It is so hard to bring back the original thought 12 hours later, but will try.
I was reading around about the current JP Morgan Chase trading lost and the inevitable too big to fail phrase popped up in discussing the current situation. This always bugs me. We have got to put things back into perspective. I would love just to say hey lets break up the mega banks and all of a sudden we wouldn't have this problem. If life was this simple. The reality is these mega banks are proof that what was put into place in the 1930's wasn't such a bad idea. So another infamous phrase comes to mind if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. So are we? Is this continued reliance on the mega bank going to doom our economy worse than the 30's? Let's hope not because right now it looks like they are here to stay.
Or are they? I have been toying with the notion on a progressive conservative party agenda. Well also today I was reading about the failure of third party development in this country. So this got me to thinking. I haven't found an active party in the US, but there is the historical example and even that was mentioned in the article about the failure of third parties and more specifically the America Elect example that recently folded. And the article tried to discuss why. What I was reading between the lines was that this endeavor tried to create a party from the top of the pyramid, basically find a leader and then hope people would come to be lead. Many months ago I also talked about the inevitable failure of America Elect, but for other reasons, but to be successful the original reasons sill hold some weight. And I get this confidence from a group I fear. That is the current tea party wing of the Republican party. First I find their claim to be a grass roots movement a bit much when you dig deep and find that most of their funding comes from a select group of very rich individuals. Yes they do get their grass root funding, but most of the direction is being led by a select group. So why do I find them to be an example to look at to describe success. It is because they are starting from the ground up in building their movement. After their first attempts at creating a national leader they have backed up and were very successful in building a base in the 2010 elections and getting a few Representatives elected. This gave them a base to work from in Washington. And with anything American success breeds success. They are now able to embolden others to follow their path that are disgruntled with Washington and hold similar viewpoints. This is how you build a third party. The author of the article didn't seem to pick up the potential for this group to splinter off of the Republican party and be a third party.Well actually the author didn't discuss the tea party. And I think because they are trying to control the Republican party not be something different this will not be a true third party. So what is happening is many conservatives fighting their own party against a very powerful subgroup. Of course the Richard Lugar situation is the obvious example of this happening. Yet their success of building a base first is the real recipe for a true third party to develop.
So you got a bunch of pieces lying around. What does all this mean? Well for me today it is just another way to try and add to a Progressive Conservative Party modern agenda. Trying to go in and split up the mega banks like a Standard Oil monopoly bust probably will fail. The better way would be to start creating new policy that makes it more economically feasible to have regional smaller banks. Or at least national banks that focus truly on banking and let investment companies be investment companies, heck even borrowing from banks (to an extent) to build capital. We just don't need a few banks having most of America's capital tied up in non banking business. Again the regulations from the 30's. Yes any regulation almost a hundred years old definitely needs change, but don't lose the why it was written in the first place. Another Progressive Conservative party idea, write flexible and adaptable legislation. Something I have discussed before. Also as a proponent of not being Robin Hood and stealing wealth, but developing wealth for larger groups of people like having the banks more regional creates a stronger democracy and economy for the whole country. And this comes from.... a new party
Continued reliance on the large banks to shape our economy is asking for disaster. Having the same groups control the election process only hastens this disaster. And as said before the current Republicans (even with the Tea Party wing) and the Democrats are not able to save this country because they are too tied to this money (and even worse with the super pacs). The political process doesn't exist as our constitutional founders envisioned it.
Another aside: So who are the conservatives now? Is it modern mega rich who claim to be conservatives or the scattered few in this country trying hard to find a way back to a strong democracy and free market based on the government shaping policy not dictating it? I ask this because the tea party doesn't seem to get they are being used.
The puzzle exists, the pieces are scattered. Can we find the people that know how to bring them all back to the same table to recreate the picture we all see from the constitution?
And another aside; another article I read was about the Euro zone debacle going on and the statement was made what country is too big to fail. That causes some serious pause in the thinking process.
And the final aside. And from the infamous Monty Python "now for something completely different" and this one is obvious yet sticks a thorn in the side. And I know you have noticed this. News stations tend to pander to the issue and the audience. If it is a story on the NAACP, boom there is an African American reporting on it. Or if it is about young people, even if its education, a young reporter is sent, all trying to get audience hook up with the topic. Well today Fox really pandered to this thinking. I was walking by a TV and didn't hear the sound, but there was a blurb on a op ed opinion piece that Obama's election was not something or other connecting with women. Fox always have their headline at the bottom of the screen for the topic at hand so here was this written piece and on the screen were not one, but three women's faces talking about the issue. And you know every good 60 year old white male republican was just nodding along thinking to themselves you tell him honey. I just had to laugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment