libertarian.

ed fielding 10-01-2008 10:58 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Don’t think I can listen to Jonah for any length of time any more, even knowing Peter will slice and dice him.

But Jonah, this is for you:
The final two paragraphs of a WSJ story, a narrative of a crucial few days on Wall Street during the aftershocks of Lehman’s collapse.


Three days later, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley applied to the Fed to become commercial banks -- a historic move that ended the tradition of lightly regulated Wall Street securities firms that take big risks in the pursuit of equally big returns.

To some, the government's decision to resort to a bailout represents a tacit admission: For all officials' desire to allow markets to punish the risk-taking that engendered the crisis, banks have the upper hand. "Lehman demonstrated that it's much harder than we thought to deal effectively with banks' misbehavior," says Charles Wyplosz, an economics professor at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. "You have to look the devil in the eyes and the eyes are pretty frightening."
My emphasis.



http://snipurl.com/3ygi3"

BeachFrontView 10-01-2008 11:11 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
And when I said Republicans need to become more Libertarian, especially the anti-war part of the platform

ed fielding 10-01-2008 11:12 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Oh well, if I grit my teeth and hold my gorge, and squint, I can enjoy seeing Jonah’ bluffing bluster tempered by whining and groveling.
And then there can be genuine entertainment in witnessing it, in his claiming now that regulation is enacted at the instigation of big business (it being the case that bb seek to shape regulation most certainly). Jonah has been betrayed by big business. Poor Jonah.
A toothless attack dog who can only bark and whine.

Thank Heaven for Peter, who is capable, were Jonah capable of learning, of educating Jonah in the ways of democracy and civic life.

themightypuck 10-01-2008 11:28 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I thought Jonah seemed pretty rational throughout the discussion. The only real whopper was to conflate classical liberalism with conservatism.

AemJeff 10-01-2008 11:32 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by themightypuck (Post 92708)
I thought Jonah seemed pretty rational throughout the discussion. The only real whopper was to conflate classical liberalism with conservatism.

Part and parcel of Jonah's "black is white, up is down, left is right, right is wrong" campaign. Of course Jonah would say "Right is right!", but that just makes my point all over again, doesn't it?

Ray 10-01-2008 11:42 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Laughable on its face!

Speaking of faces, I'd bet that Jonah's pretty bummed now that the coin he flipped back in high school came up 'conservative'.

AemJeff 10-01-2008 11:47 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray (Post 92715)
Laughable on its face!

Speaking of faces, I'd bet that Jonah's pretty bummed now that the coin he flipped back in high school came up 'conservative'.

Given that he's the son of Lucianne, I'm sure that coin was flipped prenatally.

nojp 10-01-2008 11:53 PM

The Sadness of Jonah
 
Cripes this guy can't even remember the quotes he quotes.

Jonah is a notional libertarian he has notions of how it all is suppose to work, but
can't quite put it together accurately historically, or factualy.

This makes Jonah a Blowhard

I mean corporations trend conservative republican in there leadership because they are mini kingdoms themselves. The more educated one is the more liberal one becomes.
why?
see the definitions of liberal and conservative. (really look them up)

thanks

nikkibong 10-02-2008 01:45 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
a serious question: when did 'shameless' and 'shameful' start to mean the same thing? they used to be antonyms!

an example:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/148...0:50&out=00:53

is this the new "i could care less," when a word or phrase somehow takes on its exact opposite meaning?

Eastwest 10-02-2008 02:30 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC_Consultant (Post 92675)
Bob Please help! Jonah must be stopped. We must have standards!

His arguments are patently insane. For the love of god, its time to take a stronger regulatory hand in the Bloggingheads schedule.

I second that.

Bob's becoming more and more loose about who he lets on BH.tv. In some cases that is good as it can result in pleasant surprises.

But Jonah Goldberg is a "known quantity" debasing the credibility of BH.tv.

He doesn't belong here.

Bob should wise up. There are many better spokespeople for the "niche" JG is nominally representing.

Please, Bob, have some compassion for your audience.

EW

travis68 10-02-2008 04:08 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I wish Jonah were right and that we could blame gov't for this crisis. Unfortunately we can't and as a former libertarian that is painful to admit. I'll agree that the collapse of Fannie and Freddie can be blamed on the gov't since those are neither fish nor fowl. But the failures of the banks and investment banks around the country cannot. They are failing because they own mortgage backed securities which were *not* issued by Fannie and Freddie. Those securities were poorly underwritten and tremendously leveraged. Those faults are entirely of the private market.

