Showing posts with label finance reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance reform. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Debunking the "regulations burden business" argument

In a discussion of the provocative Wall Street Journal headline “Study: Strict Derivatives Regulation Could Cost 130,000 Jobs” John Parsons and Antonio Mello point out, "It’s always possible to ignore the system-wide purpose of a regulation and claim it is costly due to the burden it imposes..."

Not everybody cares about the Dodd-Frank reform of financial derivatives markets, but we've seen what happens without regulation(s): the markets crashed, foreclosures destroyed home values, and millions of our friends and neighbors are unemployed.

It's costly to control immigration, to restrict alcohol sales, enforce speed limits, verify the safety & efficacy of drugs, and register voters, but we choose to do all these things because we know we can't simply trust everybody to do the right thing.

Why should you care? How much is at stake in this smoke and mirrors game of derivatives trading? $600 trillion. Compare that to the debt-ceiling, or the budget for the entire U.S. Government. $600 trillion is in play. That's why the players, and the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying so hard to be left alone, and trying to scare us with more jobs lost.
"...there is 'no upside' to imposing margin requirements on end users, said David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness."
Victoria McGrane
Wall Street Journal February 13, 2011
Recovering our standing as the world leader in agriculture and industry, and creating the millions of jobs our country needs, won't be enough to keep Wall Street greed from ruining our economy. Can the financial markets "create prosperity" beyond Wall Street? It's hard to prove, lately; it's hard to see any upside in leaving those with the most to gain in charge of regulating themselves when they've already abused the system, or trust the tired old assertions about "burdens on business" so quickly, thoroughly debunked by simple logic.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.


Saturday, June 21, 2008

The media stopped following the money: CONFLICT of INTEREST

Was it big oil money pouring into the "McCain Victory '08 Fund," as the sudden change in McCain’s stand on drilling in environmentally sensitive areas suggests? How will we ever know? There’s no benefit to a commercial news outlet in uncovering the source of the RNC PAC/527 money...

It got interesting in April, but almost nobody reported it...


Once Senator John McCain and the RNC began circumventing the McCain/Feingold limits via the creation of the "McCain Victory '08 Fund" with its $70,000 per individual donations Fake campaign reformers of the Republican partythey really left presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama with no reason to keep extending his offer to limit campaign spending by accepting public financing. They sprang into faux outrage, of course, ready to accuse him of a flip-flop despite the fact they'd not accepted Obama's conditional offer. Follow the money, not the spin, and you discover that this has gone virtually unreported. The commercial media outlets have a conflict of interest; reporting on the McCain fund undermines their profits.

Here's the simple truth:

The more money McCain (or Obama) has to spend, the more the media stands to earn on selling commercials. Selling not only to the two campaigns, but to PACs and 527s and anybody else who will buy air-time. The media clearly have a vested interest in not just ratings, but more so in the demand for commercials, and so the closer the race - and the more money the candidates (or parties, or 527s, etc.) raise - the more money the media outlets make by selling. Why report on McCain's funding success? Much better business to take advantage of all that cash, not cut off the former campaign reformer now laying golden eggs. It's their bottom line at stake, same as it ever was.


Talk about a conflict of interest.Was it big oil money pouring in, as the sudden change in McCain's stand on drilling in environmentally sensitive areas suggests? How will we ever know? There's no benefit to a commercial news outlet in uncovering the source of the money - they are just trying to get their piece of it.