Easy answer for Paul Krugman: not yet, but if this lasts? Maybe.
In order for any major reforms, we will need a Great Depression level catastrophe. One that is broad and deep, and that persists so long that the middle class stops listening to the ruling class, which causes the latter to run for cover.
Posted by James E. Powell at July 28, 2008 12:19 AMWe have been through several iterations of this same thing during my lifetime.
Conservatives convince people that less taxes and less govt regs is the way to go. The results are usually higher budget deficits, squeezing of the middle class and few to NO taxes on the super rich and corporations. This used to be known as trickle down economics.
Ultimately, the bottom falls out of the economy and deregulated industries need bailing out by the government. Translation: the middle class cleans up the mess with higher taxes.
To answer your question: It doesn't matter because we go through these cycles over and over. Whatever changes are made to fix the problems will later be undone by conservatives calling for less taxes and less government. (Translation: we are rich and don't want to pay taxes or have government oversight). People usually buy the myth.
I have a slight quibble with angryman----this cycle of abuse, scandal and failure has only gotten going again after the return of the crappy conservative movement in the mid sixties, and with the appearance of St Ronnie in the mid seventies.
Before that the lessons of the Great Depression had been internalized and understood by thinking Americans---but those days are gone, courtesy the conservative movement.
There won't be meaningful financial "reform" because we have now conclusively learned there is no reform party in BushAmerica, and thus we have no route by which to reform ourselves. Further, absolutely nothing in the way of "reform" has been accomplished on this latest grand scandal of the rich, all that has been done is government bailouts of banks and said rich.
Bailouts aren't reform. Nor does the "opposition" party (ha-ha) even make the slightest attempt to tie the disaster directly to conservative "policies"----Dems act like this was some act of nature or something.
Why? Perhaps they are as deeply complicit as Repubs. But having had no control of Congress for 13 years and no control of the executive for 8, one would think that perhaps they could start talking about blaming Repubs for their current disasters and scandals---but no.
Of course this is the same opposition party that decided that the best thing to do---both as a matter of principle and politics---was to immunize the lawbreaking Repubs from a judicial ruling that their beloved prezlidendeter had clearly broken a dozen federal laws relating to telecommunications data and wiretaps. So to say they don't "get it" is a bit of an understatement.
We are badly led.
Posted by euzoius at July 28, 2008 05:44 AMonly thing I can say is that what Americans other than an insurance brokers and millionaires, will be bamnboozled into wanting social security to be privatized? Who trusts these guys?
I'd say social security reform is off the table for many a year to come.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at July 28, 2008 06:41 AMI doubt that this finiancial mess will be fully unraveled within less than two years. There's just too much bad paper that has been sold with a small wraparound of good paper for most finiancial institutions to really know that value of the paper that they hold. The Federal Reserve is already trying to socialize the losses while allowing the gains to be kept in private hands. Before this is over it just may prove to be a history making economic meltdown.
Posted by herbal tee at July 28, 2008 06:41 AMAngryman should be angrier. Rich people are mean, stingy, miserly, ogres who resent having to pay for the services that they receive!
Posted by capitalistpig at July 28, 2008 07:02 AMHighly unlikely. The people profiting from the financial situation will oppose any real reforms. Since "their" politicians are well paid (bribed), reform will not go unopposed.
Posted by jwrjr at July 28, 2008 07:18 AMPossibly, if enough Republicans are hurt. If it were just Dems, there would be only a smug "you had it coming" from the Repubs and "don't expect us to step out of line for you" from the Dems.
Posted by dianne at July 28, 2008 07:56 AMIn my "get out the vote" conversations with workers who are citizens I am being told that they don't register to vote so they "stay off the jury list" because they can't afford to take time off of work to attend a trial.
Any one else run into this while trying to get people to vote their economic interests for a change?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 28, 2008 08:34 AMThe republi-cons have started purging voters rolls in close voting southwest states!
Time to start fighting against the dirty fucks, AGAIN!
Posted by Seven of Six at July 28, 2008 08:38 AMLord knows how jury pools in each state are constructed, TIKI.
You might try calling your local city hall or city attorney and asking exactly what gub'mint database they use (if any) to create jury pools for your county. It may have nothing to do with voter registration---since half the citizenry in most states doesn't vote, this would seem to be a pretty "limiting" selection mechanism. My state uses driver's license info, I think.
Posted by euzoius at July 28, 2008 08:47 AMI see we had another incident of right-wing terror in Knoxville TN yesterday. The white male wingnut admitted to "a hatred of the liberal movement" as motivation for his gunning down lib'rul church goers.
Wonder how exactly he got his guns? Legal permits? At least we can feel secure that his valuable 2nd Amendment "rights" are now safe, thanks to the RATS!
Go GOoPer nuts! The more eliminationist language from Rushbo Limburger, the better! It's all in fun, har-har!
Posted by euzoius at July 28, 2008 08:53 AM7: Obama needs to watch "Recount" again. 20,000 felons who weren't really felons? Gore won.
oozo: Thanks. The trigger happy church blaster should be asked if Rush influenced his "thinking" and checked for OxyContin. Possible wrongful death lawsuit?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 28, 2008 10:19 AM20,000 felons who weren't really felons?
All us DFH Liberals are felons, we just don't know it yet!
angryman, don't forget that contractors have now taken over many of the functions of government
fascism was just another name for corportatism:
"...The leading Italian philosopher of fascism, the neo-Hegelian Giovanni Gentile, once argued that it should more appropriately be called "corporatism" because it was a merger of state and corporate power...."
Posted by Gay Veteran at July 28, 2008 10:59 AM"...The leading Italian philosopher of fascism, the neo-Hegelian Giovanni Gentile, once argued that it should more appropriately be called "corporatism" because it was a merger of state and corporate power...."
What is Chalmers Johnson?
Posted by Seven of Six at July 28, 2008 11:51 AMUh, no.
Posted by gtash at July 28, 2008 03:50 PMWell, it was in one of his paragraph's in a read over at TomDispatch.com.
Posted by Seven of Six at July 28, 2008 05:44 PM