Probably the most you can say is that Fannie and Freddie *possibly* stabilized home prices through out the years and the price stability induced the mortgage modelers on Wall Street to think that housing never suffered a significant price decline. The modelers extrapolated from the price stability and thought that real estate mortgages were a sure thing and thus underwriting quality wasn't important and furthermore, those mortgages could be leveraged to the hilt. The result was an explosion of investment in mortgages that is now being painfully unwound.

So the most that one can say is that Fannie and Freddie were *possibly* necessary components of this crisis, but they were far from sufficient. The market screwed itself with too optimistic modeling. And perhaps that optimistic modeling would have been done even in the absence of Fannie and Freddie.

otto 10-02-2008 04:41 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
There's a Hannity-and-Colmes flavour to these Goldberg-and-Beinart conversation, in that Beinart is perennially the weak participant.

Ray 10-02-2008 06:03 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 92719)
Given that he's the son of Lucianne, I'm sure that coin was flipped prenatally.

He might have inherited his blowhardiness, but he clearly has no feeling for the principles he espouses.

He only cares about scoring points in the game; it doesn't matter to him which side he's on.

Whatfur 10-02-2008 09:09 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 92761)
I second that.

THAT...THAT...that...that...tha...th..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 92761)
Please, Bob, have some compassion for your audience.
EW

ENCE...ENCE...ence...ence..ce


http://joi.ito.com/images2/OKCancel20040319.gif

Whatfur 10-02-2008 09:24 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
September 30, 1999 (NYTimes)


Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among
minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is
easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from
banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot
program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York
metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home
mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough
to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they
hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae,
the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under
increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt
pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in
profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage
companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans
to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes,
credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for
conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that
charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four
percentage points higher than conventional loans. ''Fannie Mae has
expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by
reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines,
Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there
remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what
our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying
significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime
market.'' Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy.
But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the
subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of
loans in the conventional loan market. In moving, even tentatively,
into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly
more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic
times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into
trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is
another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison
a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they
fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way
it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' Under Fannie
Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage
with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a
rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower
makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one
percentage point premium is dropped. Fannie Mae, the nation's
biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly
to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is
called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it
will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to
people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Whatfur 10-02-2008 09:38 AM

Who Owns this?
 
Amanda Carpenter *possibly* knows.

popeyethesailorman 10-02-2008 09:38 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
All seem to agree that these "toxic instruments" are central to this crisis. I heard earlier this week that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac together are responsible for 44% of the securitized sub-prime mortgage debt in the financial system. Assuming that is accurate, doesn't it rate more than a footnote for these two GSE's in trying to understand what went wrong? It seems to me that as long as the government is intervening in the market to the extent that they are then there is really no way to exonerate that intervention if something goes wrong (or deny it credit if something goes right either). The web of causation is simply too complex.

Whatfur 10-02-2008 09:59 AM

What's does this sound like ...
 
...to you?


..at least listen to the point where they talk about Jamie Gorelik getting a $700,000 bonus.

How much can you all choose to ignore in an effort to get Mr. Vaporware elected?

DoctorMoney 10-02-2008 10:00 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popeyethesailorman (Post 92679)
How to I qualify for being one of the "little guys" that liberal principles justify standing up for? That sounds pretty good for me. I'll be for government intervention in the economy if I can be on that side of the line.

Just be in the bottom 99% of earners.

Otherwise, you're stuck voting for McCain.

DoctorMoney 10-02-2008 10:07 AM

Re: What's does this sound like ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 92792)
...to you?


..at least listen to the point where they talk about Jamie Gorelik getting a $700,000 bonus.

How much can you all choose to ignore in an effort to get Mr. Vaporware elected?

I don't know who you're listening to, but most people agree that FMFM was a bipartisan effort -- both good and bad.

The thing is, FMFM is not really the important component of the collapse. Their mission statements have bipartisan support, even if they were also bipartisan forms of patronage. But you've gotta put them in perspective, because they really aren't 'the problem' here.

The regulatory environment of the credit markets is the meal. FMFM is a side of fries.

bkjazfan 10-02-2008 10:38 AM

Re: What's does this sound like ...
 
Granted, the Republicans are in poor shape. On the other side of the coin, the Democrats are ascending but getting power again hasn't born much fruit (if any). With the upcoming elections and the results being larger majorities they will have to deliver on something. Their excuse now if they have one is the ultimate bogeyman George Bush. After November they won't have that one to use anymore.

John

Whatfur 10-02-2008 10:41 AM

Re: What's does this sound like ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorMoney (Post 92794)
I don't know who you're listening to, but most people agree that FMFM was a bipartisan effort -- both good and bad.

The thing is, FMFM is not really the important component of the collapse. Their mission statements have bipartisan support, even if they were also bipartisan forms of patronage. But you've gotta put them in perspective, because they really aren't 'the problem' here.

The regulatory environment of the credit markets is the meal. FMFM is a side of fries.

First, most Dems "agree", most Republicans don't but will work for a remedy for the good of the country.

Second...you never answered the question.

Third, you start out by saying "don't know who you are listening to". Ummm...pretty much provided what I was listening to in a couple posts. I know..its early and you don't have time to actually listen to what was provided but do have time I guess to discount IT IT it it t

Lastly, Give both a listen or I will have to surmise that the Doctor part is purely honorary.

Me&theboys 10-02-2008 11:34 AM

Time to do the homework
 
Re: the first 12 or so minutes of this diavlog: Jonah is willing to blame Wall Street and government. Peter refuses to blame anyone but Wall Street. Peter needs to do his homework – he seems to be very selectively informed about and rather dismissive of the relevant history here. Many people seem to be experiencing long term memory loss these days. There are facts of the matter about legislative positions over the past 10 years available to anyone willing to do the research. Bill Clinton is on the record acknowledging the Democratic opposition to efforts to regulate Fannie May and Freddie Mac. To believe that Washington and partisan politics are not a significant part of what caused (years ago) the current financial turmoil is to delude ones' self. Facts that don't agree with one's ideology are facts nevertheless. We ignore them at our peril.

AemJeff 10-02-2008 11:59 AM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray (Post 92773)
He might have inherited his blowhardiness, but he clearly has no feeling for the principles he espouses.

He only cares about scoring points in the game; it doesn't matter to him which side he's on.

I can't argue with that! I don't think Jonah could be more accurately characterized.

Larry Bird 10-02-2008 01:10 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I've watched all of these guys talks and I have come to the conclusion that Peter is a terrible debater. To many times Jonah spews total B.S. and all Peter says is "I'm not sure I agree with that". He's incapable of having a quick response to obvious falsehoods which just makes it look like Jonahs point is credible.

Markos 10-02-2008 02:49 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Lobbyists are conduits. Lobbyists in themselves are neither good or evil; they are conduits for good and evil. If government had no power over the private sector, the "evil" influence (greed, etc.) that lobbyists transmit into Congress, etc. will go wild in the private sector and overwhelm much or most of the good provided by the Invisible Hand.

Liberty1776 10-02-2008 03:00 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
I think fellow bloggingheads readers would benefit from Robert Reich's (the former Clinton Labor Secretary) book Supercapitalism. He concedes many of Jonah's point's with regard to lobbying and the intersection of government and regulation. But has a more nuanced observation. Some points I jotted down in my notes when i read it:

Pg 147 The primary increase in lobbying is not 1.) due to a cozy relationship between big businesses and the Republican Party (Democrats get the contributions almost evenly), nor 2) the size of the federal government with regards to spending/pork (discretionary spending is about the same) nor 3) a buyout of both parties by corporations for broadly pro businesses goals. It is simply private competition extended to the political sphere via the regulatory regime i.e. Walmart wanting to move into consumer banking and regular banks using their influence to stop Walmart.

I also read (and enjoyed) Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism as well and he seems (along with Beinart on a comment in this bloggingheads) to think Reich is more left than what comes out in Supercapitalism. Anyway I think it's worth a read by both Jonah Goldberg and Peter Beinart in addition to the bloggingheads community.

handle 10-02-2008 03:19 PM

Re: What's does this sound like ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 92799)
First, most Dems "agree", most Republicans don't but will work for a remedy for the good of the country.

Second...you never answered the question.

Third, you start out by saying "don't know who you are listening to". Ummm...pretty much provided what I was listening to in a couple posts. I know..its early and you don't have time to actually listen to what was provided but do have time I guess to discount IT IT it it t

Lastly, Give both a listen or I will have to surmise that the Doctor part is purely honorary.

Don't git yer fur up, fur. I aint here ta rag on ye.... just wanted to give comiserations on the end of your era... And say it's nice to have at least one #3 back in our exclusively partisan echo chamber (see the astute analysis below) although I must give you credit for being one of the few who can simultaineously play china-shop-bull and cut-from-the-herd loner right out of the chute.
Things might be lookin bad for you right now but look on the bright side, ya'll can finally move on from blaming Clinton, and start in on the new guy...
fare well, and good luck!

Oh, and if ya still have some Halliburton stock....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 92549)
Ohhh! You wanted a serious response...

For what I've seen so far, I'll divide our BhTV righties in three main categories:

1. Total nuts, irrational ones that post articles extracted from the most obscure, biased and ignorant sources. Those haven't stopped posting. They are rattling around.

2. A crowd that is more notorious for challenging technicalities, pointing out nuances, and making sarcastic "smart" remarks that are mostly annoying. Most of those have been quiet this month. Beggining of the semester.

3. The big shots. These write well, and come up with interesting but twisted ideas. Discussions get elaborated, sometimes ad nauseum. Until they throw a tantrum or start playing the victim role. Or, on occasion, they have a good point or two. They aren't around. These are, most likely, obsessively following the market, checking on their investments, or praying for divine bail-out intervention.

There is a fourth group, but may not be "righties" proper: those that don't like my smilies... :mad:


handle 10-02-2008 04:33 PM

Re: The Sadness of Conservatism
 
Your partisan microscope is flawed.
Looks like Clinton and the GOP majority legislators started this ball rolling at the behest and bribery of wall street and big corporate interests.
However, Bush, as per his usual modus operandi, didn't see the warning signs, didn't care, or for some other reason (is arrogant in ignorance)
Did nothing. He seems to have spent his whole life walking away from scorched earth, dodging the obvious blame of it happening on his watch, through the simple notion that even though he was in charge, he took no action!
Now that's what an Ivy-league legacy can buy you, easy strategies that lead to plausible deniability.

Yes, Clinton and the Gingrich Pub's and the Dems did the bad deal but where was your main man President Cheney all this time? And the last eight years?
Good luck getting any partisan mileage out of this disaster, I mean it, you are headed straight for a wall on this one, because not only does no one want to hear your small minded crap, it doesn't even start to paint the big picture.

A quote from Justin Fox (time).
"The anti-regulation ideological bent of the Reagan administration sped this transformation, but the Clinton years were the really interesting ones. In the aftermath of the savings and loan collapse and a banking-industry near-miss there was a flurry of activity aimed at keeping banks healthy, not by shoving them back into their New Deal box but by reasserting their central role in the financial system. Glass-Steagall repeal (1999) can best be understood as part of this effort. So was 1994 legislation allowing interstate branching. This was a bipartisan movement: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation passed the Senate 90-8 (Joe Biden was for it; John McCain didn't vote, but had supported the bill in an earlier roll call).

There's an argument to be made that if this kind of regulatory approach had continued into the Bush years, some emerging financial market excesses might have been nipped in the bud. Until very recently, the Bush Administration has showed no interest whatsoever in tightening financial regulation, and at the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan was if anything even less interested. The Fed had the power to impose stricter mortgage lending rules even on non-banks, which it finally did earlier this year — banning, among other things, the making of loans "without regard to borrowers' ability to repay the loan from income and assets other than the home's value." Greenspan, though, rejected pleas from his Fed colleague Edward Gramlich to crack down earlier. "

handle 10-02-2008 04:53 PM

Re: Pass Out the T-Shirts
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kidneystones (Post 92797)
Given the scale of the mis-management of the last 8 years, the fiction that the next president will not be raising taxes on all but a handful of Americans (those in jail) has always been testament to the

a. imbecility
b. gullibility
c. cynicism


of the bhtv borg?

These intellectual giants have evidently taken a hard look all the new data about the impeding financial meltdown and concluded: 'Won't change a fucking thing!" Hilarious! Bailing out Wall St will not have any effect on your taxes if you vote for the Chosen One. True!

Americans aren't dumb. But, just like folks all over the world, Americans believe what they want to believe. Remember: invading Iraq won't cost US taxpayers a nickel. Folks bought it. Why? Cause they wanted to. Talk about your the willing suspension of disbelief.

Time to break out the popcorn.

Have you ever thought of ditching the insulting gutter attitude and rise to the level of respect that the posters here (me excluded) deserve?
You post like a mental patient, and think like a mental patient. Your paranoia may be reality based though. Maybe the borg are really out to get you, and for good reason, you write like an intellectual small fry.

Resistance is futile, you have already been assimilated, copper top...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.